Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering

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

Bioreactor septic tank for on-site wastewater treatment: Floating

constructed wetland integration
Tanveer Saeed a, *, Rumana Afrin b, Abdullah Al-Muyeed c, Md Jihad Miah a, Hasin Jahan d
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Asia Pacific, Dhaka 1205, Bangladesh
b
Department of Civil Engineering, United International University, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
c
CWIS-FSM Support Cell, Department of Public Health Engineering, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
d
WaterAid Bangladesh, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Prof. H. Fan This study reports pollutant removal performance of two on-site wastewater treatment configurations: a field-
scale bioreactor septic tank that received wastewater generated from the washrooms of an educational insti­
Keywords: tute, and a combined pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank, floating constructed wetland system dosed with
Decentralized treatment municipal wastewater. Each bioreactor septic tank was divided into seven compartments: two settling chambers,
Nutrient
two anaerobic baffle reactors (ABR), two stone media-packed biowalls, and an effluent collection chamber.
Organic
Wastewater hydraulic retention time (HRT) in the field and pilot-scale bioreactor septic tanks were 24 and 72 h,
Polishing step
Septic tank respectively. Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), organic, and coliform removal percentage in the field-scale biore­
actor septic tank were 56%, 76%, 84%, and 88%, respectively. The pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank achieved
93%, 100%, 99.6%, and 99.9% removal, respectively. Pollutant removal in different compartments of the
bioreactor septic tanks was achieved through physical, chemical, and microbial degradation pathways. Greater
HRT of wastewater in the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank improved overall removal performance. The floating
constructed wetland provided an additional treatment of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank effluent; the mean
nitrogen and coliform removal percentage was 35% and 91%, respectively. The hanging root-zone (inside the
water column) of the floating constructed wetland supported pollutant removal kinetics. This study demonstrates
the potential application of the bioreactor septic tank for on-site wastewater treatment and integration of floating
constructed wetland as a polishing stage.

1. Introduction decentralized technologies provide on-site wastewater treatment,

Wastewater generated from residential or commercial structures is
composed of nutrient, organic, trace chemicals, and coliforms [1–3].
These contaminants must be removed before final disposal for protect­
ing the ecological health of the receiving water bodies or environment
[4]. Pollutant removal (from residential or commercial wastewater)
could be achieved through centralized or decentralized wastewater
treatment processes [5,6]. Sewerage networks and mechanical treat­
ment systems are two integral components of centralized wastewater
treatment systems; sewerage networks collect wastewater from resi­
dential, commercial infrastructures and transport it to the mechanical
treatment systems. Construction and maintenance of centralized
wastewater treatment components depend on government investment
because of substantial funding requirements [7]. On the other hand,
require a limited budget, and could be supported by the government or
non-government organizations [3]. Approximately 12–20% of the total
population in Europe, the United States, and Australia depend on
decentralized wastewater treatment systems [4].
The septic tank is a common technology for wastewater polishing in
decentralized areas; in a septic system, particulate organic, solids, and
scum are separated from wastewater through settling and floatation
processes, respectively [8]. Dissolved organic and nutrient escape the
treatment system because of limited contact with the settled sludge that
hosts an active microbial population [9].
To date, researchers focused on two major approaches for maxi­
mizing the contact between the active biomass population of the settled
sludge and wastewater pollutant. Wastewater flow direction diversion
(i.e., upward-downward flow) of an anaerobic baffle reactor (ABR)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dr.tanveer@uap-bd.edu, tanveer@alumni.ait.asia (T. Saeed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105606
Received 14 February 2021; Received in revised form 28 March 2021; Accepted 26 April 2021
Available online 1 May 2021
2213-3437/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Saeed et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606

Fig. 1. Structural configuration of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank.

received priority intending to establish forced contact between settled

Table 1
sludge and pollutant [8,10,11]. Such a controlled flow path could trigger
Volume of the compartments in the field and pilot-scale bioreactor septic tanks.
resuspension of the colloid particles (from the settled sludge) into bulk
wastewater because of the turbulence caused by the flow diversion [6, Components Volume (m3)

