You are on page 1of 250

STUDIES ON APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT

A THESIS

Submitted by

G. BASKAR

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY SRM UNIVERSITY, KATTANKULATHUR - 603 203
MARCH 2011

ii

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the dissertation entitled STUDIES ON APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy is my original work and the dissertation has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship of similar other titles. It has not been submitted to any other University or Institution for the award of any degree or diploma.

Place : Kattankulathur Date : G. BASKAR

iii

SRM UNIVERSITY, KATTANKULATHUR - 603 203

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified

that

this

thesis

titled

STUDIES

ON

APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT is the bonafide work of Mr.G.BASKAR who carried out the research under my supervision. Certified further that to the best of my knowledge the work reported herein does not form part of any other thesis or dissertation on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion for this or any other candidate.

Dr.V.DEEPTHA THATTAI SUPERVISOR Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering Faculty of Engineering and Technology SRM University Kattankulathur, PIN: 603203 Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere thanks to the Chancellor Dr.T.R.Pachamuthu, Vice Chancellor Prof.P.Sathyanarayanan, Provost Dr.M.Ponnavaikko, ProVice Chancellor (Planning & Development) Dr.T.P.Ganesan, Registrar Dr.N.Sethuraman, Assistant Registrar Mr.K.Wordsworth Manivannan, and Director (Engineering and Technology) Dr.C.Muthamizhselvan for all the facilities provided. The Controller of Examinations Dr.S.Ponnusamy, Director (Research) Dr.Narayana Rao, Dean (Research) Dr.S.V.Kasmir Raja are thanked for their support. Dr.R.Annadurai, Head of Department, Department of Civil Engineering, is thanked for his help towards completion of this work. I express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr.V.Deeptha Thattai, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, SRM University, for her able guidance, meticulous supervision and constructive criticism in steering this research work. I gratefully acknowledge my Doctoral Committee Members Dr.V.Selvam, Director, Coastal Systems Research, M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation, Dr.D.Govindarajalu, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Pondicherry Engineering College, Dr.Sundarambal Kesavan, Professor, Department of Mathematics, SRM University, for all their positive suggestions throughout the study period. My profuse acknowledgment to Dr.K.Ramaswamy, Professor, Department of Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, Agricultural Engineering College and Research Institute, Coimbatore, for his help.

The Estate Officer Er.V.Thirumurugan and then Visiting Professor Dr.A.Abdul Rahaman are thanked profusely for their timely and valuable help in carrying out experimental investigation. I sincerely thank all the professors who gave me valuable inputs during this study. Thanks are also due to all the teaching and non-teaching staff members of Department of Civil Engineering for their encouragement. My sincere thanks are also given to the School of Bioengineering, Department of Biotechnology, Department of Chemistry, and Department of Chemical Engineering for providing facilities for this research. My soul feels to owe my gratitude to three great people, my mother E.Premavathi who taught me the alphabet and who was also my school English Teacher, my father G.Gopalan who introduced me to mathematics and who was also my school Mathematics Teacher, and my school History Teacher V.Mani who sensitized me to values and ethics through stories, and contributed to my early education. Undertaking a research work while raising a young child is a very demanding task, particularly, when one does not have the luxury of the extended family support. I have no words to express the depth of my gratitude to my wife S.Vasantha for her strong support and my daughter B.Varsha Nehal for her understanding during the past few years. I thank my neighbors, friends, relatives and their families who have been emotionally supportive to us. I bow my head to thank NATURE the great supreme power.

G. BASKAR

vi

ABSTRACT

Constructed wetland is a candidate method due to its cost effective, less energy sensitive, simple operation and maintenance, little secondary pollution and favorable environmental appearance. Most of the historical developments and application of constructed wetlands have occurred in America, Europe and Australia, but interest is now rapidly increasing in Asia. As a result of fast economic growth in the past several decades, India now faces a serious water pollution problem. However, due to lack of awareness, constructed wetland systems have not been widely used in India. The objective of the present study is to investigate the efficacy of subsurface flow constructed wetland system for treatment of domestic wastewater. The methodology involved in this study includes design and construction, transplantation and start-up, operation and monitoring and sampling and analysis. The project site received an average rainfall of 1252 mm during the study period. The project site is in tropical region. The temperature ranged from 20.7C to 42.53C during the study period. The temperature gradually increases from January, reaches maximum in May and then follows a downward trend. In the first phase, the source wastewater was characterized. The TSS, COD, BOD, TN, and TP of influent ranged from 14 to 560 mg l-l, 315 to 895 mg l-1, 94 to 619 mg l-1, 2.28 to 196 mg l-1, and 0.06 to 32.6 mg l-1 respectively. The source influent is slightly acidic in nature. The BOD to COD ratio indicates high presence of biodegradable fraction. The source

vii

influent was between medium and strong on the basis of average TN concentration. In the second phase, a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSSFCW) designed as per Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) method, (1.5 x 0.6 x 0.3) m size, aspect ratio of 2.5:1, with treatment zone of 0.27 m3, 0.7% longitudinal bottom slope, was constructed. The HSSFCW was operated under batch mode with 6 days hydraulic retention time for one year. The target influent was domestic wastewater with pretreatment of sedimentation and aeration. In the third phase, a vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland (VSSFCW) designed as per Plug-flow method, (7.5 x 2 x 1) m size, aspect ratio of 3.75:1, with treatment zone of 15 m3, 0.7 % longitudinal bottom slope, was constructed. It has an inlet and outlet of each (0.6 x 0.6 x0.9 m) size. The VSSFCW was operated under batch mode with 6 days hydraulic retention time for one year. The target influent was kitchen wastewater with pretreatment of solids and semi-solids separation. In the fourth phase, seven horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland units designed as per TVA method, (0.6 x 0.4 x 0.3) m size, aspect ratio of 1.5:1, with treatment zone of 0.072 m3, were constructed. The units varied either in plant species, provision of baffles or in substrate type. All the seven units were operated under batch mode with four different hydraulic retention times of 2,4,6,8 days for one year. The target influent was domestic wastewater with pretreatment of sedimentation and aeration.

viii

The concentrations of TSS, COD, BOD, TN and TP of the source influent range 22-572 mg l-l, 249-1946 mg l-l, 99-658 mg l-l, 2.1-138 mg l-l, and 1.69-35 mg l-l respectively whereas the treated effluent range 10-348 mg l-l, 51-1187 mg l-l, 18-139 mg l-l,0.2-70.2 mg l-l, and 0.24-29.8 mg l-l

respectively and removal ranges were 33-70%, 24-79%, 70-85%, 3-90% and 12-87% for HSSFCW. The concentrations of TSS, COD, BOD, TN and TP of the source influent range 40-98 mg l-l, 428-1135 mg l-l, 198-924 mg l-l, 0.290.89 mg l-l, 0.25-0.99 respectively whereas the treated effluent range 15-61 mg l-l, 124-782 mg l-l, 42-486 mg l-l, 0.04-0.22 mg l-l and 0.05-0.25 mg l-l respectively and removal ranges were 6-59%, 14-78%, 47-81%, 27-93%, and 67-97% for VSSFCW. Annually the HSSFCW removed 49% TSS, 67% COD, 77% BOD, 46%TN, 45% TP while the VSSFCW removed 44% TSS, 46% COD, 67% BOD, 79% TN, 79% TP. Target pollutant removal increased with an increase in hydraulic residence time (HRT). A 6-day HRT is adequate for an acceptable level of treatment in horizontal constructed wetland systems. Phragmites australis proves to be a better species in overall treatment. The floating wetland plant Myriophyllum spicatum, also exhibited better removal of TSS, COD and TN. All wetland units were better than the control unit (no plant) under all conditions. The concentration reduction was good in all months of long-dry period which ascertained the feasibility of application of subsurface flow constructed wetland in tropical climate. The constructed wetland application to other types of wastewater, use of various types of substrate with different proportions, combined horizontal and vertical flow are the areas suggested for future studies.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO. ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL 1.1.1 Slow Rate System 1.1.2 Rapid Infiltration System 1.1.3 Overland Flow System 1.1.4 Aquatic Treatment System 1.1.5 Constructed Wetlands 1.2 1.3 1.4 2 NEED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY STUDY OBJECTIVES DISPOSITION TITLE PAGE NO. vi xv xvii xxv 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 11 12 13 13 13 14 16 17 19 24 24

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 GENERAL WETLANDS CONSTRUCTED WETLAND INVENTION EVOLUTION DEVELOPMENT 2.6.1 Functions 2.6.2 Removal Mechanisms

CHAPTER NO.

TITLE 2.6.3 Pretreatment 2.6.4 Design Considerations 2.6.5 Surface Area and Bed Configuration 2.6.6 Aspect Ratio 2.6.7 Depth and Bottom Slope 2.6.8 Filtration Media 2.6.9 Sealing the Bed 2.6.10 Insulation 2.6.11 Vegetation

PAGE NO. 26 27 27 28 29 29 30 30 30 32 34 36 37 38 39 42 48 49 49 49 51 51 52 52 52

2.7

TREATMENT EFFICIENCY 2.7.1 Suspended Solids 2.7.2 Organics 2.7.3 Nitrogen 2.7.4 Phosphorus

2.8 2.9 2.10 3

EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS BIBILOMETRICS ON CONSTRUCTED WETLAND RESEARCH CLOSURE

METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 3.3 INTRODUCTION PROJECT SITE PROJECT SETTING 3.3.1 Space Considerations 3.3.2 Substrate 3.3.3 Altitude 3.3.4 Biological Conditions

xi

CHAPTER NO. 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15

TITLE

PAGE NO. 52 53 55 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 63 65 67 68 68 68 72

CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT GOALS ALLOWABLE INFLOW CLIMATE SELECTION OF WETLAND TYPE PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS HYDRAULIC DESIGN ASPECT RATIO BED SLOPE MEDIA TYPES DETENTION TIME CONSTRUCTED WETLAND DESIGN 3.15.1 3.15.2 3.15.3 3.15.4 Louisiana Method TVA Method Plug-Flow Method Rational Approach

3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 4

CONSTRUCTION VEGETATION 3.17.1 Collection and Establishment OPERATION AND MONITORING SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS EXPERIMENT DESIGN CLOSURE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 4.2 4.3 INTRODUCTION RAINFALL PATTERN TEMPERATURE RANGES

xii

CHAPTER NO. 4.4

TITLE WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION 4.4.1 Constituents Found in Wastewater 4.4.2 Contaminants of Concern 4.4.3 Sampling 4.4.4 Preservation 4.4.5 Organics 4.4.6 Nutrients 4.4.7 Solids 4.4.8 pH

PAGE NO. 75 75 75 80 82 84 88 90 90

4.5

EXPERIMENTAL HORIZONTAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (HSSFCW) OF ESP 1 4.5.1 Design and Construction of HSSFCW 4.5.2 Transplantation and Start-up of HSSFCW 4.5.3 Operation and Monitoring of HSSFCW 4.5.4 Sampling and Analysis of HSSFCW 92 92 93 97 97 99 99 101 101

4.6

TREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF HSSFCW 4.6.1 Organics Removal in HSSFCW 4.6.2 Nutrients Removal in HSSFCW 4.6.3 Solids Removal in HSSFCW

4.7

EXPERIMENTAL VERTICAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (VSSFCW) 103 103 106 106 108 110

4.7.1 Design and Construction of VSSFCW 4.7.2 Transplantation and Start-up of VSSFCW 4.7.3 Operation and Monitoring of VSSFCW 4.7.4 Sampling and Analysis of VSSFCW 4.8 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF VSSFCW

xiii

CHAPTER NO.

TITLE

PAGE NO. 110 111 113 114 119

4.8.1 Organics Removal in VSSFCW 4.8.2 Nutrients Removal in VSSFCW 4.8.3 Solids Removal in VSSFCW 4.9 4.10 4.11 SEASONAL EFFECT ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCY DISCUSSION EXPERIMENTAL HORIZONTAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (HSSFCW) OF ESP 3 4.11.1 4.11.2 4.11.3 4.11.4 4.12 Design and Construction of HSSFCW of ESP 3 Transplantation and Start-up of HSSFCW of ESP 3 Operation and Monitoring of HSSFCW of ESP 3 Sampling and Analysis of HSSFCW of ESP 3 TREATMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF HSSFCW OF ESP 3 4.12.1 4.12.2 4.12.3 4.12.4 4.12.5 4.12.6 4.12.7 4.13 HSSFCW PAGS Unit HSSFCW PAPS Unit HSSFCW PAGB Unit HSSFCW TLGS Unit HSSFCW SMPS Unit HSSFCW FLMS Unit HSSFCW CON Unit

125 125 127 132 132 132 134 136 138 140 142 143 145 147

EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC AND VEGETATION PARAMETERS

xiv

CHAPTER NO. 4.14

TITLE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 4.14.1 4.14.2 4.14.3 4.14.4 Correlation Matrix Paired Samples t-Test 2-way ANOVA Multicomparison Test

PAGE NO. 152 152 152 156 158 161 161 161 168 169 170 171

CONCLUSIONS 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 INTRODUCTION CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURE RESEARCH CLOSURE

REFERENCES APPENDIX 1 MULTICOMPARISON TEST (HRT) APPENDIX 2 MULTICOMPARISON TEST (UNITS) LIST OF PUBLICATIONS VITAE

190

201 220 222

xv

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 TITLE Start Date of Treatment Wetlands in the NADB Treatment Processes in SSF-CW Systems Wetland Species used for Wastewater Treatment Comparison of Existing Methods of Secondary Treatment for Wastewater Brief Account of Application of Constructed Wetland in India Quantitative Distributions of Publication Quantitative Distributions of Sources Comprehensive Model Permit Details Showing Monthly Rainfall Details Showing Temperature Ranges Domestic Wastewater Characteristics Contaminants of Concern Details Showing Results of Wastewater Characterization Containers, Preservatives, and Holding Times Analytical Methods Experimental Set-up 1 (ESP 1) Design, Hydraulics, Substrate, Physical, Wastewater, and Vegetation Summary 4.9 4.10 Results of Experimental HSSFCW of ESP 1 Experimental Set-up 2 (ESP 2) Design, Hydraulics, Substrate, Physical, Wastewater, and Vegetation Summary 105 94 98 81 83 83 41 43 44 54 69 73 76 76 40 PAGE NO. 19 26 31

xvi

TABLE NO. 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23

TITLE Results of Experimental VSSFCW of ESP 2 Experimental Set-up 3 (ESP 3) Design, Hydraulics, and Physical Summary Experimental Set-up 3 (ESP 3) Vegetation and Substrate summary Results of Seven Experimental HSSFCW Units of ESP 3 Correlation Matrix of Target Constituents Paired Samples Statistics t-Test Results of HSSFCW of ESP 1 t-Test Results of VSSFCW of ESP 2 Results of 2-way ANOVA TSS Results of 2-way ANOVA COD Results of 2-way ANOVA BOD Results of 2-way ANOVA TN Results of 2-way ANOVA TP

PAGE NO. 109 127 128 133 153 155 155 156 157 157 157 158 158

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Slow Rate System Methods of Wastewater Application in Slow Rate System Rapid Infiltration System Overland Flow System Floating Plants Submerged Plants Free Water Surface System Subsurface Flow System Horizontal Subsurface Flow System Vertical Subsurface Flow System Location Map of Project Site Wetland Plant Collection Vegetation Establishment Block Diagram Indicating Methodology of Study and Experiment Design Variation of Rainfall during Dry Months Variation of Rainfall during Summer Months Variation of South-West Monsoon Rainfall Variation of North-East Monsoon Rainfall Temperature Ranges in the Year 2007 Temperature Ranges in the Year 2008 Temperature Ranges in the Year 2009 COD Trend of Influent BOD Trend of Influent 66 70 70 71 71 73 74 74 84 85 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 8 50 64 64 TITLE PAGE NO. 2

xviii

FIGURE NO. 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34

TITLE COD/BOD Ratio of Influent BOD/COD Ratio of Influent TN Trend of Influent TP Trend of Influent TSS Trend of Influent pH Trend of Influent Plan and Cross-section of HSSFCW of ESP 1 Transplanted Vegetation at the Start-Up Stage in HSSFCW of ESP 1 Transplanted Vegetation at the End of Study Period in HSSFCW of ESP 1 COD Removal in HSSFCW BOD Removal in HSSFCW HSSFCW TN in-out HSSFCW TP in-out TSS Removal in HSSFCW Plan and Cross-section of VSSFCW of ESP 2 Transplantation Influent at Inlet Perforated Pipe Vertical Flow Vegetation at Different Stages of Growth COD removal in VSSFCW BOD removal in VSSFCW VSSFCW TN in-out VSSFCW TP in-out TSS removal in VSSFCW

PAGE NO. 86 87 88 90 91 91 95 96 96 100 100 102 102 102 107 108 108 108 108 108 110 111 112 112 113

xix

FIGURE NO. 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39

TITLE Dry Months Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1 Dry Months Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2 Summer Months Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1 Summer Months Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2 South-West Monsoon Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1

PAGE NO.

115 115 116 116

117

4.40

South-West Monsoon Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2 117

4.41

North-East Monsoon Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1 118

4.42

North-East Monsoon Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2 118 120 120 122 122 129

4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47

BOD / COD Ratio of Influent of HSSFCW and VSSFCW COD / BOD Ratio of Effluent of HSSFCW and VSSFCW pH Trend of Influent and Effluent of HSSFCW pH Trend of Influent and Effluent of VSSFCW Plan of 6 HSSFCW units (PAGS, PAPS, TLGS, SMPS, FLMS, CON) of ESP 312

xx

FIGURE NO. 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 4.55 4.56 4.57 4.58 4.59 4.60 4.61 4.62 4.63 4.64 4.65 4.66

TITLE Cross section of 4 HSSFCW units of (PAGB, PAPS, TLGS, CON) of ESP 3 Plan of HSSFCW unit (PAGB) of ESP 3 Cross section of 2 HSSFCW units of ESP 3 (SMPS, FLMS) HSSFCW units of ESP 3 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effluent in PAGS Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in PAGS Solids and Organics of Influent and Effluent in PAPS Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in PAPS Solids and Organics of Influent and Effluent in PAGB Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in PAGB Solids and Organics of Influent and Effluent in TLGS Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in TLGS Solids and Organics of Influent and Effluent in SMPS Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in SMPS Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in FLMS Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in FLMS Solids and Organics of Influent and Effluent in CON Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in CON TSS Removal Efficiency at Different HRTs

PAGE NO.

129 130 130 131 135 136 137 138 139 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

xxi

FIGURE NO. 4.67 4.68 4.69 4.70 A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.6 A1.7 A1.8 A1.9 A1.10 A1.11 A1.12

TITLE COD Removal Efficiency at Different HRTs BOD Removal Efficiency at Different HRTs TN Removal Efficiency at Different HRTs TP Removal Efficiency at different HRTs Difference in Effluent COD between 2 and 6, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent COD between 4 and 6, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent COD between 6 and 2, 4day HRT Difference in Effluent COD between 8 and 2, 4day HRT Difference in Effluent BOD between 2 and 6, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent BOD between 4 and 6, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent BOD between 6 and 2, 4day HRT Difference in Effluent BOD between 8 and 2, 4day HRT Difference in Effluent TN between 2 and 6, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent TN between 4 and 8-day HRT Difference in Effluent TN between 6 and 2, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent TN between 8 and 2, 4, 6day HRT

PAGE NO. 149 150 151 151 190 191 191 192 192 193 193 194 194 195 195 196

xxii

FIGURE NO. A1.13 A1.14 A1.15 A1.16 A1.17 A1.18 A1.19 A1.20 A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4 A2.5 A2.6

TITLE Difference in Effluent TP between 2 and 6, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent TP between 4 and 8 day HRT Difference in Effluent TP between 6 and 2, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent TP between 8 and 2, 4, 6day HR Difference in Effluent TSS between 2 and 6, 8day HRT Difference in Effluent TSS between 4 and 8 day HRT Difference in Effluent TSS between 6 and 2 day HRT Difference in Effluent TSS between 8 and 2,4day HRT Difference in Effluent COD between PAGS and CON Difference in Effluent COD between PAPS and CON Difference in Effluent COD between PAGB and CON Difference in Effluent COD between TLGS and CON Difference in Effluent COD between SMPS and CON Difference in Effluent COD between FLMS and CON

PAGE NO.

196 197 197 198 198 199 199 200 202 202 203 203 204 204

xxiii

FIGURE NO. A2.7 A2.8 A2.9 A2.10 A2.11 A2.12 A2.13 A2.14 A2.15 A2.16 A2.17 A2.18 A2.19 A2.20

TITLE Difference in Effluent COD between CON and other 6 units Difference in Effluent BOD between PAGS and FLMS, CON Difference in Effluent BOD between PAPS and CON Difference in Effluent BOD between PAGB and CON Difference in Effluent BOD between TLGS and FLMS, CON Difference in Effluent BOD between SMPS and CON Difference in Effluent BOD between FLMS and PAGS, TLGS, CON Difference in Effluent BOD between CON and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TN between PAGS and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TN between PAPS and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TN between PAGB and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TN between TLGS and other 6 units Difference in Effluent TN between SMPS and CON Difference in Effluent TN between FLMS and CON

PAGE NO.

205 205 206 206 207 207 208 208 209 209 210 210 211 211

xxiv

FIGURE NO. A2.21 A2.22 A2.23 A2.24 A2.25 A2.26 A2.27 A2.28 A2.29 A2.30 A2.31 A2.32 A2.33 A2.34 A2.35

TITLE Difference in Effluent TN between CON and SMPS, FLMS Difference in Effluent TP between PAGS and SMPS, CON Difference in Effluent TP between PAPS and SMPS, FLMS, CON Difference in Effluent TP between PAGB and CON Difference in Effluent TP between TLGS and CON Difference in Effluent TP between SMPS and PAGS, PAPS, CON Difference in Effluent TP between FLMS and PAPS, CON Difference in Effluent TP between CON and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TSS between PAGS and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TSS between PAPS and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TSS between PAGB and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TSS between TLGS and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TSS between SMPS and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TSS between FLMS and other 6 units No difference in Effluent TSS between CON and other 6 units

PAGE NO.

212 212 213 213 214 214 215 215 216 216 217 217 218 218 219

xxv

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS


Symbols A Ac Ah BODe BODi Ci Co d dH/ds d10 KBOD Kf Ks Kt Ktx K20 Lo n Q S TNe ttx Total cross-sectional area, perpendicular to flow Cross-sectional Area of the Bed Surface Area of bed Effluent BOD Influent BOD Concentration in Concentration out depth Slope Size of the particle that pass through no. 10 sieve Rate Constant Hydraulic Conductivity of the Media Hydraulic Conductivity of a unit area of the medium perpendicular to the flow direction Temperature rate constant Temperature rate constant at temperature tx Temperature at 20C Organic Loading Factor Porosity Flow Hydraulic Gradient Effluent TN temperature variable from 550 C Temperature of influent, C

xxvi

Abbreviations APEC ASP BIS BOD BW CEFNS CES COD CON CPCB CW DO DOCREP EPA ESP 1 ESP 2 ESP 3 EU FAB FAO FG FWS HAR HF HFCW HFCW HRT HSSF Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Activated Sludge Process Bureau of Indian Standards Biochemical Oxygen Demand Baffle Wall College of Engineering, Forestry and Natural Sciences Centre for Ecological Sciences Chemical Oxygen Demand Control Central Pollution Control Board Constructed Wetland Dissolved Oxygen Document Repository Environmental Protection Agency Experimental Set Up 1 Experimental Set Up 2 Experimental Set Up 3 European Union Fluidized Anaerobic Bioreactor Food and Agricultural Organization Fine Gravel Free Water Surface Hydraulic Application Rates Horizontal Flow Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetland Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetland Hydraulic Retention Time Horizontal Sub Surface Flow

xxvii

HSSFCW IC IISC IMD IN IV L MOEF MPN NADB Data NASA NAU NRMRL O&M OC OEPA OUT OV PE PP RO RZM SD SFCW SS SSF SSFCW STP TC

Horizontal Sub Surface Flow Constructed Wetland Inlet Chamber Indian Institute of Science Indian Meteorological Department Inlet Inlet Valve Length Ministry of Environment and Forests Most Probable Number North American wetlands for water quality treatment Base National Aeronautics and Space Administration North Arizona University National Risk Management Research Laboratory Operation and Maintenance Outlet Chamber Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Outlet Outlet Valve Populations Equivalent Perforated Pipe Reverse Osmosis Process Root Zone Method Standard Deviation Surface Flow Constructed Wetland Suspended Solids Subsurface Flow Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland Sewage Treatment Plant Treatment Chamber

xxviii

TDS TKN TN TNPCB TOC TP TS TSS TVA U.S. EPA UASB UK UMN USA VC VF VFCW VSSF VSSFCW W WGBIS WSP

Total Dissolved Solids Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total Nitrogen Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Total Organic Carbon Total Phosphorus Total Solids Total Suspended Solids Tennessee Valley Authority United States Environmental Protection Agency Up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket United Kingdom University of Minnesota United States of America Virtual Centre Vertical Flow Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland Vertical Subsurface Flow Vertical Sub Surface Flow Constructed Wetland Width Western Ghats Biodiversity Information System Waste Stabilization Pond

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

GENERAL Water is the elixir of life. O son of Kunti, I am the taste of water,

the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man [1]. He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition [2]. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater [3]. Life means water, soil and seeds. One holds no meaning without the other. Water is the life of the people. A developmental activity for the use of water involves studying the availability and demand of water. Natural water resources of the region determine the availability of water while the demand of water is based upon the use of water by the population. An important question that may arise in the process of development is how the used water is disposed off. The obvious answer is wastewater treatment. In earlier days, wastewater was simply let out into unused lands and water bodies. But, in most situations today, it is treated before being released. Conventional wastewater treatment plants not only require huge capital and high energy but the resulting sludge also needs further treatment and disposal. These challenges necessitate the

planners, engineers and researchers globally to work towards natural treatment systems which are relatively cost-effective, energy-sensitive and self-contained systems for wastewater treatment [4]. Natural treatment systems such as slow-rate system, rapid infiltration system, overland flow system, and aquatic treatment systems come under this category [5]. 1.1.1 Slow Rate System Slow rate system involves the application of wastewater to vegetated land to provide treatment and to meet the growth needs of vegetation (Figure 1.1).

(Source: APEC-VC) Figure 1.1 Slow Rate System Evapotranspiration consumes some of the applied influent wastewater and the remaining wastewater percolates vertically and horizontally through the soil profile. The surface runoff, if any, is collected and reapplied to the system. The design parameters of the system are the hydraulic loading rate, selection and management of the vegetation. The hydraulic loading rate is the rate at which the wastewater is applied to the land per unit area. When the principal objective is wastewater treatment, the slow rate system is considered to be type 1; if wastewater reuse is the principal objective, then the system is type 2. The surface techniques such as graded

border and furrow irrigation or sprinkler methods can be used for wastewater application (Figure 1.2).

(Source : FAO-DOCREP) Figure 1.2 Methods of Wastewater Application in Slow Rate System To maintain aerobic conditions in the soil profile, intermittent application cycles, typically every 4 - 10 days, are used. The slow rate system with relatively low application rates combined with the presence of vegetation and the active soil ecosystem provides the highest treatment potential. Wastewater is treated by filtration, adsorption, ion exchange, precipitation, microbial action, and plant uptake as it passes through the soil [6]. A moderate soil permeability is required for this system. Effluent storage is needed in areas of high precipitation. This system requires a typical area of 15 - 45 acres per million litres of effluent per day [7]. 1.1.2 Rapid Infiltration System In rapid infiltration system, wastewater is applied on an intermittent schedule usually to a shallow infiltration or spreading basin (Figure 1.3).

(Source: EPA-NRMRL) Figure 1.3 Rapid Infiltration System No vegetation is required in the infiltration basin but it is necessary for sprinkler application. Evaporative losses are a small fraction of the applied wastewater because of high loading rate. The principal objectives of this system may be: (i) treatment followed by groundwater recharge to augment water supplies or prevent salt water intrusion, (ii) treatment followed by recovery using under drains or pumped withdrawal, and (iii) treatment followed by groundwater flow and discharge into surface water. The relatively high hydraulic loading rates combined with the lower retention capacity of permeable soils leads to lower treatment potential than slow rate system [8]. 1.1.3 Overland Flow System In overland flow system (Figure 1.4), wastewater is distributed across the upper portions of carefully graded vegetated slopes and allowed to flow over the ditches at the bottom of the slopes.

(Source: APEC-VC) Figure 1.4 Overland Flow System This system is adopted in areas of relatively impermeable surface soils and subsurface layers. Much of the applied wastewater is collected as surface runoff during percolation through the soil profile. Another portion is lost to evaporation. The time of the year and local climate decide the percentage of the applied wastewater loss. The treatment objectives determine the system operation using alternating application and drying periods, with the lengths of the periods. High-pressure sprinklers, low-pressure sprays, or surface methods such as gated pipe accomplish the distribution of wastewater. Treatment of wastewater is achieved primarily through sedimentation, filtration, and biochemical activity as the wastewater flows across the vegetated surface of the terraced slope [9]. 1.1.4 Aquatic Treatment System The aquatic treatment systems are classified into natural wetlands, aquatic plant systems and constructed wetlands. Natural wetlands are inundated land areas with water depths typically less than 0.6 m that support the growth of emergent plants such as cattail, bulrush, reed and sedges. The vegetation provides surfaces for the attachment of bacteria films, aids in infiltration and adsorption of wastewater constituents, transfers oxygen into

the water column, and controls the growth of algae by restricting the penetration of sunlight. The discharge of wastewater to natural wetland is limited from a regulatory standpoint to preserve the ecosystem [10]. Aquatic plant systems are those that use aquatic plants in the treatment of wastewater. They can be divided into two categories. One is floating plant system (Figure 1.5) with plants like duckweed, water hyacinth, and the other is submerged plant system (Figure 1.6) with plants like water milfoil, and waterweed.

(Source : www.co.ho.md.us) Figure 1.5 Floating Plants

Water Milfoil (Myriophyllum spp.) (Source : UMN)

Waterweed (Elodea)

Figure 1.6 Submerged Plants

1.1.5

Constructed Wetlands Constructed wetlands offer all of the treatment capabilities of

natural wetlands but without the constraints associated with discharging to natural ecosystem. Two types of constructed wetland systems have been developed for wastewater treatment. They are free water surface (FWS) system and subsurface flow (SSF) system. Free water system typically consists of parallel basins or channels with relatively impermeable bottom soil, emergent vegetation, and shallow water depths of 0.10.6 m (Figure 1.7). Because of the potential for human exposure to pathogens, FWS system is rarely used for secondary treatment [11].

