Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

A full-scale comparison of two hybrid constructed wetlands treating

domestic wastewater in Pakistan
Mahwish Ali a, b, Diederik P.L. Rousseau b, Safia Ahmed a, *
a
Department of Microbiology, Quaid-i-Azam University, 45320 Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Department of Industrial Biological Sciences, Ghent University Campus Kortrijk, Graaf Karel de Goedelaan 5, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objective of the current work was to monitor the year-round response of full-scale hybrid constructed-
Received 4 May 2017 wetlands (CWs) treating domestic wastewater under variable continuous flow. Two systems were
Received in revised form evaluated: system-I consisted of an anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) followed by a saturated vertical
9 January 2018
subsurface-flow (VSSF) CW and a free-water-surface (FWS) CW as a tertiary treatment; system-II con-
Accepted 12 January 2018
sisted of an ABR followed by a horizontal subsurface-flow (HSSF) CW and FWS. Maximum reduction of 80
and 78%, 81 and 82%, 63 and 69%, 79 and 89% for chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen
demand (BOD), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and total suspended solids (TSS) was achieved in Systems I
Keywords:
Anaerobic baffled reactor
and II respectively. There was also effective removal (94% and 93%) of the bacterial population in both
Constructed wetlands systems while more than 94% of pathogenic microorganisms were removed. Data from both systems
k-C* model were further used to compute the firsteorder rate constants for the keC* model commonly used in CW
Wastewater treatment design. The treatment performance was confirmed to follow a first-order reaction rate, in which the k20
Reuse values of chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids were calculated as 165, 117, 133, 7.5 and
78 m yr
1 respectively for VSSF and 226, 134, 199, 22 and 73 m yr
1 respectively for HSSF. A positive
correlation with temperature was discovered for all parameters in both systems.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction from industrial, agricultural and municipal homes. Under this

Pakistan, as many developing countries, is facing serious water
quantity and water quality issues due to industrial, agricultural and
municipal activities. Water availability among others is predicted to
be less than 700 m3 per capita by 2025 which is far below the in-
ternational standard of 1500 m3 per capita (Martin et al., 2006). In
addition, water pollution is causing unfavorable health conditions
by raising the level of water borne diseases (Azizullah et al., 2011).
An important contributor to water pollution is municipal sewage,
with an estimated discharge to surface water bodies of
7.57  106 m3 day
1. Less than 10% of this wastewater is currently
being treated in municipal wastewater treatment plants and there
are no established provisions for the reuse of treated water (Martin
et al., 2006). In 1997, Government of Pakistan set forth National
environmental quality standards (NEQs) under Pakistan environ-
mental protection act (PEPA) to monitor effluent discharge quality
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ92 5190643009.
E-mail address: sahmed@qau.edu.pk (S. Ahmed).
legislation different ranges of parameters were set as standard
(EPA, P, 1997).
For smaller discharges, constructed wetlands have been proven
to be a cost-effective and sustainable treatment facility, especially
for developing countries (Zhang et al., 2014; Elzein et al., 2016).
Nowadays, treatment wetlands are not only used for small systems
but are also implemented at large scales (Masi et al., 2017). Con-
structed wetlands are wastewater treatment systems engineered to
utilize the natural processes and interactions of wetland vegeta-
tion, bacteria and substrates in a more controlled environment
(Vymazal, 2011). Most studies reveal that they provide high quality
wastewater treatment at relatively low CAPEX and OPEX costs
compared to other conventional technologies (Day et al., 2004).
They also have many potential additional benefits, such as effluent
reuse, biomass production and habitat provision (Rousseau et al.,
2008). It has also been proven that the flush toilet-
esewereconstructed wetland system is a culturally acceptable
alternative for Pakistan (Nawab et al., 2006).
Experience with this wastewater treatment technology is still