12]. Other studies designed septic tanks with filter media for achieving Field-scale Pilot-scale
particulate and dissolved pollutant removal; low nutrient or colloidal, Settling chamber 1 4.5 0.21
soluble organic removal rates were the significant drawbacks of these Settling chamber 2 2.1 0.09
systems [13,14]. Combination of settling chambers, ABR reactors, and ABR 1 1.9 0.09
filter walls could promote concurrent removal routes, i.e., settling, Biowall 1 1.1 0.05
ABR 2 2.3 0.11
adsorption, filtration, and microbial degradation of particulate, dis­ Biowall 2 1.1 0.05
solved pollutant, particularly when operated under suitable wastewater Effluent chamber 1.4 0.08
hydraulic retention time (HRT) [8,10,11,13] and has not been investi­
gated to date.
A few studies integrated other treatment technologies, i.e., upflow constructed wetland for producing better effluent quality, particularly in
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) or subsurface flow constructed decentralized areas. In addition, this study also incorporated a major
wetland with the septic tank, and achieved satisfactory pollutant design parameter such as the hydraulic retention time (HRT) to examine
removal performance [1,15–18]. Subsurface flow constructed wetlands, its influence on pollutant removal rates in the developed systems.
often referred to as natural technologies, utilize plant roots, media, and
microbial biofilm to provide wastewater treatment [19]. These systems 2. Materials and method
could be an attractive choice for on-site wastewater treatment due to
low operational and maintenance cost requirements [20,21]. Recently 2.1. Field-scale bioreactor septic tank
emerged system, i.e., floating constructed wetland, could be an alter­
native option to provide additional septic tank effluent treatment. The M.D.C Model Institute is a secondary educational institution
Floating constructed wetland utilizes air buoyant mat that floats on the located in the Mirpur area of Dhaka City, Bangladesh; the institute was
water surface; emergent plants grow on the mat surface, whereas the established in 1978. The number of male and female students (of the
plant roots proliferate inside the water column [22]. The hanging bulk institute) is 890 and 1080, respectively; besides, 9 administrative and 41
root filters wastewater pollutant, as it passes through the root network; academic staff are employed at this institute.
besides, the root zone hosts a microbial population that supports mi­ The institute has 6 washrooms that are shared by the academic,
crobial degradation of pollutant [23,24]. The absence of media in administrative staff, and students. Between 1978 and 2015, wastewater
floating constructed wetland reduces construction costs and eliminates produced from these washrooms was disposed directly into open chan­
media clogging possibilities- an operational drawback that could nels through adjacent drainage systems. For achieving sustainable
decrease removal performance of the constructed wetlands. Although disposal of the institute’s wastewater, a bioreactor septic tank was
floating constructed wetlands either as the sole technology or been in­ designed and implemented by WaterAid Bangladesh in March 2016.
tegrated with other treatment systems efficiently removed pollutant The field-scale bioreactor septic tank (of the M.D.C Model Institute)
from wastewaters [25–28], its performance to polish the septic tank was constructed as a reinforced concrete (RCC) structure. The bioreactor
effluent has not been reported to date. septic tank receives wastewater (from the washrooms) through an
In this research study, a modified field-scale on-site wastewater influent chamber between 8 AM-5 PM/day for 5 days (a week). Fig. 1
treatment system, i.e., bioreactor septic tank, had been developed to illustrates the structural configuration of the field-scale bioreactor septic
achieve high pollutant (i.e., nutrient, organic, and coliform) removal tank. The length, width, and height of the bioreactor septic tank are
from wastewater through physicochemical and microbial kinetics. A 7.75, 2.5, and 1.89 m, respectively. The bioreactor septic tank includes 7
pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank was integrated with a floating compartments: two settling chambers, two ABR reactors, two biowalls,
and an effluent collection chamber. The length and volume of each