Figure 1.7 Free Water Surface System Subsurface flow system has been designed with an objective of secondary or advanced level of treatment. This system is also called root zone or vegetated submerged bed or rock-reed filters and consists of channels or trenches with relatively impermeable bottoms filled with sand or rock media to support emergent vegetation (Figure 1.8).

Figure 1.8 Subsurface Flow System The SSF system is further classified as horizontal subsurface flow (HSF) system (Figure 1.9) where wastewater flows horizontally through the substrate and vertical subsurface flow (VSF) system (Figure 1.10) where wastewater is dosed intermittently onto the surface of sand and gravel filters and gradually drains through the filter media.

(Source : IISC-CES-WGBIS) Figure 1.9 Horizontal Subsurface Flow System

(Source : IISC-CES-WGBIS) Figure 1.10 Vertical Subsurface Flow System

Constructed wetlands have been widely used in treating different types of contaminants found in domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, agricultural runoff, and storm water. The pollutant removal mechanisms occurring in a constructed wetland involve physical unit operations such as sedimentation and filtration, chemical unit operations such as adsorption and precipitation and biological unit operations such as bacterial metabolism, plant metabolism, plant adsorption and natural die-off [12]. The removal efficiencies in a constructed wetland are determined by the interaction of numerous parameters, such as water/soil temperature, air temperature, solar radiation, humidity, rainfall, pollutant concentrations, hydraulics, soil characteristics and vegetation. These parameters cause changes in nutrient supply, uptake or release of chemical substances and biological activities of microorganisms and plants. Constructed wetlands have been widely used in treating different types of contaminants found in domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, agricultural runoff, and storm water [13]. 1.2 NEED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY Most of the historical developments and application of constructed wetlands have occurred in America, Europe and Australia, but interest is now rapidly increasing in Asia. Constructed wetland can be potentially applied in developing countries for wastewater treatment. Treatment wetlands can be constructed using local materials and local labor, which is a major advantage in developing countries. To date, very limited research work exists on the performance of constructed wetland, especially under tropical conditions like in India [14-17].

10

The first reported research on constructed wetland in India was conducted in 1995 by installing a 90x30 m size constructed wetland at Sainik School, Bhubaneshwar in the State of Orissa. It treated 180200 m3 wastewater with Typha latifolia and Phragmites karka planted in cement pipes filled with 30% soil and 70% sand. The nitrogen (N) content was reduced from 30.8 mgl1 to 9.5 mgl1 whereas the mean inflow total phosphate content of 14.9 mgl1 was reduced to 9.6 mgl1. The Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and N removal were 6790% and 5863%, respectively [14]. It took four years to develop a field-scale HSF constructed wetland in Ujjain, Central India. The cell had an effective surface area of 41.82 m2 with a water retention capacity of 18 m3 in a medium of gravel bed supported below a layer of puddled local clay planted with locally grown grass, Phragmites karka. Initial pretreatment by a land treatment system was achieved by an earthen channel. The five month study showed the results of an average treatment performance with removal efficiencies of 78% for ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), Total Suspended Solids (TSS); 5865% for phosphorus (P), BOD and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) [15]. Auroville, an international community in Pondicherry, India, constructed a living machine in the form of a constructed wetland as a possible alternative to installing a septic system. The urine is siphoned into the living machine (the buildings grey water system), where the liquids are diverted to a closed reed bed after passing through a settling tank. Toxins are taken up by the reed bed or broken down and turned into nutrients by bacteria. The cleaner water finally passes through infiltration trenches, in the form of long planting beds where snails, algae, frogs, small fish, and a variety of plants, including banana trees, take up the remaining toxins in the water [16].

11

In 2003, a pilot constructed wetland, in Warangal city in the State of Andhra Pradesh in India, was monitored for 12 months to understand the removal efficiencies of various pollutants in the municipal wastewater during different seasons in a year. The potential of constructed wetlands for secondary municipal wastewater treatment was exhibited in this study. It has motivated the city municipal authorities in Warangal to go in for a decentralized treatment wetland system for treating municipal wastewater in different parts of the city [17]. As a result of fast economic growth in the past several decades, India now faces a serious water pollution problem. However, due to lack of awareness, constructed wetland systems have not been widely used in India. 1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES The general objective of the present study is to investigate the efficacy of subsurface flow constructed wetland system for treatment of domestic wastewater. The specific objectives are: to investigate the performance of horizontal and vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands in treating domestic wastewater, to analyze the seasonal effect on treatment efficiency of constructed wetlands, to examine the performance of the horizontal flow wetland at varying hydraulic retention times and for different substrate media, and to investigate the efficiency of four wetland species viz. Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia, Myriophyllum spicatum, and Lemna minor in treating domestic wastewater.

12

The study aims to throw a light on application of constructed wetland system as environment friendly alternative functional component of wastewater treatment for different types of wastewater in future in India. 1.4 DISPOSITION Chapter 1 Introduction gives a general introduction to the study. The aim, background of study, objectives, scope and research significance are clearly spelled out in this chapter. The various natural treatment systems with emphasis on constructed wetlands are also elaborated in this chapter. Chapter 2 Literature Review presents an extensive literature survey made on application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Application of constructed wetland for various types of wastewater is also discussed. Studies on the effect of main characteristics that affect the constructed wetland system are also discussed. Chapter 3 Methodology presents design issues, design basis, design considerations and different methods adopted to design a constructed wetland. The design of experimental constructed wetland systems used in this study is presented. The study area, experiment design, data collection and analysis, sample types and experiment procedures adopted, vegetation transplantation and establishment methods are also presented. Chapter 4 Results and Discussion presents the treatment performance of nine experimental constructed wetland systems tested for this study. Chapter 5 Conclusions comprises the conclusions derived from this study, future course of action and research with respect to constructed wetland application for wastewater treatment and its impact.

13

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

GENERAL Numerous studies conducted around the world on wetlands provide

voluminous literature; hence, rather than probing through the broad area, this section concentrates on the topic of relevance to the present study. In this chapter the literature within the context of the objectives of the present study is broadly reviewed. 2.2 WETLANDS Wetlands are ecosystems that exhibit varying degrees of saturation throughout the year [18]. A variety of aquatic plants exist in wetlands. Physical, chemical and biological processes occur in wetlands to treat wastewater. Wetlands remove or convert large quantities of pollutants including suspended solids, metals or excess nutrients by filtration, sedimentation, plant uptake, and microbial degradation. These natural wetlands are wet only after heavy rains or during rainy season of the year. They may be very dry at other times [19]. The definition that was adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1979 is:- Wetlands are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must

14

have one or more of the following three attributes: (i) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, (ii) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soils, and (iii) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year [20, 21]. There should not be differences between natural and constructed wetlands functionally [22]. The physical, chemical and biological processes that occur in natural wetland are similar to those conventional mechanical treatment plants. A constructed wetland for wastewater treatment is designed to optimize these natural wetland processes [23]. 2.3 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND A constructed wetland is a man-made wetland, engineered, designed and constructed to treat wastewater similar to a natural wetland. It is a practical alternative to the functional component of conventional wastewater treatment plant. The technology of constructed wetland for wastewater treatment is in use for over 40 years. But it is not a well-known technology outside of scientific and engineering circles. Simplicity in operation and maintenance and relatively low capital and operating costs are the advantages over mechanical wastewater treatment systems. The life form of the dominating plant determines the classification of constructed wetland. Free floating, submergent and emergent are the three vegetative classifications of constructed wetland [24]. Free floating vegetation floats entirely on the surface of the water. The emergent vegetation reaches above the water surface and submergent vegetation grows below the water surface. But the root systems of both the emergent and submergent are in the substrate.

15

The constructed wetland can be classified as surface flow constructed wetland (SFCW) and subsurface flow constructed wetland (SSFCW). The SSFCW has been further classified as horizontal flow constructed wetland (HFCW) and vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW) [25]. It is possible to optimize naturally occurring physical, chemical and biological processes for removal of target pollutants by controlling the hydraulics, thereby the loadings, in a constructed wetland. The advantages of constructed wetland are: (a) Lower capital construction and operating costs than

conventional systems (b) Consistent compliance with permit requirements (c) Operational and maintenance simplicity (d) Aesthetics may be greatly enhanced (e) Habitat for wildlife (f) High levels of wastewater treatment, and the disadvantages are: (a) Require greater land base than conventional mechanical treatment systems (b) Reduced performance during the vegetation establishment period (c) For surface flow systems, mosquito control may be necessary (d) Potential for odor problems (e) Possible groundwater contamination (f) Standard design criteria not readily available to engineers and regulators.

16

2.4

INVENTION Treatment of wastewater by wetlands is not a new invention.

Wetlands have been involved in cleaning as long as land has been receiving sewage. A typical wetland develops at the site of discharge of sewage which is released in ditches from single houses in rural areas. Poor documentation exists related to wastewater treatment by wetlands but it remains an acceptable solution. Wastewater was disposed of in wetlands for many years in the Chinese and Egyptian cultures. The oldest documentation on the use of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment was a note handwritten in 1904 [26]. Even though the concept is very old the term Constructed Wetland is rather a new invention. The experiments undertaken by Kthe Seidel at the Max Planck Institute in Pln, West Germany lead to invention of a new technology for treatment of wastewater using wetlands in 1952 [27] which got patented later [28]. The experiment results exhibited that the contaminated water supported life of appropriate plants. They did experiments on aquatic macrophytes for improvement of water quality by using Schoenoplectus lacustris (common bulrush) [29]. The study proved that this species was capable not only of removing organic and inorganic substances from wastewater but also improved and enriched the soil. Then the experiments were carried out for treatment of phenol wastewater, dairy wastewater and livestock wastewater [30]. It was found that bulrushes were able to eliminate heavy metals and hydrocarbons from water. Either HSF system or VSF system was tested in these experiments. These laboratory scale experiments led to a number of full scale trial systems treating wastewaters. In 1967, the first FWS was built in the Netherlands [31].

17

2.5

EVOLUTION This pioneer work resulted in the Max-Planck-Institute Process or

the Krefeld System. It consisted of four to five stages in cascades. Each cascade contained several basins laid out in parallel and planted with emergent macrophytes in gravel media. The first two stages consisted of intermittently loaded parallel vertical flow beds with a top layer of sand planted with macrophytes followed by bottom layers of gravel. This is followed by horizontal flow cells planted with various species of macrophytes in sand or gravel media. This system showed good performance [32]. However, clogging made them difficult to operate. Similar systems exist in France [33], England [34], and North America [35]. In 1967, Ijsselmeerpolders Development Authority in Holland developed a large-scale treatment system Lelystad Process. The treatment facility was of FWS wetland of 1 ha area with water depth of 0.4 m near Elburg. Because of the maintenance problems, the subsequent systems consisted of up to 400 m long shallow ditches that could be mechanically maintained [36]. Filtration beds planted with reeds were incorporated in some of the numerous systems constructed in Holland [37]. In the mid-1960s, Dr.Seidel in collaboration with Dr.Reinhold Kickuth from the Institute of Bodenkunde at the University of Gottingen introduced the concept of Root Zone Method (RZM) [38]. RZM is a rectangular bed planted with reeds (Phragmites australis) in soil. The flow regime is horizontal subsurface flow. Organic matter is decomposed while nitrogen nitrified and subsequently denitrified. Phosphorous should be accumulated in the soil as a result of co-precipitation with calcium, iron and aluminium compounds. This technology also got patented [39]. For distribution and collection, water inlet and outlet structures were provided at

18

opposite ends of the bed. The soil permeability in the beds did not increase with time [40, 41]. In North America, experimentation with different designs of constructed wetlands started in the 1970s [42]. However, initial experiments related to natural wetlands. The overall value of the natural wetland is reduced by changes in species composition, community structure and function due to application of wastewater into natural systems. Then it was realized that the constructed wetlands offer the same treatment processes but do not interfere with the values of natural wetlands. In the late sixties, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)s National Space Technological Laboratories conducted experiments and developed a gravel based hybrid wastewater treatment system using anaerobic microorganisms and reeds [43]. Bulrushes were efficient in removing Suspended Solids (SS), BOD, Coliform bacteria and N [44-46]. The Marsh Pond Meadow System was developed at Brookhaven National Laboratory. It consisted of a lateral-flow marsh planted with cattails (Typha latifolia) in a sand medium, a facultative pond, and a meadow planted with reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) [47]. Key projects were constructed in the 1980s including the pilot-scale marshes at Listowel, Ontario [48] and the Tennessee Valley Authority demonstration projects in Kentucky [49]. During the 1970s, the National Science Foundation, USA funded studies by Kadlec at the University of Michigan and Odum and Ewel at the University of Florida in the use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment [50]. This led to a series of pilot studies and operational systems using constructed wetlands in both Canada and the U.S. [51]. The results of

19

wastewater treatment by subsurface flow wetlands were presented through a world-wide database [26]. Treatment results of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands treating domestic or municipal wastewater practiced in Czech Republic were presented by Vymazal [52-54]. Table 2.1 illustrates the historical development of constructed wetland research in the 20th century. Table 2.1 Start Date of Treatment Wetlands in the NADB Sl. Type No. 1. Constructed, FWS 2. Constructed, VSB 3. Constructed, hybrid 4. Natural, FWS Before 1950s & 1970s 1950 60s 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 9 80- 85- 1990s 84 89 (latest*) 8 0 1 5 33 21 4 6 85 (96) 31 (94) 6 (94) 1 (90)

NADB: North American wetlands for water quality treatment Data Base * year of last wetland included in database for this type of wetland-other wetlands may have started after this date, but are not in the database. US Environmental Protection Agency (2000).

2.6

DEVELOPMENT The constructed wetland is a natural biological treatment process

that is normally used to treat a variety of wastewaters such as sewage [55-58], polluted river [59, 60], farmyard runoff [61], landfill leachate [62], swine effluent [63], and residual dye bath [64]. Subsurface flow constructed wetlands from residences at eight locations in Texas have been used to determine their effectiveness in improving the quality of septic effluent passing through them for a one-year period. They were designed and constructed according to U.S. EPA guidelines [65]. The sizes of these systems were based on an influent BOD concentration of approximately 200 mg l-1 and a predicted effluent concentration of 20 mg l-1. Plants used were Canna flaccida (canna lily),

20

Cuperus alternifolius (umbrella palm), Sagittaria lancifolia (arrowheads), Scirpus sp. (bulrush), Typha latifolia (cattails), Collocasia esculenta (elephant ears), Gladiolus sp. (gladiolus), Iris sp. (iris), and Thalia sp. (reed-stem thalia). They reduced BOD5 by 8090%. The research study concluded that constructed wetlands provided an effective method for secondary treatment of on-site domestic wastewater. Six horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands were tested in Jordan for treating domestic wastewater for a period of 11 months [66]. Each bed was 20 m long, 2 m wide and 0.6 m deep with sand and gravel media as substrate. Two systems were planted with reed (Sorghum halepense) and two systems were planted with sudan grass. The remaining two acted as controls. TSS reduction was observed in all beds. Total Nitrogen (TN), NH4-N, and nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) reductions were observed, which suggests that nitrification and also denitrification took place in the beds. The study on solids accumulation in six full-scale constructed wetlands used to treat municipal wastewater in the province of Lleida, Catalonia, north-eastern Spain showed mean removal rates of TSS 8591%, BOD5 8693%, and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 8587%. The study exhibited that there was a positive relationship between the amount of accumulated solids and the TSS and COD loading rates [67]. A study was conducted on a subsurface flow constructed wetland built near the Soria sewage treatment plant in the north-central part of Spain. Two different hydraulic application rates (HAR) (150 and 75 mm day-1) and two macrophytes, Typha sp. (cattail) and Phragmites sp. (reed), were assayed. The BOD, COD, and TSS removal rates were 7186, 6478, 8788%, respectively under 150 mm day-1 HAR and 7681, 6976, 90%, respectively, under 75 mm day-1 HAR for the constructed wetland unit planted with cattail. The BOD, COD, and TSS removal rates were 7779, 5068, 7087%

21

respectively under 150 mm day-1 HAR and 8590, 7377, 9193% respectively, under 75 mm day-1 HAR for the constructed wetland unit planted with reed [68]. Six constructed wetlands, 120 liters in volume each with 40 cm depth filled with gravel medium, planted with three kinds of plants viz. sugar cane, reed, and Phragmites sp., were fed with effluent of seasonal reservoir, under two different retention times, 2.5 and 5 days. The removal degrees were found to average 90.4% for TSS and 62.4% for COD [69]. Constructed wetlands have the potential to treat a variety of wastewaters by removing organics, suspended solids, pathogens, nutrients and heavy metals [70]. The effect of vegetation on removal efficiency of subsurface horizontal flow constructed wetland for TN and Total Phosphorus (TP) removal from simulated plant nursery runoff water was studied in New South Wales, Australia [71]. Their study revealed that the experimental tub planted with Phragmites australis removed TN and TP greater than 96% over most of the 19-month study period while unplanted tub was inefficient with removal of less than 16% TN and less than 45% TP. They found that plants were essential to a gravel-based wetland to achieve efficient nutrient removal with effluent of TN and TP concentrations of less than 1 mg l-1 and 0.05 mg l-1, respectively, with a 3.5 day reaction time. The impact of two macrophyte species on treatment of sugar factory stabilization pond effluent in a pilot-scale free water surface constructed wetland system was studied in Western Kenya [72]. Four constructed wetlands were planted with Cyprus sapyrus and another four constructed wetlands with Echinochola pyramidalis and operated under two different hydraulic loading rates 75 mm day-1 and 225 mm day-1 for twelve months. The study showed that high removal occurred in constructed

22

wetlands planted with Cyprus sapyrus than those with Echinochola pyramidalis. A study on the seasonal efficiency of wetland macrophytes was conducted to reduce soil leachate concentrations of TN and TP in Bath, Ohio [73]. Microcosms planted with one of four species Carex lacustris, Scirpus validus, Phalaris arundinacea, Typha latifolia were tested with a constant nutrient solution of 56 mg l-1 N and 31 mg l-1 P for treatment. They exhibited higher removal rates in the growing season and lower rates in the winter months. Planted microcosms outperformed unplanted microcosms. They discovered that Carex lacustris was the least efficient. Survival of different plant species in subsurface horizontal flow constructed wetlands receiving tannery wastewater was monitored in Portugal [74]. Five pilot units vegetated with Canna indica, Typha latifolia, Phragmites australis, Stenotaphrum under two different hydraulic loading rates 3 and 6 cm d-1 were assessed for 17 months. COD was reduced by 41 73% and BOD was reduced by 4158%. The results indicated that Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia were the only plants that were able to establish successfully. Nineteen wetland species were studied in small-scale pilot constructed wetlands into which an artificial wastewater dosed with Cd, Pb and Zn at concentrations of 0.5, 2.0 and 5.0 mg l-1 was irrigated in Changzhou, China [75]. The results showed that removal efficiency was more than 90%. Four plant species (Alternathera philexeroides, Zizania latifolia, Echinochloa crusgulli, Polygonum hydropiper) accumulated high amounts of Cd, Pb and Zn. Monochoria veginals was capable of accumulating Cd and Pb, Isachne globosa accumulated Cd and Zn and Digitaria sanguinalis and Fimbristyllis miliacea accumulated Zn.

23

Wastewater from an oil refinery was treated by using constructed wetlands in Pakistan [76]. Phragmites karka was planted in two vertical flow constructed wetlands, one gravel filled and the other compost filled. Both constructed wetlands operated identically with primarily treated refinery wastewater for one year. The results indicated that the removal efficiencies for the compost and gravel wetland cells were: TSS 5173% and 3956%, COD 4578% and 3361%, BOD 3583% and 3569%. According to the results, compost filled wetland unit was better than gravel filled wetland unit. A study on three different substrates, two clay aggregates Filtralite MR3-8 (FMR), Filtrality NR3-8 (FNR) and a fine gravel (FG), used as porous media in constructed wetland units planted with Typha latifolia treating tannery wastewater subjected to three hydraulic loadings 18, 8 and 6 cm d-1 and two periods of interruption in the feed was reported in Portugal [77]. They found that the units with FNR and FMR achieved significantly higher COD and BOD removal than FG and unplanted units. The results of treatment efficiency of a pilot-scale subsurface flow constructed wetland subjected to raw municipal wastewater were presented in Spain [68]. The constructed wetlands were tested under two different hydraulic application rates 150 and 75 mm day-1 and planted with two macrophytes Typha sp. (cattail) and Phragmites sp. (reed). Both plants removed BOD, COD and TSS. A study on effect of soil-to-sand ratios, 75:25, 50:50 and 25:75, of constructed wetland planted with Typha sp. was conducted in Thailand [78] under three hydraulic retention times (HRT), 3, 1.5 and 0.75 days. The study showed that 3 days Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) with 75:25 soilsand ratio system illustrated the highest removal efficiencies of BOD, COD, TSS, TN and TP by 92, 91, 76, 90 and 95%, respectively.

24

Five horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands were investigated [79] with different media such as gravel, fine gravel, cobbles used as substrate planted with common reed and cattail subjected to synthetic wastewater under four different HRT 6, 8, 14, 20 days. The removal percentages reached 89, 65 and 60 for BOD, TN, and phosphate (P-(PO4)3), respectively. The results showed that 8 days HRT was adequate for acceptable organic matter removal. 2.6.1 Functions Apart from affording natural shoreline protection, flood reduction and control, providing geochemical sinks or traps for substances including carbon, sulphur from acid rain and heavy metals, wildlife food and habitat and recreational pursuits, wetlands provide water quality improvement by removing or converting large quantities of pollutants from point sources and non-point sources including organic matter, suspended solids, metals and excess nutrients by natural filtration, sedimentation and other processes [20]. Wetlands are able to provide high levels of wastewater treatment [80]. They play a significant role in the natural cycling of organic and inorganic materials. They support an abundance of macro- and microscopic vegetation which converts inorganic chemicals into organic materials required as food for both animals and man [50]. 2.6.2 Removal Mechanisms Constructed wetlands have a number of removal mechanisms in aquatic plant or macrophyte-based treatment systems [24, 81]. They are: (i) Sedimentation / Filtration

(ii) Microbial degradation (aerobic and anaerobic)

25

(iii) Adsorption on root surfaces (iv) Transpiration during physiological metabolism of plants (v) Root absorbtion during water uptake (including transport to plant tissue) (vi) Chemical precipitation (vii) Oxidation / Reduction (viii) Precipitation Sedimentation and filtration remove suspended solids rapidly at the inlet zone of a constructed wetland [82] while auto flocculation and sedimentation remove them as the solids reach open spaces and move between the plants [83]. The solids can be treated better in other facilities prior to wetlands [25]. Good hydraulic conductivity in a constructed wetland can be maintained by effective pre-settling [84]. The reduction in the useful life of the constructed wetland system and internal pollutant loading can be caused by accumulation of sedimentation at the inlet of a constructed wetland [25]. Pretreatment is necessary to remove coarse and heavy solids prior to wastewater entering a constructed wetland [85]. The constructed wetland is a secondary treatment system [44, 86] or tertiary treatment system [24, 87]; and polishers for both municipal and industrial wastewaters [88, 89]. The treatment processes such as physical, chemical, biological and ecological involved in SSF-CW system [90]. A summary of major mechanisms by which removal of TSS, BOD, NH4, TN, P and heavy metals take place is provided in Table 2.2.

26

2.6.3

Pretreatment A well designed, installed and maintained primary treatment device

controls TSS at source. This is the first step to prevent substrate clogging at the entrance [91]. Table 2.2 Treatment Processes in SSF-CW Systems Process Physical Sedimentation Filtration Adsorption Volatilisation Crystallisation Chemical Precipitation Adsorption Hydrolysis Oxidation/Reduction Biological Bacterial metabolism(aerobic/anaerobic/anoxic) Plant metabolism Plant adsorption Natural die-off Ecological Predation Food chain Bioaccumulation / Biomagnification succession TN, P TN, P Bacteria Bacteria Heavy metals, TN, P Heavy metals, TN, P Treatment/removal TSS, BOD5, P, TN TSS, BOD5,bacteria P, TN, bacteria Ammonia Ammonia P, TN, Heavy metals P, TN, Heavy metals BOD5 BOD5, TN, Heavy metals BOD5, TN, bacteria

27

2.6.4

Design Considerations A number of considerations must be evaluated prior to establishing

a constructed wetland for wastewater treatment. Some of the considerations in selecting a site are (i) clear wastewater management objectives and the regulatory considerations, (ii) availability of sufficient data to develop the preliminary design of a wetland system, (iii) environmental and social conditions and sensitivities to predict any adverse effects and provide mitigation, and (iv) legal access to the site. Four categories i.e., land use/general considerations, hydrology, geology and environmental/regulatory considerations are of equal importance in siting constructed wetland [92]. Each constructed wetland is a unique entity for specific objective(s) at the chosen site. There are no standardized or cookbook designs that are applicable in given situations. A constructed wetland must be established to treat the specific contaminants on a site-by-site basis. Cost-effectiveness of constructed wetland is very site specific. Only the technology that has a chance of performing acceptability should be used [93]. 2.6.5 Surface Area and Bed Configuration A simple formula to determine surface area Ah of bed (m2) is
Ah = Qd ( ln Co - ln C ) K BOD

(2.1)

where

Qd Co C

= = =

average flow (m2 per day) influent BOD5 (mg l-1) effluent BOD5 (mg l-1) rate constant (m day-1)

KBOD =

It results in a general rule of thumb for total area of cells of 5 m2 per Populations Equivalent (PE). Constructed wetland system of two cells

28

each 25 m2 has been used in Ohio. Single bed systems were used in Czech whereas two beds were used in other constructed wetland systems. The first bed was lined and vegetated with wetland plants and the second bed was unlined to allow percolation and vegetated with ornamental plants. A small tile field or a sand filter can be used as a second bed to receive outflow of first bed. The plants die-off if a wetland runs dry based on theoretical concern. But it did not happen in these experimental constructed wetland systems. The hardiness of the common reed used is stated to be the reason for this happening [94]. 2.6.6 Aspect Ratio The length to width ratio is called aspect ratio. It is calculated from Darcys law. It has critical importance to maintain adequate flow through the wetland. Darcys law for aspect ratio is
Ac = Qs K f ( dH / ds )

(2.2)

where

Ac Qs Kf dH/ds

= = = =

cross-sectional area of the bed (m2) average flow (m3 s-1) hydraulic conductivity of the media (m s-1) slope (m/m)

Constructed wetland systems were designed with an aspect ratio less than 2 based on assumption that wider inflow optimizes flow and diminishes clogging of the inlet. Natural way of minimizing clogging is to use earthworms [91]. Using large gravel at inlet of constructed wetland and proper primary treatment reduces clogging. Aspect ratio is not as critical an element in bed flow mechanics as indicated by experiments done on constructed wetland systems in Spain [95].

29

2.6.7

Depth and Bottom Slope The maximum depth of the macrophage root of the frequently used

Phragmites australis (common reed) determines the depth of bed as 0.60.8 m in the constructed wetland systems used. Less than 2.5% slope was used in constructed wetland systems when coarse filtration materials were used. Slopes are often less than 1% in constructed wetland beds with the more common use of finer pea gravel. A water depth of 0.27 m yielded the best removal efficiencies in a bed 0.60.8 m deep. The improvement in efficiency with shallower water depth was directly related to increased oxygen flux from the plants resulting in much higher rates of nitrification/denitrification [95]. The plant roots pull downward the surface water (that then pass it into the air through evapotranspiration) and assured adequate mixing of water in deeper beds [22]. Almost all of the aerobic processes occur within 35 mm of the plant rhizosomes (roots) [102]. A 57 day period is an ideal residence time for the constructed wetland beds at 20 oC (68 oF). Therefore, only a minimal bottom slope is necessary if substrate with excellent flow characteristics is used. A little additional removal occurs after 78 days in warmer climates [91]. 2.6.8 Filtration Media The substrates commonly available are suitable for establishment of wetlands. Adequate nutrients are present in sandy loam and clay loam soils. Provision of good water, gas circulation and moderate texture in these two types of soils support new plants and allow penetration of root or rhizome. Clay and gravel prevent root penetration, contain no nutrients in top soil and are impermeable to water needed by roots [96]. The three requirements of an ideal filtration media are facilitating macrophage growth, providing high filtration effect and maintaining high hydraulic conductivity (flow). The use of 10 mm pea gravel fulfilled all three requirements. Coarser gravel at the inlet and outlet helps prevent clogging [97].