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.040
0301-4797/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
350 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358
very limited in Pakistan. Aslam et al. (2007) presented a successful
pilot-scale study with vertical flow constructed wetlands treating
refinery effluent. More recently, Ijaz et al. (2015) and Sehar et al.
(2015) presented promising results from microcosm CW studies
with domestic wastewater.
This paper presents for the first time results from a full-scale CW
system in Pakistan treating domestic wastewater, operated and
monitored during a full year. Hybrid CWs where purposely chosen
because literature (e.g. Vymazal, 2013 and previous lab-scale and
pilot-scale studies (Sehar et al., 2015, 2016) have indicated high
removal efficiencies. The study had three major objectives: (1) to
evaluate the effectiveness of CW domestic wastewater treatment in
Pakistan as influenced by seasonal variation; (2) to compare a
hybrid HSSF-FWS system with a VSSF-FWS system; and (3) to
validate the k-C* model (Kadlec and Knight, 1996) to allow its
further use as a design tool in Pakistan.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site description
The CWs were designed to treat the domestic wastewater
originating from the residential colony of Quaid-i-Azam University
in Islamabad. The site has coordinates 33 440 43.2800 N, 73 704.0900 E
and is located at an elevation of 540 m. Wastewater is collected in
an underground sewage line, treated in a CW system and then
disposed of into the Rawal lake tributary. Before the CWs were
constructed, a septic tank system was treating the same wastewater
flow, and flow data were recorded. Data from 2013 indicated an
average flow rate of 110.1 ± 21.4 m3 day
1. Taking into account 108
households in the residential colony, with on average 6 persons per
household, this translates into an average wastewater production
of 170 liter per capita per day.
Climatic conditions of this region are characterized by large
seasonal and daily temperature variations. The location typically
experiences hot dry summers and cold winters with monsoon
spells. The average monthly temperature ranges from 11.3  C to
29.9  C, with a lowest average minimum of 4.8  C in January up to a
highest average maximum of 36.5  C in June. Islamabad city re-
ceives heavy monsoon spells during the summer months and low
rainfall during winter months. The driest months in this region are
from November through January, although occasionally brief
thunderstorms produce intense precipitation. The normal annual
total precipitation in Islamabad city is 1585 mm.
2.2. System design
The overall system lay-out is shown in Fig. 1. The wastewater is
sequentially treated by a screening unit, anaerobic baffled reactor
and then split into two equal flows to feed hybrid systems I and II.
System-I comprises of a saturated Vertical Subsurface-Flow Con-
structed Wetland (VSSF-CW) followed by a collecting pond and
Free-Water-Surface Constructed Wetland (FWS-CW); similarly
System-II consists of a Horizontal Subsurface-Flow Constructed
Wetland (HSSF-CW) followed by a collecting pond and Free-Water-
Surface Constructed Wetland (FWS-CW). The required area for the
CWs was estimated by using the first-order k-C* equation with the
parameter values for BOD removal as mentioned in Kadlec and
Knight (1996). Final dimensions are shown in Fig. 1.
A screening unit of 1.83 m in length, 0.91 m in width and 1.52 m
deep, was constructed as preliminary treatment to separate coarse
solid particles from raw sewage. It was vertically fitted with two
overlapping bar screens.
An anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) was constructed as primary
treatment system, equally serving as an equalization basin by
moderating incoming wastewater flows. The design was based on
recommendations regarding hydraulic retention time (HRT), sludge
retention time (SRT) and methane production rate provided in
Droste (1997). The resulting water holding volume of the ABR is
92.15 m3 (outer dimensions L 12.8 m  W 4.57 m  H 2.75 m),
providing an HRT of about 20 h, an organic loading rate of 5 kg BOD
m
3 day
1) and an up-flow velocity of 0.9e1.2 m h
1. It is divided in
4 chambers by three sets of baffles. A sludge removal interval of
18e24 months was calculated based on sludge production esti-
mations and recommended SRT. The walls of the ABR and the
baffles were constructed of brick masonry followed by plastering.
Water from the ABR outlet was discharged into a small settling tank
where the flow was divided in two equal parts to feed both hybrid
CW systems. An overflow was also present 10 cm above both out-
lets to evacuate excessive rain water flows. Note that the VSSF-CW
thus received a continuous supply of wastewater, and was not
batch-fed as is usually the case. In addition, because of the
connection with the adjacent collecting pond, most of the VSSF-CW
was water-saturated, except for the uppermost 20 cm.
All wetland cells were covered with a synthetic liner of 5 mm
thickness to prevent any wastewater infiltration to the soil. Both the
VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW were filled with porous media: medium
gravel of ø25-40 mm with porosity 0.40, and aggregate crush of
ø10-15 mm having porosity 0.35 (Fig. 2). The SSF wetlands were
planted with Typha latifolia, Phragmites australis and Vetiver grass.
The collecting ponds after both SSF CWs were planted with water
hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and pennywort (Centella asiatica).
The FWS-CW were planted with water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes). All
plants were locally collected from open drains.
2.3. Sampling and water quality analyses
Grab samples were taken from the inlet and outlet of the sys-
tems every ten days from January 2015 to December 2015 and
analyzed on the same day of sampling. APHA Standard Methods
(2005) were used to determine Orthophosphate, BOD, TSS, nitrates
and sulphates while COD was done by a quick-test kit of range
25e1500 mg l
1 (114541) provided by Merck.co. Total kjeldahl ni-
trogen and ammonia 2e150 mg l
1 (100683) were also measured
by quick-test kits provided by Merck.co. Most probable number
method (MPN index. (100 mL
1)) for pathogenic indicator (E.coli)
was performed. Samples were incubated in MacConkey broth at
42  C for 24e48 h using multiple tubes with inverted Durham
tubes. Tubes with positive results were selected for further sub
culturing on nutrient agar, MacConkey agar and manitol salt agar
and put for incubation for 24e48 h at 37  C. Bacterial isolates
showing growth were analyzed through microscopy and subjected
to total count. Serial dilution CFU/ml technique was used for the
evaluation of bacterial load in wastewater. Up to 10
1-10
10 dilu-
tion were prepared and samples (0.1 ml) from appropriate dilution
were spread on nutrient agar plates and were incubated at 37  C for
24 h and colonies were counted by colony counter.
2.4. Data treatment
Data were processed in MS Excel 2016™ to make box plots of
different treatment units. Statistical analysis with SPSS Statistics 23
was also performed. Data from VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW were first
examined for normality by using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Significant
differences between both systems were then compared through
parametric paired sample T-test for normal data distribution while
non-parametric related sample Wilcoxon signed rank test T-test for
non-normal data was performed. Values less than 0.05 (p < .05)
were recorded as significant.
 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358 351