2
T. Saeed et al.
Fig. 2. Operational arrangement and structural configuration of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank -floating constructed wetland systems.
chamber are illustrated in Fig. 1 and Table 1. A perforated RCC wall
separates the two settling chambers and allows wastewater passage from
the first to the second chamber; the first chamber’s volume is twice to
that of the second chamber. An RCC wall separates the second settling
chamber and the first ABR reactor. An inverted L- shaped pipe was in­
tegrated into the RCC wall; such an inverted pipe transfers effluent of the
second settling chamber into the bottom portion of the first ABR reactor.
The first ABR reactor is followed by the first biowall, which was con­
structed with perforated RCC built sidewalls; the void space between the
walls was filled with 10 mm stones. The effluent of the preceding ABR
reactor enters into the biowall through the perforated sidewall, passes
through the stone media inside the biowall, and is discharged (through
the other perforated sidewall) into the second ABR reactor. An RCC wall
(i.e., baffle wall) was integrated into the second ABR reactor to achieve
downward-upward flow. The second ABR reactor is followed by another
biowall (with perforated sidewalls and stone media) that receives
effluent of the preceding ABR reactor and discharges wastewater into
the subsequent effluent collection chamber. Treated effluent is finally
disposed of to the adjacent drainage systems from the effluent collection
chamber of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank. HRT of wastewater
inside the field-scale bioreactor septic tank is 24 h.
2.2. Pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank and floating constructed wetland
A pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank followed by a floating con­
structed wetland was built at the University of Asia Pacific, Dhaka,
Bangladesh, in September 2019. Fig. 2 illustrates the operating
arrangement and structural configuration of the pilot-scale bioreactor
septic tank, floating constructed wetland systems. Domestic wastewater
was collected from a local sewer outlet and was dosed into the pilot-scale
bioreactor septic tank between 8 AM-5 PM for 5 days a week, according
to the dosing pattern across the field-scale bioreactor septic tank. HRT of
the wastewater in the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank was 72 h, which
was higher than that of the field-scale system (i.e., 24 h). The pilot-scale
system was operated between October 2019 and October 2020. The
objectives of the pilot-scale experiment were to investigate the impact of
wastewater HRT for improving pollutant removal performance of the
bioreactor septic tank and the application of the floating constructed
wetland for polishing the bioreactor septic tank effluent.
The pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank was a replica of the field-scale
system (implemented by WaterAid Bangladesh) and was built with steel
plates. The length, width, and height of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic
tank were 2.44, 0.61, and 0.61 m, respectively. The length and volume
of the chambers are summarized in Fig. 2 and Table 1. The settling
chambers, ABR reactors, and biowalls were divided by either perforated
3
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606
or solid steel plates depending on the chamber type, as described in
subsection 2.1. The biowalls were filled with 5 mm stone aggregate. The
volume ratio between the chambers of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic
tank was similar to that of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank.
Wastewater inside the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank flowed towards
the effluent chamber according to the mechanism of the field-scale
system.
The floating constructed wetland included two components: a steel
tank and a planted air buoyant rectangular mat built with 2 in. diameter
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes. The length, width, and height of the
steel tank were 0.91, 0.6, and 0.46 m, respectively; the length and width
of the rectangular air buoyant frame were 0.8 and 0.5 m, respectively.
The floating mat was wrapped with nylon mesh as the base material;
straw and soil materials were placed on the nylon mesh and was planted
with Phragmites species. The effluent of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic
tank was transferred to the following floating constructed wetland;
wastewater passed through the hanging roots beneath the water column
maintaining 0.3 m water depth inside the steel tank. The effluent of the
floating constructed wetland produced the final output of the integrated
pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank -floating constructed wetland systems.
2.3. Wastewater and sludge analyses
In the fourth operational year, wastewater samples were collected
from all the chambers in the field-scale bioreactor septic tank; the
sampling campaign was conducted between April 2019 and November
2019. The sampling points have been illustrated in Fig. 1: 1-influent; 2-
settling chamber 1; 3- settling chamber 2; 4-ABR 1; 5- biowall 1; 6- ABR
2; and, 7- biowall 2 or effluent chamber. In total, 133 wastewater
samples were collected from these sampling points. Sludge was collected
from the settling chambers of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank for
chemical analyses.
Regarding the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank -floating constructed
wetland systems, wastewater samples were also extracted from all
chambers of the bioreactor septic tank (points 1–7: Fig. 2) between
February 2020-October 2020; in addition, another sample was collected
from the effluent valve of the floating constructed wetland (i.e., point 8:
Fig. 2). As such, 88 wastewater samples were collected from the sam­
pling points of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank and floating con­
structed wetland.
Wastewater and sludge samples were analyzed at Environmental
Engineering and Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineer­
ing, University of Asia Pacific. Wastewater parameters included pH,
redox potential (Eh), ammonium nitrogen (NH4–N), nitrite nitrogen
(NO2–N), nitrate nitrogen (NO3–N), total nitrogen (TN), total
T. Saeed et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606