30

2.6.9

Sealing the Bed Regulations in most of the countries now require sealing with

plastic liners between 0.8 and 2.0 mm thickness. To prevent root penetration and damage by sharp edges, both sides of liners are to be protected by geotextile or sand. In early Czech and American constructed wetland systems clay liners were used. An inexpensive plastic tub was produced by an Australian manufacturer that is ready-made for home systems and makes construction simpler [97]. Constructed wetland with sealing can be used in areas with relatively high water tables where drain fields cannot function. 2.6.10 Insulation The litter can serve as insulation at bottom of the bed. The insulation effect is only important in the winter months [79]. Wood chips, pine straw, and polar bark were unsuitable for insulation but mulch consisting of reed-sedge peat or high quality yard waste compost produced effective insulation down to -20 oC [97]. Sites displayed no freezing when strawmulched, despite extreme cold (average daily temperatures ranged down to 34 oC) [98]. 2.6.11 Vegetation Many important factors influence the selection of vegetation for a constructed wetland. The survival and growth of plant depends on water depth, frequency and duration of flooding and water chemistry [96]. Gas exchange between the substrate and the atmosphere, light penetration for photosynthesis and the vegetation characteristics are influenced by water depth. The degree of flooding constitutes season and time period. Different wetland plants are able to withstand varying degrees of flooding throughout the year. Flooding may have little impact on vegetation during dormant

31

periods of the year. Extended flooding may cause stress or mortality during active growth periods when oxygen demands are increased. Reduced flow can also cause mortality. Water chemistry such as pH, water clarity, dissolved nutrients, flow velocity, salt concentration and dissolved oxygen also affect the survival and growth of wetland plants [96]. Rooted aquatic plants with floating leaves (Nuphar spp., Abrasenia spp., Aptomamogeton nodosus) can overcome physical light penetration limitations. Plants with extensive root systems (Vallisneria spp.) are resistant to current disturbances in fast flowing waters. Cordgrass (Spartina), winegrass (Rupid) and some forms of bulrush (Scirpus acutus and S.fluviatilis) are tolerant of moderate to strongly saline conditions [96, 99]. Some common aquatic plants that have been tested for use in constructed wetlands are listed in Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Wetland Species used for Wastewater Treatment Classification Emergent Scientific name Scirpus spp. Phragmites australis Phragmites comminis Typha spp. Juncus spp. Ceratophyllum demersum Elodea mutalli Spirodela spp. Spirodela polyrhiza Lemna spp. Elechhornia crassipes Azolla carolimiana Common name Bulrush Giant reed Common reed Cattail Rush Coontail Water weed Milfoil Giant duckweed Duckweed Water hyacinth Water fern

Submergent

Free Floating

32

Erosion control, filtration, and provision of surface area for microorganisms are the most important effects of macrophages [60]. Even though the SSFCW is primarily an aerobic environment, oxygen flux from the plant is important for nitrogen removal [100]. Phragmites australis coincidently but exactly met the ideal root rhizome separation that was 3570 mm. Aerobic processes occurred primarily within 35 mm of root [101]. Oxygen flux fell off rapidly after 35 mm from the root, so plants with wider rhizosomes will not be as efficient in nitrogen removal. Significant difference was observed in nitrogen removal amongst plant species [73, 102, 103]. Presence of more bacteria on roots of Phragmites than on Phalaris (reed canary grass) was observed [104]. Mixing wetland plant species does not enhance results [79]. All plants enhanced treatment capacity of SSFCW compared to unplanted one. Plant effects and differences amongst species were much greater in air temperature of 4 oC than at 24 oC [102]. Constructed wetland planted with Phragmites enhanced nitrogen removal performance to a significant degree over unplanted cells [105]. An interesting pilot study from Spain used wetlands for primary treatment of sewage from a small village [68]. The study showed surprisingly good results for removal of BOD, COD, TSS and coliform bacteria. No difference between reed and cattail cells was found when constructed wetland was used as primary treatment. 2.7 TREATMENT EFFICIENCY One obstacle to comparison of treatment efficiency is the lack of standardized measurement methods for the five commonly reported effluent parameters. The standardized method of measurement accepted worldwide came into effect in 1995 [106]. Most of the literature reported the use of this standard. A few studies reported that their experiments conformed to European Union (EU) methods or French methods [107, 108]. As the

33

treatment due to diffusive flow and the wastewater degradation involved a large number of processes the constructed wetland was thought to be more complex than conventional treatment in the last two decades. Due to the influence of these hydraulics and internal environment, it is less easy to predict removal efficiency [98]. That complexity should be overcome to give SSFCW mainstream acceptance. The question of the relative importance of aerobic vs. anaerobic processes for removal of nitrogen products was left unanswered with conflicting results for years. The metric used to report results seems a more fundamental problem. Percent removal of effluent concentration and/or mass loading was used in almost all of the reported literature. The total load released in the effluent is the most important impact on the environment. Different discharge standards are set for different volume loads or population equivalents by European countries [109, 110]. More stringent standards are laid for a municipal system discharging huge volumes whereas less stringent standards exist for a single home discharging small volumes of effluent. To quote Vymazal directly: However, it could be misleading to evaluate the performance of constructed wetlands according to the treatment efficient expressed as percentual removal. It has been well established that percentual efficiency increases with increasing inflow concentrations. In general, this principle applies to all kinds of wastewater technologies. In systems with low influent concentrations of pollutants (e.g. systems treating wastewater from combined sewerage or tertiary treatment systems) high quality effluent could be achieved with relatively low treatment efficiency calculated from inflow and outflow concentrations [54].

34

The constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow are very efficient in removing suspended solids (TSS). This is due to the degradation in the pretreatment, so all on-site systems with such pretreatment are comparable. Clogging shortens the life of any secondary treatment system in the case of high discharge solids. High efficiency in the constructed wetland was reported for degradation of organics tested as BOD5 and COD. The removal efficiency of N and P is lower, and does not meet EPA standards [54]. The results of many experiments have shown continuing improvement over the first three years with excellent start-up performance [95, 111]. 2.7.1 Suspended Solids Total suspended solids are measured gravimetrically after filtration and drying and reported in mg l-1. Domestic wastewaters at all pretreatment stages contain suspended materials. Interception promoted by low flow velocity, coupled with presence of sand/gravel media, removes TSS. Solids sink in water due to the density difference between the particle and water. The terminal velocity of isolated spherical particles depends on acceleration due to gravity, particle diameter, density of water, density of solids, and drag coefficient. The drag coefficient is a function of the (particle) Reynolds number. In the wetland environment, neither the density nor the particle diameter is known, and the particles are not spheres or discs. Although it is possible to correct for nonspherical shapes [112], there is no convenient method for determination of the particle density. Further, particles may agglomerate to larger size, or be subjected to interference from neighboring particles. The TSS removal processes are particulate settling, filtration and interception, and resuspension. The particulate settling is a gravity driven mechanism. Theoretically, all particles of a size corresponding to a given fall velocity will be removed by settling if the travel time exceeds the settling time. In FWS wetlands, the fall distance is approximated as the overall water

35

depth within the wetland. In HSF systems, the wetland is filled with a granular bed. The porosity of this bed increases the flow velocity, but decreases the fall distance, because the particle only has to fall the distance of the average pore space before hitting an intercepting surface, not the entire depth of the wetland bed. In most instances, the pore size within a HSF wetland bed can be approximated by the d10 of the bed media (90% of the particles within the bed are larger than the d10). As a practical matter, generally the falling rate is much greater than the actual flow velocity. As a result, virtually all the particles associated with the influent wastewater are settled out, generally within the first 5% of the wetland bed [113]. The principal mechanisms in filtration and interception are inertial deposition, diffusional deposition and flow line interception. These mechanisms all combine to preferentially remove incoming TSS in the inlet region of the HSF bed. A threefold reduction in resuspension from open water to vegetated areas occurred in a prairie pothole wetland. Enhanced removal occurred in both a laboratory channel with dowels and in a field flume in a Phragmites australis (reed) bed [114]. In fully vegetated wetlands, the litter and root mats provide excellent stabilization of the wetland soils and sediments. This limits, but does not eliminate, resuspension. With the bed media in Vertical Flow (VF) wetland, deposition and filtration of particulates, especially near the surface of the bed, is a dominant removal mechanism of incoming TSS [115]. In addition to accumulation of incoming TSS at or near the surface of the wetland, a surficial biomat may develop on top of the VF bed in response to the overall organic loading. The mechanisms of biomat formation are essentially similar to those of biosolids accumulation encountered internally in HSSF wetland. However, there is one important difference in the biomat formation in HSSF and VF wetlands. In HSSF wetland, the loading is typically continuous, in a saturated flow environment. In VF wetlands, the loading is intermittent, allowing for resting periods of no biomat formation.

36

Degree of clarity in water is based on removal of solids which is a measure of purity. Czech constructed wetland systems exhibited high TSS removal averaging 84.3% and effluent concentrations averaged 10.2 mg l-1 whereas Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) [116] limits are 18 mg l-1 [54]. 2.7.2 Organics BOD is a measure of the oxygen consumption of microorganisms in the oxidation of organic matter. It is measured as the oxygen consumption in an airtight incubation of the sample. This test normally runs for five days, and the result is then more properly designated as BOD5. COD is the amount of a chemical oxidant, usually potassium dichromate, required to oxidize the organic matter. This measure is larger than BOD, because the strong oxidant attacks a larger group of compounds. In the wetland environment, the presence of humic materials leads to COD values that are much larger than BOD values. The interpretation of these BOD/COD ratios is that natural wetlands cycle at low levels of biologically usable carbon compounds, whereas municipal wastewaters are rich in usable carbon compounds. Wetlands are efficient users of external carbon sources, manifested by excellent reductions in BOD5 and COD. However, wetlands possess nonzero background levels of both BOD and COD, which depend on the type and status of the wetland. The BOD concentration produced in treatment wetland depends upon three primary variables (area, water flow, and inlet concentration), as well as numerous secondary variables (vegetation type, internal hydraulics, depth, and event patterns). An important indication for quality of water is the removal of organics. The average removal of BOD5 was 88% in the 38 constructed

37

wetland systems studied in Czech. The average outflow concentrations were well within the OEPA [116] limit of 15 mg l-1. The average COD treatment efficiency was 75% with average outflow concentrations of 53 mg l-1. The presence of non-biodegradable pollutants resulted in less removal of COD than BOD. No seasonal pattern was found in the removal [54]. 2.7.3 Nitrogen Ammoniacal nitrogen, ammonia, organic-nitrogen, and nitratenitrogen are the nitrogen species in wastewater [117]. The form of N is a crucial factor to impact the effect on environment in addition to the total load of nitrogen discharged to that environment. In particular, ammonical-nitrogen (NH3-N) can be toxic to aquatic biota [117]. The Czech reports averaged 43% ammoniacal nitrogen removal rates. They also had very little seasonal variation. Planted wetlands were more efficient at nitrogen removal than unplanted ones [108]. The primary reason for the benefit from plants is the oxygen flux from the plant roots into the anaerobic milieu. A day-to-day and diurnal variation in nitrogen removal in individual constructed wetlands is present that far surpasses any seasonal differences [118, 119]. The processes such as volatilization, ammonification, plant uptake, nitrification/

denitrification, and matrix adsorption all play a role in total nitrogen removal as shown by earlier works. However, the most important process for nitrogen removal was nitrification/denitrification as proved by recent studies. The limiting step was the nitrification process which requires oxygen. Plants have a finite ability to flux oxygen to the roots [126]. The dissolved organic carbon, as indicated by a high BOD, is required to drive the denitrification process which is provided by the plants [120]. Higher removal rates are possible by alternate pathways with an anaerobic engine. Aerobic oxidizers

38

could denitrify in anaerobic conditions [100]. The use of iron filing may be the answer to the N removal problem, as well as the phosphorus removal problem [121]. Based on gaseous emissions studies, the use of constructed wetlands for N removal does not contribute to greenhouse effect [122]. 2.7.4 Phosphorus Most often, there is excess phosphorus in municipal or domestic wastewater. Phosphorus is a nutrient required for plant growth. The introduction of trace amounts of this element into receiving waters can have profound effects on the structure of the aquatic ecosystem. Treatment wetlands are capable of phosphorus removal from wastewaters. Total phosphorus is a form of phosphorus in the constructed wetland environment. Treatment wetlands are often nutrient-enriched, and display higher values of tissue nutrient concentrations than natural wetlands. The dominant fraction of phosphorus is contained in the plant biomass, wetland soils and sediments. There are three principal categories of phosphorus removal processes in free water surface wetlands: sorption, biomass storage and accretion. In both HSSF and VFCW systems, the phosphorus removal processes are sorption, biomass cycling, chemical precipitation, accretion and particulate settling. Agricultural process, industrialization, and urbanization

significantly increase release of phosphorus over the years. Phosphorus can cause an increase in algae and aquatic plants, loss of natural component species, and eventually a loss of the natural ecosystem. Eutrophication is the largest water quality problem in the world [123]. Chemical precipitation and physico-chemical sorption are the primary mechanisms for removal of phosphorus. Macrophages thus play little role in phosphorus removal. Shale and ceramic media have shown high conductivity and high phosphorus

39

adsorption for as long as 15 years [105, 124-126]. In both short-term and long-term, shale proved the best combination of properties as a substrate in constructed wetland on phosphorus removal among seven different substrates tested. Phosphorus removal efficiencies of 98100% in constructed wetland tested with shale substrate and Phragmites australis macrophages. A 100% NH4-N removal and 8590% NO3-N removal was exhibited by the same tested constructed wetland [125]. With appropriate substrate, plants with their attached microbes do effectively remove P and N. A sustainable high removal capacity of phosphorus is obtained by adding iron filings to the filter material (pea gravel) than using the substrate of calcium rich soil. The phosphorus removal rates increased from 50% to 97% by using Phragmites australis [121]. Presence of iron induces the plant to involve in phosphorus removal. 2.8 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP), Activated Sludge Process (ASP), Reverse Osmosis Process (RO), Up flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor, Fluidized Anaerobic Bio (FAB) Reactor and Constructed Wetland (CW) are the existing methods for treatment of wastewater. Table 2.4 presents the comparison of existing methods of secondary treatment for wastewater with constructed wetland method. A brief account of application of constructed wetland for wastewater treatment in India is presented in Table 2.5.

Table 2.4 Comparison of Existing Methods of Secondary Treatment for Wastewater Ease of Operation Simple Difficult Difficult Power Requirement NIL High Low Skill for O&M Low Medium High Land Detention Time Requirement Very Large Small Small 15 to 20 days 4 to 8 hours 3 to 5 days

Method WSP ASP RO

Reliability Very Good Least Medium

Applicability Best method provided the area required is large. Best method if the land available is less. Effluent can be utilized for cooling purposes in industries.

UASB FAB CW

Simple Simple Very Simple

Low Low Low

High High

Medium Medium

Low Low Very Large

Best method when combined with maturation pond if the land available is very less. Best method if the land 16 to 24 hours available is less. 1.5 to 2 days 6 to 8 days Best method for small communities.

Very Low Very Good

40

Table 2.5 Brief Account of Application of Constructed Wetland in India Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Year 1995 2000 2000 2001 2003

Target Wastewater Domestic wastewater Domestic wastewater Domestic wastewater Industrial distillery effluent Municipal wastewater

Vegetation Typha latifolia , Phragmites karka Phragmites australis Phragmites australis Typha latifolia, Phragmites karka Phragmites australis Phragmites australis Phragmites australis

Study Area Bhubaneshwar, Orissa Anna University, Chennai Sholinganallur, Chennai Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh Warangal, Andhra Pradesh Auroville, Pondicherry Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras

Ref. 14 127 128 15 17 16 129

2003-2004 Grey water 2005 Grey water

41

42

2.9

BIBILOMETRICS ON CONSTRUCTED WETLAND RESEARCH Bibilometrics is the application of mathematical and statistical

methods to books and other media of communication. It was first introduced in 1969 [130]. Conventional bibilometric methods have been applied in various fields to assess the research trends by investigating the publication characteristics [131, 132]. The annual number of journal articles published on wetland research increased more than six fold while the number of articles published cited to wetland research increased more than nine fold from 1991 to 2008. Most articles and international collaborative articles on wetland research are from USA, followed by Canada and UK. Wetlands is the most active journal. The main issues in wetland research in the future might be wetland biodiversity and constructed wetland [133]. In this study, bibilometric method was used to quantitatively and qualitatively investigate the global research trends of constructed wetlandrelated research during the period 2005-2010. The results could provide a basis for better understanding the global development situation of constructed wetland research and act as a potential guide for novice researchers. The data was based on the online version of Scopus of Elsevier of Reed Elsevier company. Reed Elsevier is a world leading provider of professional information [134]. Elsevier is a global company headquartered in Amsterdam serving 125 years in publishing around 2000 journals [135]. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of research literature and quality web sources covering nearly 18,000 titles from more than 5,000 publishers [136].

43

The online account of Scopus was explored under the keywords constructed wetland and wastewater treatment to collect a bibliography of constructed wetland research. The scope of this bibliography was limited to peer reviewed journal papers published during the period from 1st January 2005 to 31st December 2010 in Engineering and Technology stream. The number of articles published gradually increased from 37 in 2005 to 79 in 2010. These articles were published in various journals. The number of journals publishing research papers on constructed wetland also increased from 18 in 2005 to 30 in 2010. The distribution related to the language of articles was analyzed. The language of ninety-nine percent of all journal articles available online was in English. Several other languages also came into view, containing Chinese, Spanish, Slovene, and French (Table 2.6). Table 2.6 Quantitative Distributions of Publication Calendar Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of Articles 37 45 62 61 85 79 Journals 18 25 27 30 33 30

Language of Publication English 36, Chinese 1 English 43, Chinese 1, Spanish 1 English 59, Chinese 1, Spanish 1, Slovene 1 English 59, Chinese 2 English 83, Spanish 1, French 1 English 77, Chinese 1, Spanish 1

The most active journal is Water Science and Technology followed by Ecological Engineering, Science of the Total Environment, Bio Resource Technology, and Water Research. Most of the papers fall under the category of subject area Environmental Science (Table 2.7).

44

Table 2.7 Quantitative Distributions of Sources Number of Out of Share Articles 44 54% 18 journals 5 12 8 8 14 14 13 11% 18% 11% 11% 15% 15% 16% 25 journals 27 journals 30 journals 30 journals 33 journals 33 journals 30 journals

Year

Journal Title

2005 Water Science and Technology 2006 Water Research 2007 Science of the Total Environment 2008 Water Science and Technology Bio Resource Technology Water Science and Technology Ecological Engineering

2009

2010 Water Science and Technology

The contribution of different countries was estimated by the location of the affiliation of the first author of the published papers. The number of countries participated in constructed wetland research were twenty two European countries (Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom), seven Asian countries (China, India, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand), seven American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Canada, Mexico, United States of America), three African countries (Botswana, Egypt, Tanzania) and two Oceania countries (Australia, New Zealand). Most of the research work on constructed wetlands is from UK, US, China, Germany and Spain. In 2005, 11 articles from UK were published followed by US with 10 articles and Germany with 5 articles. In 2006 US contributed 12 research works followed by China with 4 articles and

45

Colombia 3 articles. In 2007 US contributed 8 research works followed by China with 6 articles and Spain with 3 articles. China topped with 14 and 12 articles followed by US with 12 and 11 articles, and Spain with 9 and 6 articles in 2008 and 2009 respectively. The year 2010 saw more number of articles from US (13) followed by China (11) and Spain (8). Majority of the articles concentrate on the Performance Evaluation Study viz. 25 studies in 2005, 35 in 2006, 47 in 2007, 50 in 2008, 76 in 2009 and 74 in 2010. Some researchers did work on Modeling 5(05), 3(06), 7(07), 2(08), 6(09), Bacterial Examination 4(05), 2(06), 5(07), 2(08) 3(09), 2(10), and Biomass Study 1(06), 4(08), 1(10). A few articles showed research work on Tracer Study 2(05), 1(06), Bio Indicator Study 1(06), 1(08), and Emergy Analysis 1(06), 4(08), 1(10). Other relevant areas of study found in the research articles were Clogging Study 2(07), 1(09), Enzyme Study 1(06) and Mass Balance Study 1(07). Domestic Wastewater was the type of wastewater targeted by most of the researchers. The next target was Municipal Wastewater followed by Industrial Effluent, Farm Wastewater, Leachate and Acid Mine Drainage. Some researchers tested Artificial Wastewater for treatment by constructed wetland. The flow regime experimented in most of the constructed wetlands tested was Vertical Flow followed by Horizontal Flow. A few researchers tested combined flow, both horizontal and vertical, in series. While most of the Vertical Flow tests were Down Flow Vertical, some researchers did experiments on Up Flow Vertical and Recirculating Vertical Flow. Combined study was also done by combining Constructed Wetland with other Treatment Methods like Free Water Surface Wetland,

46

Surface Flow Constructed Wetland, Maturation Pond, Pond, Waste Stabilization Pond, Activated Sludge Process, Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor. A few articles compare the performance of Constructed Wetland with Maturation Pond. Gravel was the filter media used in much of the constructed wetlands tested for treatment of wastewater. The other materials examined as filter media were dewatered alum sludge cake, hydrated oil shale ash, blast furnace slag, Filtralite, light expanded clay, peat/crushed pine bark, oyster shell, sand, zeolite, coconut dust, cement clinker, and natural apatite. Phragmites australis was the wetland vegetation used in major portion of the study followed by Typha latifolia, Typha augustita. Other wetland plants tested for treatment were Scirpus globulosus, Eriocaulon sexangulare, Juncus effuses, Carex lurida, Iris pseudacorus, Pondeteria cordata, Canna, Cyperus Poaceae, Paspalum, Iris, Elodea, Egeria, Pistia, Salvina, Lemna, Eichhornia crassipes, Cattail, Sedge, Water grass, Asia crabgrass, Salt meadow cordgrass, Kallar grass, Vetiver grass, Penisetum purpureum, Brachiaria decumbens, Typha domingensis, Typha angustifolia, Junkus acutus, Iris versicolor, Lythrum salicaria, Cladium mariscus, Myriophyllum spicatum L., Phalaris arundinacea, Sesbania herbacea, Bidens frondosa, and Eclipta prostrate. During this bibiolometric study, seven research works came into view that were done in India. A bench-scale laboratory wetland cell was tested to treat artificially simulated acid mine drainage. The cell was planted with emergent macrophyte Typha augustita in the substrate containing powdered goat manure, wood chips and soil. Even though the cell was tested

47

with various retention periods, acceptable removal happened in 24 hour retention period. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) permissible limits were met with effluent from the wetland cell [137]. Conventional wastewater treatment technologies in terms of cost and energy were discussed and reviewed [138]. A horizontal flow wetland system planted with Phragmites sp. termed bio-rack was tested for treatment of domestic wastewater. Acceptable removal of 75.15% COD, 86.59% BOD5, 27.54% Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), 73.13% TSS, 8.86% Chlorides (Cl), 70.22% NH3-N, 31.71% PO4-P and 92.11% most probable number (MPN) reduction was achieved at 10 hour retention time [139]. A vertical flow constructed wetland planted with reed in gravel/sand bed for tertiary treatment of domestic waste reported NH4-N removal efficiencies of 97% to 99%, COD removal efficiency of 50-60 % and phosphate removal efficiency of 60 - 73 % [140]. Lumped and distributed parameter models incorporated with various reactions were developed. The model was verified with the results of laboratory/pilot-scale field experiments. Non-linear least square analysis was used to estimate the reaction rate parameters. The results showed that the conditions within constructed wetland system can be simulated by plug flow. The developed simulation model can be used as a constructed wetland planning and design tool for the effective control and treatment of nitrogen induced pollution [141]. Subsurface flow constructed wetland for tertiary treatment of domestic wastewater was evaluated at four hydraulic residence times 1, 2, 3, and 4 days. The constructed wetland was planted with Typha augustita in the gravel layer. The higher HRT of 4 days helped maximum removal of all the pollutants targeted like nitrogen (NH4-N, NO3-N and TKN), orthophosphate-P and organic matter (BOD and COD) [142]. Batch fed downflow constructed wetlands filled with coarse river sand and stone grit

48

and planted with Phragmites karka was tested for polishing of primary treated diluted spent wash. The reduction in COD (54-63%, BOD (58-70%) and color removal (34-82%) was achieved but effluents failed to meet discharge standards [143]. 2.10 CLOSURE Historical perspective and present status of constructed wetland were reviewed in this section. A bibilometric analysis pertaining to last six years shows that the research, development and application of constructed wetland for wastewater treatment is markedly increasing world-wide. The next section details the methodology adopted in this present study.

49

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1

INTRODUCTION The methodology involved in this study includes design and

construction, transplantation and start-up, operation and monitoring and sampling and analysis. The primary focus is the performance-based design algorithms. The basics of the design include the determination of influent concentrations, target concentrations, allowable inflow, rainfall and temperature ranges. The elements of design are project setting, characterization of wastewater, treatment goals, climate, selection of wetland type and pre- and post-treatment requirement [11]. 3.2 PROJECT SITE The project site, Sri Ramasamy Memorial (SRM) University, is located at Potheri village, Kattankulathur Block, Kanchipuram District, at the southern outskirts of Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India (Figure 3.1). The site is at an altitude of 33 m above mean sea level at latitude 12o 42 N and longitude 80o 02 E. The climate is tropical, with a temperature variation of 1942 oC and average annual rainfall of 1330 mm.

50

(SOURCE : http://tnmaps.tn.nic.in)

Figure 3.1 Location Map of Project Site

51

3.3

PROJECT SETTING The project setting details the space considerations, substrate,

altitude, and biological conditions. 3.3.1 Space Considerations The project site conditions that can limit the potential size of a treatment wetland for a particular source-water volume are property boundaries and topography. The project site, SRM University, is located at Potheri, Kattankulathur, Chennai, situated in the southern part of India. The university hosts an engineering college and a medical college and hospital among other institutions and also has hostel strength of 8,000 students. The total strength in the campus can vary between 1000 and 10000 on any given day. In this study, all the nine experimental constructed wetlands were constructed at SRM University premises. Even though the project site is within the property boundary of SRM University, the management and authority of the SRM University agreed to provide project site with no constraint. The size of the experimental constructed wetlands was designed as dictated by the size needed to achieve a particular performance goal because land ownership was not a constraint. At the same time, competing uses did not block the construction of a wetland on this particular plot of land at the project site. The first experimental set up (ESP 1) of a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSF CW) and the third experimental set up (ESP 3) which consisted of seven horizontal flow constructed wetland units (HSF CW) were constructed at the unused free space near the available sewage treatment plant (STP) at SRM University premises. The second experimental set up (ESP 2) consisting of one vertical flow subsurface constructed wetland unit (VSF CW) was constructed near hostel mess.

52

3.3.2

Substrate The type of substrate media used in the constructed wetland has to

be decided by the designer. The substrates used here were gravel, sand and pebble, which were available locally. 3.3.3 Altitude At high altitudes the atmosphere is approximately at half sea-level density. Therefore, the partial pressure of oxygen is half that at sea-level, with potential consequences on the ability of the wetlands to process reactions that require dissolved oxygen, such as nitrification. The project site is only 33 m above the mean sea level which preempted this difficulty. The wetland plant used in five experimental constructed wetland units, Phragmites australis, is not a mountain plant [144]. 3.3.4 Biological Conditions The addition of any type of water or wastewater will alter biological conditions at a site. This is mostly applicable for natural wetlands. For most constructed wetland projects, site-specific biological conditions do not represent a major technical constraint which was applicable to this study also. 3.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER The characterization of domestic wastewater was carried out by identifying influent concentrations through wastewater sampling and analysis. The type of wastewater identified for treatment using experimental constructed wetland was domestic wastewater from SRM University. The concentrations of the pollutants in the water to be treated are critical to the sizing process, and to the prediction of the wetland performance in the face of unknown future variations.

53

The wastewater was collected and tested for quality to know the anticipated temporal distribution of concentrations. The results exhibited seasonal fluctuations. Wastewater from a college campus differs from any other type of wastewater in terms of both quantity and quality. The quantity of flow is considerably reduced in weekends, holidays, and examination periods and during vacation. The quality parameters also vary from that of other wastewater because of mix-up of wastewaters from academic blocks, hostels, canteen, chemistry laboratory, biotechnology laboratory, etc. Though the campus wastewater has a significant variation in quantity, the effect of this variation is not looked into in this study. Only the quality is analyzed. The sampling of source wastewater took place for a period of six months by taking 5 daily samples, 4 weekly samples, 2 bi-monthly samples and 2 monthly samples. The sampling days were scheduled such that they covered all possible wastewater strengths like week day (high student strength), holiday (low student strength) and rainy and non-rainy days. All the analyses were carried out as per Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater [106]. 3.5 TREATMENT GOALS The evaluation of feasibility of a constructed wetland requires knowledge of the pertinent regulations. It also helps us to design it properly. Surface water, ground water, and irrigation (reuse) are the three primary receivers of treated water. The specifications of quality that must be met to allow discharges to these recipients are stringent and quite different depending on the receiving body. Proper design requires a clear statement of the required water quality leaving the constructed wetland irrespective of the receiving ecosystem or post-wetland treatment element.

54

A permit from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is required for point discharges of water or wastewater into waters of India. CPCB permits specify allowable chemical quality of discharges into waters of India. The CPCB regulations are followed by states and local bodies. To identify target concentrations for evaluating treatment performance parameters for the constructed wetland system, CPCB permits were obtained from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) office in Guindy, Chennai. Constituents of concern were determined by comparing characteristics of wastewater with CPCB permits. A comprehensive model permit (Table 3.1) was abstracted from CPCB permits that were issued for wastewater pollution control. A constructed wetland system was designed for treating constituents of wastewater. Inflow and outflow of the system were sampled. These data were used to evaluate treatment performance of the system by comparing results to discharge limits on the comprehensive model permit. Treatment was considered successful when the effluent characteristics met or were below the model permit discharge limits. The identified target constituents are TSS, COD, BOD, TN and TP. The treatment goals were fixed based on comprehensive model permit formulated from effluent discharge standards of CPCB. Table 3.1 Comprehensive Model Permit Sl.No. Constituent Permit limits 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TSS COD BOD TN TP 35 120 40 25 1 Units mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

55

3.6

ALLOWABLE INFLOW The allowable inflow was determined by the mode of operation

(batch or continuous) and hydraulic residence time. 3.7 CLIMATE Water budget is the basis for performance-design. The components of the site climate are rainfall, evapotranspiration and seepage. The rainfall and temperature data were collected from Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Chennai, for the entire study period. The driving force for the rates of processes in a wetland is the temperature. In SSF CW systems, water passes through the rhizosphere, and consequently both evaporation and transpiration losses are negligible. Seepage gains importance in FWS system. In SSF system, seepage is contained within the system by using an impermeable liner. The site is at an altitude of 33 m above mean sea level at latitude 12o 42 N and longitude of 80o 02 E. The climate is characterized by a short rain period from mid July to the end of September, a long rain period from October to mid January, and a long dry period from mid January to mid July. The climate is tropical, with a temperature variation of 1942oC and average annual rainfall of 1330 mm. The climate factors viz. rainfall and temperature ranges were obtained from IMD pertaining to the study period for the project site. January and February are dry months. Summer months are March, April, and May. June, July, August, and September constitute South West monsoon. October, November and December constitute North East monsoon. Monsoon started and ended on October 22 and January10, October 14 and December 9, October 27 and January 8 for the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively.