Fig. 1. Wastewater Treatment scheme at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. (I) Anaerobic Baffle reactor (ABR) (II) Vertical Subsurface Flow (VSSF) CW (III) Free Water
Surface (FWS) I (IV) Horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF) CW (V) Free Water Surface II, System-I comprises of (I) (II) (III) and System-II consists of (I) (IV) (V).

Fig. 2. Cross section (not to scale) of Medium Porosity (P) and material distribution, CG (Coarse gravel), MG (Medium gravel) and AC (Aggregated crush) with diameter in mm in
HSSF-CW (a) and VSSF-CW (b).

Furthermore, the temperature-corrected k-C* model proposed 3. Results

by Kadlec and Knight (1996) was calibrated with the available data.
Data from the last six months were used to avoid the startup effect. Treatment efficiency of constructed wetlands were compared by
Kadlec and Knight (1996) presented the firsteorder model as: analyzing different wastewater parameters.



Ce
C * Ci
C * ¼ e
kT=q (1) 3.1. Total suspended solids (TSS)

where: C* ¼ background concentration (mg l
1), kT ¼ areal rate
constant adjusted for temperature (m.d
1), T ¼ temperature ( C), Ci
and Ce ¼ influent and effluent concentrations (mg l
1) and
q ¼ hydraulic loading rate (m.d
1).
From this equation, kT can be calculated when concentrations
and hydraulic loading rates are known. By lack of adequate infor-
mation, default C* values were used, as recommended by Kadlec
and Knight (1996) (Table 1). The effect of temperature was calcu-
lated as follows:
kT ¼ k20  QT
20
where: k20 ¼ areal rate constant at 20  C (m d
1) and Q ¼ dimen-
sionless temperature coefficient.
The range of TSS described by Metcalf et al. (2003) in domestic
wastewater is 120e400 mg l
1. The influent from this study con-
tained TSS above that range, i.e. 430e480 mg l
1. In the ABR, about
half of the TSS were removed (48.7%) resulting in effluent con-
centrations of 150e400 mg l
1 (Fig. 3a). VSSF and HSSF CWs
consequently removed 54% and 63.3% TSS with effluent concen-
trations of 60e200 mg l
1 and 60e100 mg l
1 respectively (Fig. 3a).
HSSF-CW was proven to be more effective than the VSSF-CW
(p < .01). Another 21.4% and 50% TSS reduction was achieved in
FWS-I and FWS-II respectively, yielding final effluent concentra-
(2) tions of 45e150 mg l
1 and 25e60 mg l
1 (Fig. 3a). System-I
thereby attained a total efficiency of 82% and system-II attained a
total efficiency of 91%. Both systems met the effluent quality
required by the NEQS (Table 3).

Table 1
Applied background concentrations for SSF wetlands (adopted from Kadlec and Knight (1996)).

Background concentrations COD (mg l
1) BOD (mg l
1) TKN (mg l
1) TSS (mg l
1) TP (mg l
1)

SSF-C* 0 14 0 39 0.02
SF-C* 0 7.5 0 29 0.02
352 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358

Fig. 3. Boxplot of TSS (a), COD (b) and BOD (c) concentrations in different treatment units; values above boxes indicate mean removal efficiency (as a %) of each unit compared to the
preceeding unit.

3.2. Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
For raw wastewater entering the treatment facility, COD was
ranging between 100 and 300 mg l
1 so it was regarded as diluted
or weak strength wastewater (Samorn, 1999). During the primary
treatment in the ABR, initially only 15e20% reduction was achieved.
However, as time passed by, removal efficiency increased and a
maximum reduction of 45% was obtained by the end of the
experiment (Fig. 3b). Effluent from the ABR had COD concentra-
tions of 60e220 mg l
1. The COD load varied considerably between
months due to variations in flow rate. During winter there was less
consumption of water as compared to summer (Table 2).
 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358 353

Table 2
Measured average monthly flow rates for the year 2015.

Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(m3 d
1)
Flow rate 90.5 80 112.5 145.5 127 132.6 128.5 111.2 118.5 101.7 95.3 79.6

Further COD reductions were achieved through the VSSF and
HSSF CWs, yielding additional efficiencies of 63% and 50% on
average respectively (Fig. 3b) and effluent concentrations reaching
20e112 mg l
1 and 30e200 mg l
1 respectively. T-test confirmed
that the effluent concentration of the VSSF-CW system was
significantly lower than the effluent of the HSSF-CW system, indi-
cating a better performance of the VSSF system (p < .01). For further
polishing, wastewater was treated in a final FWS-CW system. FWS-I
and FWS-II removed another 7 and 20% COD on average respec-
tively (Fig. 3b), resulting in final effluent concentration of
18e110 mg l
1 and 12e110 mg l
1 respectively. Thus, an overall
COD reduction of 73.6% was obtained for system-I, and 71.5% for
system-II. There was no significant difference between the effi-
ciency of both hybrid systems (p > .05). Maximum reduction in COD
was seen in the months of September and June, i.e. 80 and 81% for
System-I and System-II respectively. Effluent from the systems also
met the NEQ standards (Table 3).
3.3. Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
BOD was measured as a suitable indicator for biodegradable
organic matter in wastewater. The raw wastewater had BOD con-
centrations ranging from 60-200 mg l
1 depending on the water
utilization by the community each month. This confirmed the
classification as diluted or weak strength wastewater (Samorn,
1999). As for COD, the initial BOD removal by the ABR was rather
low, i.e. 9e20% in the first five months, but then increased until
reaching values of 47%. ABR effluent BOD concentrations varied
between 45 and 150 mg l
1 (Fig. 3c). VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW
reached average removal efficiencies of 64.5% and 55.2% (Fig. 3c)
with an effluent range of 10e130 mg l
1 and 11e127 mg l
1
respectively. A T-test revealed that the VSSF-CW system showed
significantly higher removal of BOD than the HSSF-CW (p < .01).
Further tertiary treatment was done with FWS-I and FWS-II CWs
yielding an extra 7.0% and 20.2% BOD removal (Fig. 3c) and final
effluent values of 9e70 mg l
1 and 7e70 mg l
1 respectively.
Overall BOD reductions from system-I and system-II were 76.2%
and 72.5% respectively. A T-test confirmed no significant difference
between the performances of both hybrid systems (p > .05).
Maximum reduction was shown in the months of September and
June i.e. 81.4% for system-I and 82.3% for system-II. Both systems
fulfilled the NEQs (Table 3).
3.4. Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is the sum of ammonia, ammonium and
organic nitrogen in the chemical composition of wastewater. The
influent TKN ranges between 25 and 45 mgN l
1 and is thus
regarded as medium strength wastewater (Samorn, 1999). The ABR
yields a 19.4 average % reduction in TKN level (Fig. 4a) resulting in
effluent TKN concentrations between 20 and 35 mgN l
1. VSSF-CW
and HSSF-CW had an average reduction of 27.8% and 24.4% with
effluent concentrations of 12e28 mgN l
1and 13e28
mgN l
1respectively (Fig. 4a). Comparatively, both systems showed
significant reduction of TKN and no significant difference between
them was found by T-test (P > .05). The tertiary level treatment
through FWS-I and FWS-II resulted in an additional reduction of
10.8% and 27.7% respectively with final effluent values ranging
between 10 and 29 mgN l
1 and 8e24 mgN l
1 (Fig. 4a). A
maximum reduction of 60.9% TKN was shown in the month of June
from system-I and 69% in the month of August by system-II. A T-test
confirms better overall performance of System-II compared to
System-I (p < .01).
3.5. Nitrates
Wastewater influent entering the treatment facility contained
nitrates within the range of 0e4.3 mgN l
1. After passing through
the ABR, there was initially 10e20% reduction which increased up
to 53% with time; effluent concentrations from ABR ranged be-
tween 0 and 3.2 mgN l
1 (Fig. 4b). Effluent from the ABR then
passed through the VSSF and HSSF CWs where contrasting be-
haviors were observed: a mean increase in nitrate levels in the
VSSF-CW up to 24.6% whereas a reduction up to 45.5% was shown
in the HSSF-CW (Fig. 4b). Further treatment was accomplished
through FWS-I and FWS-II, resulting in an average reduction of
24.2% and 43.9% (Fig. 4b) with final effluent concentrations ranging
between 0.23 and 2.26 mgN l
1 and 0.02e1.20 mgN l
1 respec-
tively. Overall 15.8% and 74.4% reduction was seen from system-I1
and system-II respectively.
3.6. Ammonia
Domestic wastewater coming from the residential colony of
QAU contained ammonia in the range of 19e35 mgN l
1 which was

Table 3
Comparison of Effluent quality of both Constructed Wetland systems I and II with NEQs.