56

3.8

SELECTION OF WETLAND TYPE The basic types of wetland are free water surface (FWS) system

and subsurface flow (SSF) system [145]. The reduction performance of SSF constructed wetland has already been proved by many researchers around the globe. So, the SSF constructed wetland has been chosen to analyze the performance in tropical climate. Apart from reduction performance, the reasons for selecting the SSF option over the FWS option are concern about human health via contact with untreated wastewater, mosquito control and odor control. Because the experimental constructed wetland system were located at SRM University academic premises as well as the near the hostel mess, consideration of the students health was one of the prime deciding factors for designing the constructed wetland system. 3.9 PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Constructed wetland is a biological system that can only exist in a certain envelope of potential concentrations of certain contaminants. The existence of functioning of ecosystem requires pretreatment of inflows. Pretreatment ensures the survival of the constructed wetland. The foreseeable requirement for experimental constructed wetland maintenance is sediment accumulation. Sludge overflows may blank the inlet, clogging the bed and killing the vegetation. The necessary part of treatment wetland design is solids overload protection. The constructed wetland processes such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) reduction and nitrification are oxygen dependent. The aerobic microbial processing in constructed wetland treatment requires small proportion of dissolved oxygen (DO). The sedimentation process reduces excess solids which lead to

57

clogging. Because of pretreatment process, the incoming wastewater may be oxygen-poor. The pretreated by sedimentation and preoxygenated wastewater from the existing wastewater treatment plant at the project site was selected for experimental set-up 1 (ESP 1), the HSF CW tested in this study. For experimental set-up 2 (ESP 2), the VSF CW tested in this study, the type of wastewater chosen for treatment was the kitchen wastewater. The pretreatment processes done for the kitchen wastewater were (1) grit removal, which removes unused food solid food items, (2) oil and grease separation unit which removes oil, and (3) solids and semi-solids separation unit which removes solids. The overloading of solids accumulation was avoided by these pretreatment processes. The constructed wetland environment oxidizes reduced iron compounds present in wastewater. Oxyhydroxides precipitate to form ochreous sludge under aerobic conditions. They can potentially clog the substrate media in a SSF CW system. In a VF CW, another strategy to control solids accumulation and associated bed clogging problems is resting intervals between loading periods. The inlet chamber was loaded with the incoming kitchen wastewater once in two days. 3.10 HYDRAULIC DESIGN It is common practice to use Darcys law, which describes the flow regime in a porous media. Q = KsAS where Q Ks = = flow per unit, m3d-1 hydraulic conductivity of a unit area of the medium perpendicular to the flow direction, m3/m2/d, (3.1)

58

A S

= =

total cross-sectional area, perpendicular to flow, m2, hydraulic gradient of the water surface in the flow system, m/m.

Darcys law is not strictly applicable to subsurface flow. It assumes laminar flow condition and the flow Discharge (Q) is constant and uniform. But turbulent flow occurs in the very coarse gravel media. The input versus output Q may vary due to precipitation, evaporation, and seepage. And short circuiting of flow may occur due to unequal porosity. The theoretical applicability of Darcys law can be limited by these factors but it remains as the only reasonable accessible model for design of these subsurface flow systems. The moderate sized substrate can be used as the media in the experimental constructed wetland system [65]. 3.11 ASPECT RATIO The hydraulic gradient defines the total head available in the system to overcome the resistance to horizontal flow in the porous media. In Darcys law the maximum potential hydraulic gradient is related to the available depth of the bed divided by the length of the flow path. So, the important consideration in the hydraulic design of SSF CW is the aspect ratio (L:W). To avoid surface flow in subsurface flow constructed wetland, an aspect ratio less than 10:1 has to be provided [65]. The system HSF CW of ESP 1 was designed with an aspect ratio of 2.5:1, VSF CW of ESP 2 was designed with an aspect ratio of 3.75:1 and the seven HSF CW systems of ESP 3 were designed with an aspect ratio of 1.5:1. 3.12 BED SLOPE An acceptable hydraulic gradient needs very light slope on the bottom of the bed to ensure drainage [65]. All the nine experimental

59

constructed wetlands tested in this study were designed and constructed with a bed slope of less than 1%. 3.13 MEDIA TYPES The types of media used in constructed wetland systems are coarse rock, medium gravel, fine gravel, gravely sand and coarse sand. 3.14 DETENTION TIME Treatment performance in constructed wetlands is a function of detention time, among other factors [90]. A detention time of 6-7 days has been reported to be optimal for the treatment of primary and secondary wastewater [90]. Shorter detention time does not provide adequate time for pollutant degradation to occur; longer detention times can lead to stagnant, anaerobic conditions. Two climatic factors can significantly affect the detention time at a constant hydraulic loading rate. In summer, evapotranspiration can significantly increase the detention time, while ice formation in winter can significantly decrease the detention time. Estimating the detention time is wetland systems can be difficult for several reasons. Large dead spaces may exist in the wetlands due to differences in topography, plant growth, solids sedimentation, and the degree of flow channelization (i.e. short-circuiting). Only a fraction of the surface area may be available for wastewater flow. 3.15 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND DESIGN The process advantages of subsurface flow constructed wetland system are ideal for experimenting on-site. The various design methods in current use are Louisiana method, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) method and Plug-Flow method [65].

60

3.15.1

Louisiana Method This method was first used in Louisiana, USA based on work of

[43]. A narrow trench, excavated in clay, or lined in more permeable soils, with flat bottom, was used in this system. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 1 2 days. The trench contained 0.6 m depth of crushed stone with a layer of smaller gravel on top. The vegetation used was ornamental flowering plant. The specific guidelines depend on design flow. Two sets of guidelines are provided: one for systems having design flow of less than 1.5 m3d-1 or less and another one for systems having design flow larger than 1.5 m3d-1. 3.15.2 TVA Method The design approach of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) method considers the factors controlling the hydraulic performance of the bed, and the organic loading on the entry zone cross sectional area to avoid potential clogging. The total area required for treatment is then divided into two equal cells in series. The transfer structure, between the cells, is equipped with an adjustable flow device to control the water level in the first cell. Both surface manifolds with adjustable outlets and buried manifolds have been used for the inlet structures. The second cell is the same size as the first cell and is inlined to permit seepage of the treated wastewater into the ground. The present procedure for design of these cells does not take into account the permeability of the soil beneath the unlined cell, but in the general case this second cell provides an infiltration area comparable to that required for conventional leaching beds or trenches. The specific guidelines involve determination of design flow, determination of daily organic loading, and determination of total surface area.

61

3.15.3

Plug-Flow Method The abstract of the design procedure for a small scale on-site

constructed wetland system is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Determination of design flow. The total volume should be at lest twice the design daily flow. Assume the inlet BOD. Assume the effluent BOD. Use gravel as the treatment media in the bed. Reeds (Phragmites australis) are the preferred plant species. Estimate the summer and winter water temperatures expected in the bed. 8. 9. Determine the bed surface area. Adjustments for other temperature, other media types, etc.,

11. Adopt minimum aspect ratio (L:W) of 2:1. 12. Calculate bed length (L) and width (W). 3.15.4 Rational Approach The rational approach of constructed wetland design is an iterative process consisting of the following steps: 1. Determine the media type, vegetation, and depth of bed to be used. 2. Determine the porosity (n) and effective hydraulic

conductivity (Ks) of the media to be used.

62

3.

Determine the required surface area of the bed, for the desired level of BOD5 removal.

4.

Depending on the topography, select a preliminary aspect ratio (L:W).

5.

Determine bed length (L) and width (W) from the previously assumed aspect ratio, and results of step2.

6.

Using Darcys Law

Q = KsAS with the previously

recommended limits (Ks < 1/3 effective value, hydraulic gradient S < 1% of maximum potential, determine the flow (Q) which can pass through the bed in a subsurface mode. If this Q is less than the actual design flow, then surface flow is possible. In that case it is necessary to adjust the L and W values until the Darcys Q is equal to the design flow. 3.16 CONSTRUCTION The designed constructed wetland systems were constructed at the project site. 3.17 VEGETATION Vegetation is the principal component of a wetland system. The ability of the plants to stay healthy and therefore to continue to grow is an important factor in the choice of plants for phytoremediation. The common plants in wetlands are common reed (Phragmites sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), rush (Juncus sp.), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.) [68]. However, the most common plant species worldwide is Phragmites spp. The most commonly used emergent wetland plant in subsurface flow wetlands is also Phragmites australis.

63

3.17.1

Collection and Establishment The stems of Phragmites australis each 0.1 m length were

collected from the local natural field and were transplanted on the same day in polyethylene bags containing natural soil (Figure 3.2). The plants were watered with fresh water on alternative days for establishment. After one month, the plants having 0.2 m stem were transplanted from the bags to a natural bed open to atmosphere in the campus and freshwater was applied daily for a period of one month for establishment of plant (Figure 3.3). 3.18 OPERATION AND MONITORING Each microcosm was fed with freshwater daily at start up. Wastewater addition began after the plants were well established. The wastewater was fed in batch mode once in hydraulic residence time cycle to acclimatize the soil microbes and to support growth of the plants. The microcosms were monitored three times per week, and invasive seedlings like ordinary grass were immediately removed. 3.19 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS The water quality in the cell was monitored monthly for one year on a non-continuous basis. The cell has an inlet chamber and outlet chamber to regularly collect samples. The sampling was done at both inlet and outlet. The samples were analyzed for TSS, COD, BOD, TN and TP according to Standard Methods for Water and Wastewater Examination [106].

64

Figure 3.2 Wetland Plant Collection

Figure 3.3 Vegetation Establishment

65

3.20

EXPERIMENT DESIGN

ESP 1 consisted of a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland designed as per TVA method, constructed near existing sewage treatment plant at project site, transplanted with selected wetland vegetation, operated and monitored for one year and its treatment performance was assessed through sampling and analysis to treat domestic wastewater. ESP 2 consisted of a vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland designed based on plug-flow method, constructed near hostel mess at project site, transplanted with selected wetland vegetation, operated and monitored for one year and its treatment performance was assessed through sampling and analysis to treat kitchen wastewater. ESP 3 consisted of seven horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands designed as per TVA method, constructed near existing sewage treatment plant at project site, transplanted with selected wetland vegetation, operated and monitored for one year and their treatment performances were assessed through sampling and analysis to treat domestic water with emphasis on effect of hydraulic and vegetation parameters. The methodology and experiment design are illustrated in a block diagram (Figure 3.4).

PRETREATMENTMENT

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION

PROJECT SETTING

ALLOWABLE INFLOW

CLIMATE

WETLAND TYPE

TARGET CONSTITUENTS

POSTTREATMENT

DESIGN METHODS

DESIGN ELEMENTS

PARAMETRIC STUDY

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PLUG-FLOW METHOD TRANSPLANTATION AND START-UP TVA METHOD

TVA METHOD

OPERATION AND MONITORING 1 HSSFCW (ESP 1) 1 VSSFCW (ESP 2) SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

7 HSSFCW (ESP 3)

Figure 3.4 Block Diagram Indicating Methodology of Study and Experiment Design

66

67

3.21

CLOSURE The space considerations, substrate, altitude, and biological

conditions were studied for feasibility of building experimental constructed wetlands at the project site. The source wastewater was identified, collected periodically and tested in order to characterize the influent. Treatment goals were fixed based on guidelines constituted by CPCB. Batch mode of operation was chosen for operation of experimental constructed wetlands. Rainfall data and temperature ranges were collected for the project site pertaining to study duration from IMD. Hydraulic design and constructed wetland design methods were studied. The selected wetland plant Phragmites australis was collected and established at the project site. The next section presents the treatment performance of nine experimental constructed wetlands.

68

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1

INTRODUCTION The experimental constructed wetland units were designed and

constructed at the project site. The operation and monitoring of the units was commenced after transplantation and establishment of wetland plant. The treatment performance was evaluated by analyzing the results of sampling both at the inlet and outlet of the experimental constructed wetland unit. 4.2 RAINFALL PATTERN The major source of inflow in the hydrologic cycle is rainfall, which also plays an important role in the movement of pollutant. Rainfall is the major factor in diluting the wastewater. It minimizes the concentration of contaminant. The rainfall pattern was analyzed using the rainfall data collected from IMD pertaining to the project site for the entire study period. Rainfall data from 2007 to 2009 (3 years) were taken for the study. The results are given in Table 4.1. The variation of rainfall during dry months is shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 exhibits the variation of rainfall in summer months. The seasonal variations of rainfall i.e. southwest monsoon and northeast monsoon are shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 respectively.

69

Table 4.1 Details Showing Monthly Rainfall YEAR 2007 2008 MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

2009

RAINFALL, mm 0 28.8 16.0 1.6 0 19.4 14.4 69.5 116.8 190.2 154.2 263.6 97.7 296.9 18.8 150.9 13.5 18.6 52.2 42.0 0 6.6 0 43.8 22.3 48.7

99.7 119.7 117.8 132.0 321.4 57.9

505.7 505.2 36.3 174.0

Table 4.1 shows that the project site received an average rainfall of 102, 117, and 93 mm rainfall in 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively. The dry months viz. January and February received 1%, 3%, and 4% of the annual rainfall in the same time periods. The summer months viz. March, April and May have received 3%, 13%, and 4% of the annual rainfall and the southwest monsoon brought 43%, 22%, and 29% of the annual rainfall in 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively. Since the soil and/or substrate might have lost all the moisture during the summer, the soil and/or substrate moisture requirements were met by most of the southwest monsoon rainfall.

70

Figure 4.1 Variation of Rainfall during Dry Months

Figure 4.2 Variation of Rainfall during Summer Months

71

Figure 4.3 Variation of South-West Monsoon Rainfall

Figure 4.4 Variation of North-East Monsoon Rainfall

72

Figure 4.3 shows the variation of southwest monsoon rainfall. The open-to-atmosphere experimental constructed wetland units received major portion of the annual rainfall i.e. 54%, 62%, and 66% of the annual rainfall during the years 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively in northeast monsoon. The soil/substrate is in a saturated condition due to the southwest monsoon rainfall. The evaporation and evapotranspiration from constructed wetland vegetation are also low during northeast monsoon. In addition, the wastewater both at influent and effluent chambers tends to mix with rainwater and gets diluted. This diluted wastewater starts to move along the slope on both surface and subsurface. This phenomenon was observed in the study area where the post monsoon wastewater samples show plenty of variations in the quality both at inlet and outlet. 4.3 TEMPERATURE RANGES The project site is in tropical region. The temperature gradually increases from January, reaches maximum in May and then follows a downward trend. Temperature data for the year 2007, 2008, and 2009 (3 years) were taken for the study. The results are given in Table 4.2 and the variations are shown in Figures 4.5 to 4.7. Temperature range is the numerical difference between the minimum and maximum values of temperature in a given period of time. Table 4.2 shows the monthly temperatures for 2007, 2008 and 2009. Average yearly temperatures were 28.95, 28.85, and 29.68 oC, ranging from an average minimum of 23.08, 23.26, and 24.47 degrees to a maximum of 35.72, 35.98, and 37.08 degrees. The average temperatures range is 29.16 oC. The temperatures have standard deviations of 3.74, 3.55, and 3.57 for the maximum monthly average and 2.61, 2.03, and 1.90 for the minimum. So, variability along the year is small.

73

Table 4.2 Details showing Temperature Ranges YEAR 2008 TEMPERATURE, C HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW LOW LOW 21.3 22.0 26.1 27.3 25.6 26.3 25.6 24.6 24.7 24.7 23.3 22.1 AVG AVG AVG 25.7 28.1 29.8 31.3 32.3 32.5 31.9 30.6 30.6 30.5 27.0 25.9

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

MONTH

2007

2009

29.9 33.4 35.3 37.2 43.3 39.1 38.2 37.1 35.6 36.3 32.2 31.0

20.6 20.6 25.0 26.4 27.9 25.1 23.4 22.7 23.6 20.2 21.2 20.2

25.3 27.1 29.3 30.9 33.3 31.4 30.2 29.6 29.4 28.4 26.7 25.8

32.6 31.9 34.7 39.1 42.9 39.9 37.4 36.8 36.8 35.1 33.8 30.8

20.6 22.6 22.5 26.7 27.3 23.4 24.5 22.9 23.4 22.2 22.0 21.1

25.9 27.8 28.4 30.8 31.9 30.8 30.2 29.4 29.7 27.9 27.0 26.4

32.5 36.3 37.3 38.9 41.4 40.9 39.8 38.8 38.6 37.8 32.2 30.4

Figure 4.5 Temperatures Ranges in the Year 2007

74

Figure 4.6 Temperature Ranges in the Year 2008

Figure 4.7 Temperature Ranges in the Year 2009

75

4.4

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION Every community produces liquid waste, solid waste and gas

emissions. removed

The liquid waste is usually termed wastewater. Therefore, from residence, institutions, commercial and industrial

wastewater can be a combination of the liquid or the water-carried wastes establishments, ground water, surface water and storm water. Wastewater characterization is very important when designing a wastewater treatment plant. To design a treatment process properly, characterization of wastewater is perhaps the most critical step [146]. Published information on restaurant wastewater characteristics based on actual data is very limited. The literature concerning design parameters and values for varying-strength wastewater that can be used for the design of modern treatment systems are virtually nonexistent. 4.4.1 Constituents Found in Wastewater Wastewater is characterized in terms of its physical, chemical, and biological composition [10]. The principal physical properties and the chemical and biological constituents of wastewater are given in Table 4.3 Many of the parameters listed in the Table 4.3 are interrelated. 4.4.2 Contaminants of Concern The important contaminants in wastewater treatment, considered for present study, are listed in Table 4.4. Secondary treatment standards for wastewater are concerned with the removal of biodegradable organics, suspended solids, and pathogens. Many of the more stringent standards that have been developed recently deal with the removal of nutrients and priority pollutants. Characterization of wastewater can be broadly categorized into organic and inorganic constituents. Organic includes COD, BOD, TOC,

76

bacteria, etc., while inorganic includes N, P, solids, and metals. The organic content of the wastewater can be estimated in several ways. The most common are the oxygen demand methods, although organic carbon measurement may also be used. The first estimate is the amount of oxygen that will be needed to stabilize the organic content of the effluent. The two most common methods are the BOD and COD. Table 4.3 Domestic Wastewater Characteristics CHARACTERISTICS Physical Properties Chemical Constituents PARAMETER Color, Solids, Temperature Organic Carbohydrates Fats, oils, and grease Proteins Surfactants Volatile organic compounds Inorganic Alkalinity Chlorides Nitrogen pH Phosphorus Biological Characteristics Bacteria, Viruses, Parasites Table 4.4 Contaminants of Concern CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Nitrogen, total (TN) Phosphorus, total (TP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) pH UNIT mg l-1 mg l-1 mg l-1 mg l-1 mg l-1 None

77

COD is a measure of the oxygen equivalent of organic matter content of a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant. The chemical oxidants include potassium permanganate and potassium dichromate. The COD analysis may be carried out automatically and relatively fast (12 hours) and the measured COD values give a good picture of the total content of organic matter. The COD test is based on the principle that most organic compounds are oxidized to CO2 and H2O by strong oxidizing agents under acid conditions. The measurement represents the oxygen that would be needed for aerobic microbial oxidation, assuming that all organics are biodegradable. The COD test is used to measure the oxygen equivalent of the organic material in wastewater that can be oxidized chemically using dichromate in an acid solution. The value of the COD is usually different than the value for BOD. Many organic substances which are difficult to oxidize biologically can be oxidized chemically. COD test takes about 2.5 hours compared to the 5 days for BOD test. BOD estimates the degree of contamination by measuring the oxygen required for the oxidation of organic matter by the aerobic metabolism of the microbial flora. The BOD test gives a measure of the oxygen utilized by bacteria during the oxidation of organic material contained in a wastewater sample. The test is based on the premise that all the biodegradable organic material contained in the wastewater sample will be oxidized to CO2 and H2O, using molecular oxygen as the electron acceptor. Hence, it is a direct measure of oxygen requirements and an indirect measure of biodegradable organic matter. BOD5 means a 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. The idea of the analysis is that in polluted water there is an oxygen demand caused by micro-organisms. The required oxygen demand is used to measure the extent of the pollution. Oxygen demand increases as temperature and time of reaction increase. Different organics have different oxygen demands per gram of matter and this means that the BOD analysis only gives

78

an approximate estimate of the weight of oxidized organic matter. The most widely used parameter of organic pollution applied to both wastewater and surface water is the 5-day BOD. Results of the BOD test are used to: a. Determine the approximate quantity of oxygen that will be required to biologically stabilize the organic matter present in wastewater. b. Determine the size of waste treatment facilities. c. Measure the efficiency of some treatment process. d. Determine compliance with wastewater discharge permits [147]. Both N and P are of environmental concern because they are nutrients, and if present in excess they may cause proliferation of algae (algal bloom) and affect the rest of the wildlife in a water body. N and P are essential elements for the growth of microorganisms, plants and animals. Nitrogen is the building block in the synthesis of protein and hence the quantity in wastewater should be known to determine if the wastewater is treatable. Sometimes, if there is not enough N in the wastewater, quantities are added to make sure that biological processes can take place when treating wastewater. Phosphorus is also considered as a nutrient that is essential for the growth of plants, algae and other biological organisms. Municipal wastewaters may contain 416 mg l-1 of P [148]. This value can be a lot higher in communities where detergents of high phosphorus content are used. The most important physical characteristic of wastewater is its total solids content. Wastewater contains a variety of solid materials varying from rags to colloidal material. In the characterization of wastewater, coarse solids are usually removed before the sample is analyzed for solids. Total solids

79

(TS) are defined as the residue remaining after a wastewater sample has been evaporated and dried at a temperature of 103105 oC. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are defined as the portion of TS retained on a specific size filter after drying at 105 oC. Usually the Whatman glass fiber filter with a nominal pore size of 1.58 micron is used. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) can be defined as the solids that pass through a filter with nominal pore size of 2 microns or less. Volatile solids are defined as those solids that can be volatilized and burned off when ignited in a muffle oven at 500 50 oC. They are assumed to be organic. Fixed solids are defined as the residue that remains after a sample has been ignited in a muffle oven. The power of hydrogen ion is pH. pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. In water at room temperature (25C), there is only one hydrogen ion for every 555 million water molecules. Expressed mathematically, the concentration of H+ = 1 x 10-7 moles per liter. If the concentration of hydrogen ions goes up ten times, [H+] = 10-7; 100 times, [H+] = 10-5. The pH scale was defined by Sorenson, a Danish biochemist, in 1909. It reduces a cumbersome number to a simple number. The pH scale is a convenient way of expressing hydrogen ion concentration by simply referring to its logarithmic power. In water at room temperature, the concentration of H+ = 1 x 10-7 moles per liter. This number without its minus sign is the pH. So its pH is 7. The pH scale ranges from the strongest acid to the strongest base. Cellular processes are generally restricted to the middle of the scale between pH 6 and 8. The pH of an aqueous solution can be roughly measured with pH paper that changes color according to pH. For example, litmus paper contains a spot of pigment derived from lichens which turns red in acid, blue in base. Titration is the traditional method for determining pH, a tedious process greatly simplified by the invention of the pH meter in 1935 by Arnold Beckmann (19002004) [149].

80

This study included characterization of six wastewater parameters viz., COD, BOD5, TN, TP, TSS and pH. The field sampling methodology included taking a grab sample at the source influent at the point after primary treatment in the existing wastewater treatment for 5 consecutive days followed by 4 weekly samples, and then sampling again for 2 bi-monthly samples, and then 2 monthly samples and thus 13 total observations (Table 4.5). 4.4.3 Sampling Sampling is an extremely important consideration in properly characterizing wastewater for pollutant removal. Flow rate and wastewater quality change continuously, and these changes may affect the ability of a wastewater treatment plant to achieve consistent removal efficiency. Obtaining samples that will actually represent the wastewater flow throughout the months and years to come is difficult at best. Diurnal fluctuations occur in concentration and flow volume; seasonal fluctuations occur in concentration, flow volume, and temperature; and industrial contributions to the collection system may cause wastewater characteristics to change on a short- or longterm basis. Given the variable nature of wastewater and the necessity of attaining consistent pollutant removal, it may be necessary to collect samples that will represent "average" characteristics and approximate characteristics under more extreme conditions.

Table 4.5 Details showing Results of Wastewater Characterization BI-MONTHLY SAMPLES 26 WED IV SEP 2007 536 396 2.28 3.4 560 6.85 10 WED II OCT 2007 895 619 3.14 5.6 468 6.84 24 WED IV OCT 2007 823 130 72.8 29.21 134 7.07 MONTHLY SAMPLES 21 WED III NOV 2007 392 140 3.82 3.45 62 6.22 19 WED III DEC 2007 515 101 11.8 1.95 107 6.24

SAMPLING DATE DAY WEEK MONTH YEAR COD BOD5 TN TP TSS pH 27 MON IV AUG 2007 336 390 196 11.2 366 6.2

DAILY SAMPLES 28 TUE IV AUG 2007 360 420 56 5.27 116 7.3 29 WED IV AUG 2007 400 202 34 0.06 170 5.7 30 THU IV AUG 2007 520 200 56 1.04 390 6.8 31 FRI IV AUG 2007 800 94 140 32 14 6.74 5

WEEKLY SAMPLES 12 WED II SEP 2007 410 220 43 26.4 29 5.72 19 WED III SEP 2007 315 260 36 32.6 24 6.92

WED I SEP 2007 472 190 130 30 20 5.6

81

82

In our study area, the most extreme conditions fall under two categories. One is rainfall days and non-rainfall days. And the other is maximum population occupancy during full session of the university and low population occupancy during vacation periods. 4.4.4 Preservation Once a sample is taken, the constituents of the sample should be maintained in the same condition as when collected. When it is not possible to analyze collected samples immediately, samples should be preserved properly. Biological activity such as microbial respiration, chemical activity such as precipitation or pH change, and physical activity such as aeration or high temperature must be kept to a minimum. Methods of preservation include cooling, pH control, and chemical addition. Freezing is usually not recommended. The length of time that a constituent in wastewater will remain stable is related to the character of the constituent and the preservation method used [150]. Table 4.6 was adopted from standards [151] and details about the containers used, preservatives used, and maximum holding time were followed. Table 4.7 details the standard analytical methods [106] that were used for testing the samples.

83

Table 4.6 Containers, Preservatives, and Holding Times Parameter Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Nitrogen, total (TN) Phosphorus, total (TP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Hydrogen ion (pH)
a

Containera

Preservative Cool, 4oC H2SO4 to pH < 2 Cool, 4oC Cool, 4oC H2SO4 to pH < 2 Cool, 4oC H2SO4 to pH < 2 Cool, 4oC None required

Maximum Holding Time 28 days 48 hours 28 days 28 days 7 days Analyze immediately

P,G P,G P,G P,G P,G P,G

P = plastic, G = glass.

Table 4.7 Analytical Methods PARAMETER Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) Total Nitrogen (TN) Total Phosphorus (TP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Hydrogen ion (pH) METHOD Standard Methods 5220 Standard Methods 5210 Semi-Micro Kjeldahl Standard Methods 4500-Nitrogen (organic) Standard Methods 4500-P Standard Methods 2540-D Standard Methods 4500-H+

84

4.4.5

Organics The concentrations of COD in the influent were 336, 360, 400, 520,

and 800 mg l-1 for daily samples, 472, 410, 315, and 536 mg l-1 for weekly samples, 895 and 823 mg l-l for bi-monthly samples, 392 and 515 mg l-1 for monthly samples (Figure 4.8). So, the observed range in the COD of the source wastewater was from 315 to 895 mg l-1 with an average of 521195 mg l-1. The distribution of concentration has high dispersion as evident from the larger range. The different values for measures of central tendency i.e. mean and median were 521 and 472 respectively, showing asymmetric distribution. In addition, only 70% of the values falling within mean 1 SD ascertained the symmetric distribution. But all the values fall within mean 2 SD from the mean of the distribution. The peak activity in the laboratories contributes large amount of effluent during August and during laboratory practical examination in October. The low concentration values in the subsequent months, September and November, were due to dilution effect by rainfall that occurred during the last week of August and October.

2000 C O D , m g l/l 1500 1000 500 0 DAILY WEEKLY BI-MONTHLY

MEDIAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM

MONTHLY

INFLUENT SAMPLING

Figure 4.8 COD Trend of Influent

85

The daily BOD concentrations of raw wastewater were 390, 420, 202, 200, and 94 mg l-l, four weekly samples 190, 220, 260, and 396 mg l-l, two bi-monthly samples 619, and 130 mg l-l, and two monthly samples 140, and 101 mg l-l (Figure 4.9). The BOD range started from a low value of 94 mg l-l in August to 619 in October in 2007. The mean value was 258. About 85% of the values fall within mean 1 SD ascertaining symmetric distribution. BOD was high in the first week of October, but the northeast monsoon in the last week diluted the concentration of raw wastewater, thus lowering BOD concentration later.

1500 B O D , m g l/l 1000 500 0 DAILY WEEKLY BI-MONTHLY

MEDIAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM

MONTHLY

INFLUENT SAMPLING

Figure 4.9 BOD Trend of Influent In most wastewaters COD is higher than BOD5. The ratio of COD to BOD5 indicates the biodegradability of wastewater and the higher the ratio the less the biodegradability of the wastewater. Ratio values depend on the nature of the wastewater namely, whether it is municipal or industrial and varies considerably with the degree of treatment the wastewater has undergone [5].

86

The COD to BOD ratio for municipal raw wastewater is in the range of 1.252.5, whereas for industrial wastewater it is up to 10 or more. Two daily samples (fourth day and fifth day samples in August), one bimonthly sample (second sample in October), and both the two monthly samples in December showed COD/BOD ratio >2.5. The COD/BOD ratio fluctuation during a five month period (August 2007 December 2007) is shown in Figure 4.10. The dramatic increase in COD/BOD ratio in August indicates the extremely low biodegradability of the effluent. Similar trend was also seen in October.

Figure 4.10 COD/BOD Ratio of Influent The mean value of COD to BOD ratio of the raw wastewater was 2.07 as for typical untreated domestic wastes. This was achieved only in 7 samples among 13 samples. It shows that the wastewater from an institution campus is unlike urban domestic wastewater. This is due to variation in quantity due to population occupancy of the project site as well as the variation in quality due to mix up of different types of wastes from various types of laboratories. Therefore, municipal wastewater is able to biologically degrade more than industrial wastewater. A COD to BOD ratio in the range

87

37 indicates that the wastewater is moderately biodegradable. Three samples fall under this category. However, there is no official COD to BOD ratio index for different types of wastewater. The BOD to COD ratio fluctuations are given in Figure 4.11. 11 out of 13 samples did show a value <1, which indicates high presence of biodegradable fraction. The ratio of BOD to COD increased from 0.11 to 0.82.

Figure 4.11 BOD/COD Ratio of Influent BOD5 is often 7090% of the COD, depending on the substance or waste stream, since not all COD can be biologically oxidizable. In theory, the maximum the BOD can be is COD*0.9, since about 10% of the original organic material is part of a non-biodegradable residue. In the raw wastewater, it is found that the maximum BOD was COD*0.82. However, the average BOD was COD*0.55. Because of mix-up of various types of wastes, about 45% of the organics was non-biodegradable.