Parameters National Effluent Effluent Concentrations Number of Samples Effluent Concentrations Number of Samples
Quality Standards (mg l
1) of System I (mg l
1) above NEQs of System II (mg l
1) above NEQs

Average SD Average SD

COD 150 47 7.4 0/36 52 10.6 0/36

BOD5 80 30 4.7 0/36 35 6.7 0/36
TSS 150 84 17.6 1/36 38 7.2 0/36
SO4 600 90 12.8 0/36 90.7 11.9 0/36
PO4 30 2 0.2 0/36 2.1 0.4 0/36
TKN e 19 1 16.2 1.1
Nitrites e 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02
Nitrates e 3.8 0.2 1.3 0.3
Ammonia 40 12 1.8 0/36 19.9 2.1 0/36
CFU/ml e 2.4  104 1.8  104 2.74  104 1.9  104
MPN/100 ml e 48 7 64 9
354 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358

Fig. 4. Boxplot of TKN (a), NO3-N (b) and NH4-N (c) concentrations in different treatment units; values above boxes indicate mean removal efficiency (as a %) of each unit compared
to the preceeding unit.
 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358
in the normal range of 12e45 mgN l
1 as specified by Metcalf et al.
(2003). After the primary treatment, minimal reduction (4%) was
observed. The VSSF-CW however removed 45% ammonia leading to
effluent concentrations of 7e25 mgN l
1, whereas no reduction at
all was observed in the HSSF-CW (Fig. 4c). After the tertiary treat-
ment from FWS-I and FWS-II, 13% and 22% reduction was observed
with final effluent concentrations of 1.5e22 mgN l
1 and 12e30
mgN l
1 respectively (Fig. 4c). Total average reductions of 52.8% and
25% were observed in system-I and system-II respectively. T-test
revealed better performance of system-I with lower concentrations
of ammonia in the effluent compared to system-II (p < .01). After
the successive treatments, effluents from both the systems fulfilled
the required NEQ standard (Table 3).
3.7. Sulphates
Sulphates were monitored as a potentially important electron
acceptor for anoxic COD/BOD5 degradation. Raw wastewater con-
tained sulphates in the range of 70e200 mg l
1, thus already within
the acceptable range given by the NEQs (Table 3). Only minimal
removal of sulphates, i.e. 10.7% on average, was achieved by the ABR
(Fig. 5a). VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW yielded a mean reduction of 28.8%
and 26.5% with effluent concentrations of 35e151 mg l
1 and
44e135 mg l
1 respectively with no significant difference (p > .05)
(Fig. 5a). FWS-I and FWS-II achieved an additional mean reduction
of 3.86% and 5.84% (Fig. 5a) with the final effluent concentrations
reaching 30e125 mg l
1 and 41e130 mg l
1 respectively (Fig. 5a).
Maximum sulphates reduction occurred in the month of October
for both systems, and amounted to 53e54%.
3.8. Phosphates
Wastewater entering the treatment facility
Fig. 5. Boxplot of Sulphate (a) and Phosphate (b) concentrations in different treatment units; values above boxes indicate mean removal efficiency (as a %) of each unit compared to
the preceeding unit.
355
2e12 mg l
1 of orthophosphates, well within the normal range of
4e14 mg l
1 given by Metcalf et al. (2003). These concentrations
were already below the national standards. After the ABR, the
concentrations reached 1.3e9.6 mg l
1 after an average reduction
of 29.3% (Fig. 5b). A further 42.6% and 42.4% removal was achieved
through VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW systems with the effluent con-
centration varying between 0.7 and 9 mg l
1 and 0.7e6 mg l
1
respectively (Fig. 5b). T-test revealed no significance difference
between both systems (p > .05). During the tertiary treatment,
FWS-I and FWS-II mean reductions of 17.7% and 33% were achieved
with the final treated water having phosphates concentrations of
0.5e5 mg l
1 and 0.09e4 mg l
1 (Fig. 5b). Therefore, system-I pro-
vided overall 67% removal and system-II provided 72% reduction in
phosphates. No significant difference was found between the per-
formance of system-I and system-II (p < .01). A maximum reduction
of 78.8% was provided by system-I in the month of September and
88% from system-II in the month of November.
3.9. Colony forming unit (CFU)
Colony forming units was used to calculate the total number of
viable bacteria present in the wastewater. Normal range of CFU
present in domestic wastewater is 10-105 ml
1 (Metcalf et al.,
2003). The range of CFU present in the wastewater was
2.78  105e6.8  105 ml
1 (log10 5.4e5.8). Hardly any reduction of
CFU occurred in the ABR (Fig. 6a). However, through the VSSF-CW
and HSSF-CW, 82% and 77.7% removal was observed, with effluent
values of 1.09  105e2.04  104 ml
1 (log10 5.03e4.30) and
1.16  105e2.53  104 ml
1 (log10 5.06e4.40) (Fig. 6a). T-test
revealed no significant difference in removal of bacterial count in
both VSSF and HSSF CWs effluent (p > .05). FWS-I and FWS-II
removed another 50.2% and 67% respectively with final effluent
contained reaching 7.3  103e1.04  104 ml
1 (log10 3.8e4.0) and
356 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358
3  103e3.73  104 ml
1 (log10 3.47e4.47) respectively (Fig. 6a).
System-I gives a total removal of 94.5% and system-II gives 93.8%. T-
test demonstrated no significant difference between both systems'
performance.
3.10. Most probable number (MPN)
The most probable number test was performed to quantify the
concentration of pathogenic microorganisms in wastewater. Ac-
cording to Metcalf et al. (2003), pathogens present in domestic
wastewater typically range between 106-1010. (100 ml
1). Data
from the domestic wastewater to be treated showed values above
1100. (100 ml
1) (Applied limit of quantification, LOQ). Effluent
from the ABR still contained viable microorganisms above the LOQ
(Fig. 6b). However, after both the VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW systems,
considerably lower numbers were observed, with comparable
(p > .05) effluent concentrations in the range of 30e293 (100 ml
1)
and 90e273 (100 ml
1) respectively (Fig. 6b). FWS-I and FWS-II
showed an additional 65% and 62% removal respectively. Final
effluent concentrations of system-I contained MPN index of 9e105.
(100 ml
1) and system-II achieved to 70e135. (100 ml
1) of MPN
after treatment. A T-test showed no difference between the final
effluent concentrations of system-I and system-II (p > .05).
Fig. 6. Boxplot of CFU (a) and MPN (b) concentrations in different treatment units; values above boxes indicate mean removal efficiency (as a %) of each unit compared to the
preceeding unit.
3.11. First-order model calibration
From equations (1) and (2), and taking into account the default
C* values from Table 3, the k20 and Q values of different variables
were calculated for the very first time according to climatic con-
ditions for the capital of Pakistan and the results are shown in
Table 4.
4. Discussion
4.1. Role of the anaerobic baffled reactor
Apart from the not-abnormal (Bodkhe, 2009) lower removal
efficiencies during the start-up phase, the anaerobic baffled reactor
appeared to be an efficient pretreatment unit under the given cir-
cumstances. ABR effectively removed solids and organics, with TSS
reductions was reaching upto 68%, and BOD5 and COD removals
reaching up to 45% in the end of the experiment. This ensured
reasonable organics and solids loading rates on the subsequent
HSSF-CW and VSSF-CW, and should thus be able to prevent clog-
ging in the longer term (Knowles et al., 2011). Note that the ABR
alone did not allow to consistently reach NEQs for TSS, BOD5 and
COD.
 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358
Table 4
Q values and k20 values for Vertical and Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands.
Units of CW Q Values
COD BOD TSS TP
VSSF-CW 1.068 1.096 1.00 0.97
HSSF-CW 1.11 1.11 0.97 0.96
FWS-I 1.02 1.03 0.99 0.98
FWS-II 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.00
To a lesser degree, monitoring results also confirmed nutrient
removal, with average TKN reductions of 19.4% and average phos-
phate reductions of 29.3%. The total construction cost of this ABR
amounted to PKR 1.35 million (z12,920 US$) or about PKR
2093.PE
1 (z20 US$.PE
1). Weekly inspections were required for
cleaning of screens and cleaning of inlet & outlet pipes. Combined
with sludge removal costs, this amounted to about PKR 0.09 million
per year Operational &Maintenance costs (861 US$.yr
1).
4.2. Comparison of the HSSF-CW and the VSSF-CW
Generally speaking, removal efficiencies of most parameters are
lower than what is typically mentioned in literature (Vymazal,
2002; 2006, 2007), which is most probably due to the very short
hydraulic retention times applied in these systems (less than one
day), and because of the fact that the VSSF-CW was operated as a
continuously-fed saturated down flow system, instead of the more
typical unsaturated, intermittently fed mode of operation.
No significant differences were found between both effluents for
the wastewater components TKN, SO4, PO4, CFU and MPN. It was
however statistically confirmed that the VSSF-CW performed bet-
ter than the HSSF-CW when looking at the effluent concentrations
of COD, BOD5 and NH4-N, and therefore consistently fulfilled the
NEQs. The drip irrigation and unsaturated top layer may have
enhanced oxygen transfer to the wastewater (Paing et al., 2015),
which seems to be corroborated by the absence of nitrification in
the HSSF-CW in contrast to an obvious nitrification rate in the
VSSF-CW. Apart from aerobic processes, the removal of sulphates in
both wetland systems (~26e29%) proves that anaerobic processes
also contribute to organics removal (Stein et al., 2007).
However, the VSSF-CW has a larger size and thus longer HRT