88

4.4.6

Nutrients The degree of variability for TN in source wastewater was very

high and ranged from 0.06 to 32.8 mg l-l with an average value of 60 and a median value of 43 (Fig. 4.12). The high variability occurs in daily samples in August. A downward trend was seen in weekly samples in September. The reported values of TN for septic tanks from 20 homes studied were 50340 (average 141) mg l-l [204]. A TN of 46.3108.2 (average 69.9) mg l-l was reported in an effluent from a septic tank which was treated on-site using peat bed filters [152].

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 DAILY WEEKLY BI-MONTHLY INFLUENT SAMPLING

MEDIAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM

T N , m g l/l

MONTHLY

Figure 4.12 TN Trend of Influent The various species of nitrogen in a single household septic tank vary with the number of occupants, their wastewater generating behaviour, and the biological activities in the tank, including the degree of accumulation of sludge and scum. The variation of nitrogen in an institution campus wastewater might probably be due to eating habits of population and food preparation in the kitchen mess, body exudates washed off in the bath or shower in the hostel and products washed from clothes. Cleaning chemicals also contribute organic compounds in varying amounts. These organic

89

compounds require microbial activity to degrade them. In the bathroom wastewater is contaminated with perspiration (sweat) that contains neutral fats and volatile fatty acids, traces of albumen, urea [CO(NH2)2], sodium chloride, potassium chloride and traces of alkaline phosphates, sugar and ascorbic acid, calcium and magnesium salts and nitrogenous compounds (organic N, ammonia-N, urea and amino acids) [153]. The toilet is the repository for a large proportion of the nitrogen that enters the domestic wastewater stream. Excreted nitrogen is a waste product of protein metabolism and the daily loss is about 160 mg N/kg body weight/day. Urine is excreted by the kidneys at about 1.01.5 l/day, depending upon liquid intake and has about 4075 g solids. The solids are mainly 25% urea [CO(NH2)2], 25% chlorides, 25% sulphates and phosphates and the remainder organic acids, pigments, neutral sulphur and hormones. The influent untreated domestic wastewater is classified based on TN concentration as strong (TN 85 mg l-l), medium (TN 40 mg l-l), and weak (TN 20 mg l-l) [206]. The source influent was between medium and strong on the basis of average TN concentration of raw wastewater sample analysis (TN 60 mg l-l). Municipal wastewaters may contain 416 mg l-1 of phosphorus. This value can be a lot higher in communities where detergents of high phosphorus contents are used (Fig. 4.13). The TP ranges from 0.06 to 32.6 mg l-l with an average value of 14 mg l-l and median value of 5.6 mg l-l. This phenomenon might be applicable to the raw wastewater tested in this study. Eight samples fall within this range. The other samples show phosphorus concentration exceeding this range which ascertained the typical institution campus wastewater unlike urban domestic wastewater. Phosphorus is usually either polyphosphates (not available for biological processes but hydrolyzes to orthophosphate) or orthophosphates (soluble and available for biological reactions) in wastewater.

90

80 TP, m g l/l 60 40 20 0 DAILY WEEKLY BI-MONTHLY

MEDIAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM

MONTHLY

INFLUENT SAMPLING

Figure 4.13 TP Trend of Influent 4.4.7 Solids The most important physical characteristic of wastewater is its total solids content. Wastewater contains a variety of solid materials varying from rags to colloidal material. In the characterization of wastewater, coarse solids are usually removed before the sample is analyzed for solids. The TSS of influent ranged from 14 to 560 mg l-l with an average of 189 mg l-l with media value of 116 mg l-l (Figure 4.14). 4.4.8 pH The pH of raw wastewater ranges from 5.6 to 7.3 with an average of 6.5 and median of 6.7 (Figure 4.15). So, the source influent is slightly acidic in nature. Wastewater with an extreme concentration of hydrogen ion is difficult to treat by biological means. The pH of nine samples was within the range of 69 which is suitable for the existence of most biological life.

91

1000 TS S, m g l/l 800 600 400 200 0 DAILY WEEKLY BI-MONTHLY

MEDIAN STANDARD DEVIATION MEAN MAXIMUM MINIMUM

MONTHLY

INFLUENT SAMPLING

Figure 4.14 TSS Trend of Influent

Figure 4.15 pH Trend of Influent

92

4.5

EXPERIMENTAL HORIZONTAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (HSSFCW) OF ESP 1 The HSSFCW was designed and constructed at the project site. The

unit was transplanted with Phragmites australis wetland plant. Then it was operated for one year and its treatment performance was monitored by sampling and analysis. 4.5.1 Design and Construction of HSSFCW TVA method was adopted in the design of HSSFCW of ESP. The TVA method considers the factors controlling the hydraulic performance of the bed, and the organic loading on the entry zone cross sectional area to avoid potential clogging. The specific guidelines involve determination of design flow, daily organic loading, and total surface area [65]. Design flow Organic loading Organic loading factor Hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic gradient = = = = = Q OL Lo Ks S AL = = = = = = = = Smaller cross-sectional area= AS = = = Selected depth = d = 0.45 m3/day 0.045 kg BOD5/person/day 4 m2/kg BOD5/day 259 m3/day/m2 0.01 (Lo ) (OL) (4) (0.045) 0.18 m2. (Q) / (Ks S) 0.45 / (259) 0.01) 0.173 m2 0.3 m (4.2) (4.1)

Larger cross-sectional area =

93

Bed width

= = =

(AL) / d (0.18) / 0.3 0.6 m L:W < L:W = L = = 10:1 2.5:1 (2.5) (0.6) 1.5 m

(4.3)

Aspect Ratio Selected aspect ratio Length

= = =

The wetland cell was 0.3 m deep, 1.5 m long and 0.6 m wide (Table 4.8). The empty-bed volume of the wetland cell was 0.27 m3. The system was made of plastic. It was filled as follows (from bottom to top): the first layer of 0.15 m consisted of coarse aggregate gravel 2 cm size, the second layer of 0.15 m consisted of fine aggregate sand 2 mm size, and 0.075 m freeboard (Figure 4.16). To enable the flow of wastewater gravitationally from inlet chamber to outlet chamber, a longitudinal slope of 0.7% was made during filter media filling. 4.5.2 Transplantation and Start-up of HSSFCW After establishment over one month in natural bed, the plants having 0.3 m stem were transplanted at a density of 2 seedlings per m2 in the HSSFCW. The unit was planted with 9 Phragmites australis species in 3x3 rows. Fresh water was applied for an initial one month. The experiments were commenced after the plants were well established. The plants exhibited a good survival and growth rate with 9 plants transplanted (Figure 4.17) increasing to 93 plants (Figure 4.18) at the end of the 12th month, demonstrating a vigorous spread a few weeks after planting. Within six months, the plants began to sprout.

Table 4.8

Experimental set-up 1 (ESP 1) Design, Hydraulics, Substrate, Physical, Wastewater, and Vegetation summary Design Physical Type Size Depth Longitudinal Slope Empty bed volume Aspect ratio Inlet structure Outlet structure Subsurface 1.5 m x 0.6 m 0.3 m 0.7 % 0.27 m3 2.5:1 50 litre storage tank Fiber sheet with tap Wastewater Type Institution/Domestic Plant Type Vegetation Emergent

Method

TVA Hydraulics

Common Name Reed Scientific Name Phragmites australis Transplantation Particulars Number Height Density Age Stem length Growth rate 9 1.5 m 10 plants per m2 5 months 0.3 m 0.3 m per month One Year

Flow Regime HRT Operation Mode Free board

Horizontal 6 days Batch 0.075 m

Substrate Media type Layer Media Gravel, Sand Depth 0.15 m 0.15 m Size 2cm

Bottom Gravel Top Sand

2mm Primary treatment

Sedimentation, Aeration Study period

94

95

IC

IV

TC

BW

OC OV

0.6 m

1.5 m

0.075 m 0.15 m 0.15 m

FREEBOARD 2 mm SAND

2 cm GRAVEL

0.6 m

IC IV TC BW OC OV

Inlet Chamber Inlet Valve Treatment Chamber Baffle Wall Outlet Chamber Outlet Valve

Figure 4.16 Plan and Cross-section of HSSFCW of ESP 1

96

Figure 4.17 Transplanted Vegetation at the Start-Up Stage in HSSFCW of ESP 1

Figure 4.18 Transplanted Vegetation at the End of Study Period in HSSFCW of ESP 1

97

4.5.3

Operation and Monitoring of HSSFCW The constructed wetland cell was operated in batch mode non-

continuous basis for one year. The plants were monitored for general appearance, growth and health. The length of the stems was found to be similar to that of wetland plants in natural wetlands. The plant growth was measured regularly and was found to be an average of 0.3 m per month. Any invasive plants like ordinary grass were uprooted and removed immediately. The microcosm was fed with freshwater daily at start up. Wastewater addition began after the plants were well established. The wastewater was fed in batch mode once in hydraulic residence time cycle to sub-surface constructed wetland units to acclimatize the soil microbes and to support growth of the plants. The microcosms were monitored three times per week, and invasive seedlings like ordinary grass were immediately removed. 4.5.4 Sampling and Analysis of HSSFCW Water samples were taken once a month from inlet chamber and outlet chamber of the HSSFCW unit. The samples were analyzed for COD, BOD, TN, TP, TSS, and pH according to Standard Methods for Waster and Wastewater Examination [106] (Table 4.9).

Table 4.9 Results of Experimental HSSFCW of ESP 1 TARGET COD, mg l-1 BOD, mg l-1 TN, mg l-1 TP, mg l-1 TSS, mg l-1 SAMPLE 1 356 118 135 19 2.31 0.33 2.95 0.41 26 10 6.39 6.30 2 488 347 321 81 73.1 70.2 30.3 26.5 138 41 5.72 7.70 3 1946 448 415 89 138 29 35 29 474 291 6.92 6.90 4 742 178 198 39 58 50 33 24 410 140 6.85 5.90 SAMPLE NUMBER 5 418 89 117 33 12.2 5.1 6.6 2.1 64 19 7.02 7.20 6 386 88 145 39 3.96 1.50 4.2 1.1 35 13 6.39 8.90 7 529 125 158 33 25.2 22.0 32.2 21.8 242 162 7.02 5.80 8 879 194 252 49 41 36 34.9 29.8 117 76 6.74 6.30 9 342 118 119 18 2.1 0.2 1.98 0.24 28 16 5.60 6.10 10 1572 1187 658 139 39 24 26 19 572 348 7.07 6.40 11 249 51 104 28 2.20 0.29 1.69 0.78 22 14 6.85 7.60 12 498 109 99 29 3.28 0.39 4.2 2.1 34 21 6.15 8.70

CONSTITUENT LOCATION Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent pH Influent Effluent

98

99

4.6

TREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF HSSFCW The graphical display has often been adopted in the literature to

characterize treatment wetland performance [154-156]. The relationship of potential use is the concentration inconcentration out (CiCo) graph and this relationship was analyzed for the target constituents. The concentration in concentration out graph is the first estimates of the potential of a class of treatment wetlands to reduce a particular contaminant (Kadlec and Wallace). In addition, target constituents removal percentage was used as metric for treatment wetland performance [157]. Hence, removal percentage was also computed and analyzed. The trend analysis for biodegradable fraction and non-biodegradable fraction were also carried out for the experimental results. 4.6.1 Organics Removal in HSSFCW In HSSFCW, the influent COD concentration ranged from 249 to 1946 mg l-l and the effluent COD concentration varied between 51 and 1187 mg l-l. The mean COD concentrations of the influent and effluent were 700 529.98 mg l-l and 254 315.76 mg l-l respectively. The highest COD removal efficiency achieved in HSSFCW was 79.51%, while the least was 24.49% with 67.21% mean. COD removal efficiencies were about 66 and 28% in dry months, ranged from 76 to 78% in summer season, varied between 65 and 77% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 24 and 78% in northeast monsoon (Fig. 4.19). In HSSFCW, the influent BOD was in the range of 99 658 mg l-l and whereas the effluent BOD was in the range of 18139 mg l-l. The mean BOD concentrations of the influent and effluent were 226 166.96 mg l-l and 49 35.84 respectively. The highest BOD removal efficiency achieved in HSSFCW was 85.92%, while the least was 70.70% with 77.63% mean. BOD removal efficiencies were about 85 and 74% in dry months, ranged from 71 to 80% in summer season, varied between 73 and 84% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 70 and 78% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.20).

100

2500 COD, mgl-1 2000 1500 1000 500 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC HSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co % REMOVAL

100 % REMOVAL 80 60 40 20 0

Figure 4.19 COD removal in HSSFCW

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC HSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co % REMOVAL

100 % REMOVAL 80 60 40 20 0

BOD, mgl-1

Figure. 4.20 BOD removal in HSSFCW

101

4.6.2

Nutrients Removal in HSSFCW In HSSFCW, the influent TN concentration ranged from 2.1 to 138

mg l-l and the effluent TN concentration varied between 0.2 and 70.2 mg l-l. The mean TN concentrations of the influent and effluent were 33 40.92 mg l-l and 19 23.14 mg l-l respectively. The highest TN removal efficiency achieved in HSSFCW was 90.47%, while the least was 3.96% with 52.62% mean. TN removal efficiencies were about 3 and 85% in dry months, ranged from 13 to 78% in summer season, varied between 12 and 90% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 38 and 88% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.21). In HSSFCW, the influent TP concentration ranged from 1.69 to 35 mg l-l and the effluent TP concentration varied between 0.24 and 29.8 mg l-l. The mean TP concentrations of the influent and effluent were 17 15.00 mg l-l and 13 12.80 mg l-l respectively. The highest TP removal efficiency achieved in HSSFCW was 87.87%, while the least was 12.54% with 45.88% mean. TP removal efficiencies were about 86 and 12% in dry months, ranged from 17 to 68% in summer season, varied between 14 and 87% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 26 and 53% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.22). 4.6.3 Solids Removal in HSSFCW In HSSFCW, the influent TSS concentration ranged from 22 to 572 mg l-l and the effluent TP concentration varied between 10 and 348 mg l-l. The mean TSS concentrations of the influent and effluent were 180 197.75 mgl-l and 95 116.85 mg l -l respectively. The highest TSS removal efficiency achieved in HSSFCW was 70.31%, while the least was 33.05% with 49.51% mean. TSS removal efficiencies were about 61 and 70% in dry months, ranged from 38 to 70% in summer season, varied between 33 and 62% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 36 and 39% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.23).

102

140 120 100 80 TN, mgl-1 60 40 20 0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC HSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co

Figure 4.21 HSSFCW TN in-out

35 30 25 20 TP, mgl-1 15 10 5 0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC HSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co

Figure 4.22 HSSFCW TP in-out

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC HSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co % REMOVAL

80 60 40 20 0 % REMOVAL

TSS, mgl-1

Figure 4.23 TSS removal in HSSFCW

103

4.7

EXPERIMENTAL VERTICAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (VSSFCW) A vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland (VSSFCW) was

designed and constructed at the project site. The unit was transplanted with Phragmites australis wetland plant. Then it was operated for one year and its treatment performance was monitored by sampling and analysis. 4.7.1 Design and Construction of VSSFCW The Plug-flow method was adopted in the design of VSSFCW of ESP 2. The plug-flow method for a small scale on-site constructed wetland system depends on design flow, influent BOD, and wetland effluent BOD. Gravel can be used as the treatment media in the bed. Reeds (Phragmites) are the preferred plant species. Adopting aspect ratio of minimum 2:1, length (L) and width (W) can be calculated. The rational approach of constructed wetland design is an iterative process consisting of the determination of media type, vegetation, and depth of bed. The required surface area of the bed can be determined for the desired level of BOD5 removal. Design flow Influent BOD Effluent BOD Effluent TN Depth Porosity = = = Q = 0.23 m3day-1 100 mgl-1 10 mgl-1 10 mgl-1 1m 0.38 550 C (4.4)

BODi > BODe < TNe d n < = =

Influent temperature range = Kt = where Kt = K20 () T-20C Temperature rate constant

104

K20 A A BODi BODe Ktx ttx d n

= Temperature at 20C = Temperature of influent, C = [ 0.23 { ln (BODi / BODe) } / { (Ktx) (d) (n) }] = Area, m2 = Influent BOD, mgl-1 = Effluent BOD, mgl-1 = Temperature rate constant at temperature tx = temperature variable from 550 C = depth = porosity = = = = 7.5 m2 2(Larger area for BOD removal) 2(7.5) 15 m2 15 m2 L:W = L:W = W L = = = 2:1 3.75:1 2m 3.75(2) 7.5 m (4.5)

Larger area for BOD removal For removal of TN, Net area

Larger area Minimum aspect ratio Aspect ratio Width Length

= = = = =

The constructed wetland cell is of 15 m2 area and aspect ratio 3.75:1 (Table 4.10). The depth of bed is 1 m. From bottom to top, the cell was filled with half-brick of 15 cm size forming a depth of 0.3 m, gravel of 2 cm size forming a depth of 0.2 m and sand of 2 mm size forming a depth of 0.2 m.

Table 4.10

Experimental set-up 2 (ESP 2)Design, Hydraulics, Substrate, Physical, Wastewater, and Vegetation Summary Design Physical Type Size Depth Longitudinal Slope Empty bed volume Aspect ratio Inlet structure Outlet structure Subsurface 7.5 m x 2 m 1m 0.7% 15 m3 3.75:1 (0.6x0.6x0.9) m tank (0.6x0.6x0.9) m tank Wastewater Type Primary treatment Plant Type Vegetation Emergent

Method

Plug-flow Hydraulics

Common Name Reed Scientific Name Phragmites australis Transplantation Particulars Number Height Density Age Stem length 33 1.5 m 2 plants per m2 5 months 0.3 m 0.3 m per month One Year

Flow Regime HRT Operation Mode Free board

Vertical 6 days Batch 0.075 m

Substrate Media type Layer Media Gravel, Sand Depth 0.2 m 0.4 m 0.4 m Size Half 2cm 2mm

Bottom Brick Top I layer II layer Gravel Sand

Domestic/Kitchen mess Growth rate Solids and oil separation Study period

105

106

These three layers act as the supporting medium and the remaining 0.3 m is free board (Figure 4.24). The bed has regular rectangular shape and a 1 in 13 slope is provided at the bottom. The inlet and outlet chambers are of 0.6 m x 0.6 m size having a depth of 0.9 m each. At the top surface of the wetland unit, two numbers of 0.1 m diameter pipe having side holes at every 0.9 m distance run parallel in longitudinal direction from inlet chamber to outlet. The cell was planted with Phragmites australis. 4.7.2 Transplantation and Start-up of VSSFCW After establishment of one month in natural bed, the plants having 0.3 m stem were transplanted at a density of 2 seedlings per m2 in VSSFCW (Figure 4.25). The unit was planted with 33 Phragmites australis species in 3 rows of 11 plants each. Fresh water was applied for an initial one month (Figure 4.26). The experiments were commenced after the plants were well established by allowing kitchen wastewater from hostel mess by vertical flow (Figures 4.27 and 4.28). The plants exhibited a good survival and growth rate with 33 plants transplanted increasing to 199 plants at the end of the 12th month (Figure 4.29). 4.7.3 Operation and Monitoring of VSSFCW The kitchen wastewater was let into the constructed wetland intermittently over a period of 12 months. The plants were monitored for general appearance, growth and health. The plant growth was measured regularly and was found to be an average of 0.3 m per month.

107

OC

2m

TC

pp 7.5 m

IC

0.3 m 0.4 m

FREEBOARD 2 mm SAND

0.4 m

2 cm GRAVEL

0.2 m

15 cm BRICK

2m

IC TC OC PP

Inlet Chamber Treatment Chamber Outlet Chamber Perforated Pipe

Figure 4.24 Plan and Cross-section of VSSFCW of ESP 2

108

Figure 4.25 Transplantation

Figure 4.26 Influent at Inlet

Figure 4.27 Perforated Pipe

Figure 4.28 Vertical Flow

Figure 4.29 Vegetation at Different Stages of Growth 4.7.4 Sampling and Analysis of VSSFCW Water samples were taken once a month from inlet chamber and outlet chamber of the VSSFCW unit. The samples were analyzed for COD, BOD, TN, TP, TSS, and pH according to Standard Methods for Waster and Wastewater Examination (Table 4.11) [106].

Table 4.11 Results of Experimental VSSFCW of ESP 2 TARGET SAMPLE CONSTITUENT LOCATION COD, mg l
-1

Influent Effluent

1 632 248 368 116 0.78 0.20 0.89 0.25 88 49 5.80 6.20

2 788 548 692 288 0.89 0.22 0.79 0.23 85 61 7.70 7.20

3 919 782 924 486 0.79 0.11 0.99 0.11 98 52 4.40 6.30

4 756 552 786 378 0.69 0.05 0.68 0.06 69 31 6.10 7.20

SAMPLE NUMBER 5 6 7 8 664 578 779 719 212 352 114 0.58 0.17 0.46 0.07 48 45 7.10 8.10 124 274 98 0.32 0.11 0.25 0.08 40 15 7.60 6.90 574 318 79 0.79 0.21 0.84 0.21 85 49 6.90 6.20 521 352 91 0.88 0.12 0.94 0.13 98 52 7.30 6.50

9 498 178 244 46 0.66 0.04 0.55 0.05 71 29 5.10 5.90

10 1135 911 259 102 0.62 0.14 0.39 0.06 79 48 7.70 7.30

11 428 156 198 42 0.44 0.07 0.28 0.09 52 31 5.90 6.70

12 514 136 236 45 0.29 0.21 0.26 0.06 74 55 4.40 6.60

BOD, mg l-1 TN, mg l-1 TP, mg l-1 TSS, mg l-1

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent

pH

Influent Effluent

109

110

4.8

TREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF VSSFCW The relationship of the concentration inconcentration out and

removal percentage were computed analysed for the experimental results of VSSFCW. 4.8.1 Organics Removal in VSSFCW The influent COD was in the range of 4281135 mg l-1 whereas the effluent COD was in the range of 124911 mg l-1 in VSSFCW. The mean COD concentrations of the influent and effluent were 700 196.52 mg l-l and 411 271.09 mg l-l respectively. The highest COD removal efficiency achieved in VSSFCW was 78.54%, while the least was 14.90% with 46.22% mean. COD removal efficiencies were about 60 and 30% in dry months, ranged from 14 to 68% in summer season, varied between 26 and 78% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 19 and 73% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.30).

1200 1000 COD, mgl-1 800 600 400 200 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC VSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co % REMOVAL

100 % REMOVAL 80 60 40 20 0

Figure 4.30 COD Removal in VSSFCW The influent BOD was in the range of 198924 mg l-1 whereas the effluent COD was in the range of 42486 mg l-1 in VSSFCW. The mean

111

BOD concentrations of the influent and effluent were 416 242.25 mg l-l and 157 145.48 mg l-l respectively. The highest BOD removal efficiency achieved in VSSFCW was 81.14%, while the least was 47.40% with 67.40% mean. BOD removal efficiencies were about 68 and 58% in dry months, ranged from 47 to 67% in summer season, varied between 64 and 81% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 60 and 80% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.31).

1000 BOD, mgl-1 800 600 400 200 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC VSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co % REMOVAL

100 % REMOVAL 80 60 40 20 0

Figure 4.31 BOD removal in VSSFCW 4.8.2 Nutrients Removal in VSSFCW The influent TN was in the range of 0.290.89 mg l-1 whereas the effluent TN was in the range of 0.040.22 mg l-1 in VSSFCW. The mean TN concentrations of the influent and effluent were 0.644 0.20 mg l-l and 0.13 0.06 mg l-l respectively. The highest TN removal efficiency achieved in VSSFCW was 93.93%, while the least was 27.58% with 75.63% mean. TN removal efficiencies were about 74 and 75% in dry months, ranged from 70 to 92% in summer season, varied between 65 and 93% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 27 and 84% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.32).

112

1 0.8 TN, mgl-1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC VSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co

Figure 4.32 VSSFCW TN in-out The influent TP was in the range of 0.250.99 mg l-1 whereas the effluent TP was in the range of 0.050.25 mg l-1 in VSSFCW. The mean TP concentrations of the influent and effluent were 0.61 0.27 mg l-l and 0.11 0.07 mg l-l respectively. The highest TP removal efficiency achieved in VSSFCW was 91.17%, while the least was 67.85% with 79.75% mean. TP removal efficiencies were about 71 and 70% in dry months, ranged from 84 to 91% in summer season, varied between 68 and 90% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 67 and 84% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.33).

1 0.8 TP, mgl-1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC VSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co

Figure 4.33 VSSFCW TP in-out

113

4.8.3

Solids Removal in VSSFCW The influent TSS was in the range of 4098 mg l-1 whereas the

effluent TSS was in the range of 1561 mg l-1 in VSSFCW. The mean TSS concentrations of the influent and effluent were 73 18.98 mg l-l and 43 13.48 mg l-l respectively. The highest TSS removal efficiency achieved in VSSFCW was 62.25%, while the least was 6.25% with 41.42% mean. TSS removal efficiencies were about 44 and 28% in dry months, ranged from 6 to 55% in summer season, varied between 42 and 62% in southwest monsoon, and fluctuated between 25 and 40% in northeast monsoon (Figure 4.34).

120 100 TSS, mgl-1 80 60 40 20 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC VSSFCW SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 INFLUENT, Ci EFFLUENT, Co % REMOVAL

80 % REMOVAL 60 40 20 0 -20

Figure 4.34 TSS removal in VSSFCW

114

4.9

SEASONAL EFFECT ON TREATMENT EFFICIENCY As the experimental constructed wetland units were operated

outdoor under natural environmental conditions, they were subjected to seasonal changes. The removal of pollutants varies with different seasons. The removal of TSS showed increasing trend while all other target contaminants removal showed decreasing trend during dry months in HSSFCW (Figure 4.35). In VSSFCW also, the removal of target contaminants exhibited decreasing trend in dry season (Figure 4.36). In summer, the HSSFCW showed an initial increase in removal of TSS, COD, BOD, TP then decrease in removal of COD and BOD (Figure 4.37). In VSSFCW, the removal tended to increase for all target contaminants initially in April; then there was a decrease in removal of TSS, TN, and TP (Figure 4.38). The HSSFCW showed good removal of all target contaminants in southwest monsoon season with an increasing trend with an initial decrease in removal TN and TP in the second month of the season (Figure 4.39). The same trend was shown by VSSFCW also in south west monsoon season but with an initial decrease in removal of TSS and COD in the second month of the season (Figure 4.40). The removal of BOD showed decreasing trend in north east monsoon while the removal of other remaining target contaminants show good and increasing trend in HSSFCW (Figure 4.41). TSS, COD, BOD showed increasing trend in their removal in VSSFCW in north east monsoon while TN removal decreased in third month of the season and TP removal with an initial decrease in the second month of the season (Figure 4.42). Despite the good treatment performance, a considerable difference in the removal efficiency of the target constituents was observed between monsoon and non-monsoon periods both in HSSFCW and VSSFCW.

115

Figure 4.35 Dry Months Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1

Figure 4.36 Dry Months Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2

116

Figure 4.37 Summer Months Seasonal Variability Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1

of

Target

Figure 4.38 Summer Months Seasonal Variability Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2

of

Target

117

Figure 4.39 South-West Monsoon Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1

Figure 4.40 South-West Monsoon Seasonal Variability of Target Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2

118

Figure 4.41 North-East Monsoon Seasonal Variability Constituents Removal in HSSFCW of ESP 1

of Target

Figure 4.42 North-East Monsoon Seasonal Variability Constituents Removal in VSSFCW of ESP 2

of Target

119

4.10

DISCUSSION The removal of organics is an important reflection of water quality.

Influent wastewater quality was highly variable as COD temporal variation and standard deviation data suggest. This is partially due to the fact that in this part of the campus a unitary sewer was installed to collect wastewater from academic blocks; discharges from various laboratories and sewage from hostel are collected together. There was peak activity in all the laboratories in April and October. The activity on the campus was lower during May and December because of vacations. The HSSFCW system was not efficient when sudden high discharge of waste occurred due to peak activity in the campus in October. The low COD removal rates at the start-up period are probably due to formation of active microorganism. In HSSFCW, the removal rates were low during first two months, after which they increased, with the increase in the influent COD concentration. In VSSFCW, the removal rates were low during first three months, after which they increased slightly. It can be assumed that in the initial months the plants were still getting used to the wastewater constituents. The biological reasons are supposed be due to the microbial activity through biofilm formation on the substrate. The wastewater treatment performance of the systems probably increased with the development of microbial film on the substrate and when the constructed wetland system matured and acclimatized to the wastewater. The BOD ratio of HSSFCW is within typical range 0.4-0.8 (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc, 1991). The biodegradable fraction was high in influent of VSSFCW (Fig. 4.43).

120

BOD / COD RATIO

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Figure 4.43 BOD / COD Ratio of Influent of HSSFCW and VSSFCW This was probably because the target influent of VSSFCW was kitchen wastewater which contains more food waste elements. Both HSSFCW and VSSFCW remove those biodegradable fractions as exhibited from the high COD/BOD ratio (>1) of the effluent indicating treatment of biodegradable fraction of organic compounds present in wastewater (Figure 4.44).

COD / BOD RATIO

JA N FE B M AR A PR M A Y JU N

SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 ESP 1 COD/BOD ESP 2 COD/BOD

Figure 4.44 COD / BOD Ratio of Effluent of HSSFCW and VSSFCW

JU L A U G SE P O C T N O V D EC

JA N FE B M A R AP R M A Y JU N JU L AU G SE P OC T NO V DE C

MONTHLY INFLUENT
ESP 1 IN ESP 2 IN

10 8 6 4 2 0

121

The performance of HSSFCW in removing BOD is quite significant and consistent. The standard deviations of the influent indicate that BOD varied considerably with time. Removal of COD was lower than BOD, due to the presence of non-biodegradable pollutants. The BOD removal was stable throughout the study period which shows the applicability of HSSFCW in tropical climate like the study area. The experimental constructed wetland system with horizontal flow regime exhibited higher BOD removals than vertical flow regime. The concept of the HSF wetland as a horizontal trickling filter invites the viewpoint that microbial biofilms on the substrate are responsible for the reduction in BOD. Plants provide a number of useful functions in treatment wetlands, including the possibility of oxygen release from roots and an increase in the sites available for bacteria [24]. The evidence suggests that root oxygen release is small but other plant functions are potential contributors to improved BOD removal. The majority of microbial biomass is located in the top 20 cm of the VF bed [158]; therefore, it is highly likely that organics removal occurs preferentially in this upper region, due to filtration of particulate organic matter, greater availability of oxygen, and greater microbial biomass. The removal of nitrogen from wastewater is particularly important as excessive levels of nitrogen cause serious water quality problems. Nitrogen removal in a CW system includes uptake by plants and other living organisms, nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatalization and cation exchange for ammonium [159]. The pH in both systems changes from slightly acidic at inlet to slightly basic at outlet (5.72 to 7.07 and 5.8 to 8.9 for ESP 1 (Figure 4.45), 4.4 to 7.7 and 5.9 to 8.1 for ESP 2 at influent and effluent, respectively), which probably caused a change in extent of nitrification (Figure 4.46).

122

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
AP R M AY JU N JA N FE B M AR JU L AU G SE P OC T NO V DE C

pH

SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 ESP 1 IN ESP 1 OUT

Figure 4.45 pH trend of Influent and Effluent of HSSFCW

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
JA N FE B M AR A PR M AY JU N JU L AU G SE P O CT NO V DE C

pH

SAMPLING MONTHS, 2008 ESP 2 IN ESP 2 OUT

Figure 4.46 pH trend of Influent and Effluent of VSSFCW

123

It is also clear from Figure 4.32 that in the case of TN, ESP 2 (Vertical flow) is a much better option as it has higher percentage removal and consistent performance. It appears that the horizontal system is reacting either to the climate or to student strength or possibly both; the exact cause is not clear from this limited data. Intermittent feeding ensured that the pores of the bed fill up with air. Therefore, aerobic conditions prevailed in the system most of the time which resulted in low denitrification in the system. Oxygen was used for nitrification and organic removal. Oxygen generated due to photosynthesis during day time also supported oxygen demand for stabilization of organics and nitrification. Plant rhizosphere aeration may stimulate aerobic decomposition processes, increasing nitrification and subsequent gaseous losses of N via denitrification and decreasing relative levels of dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium [160]. In both HSSFCW and VSSFCW systems, the phosphorous removal processes are sorption, biomass cycling, chemical precipitation, accretion and particulate settling. Phosphate removal is governed by physical (sedimentation) and chemical (adsorption) processes and biological transformations. Phosphorus can be removed directly by plant uptake or chemical storage in the sediments [161]. The principal long-term P removal mechanism in constructed wetland systems is via substratum, litter and Al/Fe component, while plant uptake is to a smaller extent [162]. As with TN, the vertical flow system performs better and consistently for TP also. Both TN and TP follow a similar trend. The results are comparable with the similar tests conducted at University campus by Zaimoglu et al [163] but with higher removal efficiency in terms of TSS removal. It might be due to continuous flow in constructed wetland cell with multi-culture planting texture employing Typha latifolia, Junkus acutus and Iris versicolor. Another similar study by Korkusuz et al [164] done at the University campus also showed higher organic removal and lower nutrient removal comparing their results of

124

vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland using gravel-filled substrate planted with Phragmites australis. Higher organic removal and lower nutrient removal were achieved by Dallas et al [165] with the reed beds using different substrate plastic (PET) bottle segments for the treatment of domestic greywater. Similar study by Tunsiper [166] showed that TP removal efficiency (60%) might be due to use of gravel substrate. VSF better than HSF was experimentally proved by Li et al [167] by applying CW in purifying eutrophic water of Taihu Lake, China. The treatment performance as reported by Calheiros et al [168] was higher than the present study as the former use two-stage HSFCW in series planted with Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia. Higher COD removal but lower TN removal was shown by the study done by Prochaska et al [169] planted with Pragmites australis and fed with simulated domestic sewage in a batch mode tested for one year. Higher organic removal efficiency was achieved by operating three vertical bed units in a series. The overall average COD and BOD reductions in the vertical bed system were 83 and 88%, respectively as shown by Admon [170]. An initial efficiency of P removal was about 71% in HSSFCW was achieved by Vohla et al [171] with use of oil-shale ash substrate. Another study in a hybrid constructed wetland (CW) system treating wastewater from a basic school in Paistu, Estonia showed BOD 91%, TSS 78%, P 89% [172]. Mean removal efficiencies for the monitoring period were: 86.5% for BOD, 84.6% for COD, 83.7% for TKN, 63.3% for TP, 79.3% for TSS by another study by Gikas et al [173]. Research was conducted at Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey to determine whether a vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland (CW) (30 m2), planted with Phragmites australis to treat primarily treated domestic wastewater. The study showed 52% TP removal in one year by Asuman Korkusuz et al [174].

125

4.11

EXPERIMENTAL HORIZONTAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (HSSFCW) OF ESP 3 The HSSFCW was designed and constructed at the project site. The

seven HSSFCW units differ in terms of either transplanted wetland plant or substrate or physical arrangement in treatment chamber. Then it was operated for one year and its treatment performance was monitored by sampling and analysis. 4.11.1 Design and Construction of HSSFCW of ESP 3 The seven horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland units of ESP 3 were designed as per TVA method but with different aspect ratio 1.5:1. Design flow Organic loading Organic loading factor Hydraulic conductivity Hydraulic gradient = = = = = Q OL Lo Ks S AL = = = = = = = = Smaller cross-sectional area= AS = = = Selected depth = d 0.25 m3/day 0.03 kg BOD5/person/day 4 m2/kg BOD5/day 259 m3/day/m2 0.01 (Lo ) (OL) (4) (0.03) 0.12 m2 (Q) / (Ks S) 0.25 / (259) 0.01) (4.7) (4.6)

Larger cross-sectional area =

0.096 m2 = 0.3 m

126

Bed width

= = =

(AL) / d (0.12) / 0.3 0.4 m 10:1 1.5:1 (1.5) (0.6) 0.6 m

(4.8)

Aspect Ratio Selected aspect ratio Length

= = =

L:W < L:W = L = =

The wetland cell was 0.3 m deep, 0.6 m long and 0.4 m wide (Table 4.12). The empty-bed volume of the wetland cell was 0.072 m3. The system was made of plastic. In order to investigate the effect of porous media type on the performance efficiency of the constructed wetlands, two of the seven units were planted with the same emergent wetland vegetation, viz. Phragmites australis, but filled with different porous media, i.e., gravel (PAGS) and pebble (PAPS). The third constructed wetland unit (PAGB) was similar to PAGS but with baffle in treatment chamber. The fourth constructed wetland unit (TLGS) was planted with different vegetation type Typha latifolia in gravel media. Two of the constructed wetlands had the same porous media (native soil) and different vegetation. The fifth unit was planted with submerged wetland vegetation Myriophyllum spicatum (SMPS) and the sixth unit was planted with floating wetland plant Lemna minor (FLMS). The seventh unit (CON) was filled with gravel media but with no vegetation and acted as control (Table 4.13). Figures 4.47 to 4.51 show the line sketches and photographs of the 7 units.

127

4.11.2

Transplantation and Start-up of HSSFCW of ESP 3 The wetland plants Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia,

Myriophyllum spicatum and Lemna minor were collected from nearby natural wetlands and established at the project site. They were transplanted at the respective constructed wetland units of ESP 3. Table 4.12 Experimental set-up 3 (ESP 3) Design, Hydraulics, and Physical Summary Design Method TVA Hydraulics Flow Regime Hydraulic Residence Time Operation Mode Free board Horizontal 2,4,6,8 days Batch 9 cm Wastewater Type Primary Treatment Type Size Depth Longitudinal Slope Empty Bed Volume Aspect Ratio Inlet structure Physical Subsurface 0.6 m x 0.4 m 0.3 m 0.7% 0.072 m3 1.5:1 Fiber sheet

Institution/Domestic Outlet structure Fiber shee1t Sedimentation, Aeration Study Period One year

128

Table 4.13

Experimental set-up 3 (ESP 3) Vegetation and Substrate Summary

Sl.No.

Unit code

Plant Type Emergent Emergent Name Phragmites australis Phragmites australis Phragmites australis

Filter media Bottom First layer layer Gravel Sand -

Remarks

1. 2.

PAGS PAPS

Pebbles Sand

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

PAGB Emergent TLGS SMPS Emergent Submerged

Gravel

Sand Sand Native Soil

Baffle in treatment chamber -

Typha latifolia Gravel Myriophyllum spicatum Lemna minor Sand Sand Gravel

FLMS Floating CON None

Native Soil Sand -

129

IC

TC

OC

OV

0.4 m

0.6 m

Figure 4.47 Plan of 6 HSSFCW units (PAGS, PAPS, TLGS, SMPS, FLMS, CON) of ESP 3

0.075 m 0.15 m 0.15 m

FREEBOARD 2 mm SAND

2 cm SUBSTRATE VARIABLE IC TC OC OV Inlet Chamber Treatment Chamber Outlet Chamber Outlet Valve

0.4 m

Figure 4.48 Cross section of 4 HSSFCW units of (PAGB, PAPS, TLGS, CON) of ESP 3

130

IC

BW

TC

OC OV

0.4 m

0.6 m Figure 4.49 Plan of HSSFCW unit (PAGB) of ESP 3

0.075 m 0.15 m

FREEBOARD EUTROPHIC WATER

0.15 m

LOCAL SOIL IC BW TC OC OV Inlet Chamber Baffle Wall Treatment Chamber Outlet Chamber Outlet Valve

Figure 4.50 Cross section of 2 HSSFCW units of ESP 3 (SMPS, FLMS)

131

PAGS

PAPS

PAGB

TLGS

SMPS

FLMS

Figure 4.51 HSSFCW units of ESP 3

132

4.11.3

Operation and Monitoring of HSSFCW of ESP 3 First all the seven HSSFCW units of ESP 3 were operated at 2-day

hydraulic retention time (HRT), then 4-day HRT, then 6-day HRT and finally with 8-day HRT. The plants were monitored for general appearance and health. 4.11.4 Sampling and Analysis of HSSFCW of ESP 3 The water samples at both inlet and outlet were collected from all the seven HSSFCW units at each HRT. The samples were analyzed for COD, BOD, TN, TP, and TSS according to Standard Methods for Waster and Wastewater Examination [106] (Table 4.14). 4.12 TREATMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF HSSFCW OF ESP 3 The treatment performance of individual HSSFCW unit was analysed. The effect of two different substrate viz. gravel and pebble, presence of baffle in treatment chamber, four wetland species viz. Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia, Myriophyllum, and Lemna minor on treatment efficiency was studied under four different HRT viz. 2, 4, 6, and 8 days along with one unplanted control unit.

133

Table 4.14 Results of seven experimental HSSFCW units of ESP 3 Parameter Inlet TSS COD BOD TN TP Outlet at HRT 2 Days PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CON 125 83 98 76 87 64 69 98 174 105 112 107 119 83 92 158 34 0.23 1.68 32 0.25 1.91 28 0.27 1.08 36 0.22 1.35 29 0.22 1.12 21 0.21 1.28 39 0.29 2.14

48 0.30 2.25

Parameter Inlet TSS COD BOD TN TP

Outlet at HRT 4 days

PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CON 123 81 96 43 85 62 68 91 176 98 101 96 110 85 89 159 42 33 31 25 29 25 22 35 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.21 2.22 1.59 1.42 1.02 1.11 0.94 1.17 2.12 Outlet at HRT 6 days PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CON 117 69 58 59 75 55 54 61 179 64 78 62 47 58 43 151 39 22 19 18 21 19 17 33 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.23 2.27 1.38 1.22 0.97 1.18 0.56 0.53 2.18 Outlet at HRT 8 days PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CON 115 65 24 29 50 51 49 54 161 49 41 53 51 57 48 115 36 16 18 19 17 16 16 29 0.22 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.21 2.19 0.55 0.92 0.41 0.41 0.44 0.46 2.16

Parameter Inlet TSS COD BOD TN TP

Parameter Inlet TSS COD BOD TN TP

134

4.12.1

HSSFCW PAGS Unit The conventional wetland system using Phragmites sp. is in

existence since 20 years [139]. The tests conducted by Wolverton [43] Phragemites and bulrushes (Schoenoplecturs (Scirpus) spp. in HSSFCW showed that a significantly better performance for Phragmites. Gersberg et al [46] found that Schoenoplecturs (Scirpus) spp. was better than Phragmites in outdoor pilot HSSFCW. The TSS removal efficiencies were 33%, 34%, 42%, and 43% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There exists only slight difference in TSS removal between 2 and 4 days HRT. The same phenomenon was found between 6 and 8 days HRT also. But there was considerable difference in removal as the HRT increases from 4 days to 6 days (8% increase). The COD removal efficiencies were 39%, 44%, 63%, and 69% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was a slight difference (5%) in removal between HRT of 2 days and 4 days. As the HRT increased to 6 days, there was 19% increase in COD removal when compared to COD removal at 4 days. The COD removal was doubled when there was an increase in HRT from 4 days to 8 days. The BOD removal efficiencies were 29%, 21%, 43%, and 56% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. BOD removal dynamics slightly differs from COD removal dynamics. There was 8% decrease in efficiency when HRT increased from 2 days to 4 days. The removal efficiency doubled at 6 days HRT and it further increased to 56% at 8 days HRT (Figure 4.52).

135

Figure 4.52 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in PAGS The TN removal efficiencies were 23%, 7%, 31%, and 45% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. TN removal dynamics follows more or less the BOD removal dynamics. There was 2/3 decrease in TN removal efficiency when HRT increased from 2 days to 4 days and 1/3 increase at 6 days HRT. The TN removal efficiency further increased to 45% at 8 days HRT. The TP removal efficiencies were 25%, 28%, 39%, and 75% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was only 3% increase in TP removal efficiency when there was an increase in HRT from 2 days to 4 days. And there was 11% increase at 6 days HRT compared to 4 days HRT. But the TP removal efficiency reached 75% at 8 days HRT (Figure 4.53).

136

Figure 4.53 Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in PAGS Similar study to determine the effectiveness of constructed wetlands to treat tertiary effluent wastewater generated from Paaky Advanced Biological Wastewater Treatment Plant by Tunsiper, B., [166] showed that TP removal efficiency (60%) might be due to use of gravel substrate. Findings by Tang et al [175] indicate that TP removal rates increased when the HRT was prolonged. But, increasing HRT from 2 days to 4 days did not improve the efficiency in terms of N and P removal. Similar results exhibited by Huet et al [71] stating that doubling the reaction time to 7.0 days had no effect on nutrient removal. 4.12.2 HSSFCW PAPS Unit The TSS removal efficiencies were 21%, 21%, 50%, and 79% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was no difference in TSS removal efficiency between 2 days and 4 days HRT. This more than doubled (50%) at 6 days HRT and reached 79% at 8 days HRT. The COD removal efficiencies were 35%, 42%, 55%, and 74% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. The COD removal efficiency gradually increased with an increase in HRT

137

irrespective of change in influent COD and resulted in 74% COD removal efficiency at 8 days HRT. The BOD removal efficiencies were 33%, 26%, 51%, and 50% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. As the HRT increased from 2 days to 4 days, the BOD removal decreased by 7% and increased to 51% at 6 days HRT and remained almost same at 8 days HRT (Figure 4.54). The pebbles have smaller media size than gravel. The microbial biofilms on the media are responsible for the reduction in BOD by formation of a coat on the media.

Figure 4.54 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in PAPS The TN removal efficiencies were 16%, 3%, 30%, and 31% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. The TN removal efficiency reduced at 4 days HRT when compared to 2 days HRT and there was only 1% change in removal efficiency between 6 days and 8 days HRT. The TP removal efficiencies were 15%, 36%, 46%, and 58% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. When there was an increase in HRT, the TP removal efficiency gradually increased and reached 58% at 8 days HRT (Figure 4.55). Garcia et al [95] found that no consistent pattern of the fine media doing the better or worse.

138

Figure 4.55 Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in PAPS 4.12.3 HSSFCW PAGB Unit The TSS removal efficiencies were 39%, 65%, 49%, and 74% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was decrease in TSS removal efficiency at 6 days HRT. High TSS removal occurred at 8 days HRT. The COD removal efficiencies were 38%, 45%, 64%, and 67% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend of COD removal efficiency as the HRT increased. The BOD removal efficiencies were 41%, 40%, 53%, and 47% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was 1% decrease in BOD removal efficiency when HRT increased from 2 days to 4 days. The maximum BOD removal occurred at 6 days HRT. Further increase in HRT to 8 days slightly decreased the BOD removal efficiency (Figure 4.56).

139

Figure 4.56 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in PAGB The TN removal efficiencies were 10%, 21%, 34%, and 36% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TN removal efficiency as the HRT increased from 2 days to 8 days. The TP removal efficiencies were 52%, 54%, 57%, and 81% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TP removal efficiency as the HRT increased from 2 days to 8 days (Figure 4.57).

Figure 4.57 Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in PAGB

140

4.12.4

HSSFCW TLGS Unit The TSS removal efficiencies were 30%, 30%, 35%, and 56% for

HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TSS removal efficiency as the HRT increased from 2 days to 8 days. The COD removal efficiencies were 31%, 37%, 73%, and 68% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in COD removal efficiency as the HRT increased from 2 days to 6 days. Further increase in HRT to 8 days did not change the COD removal efficiency. The BOD removal efficiencies were 25%, 30%, 46%, and 52% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in BOD removal efficiency as the HRT increased from 2 days to 8 days as it doubled from 25% to 52% even as the effluent BOD concentration followed the trend of influent BOD concentration (Fig. 4.58). Solano et al presented results of treatment efficiency of a pilot-scale subsurface flow constructed wetland planted with Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia remove BOD, COD, and TSS[68].

Figure 4.58 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in TLGS

141

The TN removal efficiencies were 26%, 17%, 34%, and 36% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. The TN removal efficiency decreased at 4 days HRT but increased at 6 days. There was only slight increase (2%) in removal efficiency when HRT increased from 6 days to 8 days. The TP removal efficiencies were 40%, 50%, 48%, and 77% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TP removal efficiency as the HRT increased from 2 days to 8 days but there was a slight decrease (2%) at 4 days HRT which may probably be attributed to decrease in influent TP concentration (Fig. 4.59). Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia were the only plants that were able to establish successfully in wastewater treatment as reported by Calheiros et al [57-74,]. The treatment performance as reported by Calheiros et al was higher than the present study as the former use two-stage HSFCW in series planted with Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia [168].

Figure 4.59 Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in TLGS

142

4.12.5

HSSFCW SMPS Unit The submerged aquatic plant Myriophyllum spicatum L. (Eurasian

water milfoil) has been suggested as an efficient plant species for the treatment of metal-contaminated industrial wastewater by Lesage [176] . The TSS removal efficiencies were 48%, 49%, 52%, and 55% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. The effluent TSS concentration followed the trend of influent TSS concentration. The TSS removal efficiency increased as the HRT increased. The COD removal efficiencies were 52%, 51%, 67%, and 64% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in COD removal efficiency as the HRT increased but there was slight decrease (1%) at 4 days HRT. The BOD removal efficiencies were 39%, 40%, 51%, and 56% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. The effluent BOD concentration followed the trend of influent concentration. The BOD removal efficiency increased with HRT (Figure 4.60).

Figure 4.60 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in SMPS

143

The TN removal efficiencies were 26%, 25%, 59%, and 40% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TN removal efficiency up to 6 days HRT even though there was only slight decrease (1%) at 4 days. The TN removal efficiency decreased at 8 days HRT from 59% to 40%. The TP removal efficiencies were 50%, 57%, 75%, and 80% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TP removal efficiency as the HRT increased (Figure 4.61).

Figure 4.61 Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in SMPS 4.12.6 HSSFCW FLMS Unit The TSS removal efficiencies were 44%, 44%, 53%, and 57% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TSS removal efficiency with an increase in HRT. The COD removal efficiencies were 47%, 49%, 76%, and 70% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was only 2% increase in COD removal efficiency when HRT increased from 2 days to 4 days. Highest removal of 76% occurred at 6 days HRT. It reduced to 70% at 8 days HRT. The BOD removal efficiencies were 56%, 47%, 56%, and 55% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was 9% decrease in

144

BOD removal efficiency when HRT increased from 2 days to 4 days. BOD removal efficiency was same at both 2 days and 6 days HRT. There was 1% decrease in BOD removal efficiency at 8 days HRT (Figure 4.62).

Figure 4.62 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in FLMS The TN removal efficiencies were 30%, 28%, 59%, and 40% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. As the influent TN concentration decreased, the TN removal efficiency decreased by 2% from 30% to 28%. Even though the influent TN concentration increased after day 4, the TN removal efficiency increased by 31%. But there was only 49% TN removal efficiency at 8 days HRT. The TP removal efficiencies were 43%, 47%, 76%, and 78% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TP removal efficiency as the HRT increased from 2 days to 8 days (Figure 4.63). Similar study done by Van De Moortel et al [177] exhibited results of average removal efficiencies for TN, P. COD were 42%, 22% and 53%.

145

Figure 4.63 Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in FLMS 4.12.7 HSSFCW CON Unit The TSS removal efficiencies were 21%, 26%, 47%, and 53% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was an increasing trend in TSS removal efficiency with an increase in HRT. The COD removal efficiencies were 9%, 9%, 15%, and 28% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was only 9% COD removal up to 4 days HRT and it increased with an increase in HRT but reached only 28% at 8 days. The BOD removal efficiencies were 18%, 16%, 15%, and 19% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was decreasing trend in BOD removal efficiency as the HRT increased up to 6 days. Only 19% BOD removal occurred at 8 days HRT (Figure 4.64).

146

Figure 4.64 Solids and Organics of Influent and Effleunt in CON The TN removal efficiencies were 3%, 25%, 28%, and 4% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was relatively higher TN removal at 4 days and 6 days HRT and very less TN removal at 2 days and 8 days HRT with fluctuation in influent TN concentration. The TP removal efficiencies were 4%, 4%, 3%, and 1% for HRT of 2, 4, 6, 8 days respectively. There was decreasing trend in TP removal in addition to its low value range of 14% (Figure 4.65).

147

Figure 4.65 Nutrients of Influent and Effluent in CON 4.13 EFFECT OF HYDRAULIC AND VEGETATION PARAMETERS The treatment performance for the target constituents TSS, COD, BOD, TN and TP of seven HSSFCW units of ESP 3 operated under four different hydraulic residence times (HRT) (2, 4, 6 and 8 days) (Table 4.14). Comparing PAGS and PAPS with different substrates (Gravel and Pebbles), PAPS unit showed better removal efficiency for TSS and COD while PAGS unit performed better for BOD, TN and TP removal. PAGS unit (without baffles) performed better in COD, BOD and TN removal while PAGB unit (with baffles) showed good TSS and TP removal. Comparing CW units with different emergent plants (Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia, PAGS and TLGS), TLGS did better in TSS and TP removal. The CW unit with submerged plant Myriophyllum (SMPS) was better in TP removal while the unit with floating plant Lemna minor (FLMS) exhibited better removal for all other constituents except BOD. BOD removal was more or less same for both the units. The greatest removal efficiency among the five constituents for all

148

the seven experimental constructed wetland units in ESP 3 operated under four different hydraulic residence times (HRT) was for TP (81%) in PAGB unit. The units with greater removal efficacies for TSS and COD were the PAPS unit (79%) and FLMS unit (76%). The greatest TN removal efficiency (59%) occurred in two units, SMPS and FLMS. The greatest removal efficiency (56%) for BOD was exhibited by the three units PAGS, SMPS and FLMS. There is no effect of HRT on TSS removal up to 4 days. When the HRT is increased to 6 days, almost all the units (except TLGS and SMPS) showed a marked increase in removal efficiency. The difference is even higher at 8 days for PAPS, PAGB. Thus an increase in HRT is favorable for the emergent species as more solids may tend to settle with time by getting trapped between the pores and the roots. The settling does not increase beyond 60% for the submerged and floating plants and for control unit. Hence one can conclude that the plant roots play a role in TSS removal (Figure 4.66).

80 TSS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CW UNITS OF ESP 3 2-day HRT 4-day HRT 6-day HRT 8-day HRT CON

Figure 4.66 TSS Removal Efficiency at different HRTs

149

About 45% COD removal is effected in all wetland units by 4 days. At 6 days HRT there is a marked increase in the removal (6070%) and it does not increase further for 8 days HRT. Hence it can be concluded that 6 days HRT is ideal for this unit for COD removal (Figure 4.67). A removal efficiency of 56% resulted for PAGS, SMPS, and FLMS units at 8 days HRT for BOD removal. At the 6-day HRT, the BOD removal efficiencies were 56% and 51% in PAGS and SMPS units, respectively, whereas the FLMS unit showed no change. This leads to a conclusion that a HRT of 6 days is adequate for relatively high removal of organic matter. Again, the unplanted CON unit showed lower BOD and COD removal efficiency than planted units. It is also not influenced by higher HRT (Figure 4.68).

80

COD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY, %

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CW UNITS OF ESP 3 2-day HRT 4-day HRT 6-day HRT

CON

8-day HRT

Figure 4.67 COD Removal Efficiency at different HRTs

150

60 BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY, % 50 40 30 20 10 PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CW UNITS OF ESP 3 2-day HRT 4-day HRT 6-day HRT 8-day HRT CON

Figure 4.68 BOD Removal Efficiency at different HRTs Higher TN removal efficiency was observed for the 8-day HRT compared to the ones for the 6-day HRT for PAPS, PAGB and TLGS. The TN removal efficiency of 59% was obtained for FLMS and SMPS units at 6 day HRT whereas the efficiency reduced to 41% and 32% at 8-day HRT. A residence time of 6 days is thus enough to reach relatively high removal of total nitrogen removal for these units (Figure 4.69). Total phosphorus is mainly removed by plant uptake and adsorption on the porous media [96]. The unit with greatest efficiency was PAGB (81%) followed by SMPS (80%), FLMS (78%), TLGS (77%), PAGS (75%) and PAPS (58%). The unplanted CON unit removed only 1% of TP. It can be argued from this result that the presence of any wetland species is better than an unplanted unit for removing TP from domestic wastewater (Figure. 4.70).

151

70

TN REMOVAL EFFFICIENCY, %

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CW UNITS OF ESP 3 2-day HRT 4-day HRT 6-day HRT

CON

8-day HRT

Figure 4.69 TN Removal Efficiency at different HRTs

100 TP REMOVAL EFFICIENCY, % 80 60 40 20 0 PAGS PAPS PAGB TLGS SMPS FLMS CON CW UNITS OF ESP 3 2-day HRT 4-day HRT 6-day HRT 8-day HRT

Figure 4.70 TP Removal Efficiency at different HRTs

152

4.14

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In order to evaluate the wastewater treatment performance, the

statistical analysis was conducted for the sampling test results. Correlation matrix and paired samples t-test was conducted using the SPSS 11.0 for Windows software package for HSSFCW of ESP 1 and VSSFCW of ESP 2. Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA 2) and Multiple Comparison test (MULTCOMPARE) were conducted using MATLAB (R2008) software package for the sampling test results of seven HSSFCW units of ESP 3. 4.14.1 Correlation Matrix Correlation matrix was computed for the target constituents of influent and effluent for HSSFCW and VSSFCW (Table 4.15). In HSSFCW, there exists a high positive correlation between concentrations at influent and effluent for TSS, BOD and TP. Only COD concentration showed high positive correlation between influent and effluent in VSSFCW. 4.14.2 Paired Samples t-Test The paired samples t-test was applied to the influent and effluent concentrations because the variables belong to same group at different times (months) before and after an event (treatment) for the monitoring period for each of the water quality parameters identified (Table 4.16). A low p-value of the t-test (typically less than 0.05) indicates that there is a significant difference between the two variables. If the confidence interval for the mean differences does not contain zero, this also indicates that the difference is significant. Statistically meaningful differences were identified for all the target constituents in HSSFCW of ESP 1 (Table 4.17). The statistical analysis indicated similar results for the target constituents in VSSFCW of ESP 2 except for TN (Table 4.18).

Table 4.15 Correlation Matrix of Target Constituents HSSFCW TSS IN COD IN BOD IN TN IN TP IN TSS OUT COD OUT BOD OUT TN OUT TP OUT TSS IN 1 0.859796 0.82909 1 0.835897 1 1 1 0.668108 0.82227 0.815391 0.342133 0.629733 1 1 0.942046 0.390538 0.410435 0.48525 0.574599 1 1 0.80664 1 COD IN BOD IN TN IN TP IN TSS OUT COD OUT BOD OUT TN OUT TP OUT

0.691448 0.787478 0.390538

0.721452 0.632653 0.583016 0.774441 0.960586 0.90934 0.863347 0.64796

0.779237 0.738065 0.964666 0.390538 0.4146 0.785929 0.796452 0.980487 0.597328 0.558192 0.487572 0.330211 0.460252 0.681164 0.832476 0.678201 0.638678 0.5937 0.80664 0.989627

153

Table 4.15 (Continued)

VSSFCW TSS IN TSS IN COD IN BOD IN TN IN TP IN TSS OUT COD OUT BOD OUT TN OUT TP OUT 0.48416 0.41271 1

COD IN BOD IN TN IN

TP IN

TSS OUT COD OUT BOD OUT TN OUT TP OUT

1 0.438057 1 1 1 1 0.588546 0.300562 0.584426 0.603275 1 0.557482 0.057852 0.135944 1 -0.13639 1 1

0.745252 0.482543 0.520429

0.807601 0.379393 0.607603 0.918176

0.700889 0.564762 0.369318 0.767081 0.682456 0.62656 0.946154 0.53073 0.594889 0.505925

0.356653 0.479118 0.987896 0.436925 0.529279 0.27045 0.181502 -0.0738 0.141942 0.171024

0.497301 0.106275 0.181588 0.614589 0.639299

0.091354 0.638896

154

155

Table 4.16 Paired Samples Statistics HSSFCW Parameter Influent Effluent Mean S.D. Mean S.D. TSS 180.17197.75 95.92116.85 COD BOD TN TP VSSFCW Influent Effluent Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 73.6719.37 42.1713.82

700.42529.98 254.3331576 700.83196.52 411.83271.09 266.75166.96 33.3640.92 17.7515.00 49.6735.84 28.2539.16 13.0612.80 416.92242.25 157.08145.48 0.640.20 0.610.27 0.120.06 0.110.07

Table 4.17 t-Test Results of HSSFCW of ESP 1 95% Confidence Interval of Test Difference Significance Lower Upper 26.14 142.36 0.009 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 105.499 678.28 93.21 2.5695 2.8047 260.95 7.6538 6.5608

Parameter TSS COD BOD TN TP

Paired Sample Correlation 0.961 0.738 0.980 0.996 0.990 Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

156

Table 4.18

t-Test Results of VSSFCW of ESP 2

Parameter TSS COD BOD TN TP

95% Confidence Paired Sample Interval of Test Difference Significance Correlation Significance Lower Upper 0.857 0.946 0.988 0.478 0.639 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.025 24.91 38.09 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 221.46 356.54 195.61 324.06 0.4017 0.6333 0.3412 0.6454

4.14.3

2-way ANOVA Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA 2) was conducted for the

sampling test results of seven HSSFCW units of ESP 3 to find difference between the treatment units as well as between hydraulic residence times (HRTs). Concentrations of effluent samples from the seven HSSFCW units of ESP 3 were loaded as input data. 4 rows of TSS (day 2, 4, 6, 8) followed by 4 rows each of COD, BOD, TN and TP. Columns are different HSSFCW treatment systems PAGS, PAPS, PAGB, TLGS, SMPS, FLMS, and CON. Values in the cell Prob>F against Columns indicate importance of different treatment systems. Values in the cell Prob>F against Rows indicate importance of different HRTs. Lower probability indicates higher the likelihood of difference. Thus for TSS, 0.0533 indicates a 5.33% difference between the treatments and 0.0001 indicates almost nil likelihood between HRTs. This indicates that while both are important, HRT plays a big role for TSS. This result is similar for all the parameters indicating that there is a lot of difference between the treatment units and between the HRTs (Tables 4.19 to 4.23). This statistical analysis was conducted by SPSS 11.0.1 standard version software.