than the HSSF-CW (22.54 h versus 15.05 h). Taking this factor into
account, the HSSF-CW seems more effective in organic matter
removal on a unit area basis, as proven by the higher k20 values
(Table 4). These k20 values are in the higher range of observed
literature values (S1). The continuous feeding pattern of the VSSF-
CW may explain this rather unusual observation.
Total suspended solids removal is an exception, in the sense that
statistics confirm that the HSSF-CW effluent concentrations are
lower than those of the VSSF-CW, despite its lower HRT and surface
area. The HSSF-CW therefore consistently meets the NEQs, whereas
the VSSF-CW exhibits a few exceedances.
Both systems furthermore showed a temperature-dependent
removal for BOD5, COD and TKN (Q > 1; Table 4), which is not
surprising since removal of those parameters is dominated by
microbiological processes. Physical processes such as sedimenta-
tion and filtration of TSS and adsorption of phosphates seem not
correlated with temperature (Q z 1; Table 4).
Another important observation is the fact that both systems
significantly removed phosphates, but with the HSSF-CW having an
about 3-fold higher k20 value than the VSSF-CW (Table 4; 22 versus
7.5 m year
1 respectively). Given that matrix materials are the same
in both cases, and that the different area is taken into account in the
k-C* model, this leads to the assumption that hydraulic flow
357
k20 (m year
1)
TKN COD BOD TSS TP TKN
1.09 164.7 116.5 133 7.5 78
1.06 226 134 199 22 73
1.09 53.6 63.7 101.3 26.07 80.3
1.07 38.09 44.33 330 49.3 45.6
patterns and therefore contact times between wastewater and
matrix materials must be different. A tracer test could elucidate this
further.
4.3. FWS-CW as polishing units
As shown before, NEQs were not consistently met in all cases by
the VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW, thus corroborating the use of addi-
tional polishing units, here in the form of FWS-CWs with floating
macrophytes. The FWS-CW do what they are designed to do, with
effluent reaching the NEQs for all parameters and samples, except
for one single TSS outlier (Table 3).
The FWS CWs from this study, compared to the VSSF-CW and
HSSF-CW systems, do not have any substrate bounded rhizosphere.
Plant roots are freely hanging in the water and they form a floating
mat so they are helpful in removal of organic matter through the
processes of filtration, entrapment through roots and conversion in
the attached biofilms (Tanner and Headley, 2011). Taking into ac-
count the relatively high removal efficiencies of TSS, and the rela-
tively low BOD and COD removal efficiencies in the FWS CWs, it
appears that filtration and entrapment may be the dominant pro-
cesses. This is further corroborated by the rather low temperature
coefficients (Q close to 1), which seems to point more to non-
biological processes.
Assuming that plant uptake of nutrients would be influenced by
temperature, TKN and phosphates show a contrasting behavior,
with TKN clearly improving at higher temperatures, whereas
phosphates are not affected by temperature. This indicates that
other processes are important in removing TKN. As for phosphorus,
the temperature coefficients close to 1 seem to contradict a bio-
logical removal process and it remains to be seen therefore if oc-
casional harvesting of the floating plants could optimize P-removal
(Vymazal et al., 2006).
5. Conclusions
Anaerobic baffle reactor as primary treatment was significant
for the removal of solids and degradation of organic material. Both
VSSF-CW and HSSF-CW proved to be efficient for the degradation of
contaminants in wastewater. Free water surface on tertiary level as
polishing treatment was shown effective for the removal of all the
contaminants. Efficiency of the systems were affected by seasonal
variation with higher efficiency seen during summer. K-C* model
implemented was also proven to be useful for Asian climate. Both
systems meet the national standards for water discharge.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by funding of Higher education
Commission of Pakistan under the project “Small Scale Sewage
Treatment and Wastewater Reuse System for Pakistan” in collabora-
tion with Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad Pakistan and George
Washington University, USA. We are also thankful to HEC for
providing scholarship for six months under international research
358 M. Ali et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 210 (2018) 349e358
support initiative programme. We are also obliged to Ghent Uni-
versity, Department of Industrial Biological Sciences, Belgium, for
providing working research opportunities.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.040.
References