157

Table 4.19 Source Columns Rows Error Total

Results of 2-way ANOVA TSS SS df 6 3 18 27 MS 368.04 1781.76 140.96 F 2.61 12.64 Prob>F 0.0533 0.0001

2208.2 5345.3 2537.2 10090.7

Table 4.20 Source Columns Rows Error Total SS 16960.9 13397.8 2139.4 32498.1

Results of 2-way ANOVA COD df 6 3 18 27 MS F Prob>F 1.23436e-007 5.86949e-008

2826.81 23.78 4465.94 37.57 118.86

Table 4.21 Source Columns Rows Error Total SS 531.71 738.96 124.29 1394.96

Results of 2-way ANOVA BOD df 6 3 18 27 MS 88.619 F Prob>F

12.83 1.19076e-005

246.321 35.67 8.73863e-008 6.905

158

Table 4.22 Source SS

Results of 2-way ANOVA TN df 6 3 MS 0.00245 F 3.79 Prob>F 0.0129 0

Columns 0.01467 Rows Error Total 0.03859

0.01286 19.93 0.00065

0.01161 18 0.06487 27

Table 4.23 Source Columns Rows Error Total SS 5.55454 2.14727

Results of 2-way ANOVA TP df 6 3 MS 0.92576 0.71576 0.04553 F 20.33 15.72 Prob>F 4.13193e-007 2.86124e-005

0.81958 18 8.52139 27

4.14.4

Multicomparison Test Multicomparison test was applied to the effluent concentrations of

different groups. The parameters were grouped based on hydraulic retention time (HRT). Group 1 indicates the sampling results of 2-day HRT. Group 2 indicates the sampling results of 4-day HRT. Group 3 indicates sampling results of 6-day HRT. Group 4 indicates sampling results of 8-day HRT. The differences between groups indicate the percentage reduction of parameter vary with HRT. The clear difference exists between 2,4 day HRT and 6,8 day HRT in COD (Figure A1.1 to A1.4). Similar difference exists in BOD also (Figure A1.5 to A1.8).

159

For TN, the clear difference exists between 2-day and 6,8 day HRT, 4-day and 8-day HRT and 6-day and 2-day HRT. For TP, the clear difference exists between 2-day and 6,8 day HRT, 4-day and 8-day HRT, 6-day and 2,4 day HRT. For TSS, the clear difference exists between 2-day and 6,8 day HRT, 4-day and 8-day HRT, 6-day and 2-day HRT, 8-day and 2, 4 day HRT. Clear difference was shown between 8-day and 2,4,6 day HRT for TN (Figure A1.12, 8-day and 2,4,6 day HRT for TP (Figure A1.16), 8-day and 2,4 day HRT for TSS (Figure A1.20). Multicomparison test was also applied to the effluent

concentrations of different HSSFCW units of ESP 3. Group 1 PAGS Unit Group 2 PAPS Unit Group 3 PAGB Unit Phragmites australis in gravel-sand media Phragmites australis in pebbles-sand media Phragmites australis in gravel-sand media with baffle in treatment chamber Group 4 TLGS Unit Group 5 SMPS Unit Group 6 FLMS Unit Group 7 CON Unit Typha latifolia in gravel-sand media Submerged Myriophyllum spicatum in sand media Floating Lemna minor in sand media Control Unit with gravel-sand media but no vegetation. For BOD, PAGS, TLGS, FLMS, CON have different means, that is, they perform differently. It was shown by the sample Figure A2.13 for BOD as FLMS differs from PAGS, TLGS, CON. The units PAPS, PAGB,

160

SMPS differ from CON. For TN, CON differs from SMPS and FLMS. For TP, the units PAGS, PAPS, SMPS, FLMS, CON differ each other. The sample Figure A2.26 shows for TP as SMPS differs from PAGS, PAPS, CON. No difference exists between planted units for COD. No difference exists between units for TSS between the units. The CON unit differs from all other units for COD, BOD, TP (Figure A2.27, A2.14 and A2.28).

161

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

5.1

INTRODUCTION Population escalation and industrialization in the past decades has

caused a considerable rise in amount of wastewater generated globally. The conventional wastewater treatment methods are the common solution adopted worldwide. However, the need to preserve the environment has led to provide natural environment benign self-contained wastewater treatment methods. Various studies have shown that the constructed wetland as wastewater treatment technology can represent a sustainable alternative. This study deals with application of subsurface flow constructed wetland for wastewater treatment. 5.2 CONCLUSIONS Domestic wastewater requires a high level of treatment before disposal to satisfy the discharge standards prescribed by pollution control authorities to protect the receiving body. The typical conventional wastewater treatment plant includes facilities for screening, pre-aeration, flocculation, sedimentation, chemical precipitation, disinfection, activated sludge process, post-aeration, sludge treatment and disposal. Application of constructed wetland systems is not common for domestic wastewater treatment in India.

162

Subsurface flow constructed wetland (SSFCW) technology is emerging as an ecologically sustainable alternative treatment system for wastewater treatment. SSFCW systems are considered to be an efficient method and the treatment mechanisms involved are physical, chemical, and biological processes. This research concludes that SSFCW system with Phragmites australis can be used as a secondary treatment system for varying strength wastewater such as domestic wastewater in an academic institution. It also proves that constructed wetland is a viable alternative treatment method for tropical settings. The observations and investigations made during this study lead to the following conclusions: (i) A critical survey of the available literature on application of constructed wetland for wastewater treatment reveals the prevalence, acceptance and the use of the concept worldwide and the limited use of this technology in India. (ii) Current design equation of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands system assumes plug flow, first order decay, but recent modification includes background concentration methods and retarded rate constant method. In this study, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) method is adopted to design horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland system and rational approach of plug-flow method is adopted to design vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland system. (iii) Rainfall analysis indicates that the average annual rainfall is 1252 mm for the study area pertaining to study period.

163

Southwest monsoon received 31% of annual rainfall and Northeast monsoon received 61%. Since the experimental constructed wetlands are open-to-atmosphere on-site systems, there is a scope for the dilution of wastewater. (iv) Temperature ranges imply that the average temperature is 29.16 oC with an average minimum of 20.7 oC and an average maximum of 42.53 oC. The annual temperature variability is not important enough to affect the growth of wetland plants and the operation of the treatment units. In fact, the tropical climate is better suited for this treatment as the plants grow throughout the year. (v) The quality of raw wastewater was analysed for the various parameters such as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and pH. It is clear that the inflow domestic wastewater is rich in orgnic matter and it contains high COD (min. 315 mg l-1 , max. 895 mg l-1, mean 521 mg l-1) and BOD (min. 94 mg l-1 , max. 619 mg l-1, mean 258 mg l-1). The mean value of COD/BOD5 ratio of the raw wastewater was 2.07, typical for untreated domestic wastes. This was met by only 7 samples, which shows that the quality of wastewater from an institution is unlike urban domestic wastewater quality because of variation in population occupancy and mix-up of wastewater from different types of laboratories. (vi) Nutrients are present in source wastewater with high variability. The TN concentration ranged from 0.06 to 32.8 mg l-l with an average value of 60 and a median value of 43.

164

The TP ranged from 0.06 to 32.6 mg l-l with an average value of 14 mg l-l and median value of 5.6 mg l-l. (vii) The TSS range was between 14 mg l-l and 560 mg l-l with an average of 189 mg l-l with a high degree of variability as shown by its standard deviation of 189 mg l-l. The raw wastewater is slightly acidic in nature. (viii) Experimental horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland and vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland were tested to examine the effectiveness of constructed wetland in treating domestic wastewater. The overall performance for TSS, COD, BOD, TN and TP reduction was achieved in the experimental horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland with a yearly average of 49%, 67%, 77%, 52% and 45%, respectively. The overall performance for TSS, COD, BOD, TN and TP reduction was achieved in the experimental vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland with a yearly average of 41%, 46%, 67%, 75% and 79%, respectively. Overall, HSSFCW was more efficient in removal of COD, BOD whereas removal of TN and TP was better in VSSFCW. (ix) A reduction in BOD removal occurred in HSSFCW during north east monsoon. Low temperature decreased COD and TN removal in VSSFCW also. The concentration reduction tended to increase after rainfall, because the effluent concentrations became lower by dilution. The differences in mean removal efficiency, in terms of percentage were 7, 14, 5 for TSS, 29, 4, 1 for COD, 3, 2, 5 for BOD, 5, 5, 26 for TN, 11, 14, 8 for TP between seasons, Dry-Summer,

165

Summer-South

West,

and

South

West-North

East,

respectively, for HSSFCW of ESP 1. The differences in mean removal efficiency, in terms of percentage were 1, 52, 1 for TSS, 6, 12, 3 for COD, 7, 18, 1 for BOD, 8, 3, 16 for TN, 15, 8, 3 for TP between seasons, Dry-Summer, SummerSouth West, and South West-North East, respectively, for VSSFCW of ESP 2. The differences in mean removal efficiency, in terms of percentage was less between dry months season and summer months season but it was high between summer months season and south west monsoon season which indicates the effect of seasonal variability on removal efficiency. The concentration reduction was good in all months of long-dry period which ascertained the feasibility of application of subsurface flow constructed wetland in tropical climate. (x) The difference in mean percentage removal for all target constituents between 2-day and 4-day HRT were 3%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 1% and 5% for PAGS, PAPS, PAGB, SMPS, FLMS, and CON units of ESP 3. There was no difference found in TLGS unit. There was huge difference of 17%, 6%, 15%, 7%, 21%, and 5% for PAGS, PAGB, TLGS, SMPS, FLMS, and CON units between 4-day HRT and 6-day HRT. There was no difference found in PAPS unit. Again there was a moderate difference of 14%, 33%, 10%, 10%, 1%, and 4% for PAGS, PAPS, PAGB, TLGS, SMPS, and FLMS between 6-day HRT and 8-day HRT. The removal was reduced at 8-day HRT when compared to 6-day HRT for SMPS and FLMS units. There was no difference found in CON unit. So, a 6-day hydraulic residence time is suggested

166

for an acceptable level of treatment in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland systems. (xi) Substrate type influenced concentration reduction. The constructed wetland unit filled with gravel substrate planted with Phragmites australis was better in the removal of COD and BOD while the constructed wetland unit filled with pebbles substrate with the same plant was efficient in TSS and TP removal. There was no change in TN removal in both the units at 6-day HRT. (xii) The presence of vegetation enhanced treatment efficiency. Irrespective of HRT or target constituent, among all the seven constructed wetland units tested in ESP 3, the constructed wetland unit CON resulted in minimum removal efficiency. In particular, the removal efficiency of target constituents was TSS 36%, COD 15%, BOD 17%, TN 15%, and TP 3%. With respect to HRT, the removals were 11% , 16%, 21%, and 21% at 2, 4, 6, and 8 days respectively for CON unit. The TSS removal efficiency was 37% and 38% for TLGS unit and PAGS respectively, very close to CON removal efficiency of TSS 36%. These values are absolutely lower than any value when compared to the removal efficiency of all other six constructed wetland units planted with wetland vegetation for any target constituent removal at any particular HRT. For any given constituent targeted except TSS, the removal was higher in planted constructed wetland unit than a control filter unit with same substrate and no vegetation.

167

(xiii) At 6-day HRT, among emergent plants tested, the unit planted with Phragmites australis was better in removal of TSS and BOD while the unit planted with Typha latifolia was efficient in COD, TN and TP removal. This might be caused by the wide rooting zone and vast biofilm surface area of the Phragmites australis. (xiv) The submerged plant Myriophyllum (SMPS) was slightly better than the floating plant Lemna minor (FLMS) in removal of TSS by 3% and TP by 4% among all constituents targeted whereas the floating plant Lemna minor was slightly better than the submerged plant Myriophyllum in removal of COD by 2%, BOD 7%, and TN by 2%. Both of them resulted in same TN removal at 6-day HRT. SMPS was better at 4-day HRT while FLMS was better at 2, 4, and 8day HRT by 1%, 4%, and 1% respectively. For Lemna minor, this may be due to a better capacity for transporting oxygen into the water. (xv) Concentrations of TSS, BOD and TP showed a significant positive correlation between influent and effluent 0.960586, 0.980487 and 0.989627 respectively in HSSFCW indicating that the removal has a strong association with influent concentration. Similarly only COD showed a significant high positive correlation of 0.946154 in VSSFCW between influent and effluent. Only few processes ultimately remove total nitrogen from the wastewater while most processes just convert nitrogen to its various forms. Vertical flow constructed wetlands remove successfully ammonia-N but very limited denitrification takes place in these systems. This was shown by the high p-value of the t-test 0.116 for TN in

168

VSSFCW. 1.23% for

Difference TN as

between exhibited

the by

seven 2-way

HSSFCW ANOVA.

treatment units of ESP 3 was 5.33% for TSS followed by Multicomparison test between the seven HSSFCW treatment units indicate that the removal at 4 day HRT was obviously higher than that of 2 day HRT, and the removal at 6 day HRT was better than that of 4 day HRT, but the removal efficiency was not very obvious with the increment of HRT in the case of increasing HRT from 6 days to 8 days. The unplanted HSSFCW unit differs from all other planted HSSFCW units in terms of COD, BOD and TP removal. 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The over-arching goal of any such study is to improve public policy. If it can be proven in research that subsurface flow constructed wetland systems are capable of matching or exceeding conventional wastewater treatment systems, then their acceptance can be advocated. The following policy level actions are recommended for application of constructed wetland for wastewater treatment in future in India. (i) Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) of India should allow and approve constructed wetlands as secondary treatment for on-site systems prior to tertiary treatment. (ii) CPCB should approve horizontal/vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands as replacement for failing conventional systems.

169

(iii) CPCB should set standards for reporting treatment results pertaining to constructed wetlands. (iv) CPCB should serve as a repository for results from a nationwide database of constructed wetlands. There is a need for this database so that informed decisions can be made. (v) Indian researchers should promote a worldwide conference to standardize the methods for determining parameter levels and the metrics for reporting treatment results. (vi) Government and academic experts in India should encourage and fund research on constructed wetlands. 5.4 FUTURE RESEARCH The following areas of research are recommended for future research based on the outcomes of this thesis: (i) A longer term study with replication is needed to determine the performance of locally available substrates of different materials and sizes with varying proportions. (ii) Further studies should be conducted to investigate the feasibility of application of constructed wetlands as treatment technology for other types of wastewater. (iii) The feasibility of combined horizontal flow and vertical flow constructed wetlands either in series or in parallel needs to be studied.

170

5.5

CLOSURE The study advanced scientific knowledge as a greater

understanding of the application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment was gained that could be applied by the engineering community. The study provided various transferable skills especially in constructed wetland design, fabrication of small-scale constructed wetland models, construction of large-scale field set-ups, wetland plant transplantation and establishment, operation and monitoring experimental constructed wetlands for treatment of wastewater.

171

REFERENCES

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada A.C., 1972, The Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 7, Verse 8, Macmillan Edition, ISBN: 978-1-60293-000-1. The Holy Quran, Quranic Arabic Corpus, 2007, GNU General Public License, Version 3, Chapter 25, Verse 53. The Bible, Isaiah, Chapter 55, Verse 10, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, www.ccel.org Ameila, K. K., 2001, The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: a review, Ecological Engineering, 16(4), pp. 545560. Metcalf, and Eddy, 1993, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi. Fujikawa, Y., 2007, History of technical developments of soil percolation system for wastewater and river water treatment in Japan, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Virtual Centre for Environmental Technology Exchange (APEC-VC), Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University, Japan. Sciortino, J.A., and Ravikumar, A., 1999, Fishery harbor manual on the prevention of pollution, Bay of Bengal Programme (BOBP), Series title : Project Reports BOBP/MAG 22, ID: X5624/E. U.S. EPA, 2002, Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, U.S.Environmenal Protection Agency, February 2002, Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Technology, Fact Sheet 12, Land Treatment Systems, EPA/625/R-00/008. Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, 2003, eds. P.Aarne Vesilind, Chapter 9 Alternative Biological Treatment, pp. 9-22, IWA Publishing, Water Environment Federation Alexandria VA USA, ISBN 1-84339-024-8.

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

172

[10]

Metcalf, and Eddy, 1996, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi. Kadlec, H. and Wallace, D., 2009, Treatment Wetlands, CRC Press, Florida. Brantley, Day, W., Lane, R., Hyfiled, E., Day, N., and Ko, J., 2004, The use of wetlands in the Mississippi Delta for wastewater assimilation: a review, Ocean and Coastal Management, 47, pp. 671691. Tchobanoglous, G., 1987, Aquatic plant systems for wastewater treatment: engineering considerations. In Reddy, K.R. and Smith W.H., eds. : Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. Orlando, FL: Magnolia Publishing, pp. 27-48. Juwarkar, A. S., Oke, B., Juwarkar, A., and Patnaik, S. M., 1995, Domestic Wastewater Treatment through Constructed Wetlands in India, Water Science and Technology, 32(3), pp. 291-294. Billore, S. K., Singh, N., Sharma, J. K., Dass, P., and Nelson, R. M., 1999, Horizontal subsurface flow gravel bed constructed wetland with Phragmites karka in Central India, Water Science and Technology, 40(3), pp. 163-171. Report 4: Constructed Wetland Waste Water Treatment, U.S.Pavilion Auroville, Tamil Nadu, India, 2002-2004 BASIC Initiative, Building Sustainable Communities. http://www.basicinitiative.org. Jayakumar, K.V., and Dandigi, M.N., 2003, A Cost Effective Environmentally Friendly Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Using Constructed Wetlands for Developing Countries, Proceedings of the World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2003 and Related Symposia June 23-26, 2003, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Publisher EWRI-ASCE. Reed, S.C., Crites, R., and Middlebrooks, E.J., 1988, Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment, Second Edition, McGrawHill: New York. Hammer, D.A., and Bastian R.K., 1989, Wetlands Ecosystems: Natural Water Purifiers? In: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural. D.A. Hammer, eds, Lewis Publishers:Chelsea, Michigan, pp. 5-20.

[11] [12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

173

[20]

Doku, I.A., and Heinke, G.W., 1993, The potential for use of wetlands for wastewater in the northwest territories, Report to the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs Government of the Northwest Territories. Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., and Laroe, E.T., 1979, Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Pub. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C., p.103. Wetzel, R.G., 2001, Fundamental processes within natural and constructed wetland ecosystems: Short-term versus long-term objectives, Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association of Water Pollution Research, 44 (11-12), pp.1-8. Steiner, G.R., and Feeman, R.J., 1988, Configuration and substrate design considerations for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Prepares for the international conference on constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Chattanooga, TN. Brix, H., 1994, Functions of Macrophytes in Constructed Wetlands, Water Science and Technology, 29(4), pp. 71-78. Watson, J.T., 1992, Constructed wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment: State of the art, Presented at the symposium des Eaux usees per les plants: Perspectives DAvenir auz Quebec, P.Q Brix, H., 1994, Use of constructed wetlands in water pollution control: Historical development, present status and future perspectives, Water Science and Technology, 30(8), pp.209-323. Jan Vymazal, 2010, Constructed treatment, Water, 2, pp. 530-549. wetlands for wastewater

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24] [25]

[26]

[27] [28] [29]

Seidel, K., 1973, Patent: System for Purification of Polluted Water. United States US 3,770,623. Gearhart, R.A., Kloop, F., and Allen, G., 1989. Constructed free surface wetlands to treat and receive wastewater: Pilot project to full scale. In Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Municipal, industrial and agricultural, Hammer, D.A., eds., Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI., pp.121-137.

174

[30]

Jan Vymazal, 2005, Horizontal sub-surface flow and hybrid constructed wetlands systems for wastewater treatment, Ecological Engineering, 25, pp. 478-490. De Jong, J., 1976, The Purification of Wastewater with the Aid of Rush or Reed Ponds. In BiologicalControl of Water Pollution; Tourbier, J., Pierson, R.W., eds. Pennsylvania University Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1976; pp. 133-139. Boutin, C., 1987, Domestic wastewater treatment in tanks planted with rooted macrophytes: case study, description of the system, design criteria, and efficiency. Water Science and Technology, 19, pp. 29-40. Lienard, A., Boutin, C., and Essar, D., 1990, Domestic wastewater treatment with hydrophytes in France, In Cooper, P.F., Findlater, B.C., eds, Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control, (Advances in Water Pollution Control, No.11), Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 183-192. Burka, U., and Lawrence, P., 1990, A New Community Approach to Wastewater treatment with Higher Water Plants. In Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control; Cooper, P.F.; Findlater, B.C., eds; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1990; pp. 359-371. Lakshman, G., 1979, An ecosystem approach to the treatment of wastewaters, Environmental Quality, 8, pp.353-361. Kok, T., 1974, The purification of sewage from a camping site with the aid of bulrush pond, H2O, 7, pp. 536-544. Greiner, R.W., and De Jong, J., 1984, The use of marsh plants for the treatment of wastewater in areas designated for recreation and tourism, RIJP Report No. 225, Lelystad, Nizozem. Scott Wallace, 2004, Engineered wetlands lead the way, Land and Water, pp. 13-16. Kickuth, R., and Konemann, N., 1987, Patent: Method for the purification of sewage waters. Unites States, Germany 4, 793, 929. Brix, H., 1987, Treatment of wastewater in the rhizosphere of wetland plantsthe root-zone method, Water Science and Technology, 19 (10), pp. 107-118.

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35] [36] [37]

[38] [39] [40]

175

[41]

Brix, H., Schierup, H.H., and Lorenzen, B., 1989, Design criteria for BOD- removal in constructed reed beds. In: degaard,H., Editor: Design and operation of small wastewater treatment plants, Tapir, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 407-414. Nichols, D.S., 1983, Capacity of Natural Wetlands to Remove Nutrients from Wastewater, Water Pollution Control Federation, 55, 5, 495-504. Wolverton, B. C., 1982, Hybrid Wastewater Treatment System Using Anaerobic Microorganisms and Reed (Phragmites communis), Economic Botany, 36 (4), pp. 373-380. Gersberg, R.M., Elkins, B.V., and Goldman, C.R. 1983, Nitrogen removal in artificial wetlands, Water Research, Pergamon Press, Great Britain, 17 (9), pp. 1009-1014. Gersberg, R.M., Elkins, B.V., and Goldman, C.R., 1984, Wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands, Water Science Technology, 17, pp. 443-50. Gersberg, R.M., Elkins, B.V., Lyon, S.R., and Goldman, C.R., 1986, Role of aquatic plants in wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands, Water Research, 20(3), pp.363-368. Conway, T.E., and Murtha, J.M., 1989, The Iselin marsh pond meadow, In Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Municipal, industrial and agricultural, Hammer, D. A., eds., Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. pp.139-144. Herskowitz, J., Black, S., and Lewandowski, W. 1987, Listowel artificial marsh treatment project, pp. 247-254, In: K. R. Reddy and W.H. Smith eds., Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. Proceedings of the Conference on Research and Applications of Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery, held in Orlando, Fla. during July 20-24, 1986. Magnolia Publishing Inc. Orlando, Fla. Choate, K.D., Watson, J.T., and Steiner, G.R., 1990, Demonstration of constructed wetlands for treatment of municipal wastewaters, Monitoring report for the period March 1988 to October 1989. TVA/WWWZ-90/11. Water Resources River Basin Operations Resource Development Tennessee Valley Authority, p.107.

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

176

[50]

Bastian, R.K., and Hammer, D.A., 1993, The use of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and recycling In G.A. Moshiri edr.. Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, pp. 59-68. U.S. EPA, 2000, Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat, EPA 843/B-00/003, (4502F), U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC. Vymazal, J., 1996, The use of Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in the Czech Republic, Ecological Engineering, 7, pp. 1-14. Vymazal, J., 1996, Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in the Czech Republic the First 5 Years Experience. Water science and technology, 34 (11), pp. 159-164. Vymazal, J., 2002, The use of sub-surface constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic: 10 years experience, Ecological Engineering, 18, pp. 633-646. Neralla, S., Weaver, R.W., Lesikar, B.J., and Persyn, R.A., 2000, Improvement of Domestic Wastewater Quality by Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands, Bio Resources Technology, 75, pp. 19-25. Cooper, P., and Green, B. 1995, Reed bed treatment systems for sewage treatment in the United Kingdom-- The first 10 years' experience, Water Science and Technology, 32(3), pp. 317-327. Ciria, M.P., Solano, M.L., and Soriano, P., 2005, Role of Macrophtye Typha latifolia in a Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment and Assessment for its Potential as a Biomass Fuel, BioSystems Engineering, 92(4), pp. 535-544. Keffala, C., and Gharabi, A., 2005, Nutrient and Bacterial Removal in Constructed Wetlands Treating Domestic Wastewater, Desalination, 185, pp. 383-389. Jing, S.R., Lin, Y.F., Lee, D.Y., and Wang, T.W., 2001, Nutrient Removal from Polluted River Water using Constructed Wetlands, Bio Resources Technology, 76, pp. 131-135.

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

177

[60]

Ruan, X., Xue, Y., Wu, J., Ni, L., Sun, M., and Zhan, X., 2006, Treatment of Polluted River Water using Pilot-scale Constructed Wetlands, B. Environmental Contamination and Technology, 76, pp. 90-97. Scholz, M., Sadowski, A. J., Harrington, R., and Carrol, P., 2007, Integrated Constructed Wetlands Assessment and Design for Phosphate Removal, BioSystems Engineering, 97, pp. 415-423. Sawaittayolthin, V., and Polpvasert, C., 2007, Nitrogen Mass Balance and Microbial Analysis of Constructed Wetlands Treating Municipal Landfill Leachate, Bio Resources Technology, 98, pp. 565570. Lee, C.Y., Lee, C.C., Lee, F.Y., Tseng, S.K., and Lia, C.T., 2004, Performance of Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland Taking Pretreated Swine Effluent under Heavy Loads, Bio Resources Technology, 92, pp. 173-179. Ojstrsek, A., Fakin, D., and Vrhovsek, D., 2007, Residual Dyebath Purification using a System of Constructed Wetland, Dyes and Pigments, 74, pp. 503-507. U.S. EPA, 1993, Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assessment, EPA 832-R-93008, USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC. Al-Omari, A., and Fayyad, M., 2003, Treatment of domestic wastewater by subsurface flow constructed wetlands in Jordan, Desalination, 155(1), pp. 27-39. Caselles-Osorio, Puigagut, J., Segu, E., Vaello, N., Granes, F., Garcia, D., and Garcia, J., 2007, Solids Accumulation in Six Fullscale Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands, Water Research, 41, pp. 1388-1398. Solano, M. L., Soriano, P., and Ciria, M.P., 2004, Constructed Wetlands as a Sustainable Solution for Wastewater Treatment in Small Villages, Biosystems Engineering, 87(1), pp. 109-118. Avsar, Y., Tarabeah, H., Kimchie, S., and Ozturk, I., 2007, Rehabilitation by Constructed Wetlands of Available Wastewater Treatment Plant in Sakhnin, Ecological Engineering, 29(1), pp. 27-32.

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

178

[70]

Antoniasdis, A., Takavakoglou, V., Zalidis, G., and Poulios, I., 2007, Development and Evaluation of an Alternative Method for Municipal Wastewater Treatment using Homogeneous Photocatalysis and Constructed Wetlands, Catalysis Today, 124, pp. 260-265. Huett, D. O., Marris, S. G., Smith, G., and Hunt, N., 2005, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal from Plant Nursery Runoff in Vegetated and Unvegetated Subsurface Flow Wetlands, Water Research, 39 (14), pp. 3259-3272. Bojcrevska, H., and Tanderski, K., 2007, Impact of Loads, Season and Plant Species on the Performance of a Tropical Constructed Polishing Effluent form Sugar Factory Stabilization Ponds, Ecological Engineering, 29, pp. 66-76. Picard, C.R., Fraser, L.H., and Steer, D., 2005, The Interacting Effect of Temperature and Plant Community Type on Nutrient Removal in Wetland Micrososms, Bio Resources Technology, 96, pp. 1039-1047. Calheiros, S.C., Rangel, A., and Castro, P., 2007, Constructed Wetland Systems Vegetated with Different Plants for the Treatment of Tannery Wastewater, Water Research, 41, pp. 1790-1798. Liu, J., Dong, Y., Xu, H., Wang, D., and Xa, J., 2007, Accumulations of Cd, Pb, and Zn by 19 Wetland Species in Constructed Wetland, Hazardous Materials, 147, pp. 947-953. Aslam, M.M., Malik, M., Baig, M.A., Qazi, I.A., and Iqbal, J., 2007, Treatment Performances of Compost Based and Gravel Based Vertical Flow Wetlands Operated Identically for Refinery Wastewater Treatment in Pakistan, Ecological Engineering, 30, pp. 34-42. Calheiros, C.S.C., Rangel, A., and Castro, P.M., 2008, Evaluation of Different Substrates to Support the Growth of Typha latifolia in Constructed Wetlands Treating Tannery Wastewater over Long-term Operation, Bio Resources Technology, 99, pp. 6866-6877. Sirianuntapiboon, S., Kongchum, M., and Jitmaikasem, M., 2006, Effects of Hydraulic Retention Time and Media of Constructed Wetland for Treatment of Domestic Wastewater, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(2), pp. 027-037.