Aslam, M.M., Malik, M., Baig, M., Qazi, I., Iqbal, J., 2007. Treatment performances of
compost-based and gravel-based vertical flow wetlands operated identically for
refinery wastewater treatment in Pakistan. Ecol. Eng. 30, 34e42.
Azizullah, A., Khattak, M.N.K., Richter, P., H€ ader, D.-P., 2011. Water pollution in
Pakistan and its impact on public healthda review. Environ. Int. 37, 479e497.
Bodkhe, S., 2009. A modified anaerobic baffled reactor for municipal wastewater
treatment. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2488e2493.
Day, J.W., Ko, J.-Y., Rybczyk, J., Sabins, D., Bean, R., Berthelot, G., Brantley, C.,
Cardoch, L., Conner, W., Day, J., 2004. The use of wetlands in the Mississippi
Delta for wastewater assimilation: a review. Ocean Coast. Manage. 47, 671e691.
Droste, R.L., 1997. Theory and Practice of Water and Wastewater Treatment. John
Wiley & Sons Incorporated.
Elzein, Z., Abdou, A., elgawad, I.A., 2016. Constructed wetlands as a sustainable
wastewater treatment method in communities. Proced. Environ. Sci. 34,
605e617.
EPA, P, 1997. Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997. Government of Pakistan,
Ministry of Environment, 25pp.
Ijaz, A., Shabir, G., Khan, Q.M., Afzal, M., 2015. Enhanced remediation of sewage
effluent by endophyte-assisted floating treatment wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 84,
58e66.
Kadlec, R., Knight, R., 1996. Treatment Wetlands, 1996. New York.
Knowles, P., Dotro, G., Nivala, J., García, J., 2011. Clogging in subsurface-flow treat-
ment wetlands: occurrence and contributing factors. Ecol. Eng. 37, 99e112.
Masi, F., Bresciani, R., Martinuzzi, N., Cigarini, G., Rizzo, A., 2017. Large scale appli-
cation of French reed beds: municipal wastewater treatment for a 20,000 in-
habitant's town in Moldova. Water Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2017.188.
Martin, P., Nishida, J., Afzal, J., Akbar, S., Damania, R., Hanrahan, D., 2006. Pakistan
strategic Country Environmental Assessment. South Asia Region, World Bank 1.
Metcalf, Eddy, Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., Tchobanoglous, G., 2003. Wastewater En-
gineering: Treatment and Reuse. Mcgraw Hill.
Nawab, B., Nyborg, I.L., Esser, K.B., Jenssen, P.D., 2006. Cultural preferences in
designing ecological sanitation systems in North West Frontier Province,
Pakistan. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 236e246.
Paing, J., Guilbert, A., Gagnon, V., Chazarenc, F., 2015. Effect of climate, wastewater
composition, loading rates, system age and design on performances of French
vertical flow constructed wetlands: a survey based on 169 full scale systems.
Ecol. Eng. 80, 46e52.
Rousseau, D., Lesage, E., Story, A., Vanrolleghem, P.A., De Pauw, N., 2008. Con-
structed wetlands for water reclamation. Desalination 218, 181e189.
Samorn, M., 23 February 1999. Environmental Engineering Program, Asian Institute
of Technology. Bangkok, Thailand Available online.
Sehar, S., Naeem, S., Perveen, I., Ali, N., Ahmed, S., 2015. A comparative study of
macrophytes influence on wastewater treatment through subsurface flow
hybrid constructed wetland. Ecol. Eng. 81, 62e69.
Sehar, S., Naz, I., Khan, S., Naeem, S., Perveen, I., Ali, N., Ahmed, S., 2016. Perfor-
mance evaluation of integrated constructed wetland for domestic wastewater
treatment. Water Environ. Res. 88, 280e287.
Stein, O.R., Borden-Stewart, D.J., Hook, P.B., Jones, W.L., 2007. Seasonal influence on
sulfate reduction and zinc sequestration in subsurface treatment wetlands.
Water Res. 41, 3440e3448.
Tanner, C.C., Headley, T.R., 2011. Components of floating emergent macrophyte
treatment wetlands influencing removal of stormwater pollutants. Ecol. Eng. 37,
474e486.
Vymazal, J., 2002. The use of sub-surface constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment in the Czech Republic: 10 years' experience. Ecol. Eng. 18, 633e646.
Vymazal, J., 2007. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands.
Sci. Total Environ. 380, 48e65.
Vymazal, J., 2011. Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface
flow: a review. Hydrobiologia 674, 133e156.
Vymazal, J., 2013. The use of hybrid constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment
with special attention to nitrogen removal: a review of a recent development.
Water Res. 47, 4795e4811.
Vymazal, J., Greenway, M., Tonderski, K., Brix, H., Mander, Ü., 2006. Constructed
Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Wetlands and Natural Resource Man-
agement. Springer, pp. 69e96.
Zhang, D.Q., Jinadasa, K., Gersberg, R.M., Liu, Y., Ng, W.J., Tan, S.K., 2014. Application
of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in developing countriesea
review of recent developments (2000e2013). J. Environ. Manage. 141, 116e131.