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

179

[79]

Akratos, C. S., and Tsihrintzis, V. S., 2007, Effect of Temperature, HRT, Vegetation, and Porous Media on Removal Efficiency of Pilotscale Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands, Ecological Engineering, 29, pp. 173-191. Bastian, R.K., Shanaghan, P.E. and Thompson, B.P. 1989, Use of wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment and disposal, Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Municipal, industrial and agricultural, D.A. Hammer, edr. Lewis Publishing, Chelsea, MI. Tang, S. 1993. "Experimental Study of a Constructed Wetland for Treatment of Acidic Wastewater for an Iron Mine in China", Ecological Engineering, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 2, pp. 253-259. Watson, J.T., Reed, S.C., Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L. and Whitehouse, A.E., 1988, Performance Expectations and Loading Rates for Constructed Wetlands, Prepared for the International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Chattanooga, TN. Gearhart, R.A., 1992, Use of constructed wetlands to treat domestic wastewater, City of Arcata, California, Water Science Technology. 26, pp.1626-1627. Bavor, H.J. and Schulz, T.J. 1993, Sustainable Suspended Solids and Nutrient Removal in Large-Scale, Solid Matrix Constructed Wetlands Systems, in Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. G.A. Moshiri, Ed. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FLA. Steiner, G.R., Watson, J.T. and Choate, K.D. 1991, General Design, Construction and Operation Guidelines for Small Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems, Prepared for the International Symposium on Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, Pensacola, FLA. Pride, R.E., Nohrstedt, J.S. and Benefield, L.D. 1990, "Utilization of Created Wetlands to Upgrade Small Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems", Water. Air and Soil Pollution, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 50, pp.371-385. Tettleton, R.P., Howell, F.G., and Reaves, R.P., 1993, Performance of a Constructed Marsh in the Tertiary Treatment of Bleach Kraft Pulp Mill Effluent: Results of a 2-year Pilot Project, In Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement; Moshiri, G.A., edr., CRC Press/Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 437-440.

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

180

[88]

Watson, J.T., Diodato, F.D., and Lauch, M. 1986, "Design and Performance of the Artificial Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Plant at Iselin, Pennsylvania", Prepared for presentation at the Conference for Research and Application of Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery, Orlando, FLA. Reed, S.C., and Brown, D.S. 1992, Constructed wetlands design the first generations, Water environment research, Washington, D.C., 64 (6), pp. 776-781. U.S. EPA, 1988, Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, EPA 625/188/022, US EPA Office of Water: Washington DC. Davison, L., Headley, T., and Pratt, K., 2005, Aspects of design, structure, performance and operation of reed beds-eight years experience in northeastern New South Wales, Australia. Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 51(10), pp.129-138. Brodie, G.A., 1989, Selection and evaluation of sites for constructed wastewater treatment wetlands. In: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, pp. 307-317. Steiner, G.R., and Watson, J.T., 1993, General design, construction, and operation guidelines: constructed wetlands wastewater treatment systems for small users including individual residences / United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Tennessee Valley Authority, National Small Flows Clearinghouse Publisher: Morgantown, WV: National Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, p. 42. Steer, D., Fraser, L., and Seibert, B., 2002, Efficiency of small constructed wetlands for subsurface treatment of single-family domestic effluent, Ecological Engineering, 18, pp. 429-440. Garcia, J., Aquirre, P., Barragan, J., Mujeriego, R., Matamoros, V., and Bayona, J., 2005, Effect of key design parameters on the efficiency of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands, Ecological Engineering, 25(4), pp. 405-418. Donald A. Hammer, 1991, Creating Freshwater Wetlands, CRS Press, ISBN 9780873714457, p. 312.

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

181

[97]

Wallace, S., Parkin, G., and Gross, C., 2001, Cold climate wetlands : Design and performance, Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 44 (11-12), pp. 259-265. Kadlec, R.H., and Reddy, K.R., 2001, Temperature effects in treatment wetlands, Water Environment Research, 73(5), pp. 543557. Marble, A.D., 1991, A guide to wetland functional design, Lewis publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 222. Tanner, C.C., and Kadlec, R.H., 2003, Oxygen flux implications of observed nitrogen removal rates in subsurface flow treatment wetlands, Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 48 (5), pp. 191-198. Munch, C., Kuschk, P., and Roske, L., 2005, Root simulated nitrogen removal: Only a local effect or important for water treatment?, Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 51(9), pp. 185-192. Allen, W.C., Hook, P.B., Biederman, J.A., and Stein, O.R., 2002, Temperature and wetland plant species effects on wastewater treatment and root zone oxidation, Journal of Environmental Quality, 31(3), pp. 1010-1016. Stottmeister, U., Wiessner, A., Kuschk, P., Kappelmeyer, U., Kasner, M., and Mederski, O., 2003, Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, Biotechnology Advances, 22(1-2), pp. 93-117. Vymazal, J., Balcarova, J., and Dousova, H., 2001, Bacterial dynamics in the subsurface constructed wetland. Water Science and Technology, A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 44 (11-12), pp.207-209. Drizo, A., Frost, C.A., Smith, K.A., and Greece, J., 1997, Phosphate and ammonium removal by constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow, using shale as a substrate, Water Science and Technology, 35 (5), pp.95-102.

[98]

[99] [100]

[101]

[102]

[103]

[104]

[105]

182

[106]

APHA, 1995, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, A.E. Greenberg, edr., 19th edition, American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and the Water Environmental Federation (WEF): Washington DC. Gasiunas, V., Strussevicius, Z., and Struseviciene, M., 2005, Pollutant removal by horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands in Lithuania, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 40, pp. 1467-1477. Merlin, G., Pajean, J.L., and Lissolo, T., 2002, Performance of constructed wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment in rural mountainous area. Hydrobiologia, 469 (1-3), pp. 87-98. Brix, H., and Arias, C.A., 2005, Danish guidelines for small-scale constructed wetland systems for onsite treatment of domestic sewage. Water Science and Technology, 51(9), pp. 1-9. Rousseau, D.P.L., Vanrolleghem, P.A., and DePauw, N., 2004, Constructed wetlands in Flanders: A performance analysis, Ecological Engineering, 23 (3), pp. 151-163. Vanier, S.M., and Dahab, M.F., 2001, Start-up performance of a subsurface flow constructed wetland for domestic wastewater treatment, Environmental Technology, 22(5), pp. 587-596. Dietrich, W. E., 1982, Settling Velocity of Natural Particles, Water Resources Research, 18, pp. 1615-1626. Puigagut, J., Caselles-Osorio, A., Vaello, N., and Garcia, J., 2008, Fractionation, Biodegradability and Particle-Size Distribution of Organic Matter in Horizontal Subsurface-Flow Constructed Wetlands, Springer, Netherlands, Wastewater Treatment, Plant Dynamics and Management in Constructed and Natural Wetlands, Chap. 25, Vymazal, J., edr.. pp. 289-297. Hosokawa, Y., and Horie, T., 1992, Flow and Particulate Nutrient Removal by Wetlands with Emergent Macrophytes, R. Vollenweider, R. Marchetti and R. Viviani, eds., Marine Coastal Eutrophication: Science of the Total Environment, Elsevier, pp. 1271-1282.

[107]

[108]

[109]

[110]

[111]

[112] [113]

[114]

183

[115]

Platzer, M., 1997, Soil Clogging in Vertical Flow Reed Beds Mechanisms, Parameters, Consequences and Solutions, Water Science Technology, 35, pp. 75-181. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2001b, Ohio environmental protection agency general permit authorization to discharge wastewater from new and replacement household sewage treatment systems under the national pollutant discharge elimination system. Columbus, OH: OEPA. Tanner, C.C., Kadlec, R.H., Gibbs, M.M., Sukias, J.P.S., and Nguyen, M.L., 2002, Nitrogen processing gradients in subsurfaceflow treatment wetlands-influence of wastewater characteristics, Ecological Engineering, 18, pp. 499-520. Axler, R., Henneck, J., and McCarthy, B., 2001, Residential subsurface flow treatment wetlands in northern Minnesota, Water Science and Technology, 44 (11-12), pp. 345-352. Kuschk, P., Wiener, A., Kapplemeyer, U., Weibrodt, E., Kastner, M., and Stottmeister, U., 2003, Annual cycle of nitrogen removal by a pilot-scale subsurface horiszontal flow in a constructed wetland under moderate climate, Water Research, 37, pp.4236-4242. Bayley, M.L., Davison, L., and Headley, T.R., 2003, Nitrogen removal from domestic effluent using subsurface flow constructed wetlands: Influence of depth, hydraulic residence time and prenitrification, Water Science and Technology: A Journal of Association of Water Pollution Research, 48(5), pp. 175-182. Luderitz, V., and Garlach, G., 2002, Phosphorus removal in different constructed wetlands, Acta Biotechnologica, 22(1-2), pp. 91-99. Mander, U., Kuusemets, V., Lohumus, K., Mauring, T., Teiter, S., and Augustin, J., 2003, Nitrous oxide, dinitrogen and methane emission in subsurface flow constructed wetland, Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 48 (5), pp.135-142. Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., Correll, D.F., Howarth, R.W., Sharply, A.N., and Smith, V.H., 1998, Non-point pollution of surface waters with nitrogen and phosphorus, Ecological Applications., 8(3), pp. 559-568.

[116]

[117]

[118]

[119]

[120]

[121]

[122]

[123]

184

[124]

Brix, H., Arias, C.A., and del Bubba, M., 2001, Media selection for sustainable phosphorus removal in subsurface flow constructed wetlands, Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 44(11-12), pp. 47-54. Drizon, A., Frost, C.A., Grace, J., and Smith, K.A., 1999, Physicochemical screening of phosphate-removing substrates for use in constructed wetland systems, Water Research, 33(7), pp. 3595-3602. Forbes, M.G., Dickson, K.L., Saleh, F., Waller, W.T., Doyle, R.D., and Hudak, P., 2005, Recovery and fractionation of phosphorus retained by lightweight expanded sale and masonry used as media in subsurface flow treatment wetlands, Environmental Science and Technology, 39(12), pp.4621-4627. Schindler, F., Howe, L., Nagendran, R. and Vasudevan, N. 2000, Planning and erection of two field research Root Zone Treatment Plants at Anna University, Chennai, India, International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Tropical and Subtropical Regions, December, 11-13, Chennai, India. Vasudevan, N., Nithya, R. and Schindler, F. 2000, Performance of Root Zone Treatment for domestic wastewater at Sholinganallur, Chennai, International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Tropical and Subtropical Regions, December, 11-13, Chennai, India. http://www.wasterecycleinfo.com Pritchard, A., 1969, Statistical Bibilography or Bibilometric?, Journal of Documentation, 25 (4), pp. 348-349. Rodriguez, K., and Moreiro, J.A., 1996, The growth and development of research in the field of ecology as measured by dissertation title analysis, Journal of Scientometrics, 35 (1), pp.59-50. Chiu, W.T., and Ho, Y.S., 2007, Bibilometric analysis of tsunami research, Journal of Scientometrics, 73(1), pp. 3-17. Zhang, L., Wang, M.H., Hu, J., and Ho, Y.S., 2010, A Review of Published Wetland Research, 1991-2008: Ecological Engineering and Ecosystem Restoration, Ecological Engineering, 36, pp. 973-980.

[125]

[126]

[127]

[128]

[129] [130] [131]

[132] [133]

185

[134] [135] [136] [137]

http://www.reed-elsevier.com http://www.elsevier.com http;//www.scopus.com Sheoran, A.S., 2006, A laboratory treatment study of acid mine water of wetlands with emergent macrophyte (Typha augustata), International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 20(3), pp. 209-222. Teivedy, R.K., 2007, Low cost and energy saving technologies for water and wastewater treatment, Journal of Industrial Pollution Control, 23(2), pp. 403-411. Valipour, A., Kalvan Raman, V., and Ghole, V.S., 2009, A new approach in wetland systems for domestic wastewater treatment using Phragmites sp., Ecological Engineering, 35 (12), pp. 1797-1803. Sreenikethan, G., Maheesan, P.M., and Harikumar, P.S, 2009, Tertiary treatment in a vertical flow reed bed system, Journal of Industrial Pollution Control, 25 (1), pp. 79-81. Sonavane, P.G., and Munavalli, G.R., 2009, Modeling nitrogen removal in a constructed wetland treatment system, Water Science and Technology, 60 (2), pp. 301-309. Ghosh, D., and Gopal, B., 2010, Effect of hydraulic retention time on the treatment of secondary effluent in a subsurface flow constructed wetland, Ecological Engineering, 36 (8), pp. 1044-1051. Singh, P.K., Sharma, K.P., Sharma, S., Swami, R.C., and Sharma, S., 2010, Polishing of biomethanated spent wash (primary treated) in constructed wetland: A bench scale study, Indian Journal of Biotechnology, 9 (3), pp. 313-318. Navarra, G.A., 1992, Constructed Wetland for Extensive Sewage Treatment in the Alps, Proceedings of the INTECOL 4th International Wetlands Conference (September 1992), Columbus, Ohio. http://www.cefns.nau.edu Metcalf, and Eddy, 2003, Wastewater engineering, treatment and reuse, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.

[138]

[139]

[140]

[141]

[142]

[143]

[144]

[145] [146]

186

[147]

Tamimi A., 2003, Sustainable Development of Drylands in Asia and the Middle East: Jordan Component, USAID funded Project, Technical Report # 1001/2003, International Arid Land Consortium, The University of Arizona. Asan, T., and Levine, A.D. 1996, Wastewater reclamation and reuse: past, present and future, Water Science and Technology, 33 (10-11), pp. 1-14. http://www.johnkyrk.com The Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater (Environmental Protection Agency 1982), EPA Number: 600482029, September, 1982, Office of Water Resource Center (WRC) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, p. 416. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines for Handling and Preserving Samples. Patterson, R.A., Davey, K. and Farnan, N., 2001, Peat Bed Filters for On-site Treatment of Septic Tank Effluent in Proceedings of On-site 01 Conference: Advancing On -site Wastewater Systems by R.A. Patterson & M.J. Jones eds.. Published by Lanfax Laboratories, Armidale. pp 315-322. Patterson, R.A., 2003, Nitrogen in Wastewater and its Role in Constraining Onsite Planning in Future Directions for On-site Systems: Best Management Practice, Proceedings of On-site 03 Conference by Patterson, R.A. and Jones, M.J. eds. Held at University of New England, Armidale 30th September to 2nd October 2003. Published by Lanfax Laboratories Armidale. ISBN 0-95794381-4, pp. 313-320. U.S. EPA, 2000, Constructed wetlands treatment of municipal wastewaters, EPA 625/R-99/010, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development: Washington D.C. Kadlec, R.H., and Knight, R.L., Treatment Wetlands, CRC Press/Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996. Wallace, S.D., and Knight, R.L., 2006, Small Scale Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems: Feasibility, Design Criteria, and O&M Requirements, Final Report, Project 01-CTS-5, Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), Alexandria, Virginia.

[148]

[149] [150]

[151] [152]

[153]

[154]

[155] [156]

187

[157]

Brisson, J., Chazarenc, F., and Bisaillon, L. A., 2006, Maximizing Pollutant Removal in Subsurface Constructed Wetland: Should We Pay More Attention to Macrophyte Species Selection?, V. Dias and J. Vymazal, eds., Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, 2329 September 2006; Ministerio de Ambiente, do Ordemamento do Territori e do Desenvolvimento Regional (MAOTDR) and IWA: Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 909-917. Yalcuk, A. and Ugurlu, A. 2009, Comparison of horizontal and vertical constructed wetland systems for landfill leachate treatment, Bioresource Technology, 100, pp. 2521-2526. Langergraber, G., Tietz, A., and Haberi, R., 2006, Comparison of Measured and Simulated Distribution of Microbial Biomass in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands, Dias V., and Vymazal J., eds., Proc. 10th International conference on wetland systems for water pollution control. Newman, M.J., Clausen, J.C., and Neafsey, J.A., 2000, Seasonal Performance of a Wetland Constructed to Process Dairy Milkhouse Wastewater in Connecticut, Ecological Engineering, 14, pp. 181-198. Tanner, C.C., Clayton, J.S. and Upsdell, M.P., 1995, Effect of Loading Rate and Planting on Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewaters in Constructed Wetlands II. Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus, Water Research, 29, pp. 27-34. Sakadevan, K., and Bavor, H., 1998, Phosphate Adsorption Characteristics of Soils, Slags and Zeolites to be used as Substrates in Constructed Wetland Systems, Water Research, 22(2), pp. 293-299. Zaimoglu, Z., 2006, Treatment of campus wastewater by a pilot-scale constructed wetland utilizing Typha latifolia, Juncus acutus and Iris versicolor, Journal of Environmental Biology, 27 (2), pp. 293-298. Korkusuz, E.A., Beklioglu, M., and Demirer, G.N., 2005, Comparison of the treatment performances of blast furnace slagbased and gravel-based vertical flow wetlands operated identically for domestic wastewater treatment in Turkey, Ecological Engineering, 24 (3), pp. 187-200. Dallas, S., and Ho, G., 2005, Subsurface flow reedbeds using alternative media for the treatment of domestic greywater in Monteverde, Costa Rica, Central America, Water Science and Technology, 51 (10), pp. 119-128.

[158]

[159]

[160]

[161]

[162]

[163]

[164]

[165]

188

[166]

Tunsiper, B., 2007, Removal of nutrient and bacteria in pilot-scale constructed wetlands, Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 42 (8), pp. 1117-1124. Li, L., Li, Y., Biswas, D.K., Nian, Y., and Jiang, G., 2008, Potential of constructed wetlands in treating the eutrophic water: Evidence from Taihu Lake of China, Bioresource Technology, 99 (6), pp. 1656-1663. Calheiros, C.S.C., Rangel, A.O.S.S., Castro, and P.M.L., 2009, Treatment of industrial wastewater with two-stage constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis, Bioresource Technology, 100 (13), pp. 3205-3213. Prochaska, C.A., and Zouboulis, A.I., 2009, Treatment performance variation at different depths within vertical subsurface-flow experimental wetlands fed with simulated domestic sewage, Desalination, 237 (1-3), pp. 367-377. Admon, S., Tarre, S., Sabbah, I., Lahav, O., Beliavski, M., and Green, M., 2005, Treatment of presettled municipal wastewater using a passively aerated vertical bed, Environmental Engineering Science, 22 (6), pp.707-715. Vohla, C., Alas, R., Nurk, K., Baatz, S., and Mander, U., 2007, Dynamics of phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon removal in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland, Science of the Total Environment, 380 (1-3), pp. 66-74. Oovel, M., Tooming, A., Mauring, T., and Mander, U., 2007, Schoolhouse wastewater purification in a LWA-filled hybrid constructed wetland in Estonia, Ecological Engineering, 29 (1), pp. 17-26. Gikas, G.D., and Tsihrintzis, V.A., 2010, On-site treatment of domestic wastewater using a small-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland, Water Science and Technology, 62 (3), pp. 603-614. Asuman Korkusuz, E., Beklioglu, M., and Demirer, G.N., 2007, Use of blast furnace granulated slag as a substrate in vertical flow reed beds: Field application, Bioresource Technology, 98 (11), pp. 2089-2101.

[167]

[168]

[169]

[170]

[171]

[172]

[173]

[174]

189

[175]

Tang, X.Q., Huang, S.L., and Scholz, M., 2009, Comparison of phosphorus removal between vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands with different substrates, Water and Environment Journal, 23 (3), pp. 180-188. Lesage, E., Mundia, C., Rousseau, D.P.L., Van de Moortel, A.M.K., Du Laing, G., Meers, E., Tack, F.M.G., and Verloo, M.G., 2007, Sorption of Co, Cu, Ni and Zn from industrial effluents by the submerged aquatic macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum L., Ecological Engineering, 30 (4), pp. 320-325 Van De Moortel, A.M.K., Meers, E., De Pauw, N., and Tack, F.M.G., 2010, Effects of vegetation, season and temperature on the removal of pollutants in experimental floating treatment wetlands, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 212 (1-4), pp. 281-297.

[176]

[177]

190

APPENDIX 1 MULTICOMPARISON TEST (HRT)

Multicomparison test was applied to the effluent concentrations of different groups. The parameters were grouped based on hydraulic retention time (HRT). Group 1 indicates the sampling results of 2-day HRT. Group 2 indicates the sampling results of 4-day HRT. Group 3 indicates sampling results of 6-day HRT. Group 4 indicates sampling results of 8-day HRT. The differences between groups indicate the percentage reduction of parameter vary with HRT. Multicomparison test was also applied to the effluent concentrations of different HSSFCW units of ESP 3.

Figure A 1.1 Difference in Effluent COD between 2 and 6, 8- day HRT

191

Figure A 1.2 Difference in Effluent COD between 4 and 6, 8- day HRT

Figure A 1.3 Difference in Effluent COD between 6 and 2, 4- day HRT

192

Figure A 1.4 Difference in Effluent COD between 8 and 2, 4- day HRT

Figure A 1.5 Difference in Effluent BOD between 2 and 6, 8- day HRT

193

Figure A 1.6 Difference in Effluent BOD between 4 and 6, 8- day HRT

Figure A 1.7 Difference in Effluent BOD between 6 and 2, 4- day HRT

194

Figure A 1.8 Difference in Effluent BOD between 8 and 2, 4-day HRT

Figure A 1.9 Difference in Effluent TN between 2 and 6, 8-day HRT

195

Figure A 1.10 Difference in Effluent TN between 4 and 8-day HRT

Figure A 1.11 Difference in Effluent TN between 6 and 2, 8-day HRT

196

Figure A 1.12 Difference in Effluent TN between 8 and 2, 4, 6-day HRT

Figure A 1.13 Difference in Effluent TP between 2 and 6, 8-day HRT

197

Figure A 1.14 Difference in Effluent TP between 4 and 8 day HRT

Figure A 1.15 Difference in Effluent TP between 6 and 2, 8-day HRT

198

Figure A 1.16 Difference in Effluent TP between 8 and 2, 4, 6-day HR

Figure A 1.17 Difference in Effluent TSS between 2 and 6, 8- day HRT

199

Figure A 1.18 Difference in Effluent TSS between 4 and 8 day HRT

Figure A 1.19 Difference in Effluent TSS between 6 and 2 day HRT

200

Figure A 1.20 Difference in Effluent TSS between 8 and 2,4-day HRT

201

APPENDIX 2 MULTICOMPARISON TEST (UNITS)

Multicomparison

test

was

also

applied

to

the

effluent

concentrations of different HSSFCW units of ESP 3. Group 1 PAGS Unit Group 2 PAPS Unit Group 3 PAGB Unit Phragmites australis in gravel-sand media Phragmites australis in pebbles-sand media Phragmites australis in gravel-sand media with baffle in treatment chamber Group 4 TLGS Unit Group 5 SMPS Unit Group 6 FLMS Unit Group 7 CON Unit Typha latifolia in gravel-sand media Submerged Myriophyllum spicatum in sand media Floating Lemna minor in sand media Control Unit with gravel-sand media but no vegetation.

202

Figure A 2.1 Difference in Effluent COD between PAGS and CON

Figure A 2.2 Difference in Effluent COD between PAPS and CON

203

Figure A 2.3 Difference in Effluent COD between PAGB and CON

Figure A 2.4 Difference in Effluent COD between TLGS and CON

204

Figure A 2.5 Difference in Effluent COD between SMPS and CON

Figure A 2.6 Difference in Effluent COD between FLMS and CON

205

Figure A 2.7 Difference in Effluent COD between CON and other 6 units

Figure A 2.8 Difference in Effluent BOD between PAGS and FLMS, CON

206

Figure A 2.9 Difference in Effluent BOD between PAPS and CON

Figure A 2.10 Difference in Effluent BOD between PAGB and CON

207

Figure A 2.11 Difference in Effluent BOD between TLGS and FLMS, CON

Figure A 2.12 Difference in Effluent BOD between SMPS and CON

208

Figure A 2.13 Difference in Effluent BOD between FLMS and PAGS, TLGS, CON

Figure A 2.14 Difference in Effluent BOD between CON and other 6 units

209

Figure A 2.15 No difference in Effluent TN between PAGS and other 6 units

Figure A 2.16 No difference in Effluent TN between PAPS and other 6 units

210

Figure A 2.17 No difference in Effluent TN between PAGB and other 6 units

Figure A 2.18 No difference in Effluent TN between TLGS and other 6 units

211

Figure A 2.19 Difference in Effluent TN between SMPS and CON

Figure A 2.20 Difference in Effluent TN between FLMS and CON

212

Figure A 2.21 Difference in Effluent TN between CON and SMPS, FLMS

Figure A 2.22 Difference in Effluent TP between PAGS and SMPS, CON

213

Figure A 2.23 Difference in Effluent TP between PAPS and SMPS, FLMS, CON

Figure A 2.24 Difference in Effluent TP between PAGB and CON

214

Figure A 2.25 Difference in Effluent TP between TLGS and CON

Figure A 2.26 Difference in Effluent TP between SMPS and PAGS, PAPS, CON

215

Figure A 2.27 Difference in Effluent TP between FLMS and PAPS, CON

Figure A 2.28 Difference in Effluent TP between CON and other 6 units

216

Figure A 2.29 No difference in Effluent TSS between PAGS and other 6 units

Figure A 2.30 No difference in Effluent TSS between PAPS and other 6 units

217

Figure A 2.31 No difference in Effluent TSS between PAGB and other 6 units

Figure A 2.32 No difference in Effluent TSS between TLGS and other 6 units

218

Figure A 2.33 No difference in Effluent TSS between SMPS and other 6 units

Figure A 2.34 No difference in Effluent TSS between FLMS and other 6 units

219

Figure A 2.35 No difference in Effluent TSS between CON and other 6 units

220

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. Baskar, G., Deeptha, V.T., and Abdul Rahaman, A., 2009, Treatment of Wastewater from Kitchen in an Institution Hostel Mess using Constructed Wetland, International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering, 1(6), pp.54-58, Academy Publishers, Finland, URL: http://www.academypublisher.com/ijrte/vol01/no06/ijrte0106054058.p df Baskar, G., Deeptha, V.T., and Abdul Rahaman, A., 2009, Root Zone Technology for Campus Wastewater Treatment, Journal of Environmental Research and Development, 3(3), pp. 695-705, Jerad Publications, URL: http://www.jerad.org/dispabstract.php?vID=277 Baskar, G., and Deeptha, V.T., Wastewater Management by Root Zone Technology, 2009, Proceedings of National Conference on Innovations in Civil Engineering (ICE 2009), March 19-20, 2009, B.S.Abdur Rahman Crescent University, Chennai, India. Baskar, G., and Deeptha, V.T., 2008, LAKE 2008 Conservation and Management of River and Lake Ecosystems, Paper No. 7.3, Constructed Wetlands as Remedial Measure for Water Pollution, T.V. Ramachandra, N.V.Joshi, M.D.Subhash Chandran, Krishna Alluri, A.R.Shivakumar, K.V.Gururaja, J.Dhaval, B.Karthick, M.A.Khan, Harish Bhat, V.K.Snehalatha, B.Alakanandha, G.Supriya, M.Boominathan, D.T.Arun eds., Energy and Wetlands Research Group Publishers, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. Baskar, G., and Deeptha, V.T., 2008, ICER-08 - International Congress of Environmental Research, Root Zone Technology for Campus Wastewater Treatment, 69, Subhash C.Pandey edr., Jerad Publications, Bhopal, Birla Institute of Technology and SciencePilani, Goa Campus, India. Baskar, G., Deeptha, V.T., and Abdul Rahaman, A., 2008, NCRTWWT 2008 National Conference on Recent Trends in Wastewater Treatment, 6, Wastewater Treatment using Root Zone Technology, R.Karthikeya, B.Karunanithi, B.S.M.Kumar eds., Publishers: Department of Chemical Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur, Chennai, India, pp. 32-37.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

221

7.

Baskar, G., and Deeptha, V.T., 2008, Root Zone Technology for Treatment of Wastewater. 2008, Proceedings of National Conference on Frontline Areas of Civil Engineering - NCFACE 2008, April 2425, 2008, V.L.B.Janakiammal College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, India. Baskar, G., and Deeptha, V.T., 2008, NIRANTHARA Sustainable Architecture and Green Buildings, Analysis and Characterization of Wastewater from SRM University Campus, Publishers: School of Architecture and Interior Design, SRM University, Kattankulathur, Chennai, India. Baskar, G., and Deeptha, V.T., 2006, ICHWM-06 International Conference on Hydrology and Watershed Management, Nutrient Reduction and Pesticides from Irrigation Tail Water by Constructed Wetlands - A review, Publishers: Centre for Water Resources, Institute of Science and Technology, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, India. Baskar, G., and Deeptha, V.T., 2006, HOWARM 2006 Holistic Water Resources Management, 13, Nutrient Reduction and Pollutant Removal from Agricultural Runoff using Constructed Wetlands - A Review, Publishers: Department of Civil Engineering, B.S.Abdur Rahman Crescent Engineering College, Vandalur, Chennai, India, pp. 89-99.

8.

9.

10.

222

VITAE

G.Baskar was born to Mr.G.Gopalan and Mrs.E.Premavathi on 15th January 1969 at Agaramchery village, near Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. He and his wife Mrs.S.Vasantha are blessed with a lovely child B.Varsha Nehal. He did his primary education at Government High School, Agaramchery and secondary education at Government Higher Secondary School, Pallikonda. He joined Arulmigu Kalasalingam College of

Engineering, Srivilliputtur, Tamil Nadu for his Under Graduate studies and received his B.E. (Civil Engineering) from Madurai Kamaraj University in 1990. He worked in Highways Department, Vellore, under temporary basis for one year. Then, he pursued post-graduation at Centre for Water Resources in 1991 and obtained his M.E. (Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering) in 1993 from Anna University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. From 1993 onwards he has been teaching Graduate Degree courses in the Department of Civil Engineering, SRM Engineering College and the subjects taught includes Fluid Mechanics, Hydraulic Engineering, Water Supply Engineering, Sanitary Engineering, Irrigation Engineering, and Environmental Engineering. In 2005 he registered for PhD at SRM University under the guidance of Dr.V.Deeptha Thattai, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, SRM University. The author is currently working as Selection Grade Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The author has to his credit the publication of 2 international journal papers, 4 international conference papers, 8 national conference papers, 2 articles in book, and 1 editing work for book.