Table 2
Environmental parameters, pollutant concentration profiles across the different chambers of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank, and sewage discharge guidelines
(ECR1997) in Bangladesh. Standard deviation values are presented within the bracket. SP in the table denotes sampling point.
Unit Concentration profiles across the bioreactor septic tank chambers ECR
1997
Influent chamber Settling chamber Settling ABR 1 Biowall 1 ABR 2 Biowall 2 (effluent
1 chamber 2 chamber)

SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP 4 SP 5 SP 6 SP 7
pH 7.4 (0.6) 7.3 (0.4) 7.4 (0.4) 7.2 (0.4) 7.3 (0.5) 7.4 (0.4) 7.5 (0.2) –
Eh mV 33.9 (119.2) 33.3 (105.6) 95.4 (51.1) 92.3 (51.4) 101.8 (49.4) 101.9 (48.2) 104.9 (48.9) –
NH4–N mg/L 47.5 (22.7) 31.4 (14.6) 28.2 (15.1) 26.1 (19.6) 17.7 (14.4) 23.5 (15.3) 18.8 (10.6) –
NO2–N 0.4 (0.7) 0.2 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.9) 0.4 (0.3) 0.6 (1.2) 250
NO3–N 1.7 (4.6) 1.1 (0.7) 2.2 (2.4) 4.4 (3.6) 3.5 (2.2) 4.9 (5.2) 5.6 (3.2) –
TN 119.4 (48.9) 82.1 (36.9) 75.5 (37.1) 70.1 (39.7) 48.2 (28.4) 63.8 (30.5) 52.7 (23.8) –
TP 13.5 (5.3) 9.9 (5.1) 7.4 (4.9) 6.2 (2.5) 3.4 (1.7) 5.2 (2.1) 3.2 (1.9) 35
BOD 88.6 (125.2) 30.3 (31.8) 17.7 (22.1) 14.4 (20.3) 7.6 (10.6) 26.5 (51.4) 14.5 (24.9) 40
COD 223.2 (227.5) 83.5 (61.2) 31.4 (29.8) 54.1 (76.6) 20.8 (23.9) 96.8 (179.7) 43.7 (53.5) –
TSS 54.6 (79.9) 21.9 (14.1) 10.3 (8.4) 13.1 (17.9) 6.6 (4.8) 9.3 (4.2) 8.2 (6.1) 100
E.Coli CFU/ 1332842.1 666105.2 227789.4 187315.7 162473.6 191642.1 168157.8 –
100 mL (3018491.6) (1417886.8) (242130.9) (114832.2) (88825.2) (58871.8) (89730.0)

Fig. 3. Pollutant removal percentage in different compartments of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank.

phosphorus (TP), five days biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), and
coliform. For sludge sample (of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank),
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total solids (TS), total volatile solids
(TVS), NH4-N, TN, COD, and TP were measured. Environmental pa­
rameters (pH and Eh) were measured with an HQ 40d multi parameter,
and PHC3OH, LDO101, MTC101 probes supplied by HACH. NH4–N,
TKN, and TN were analyzed by digestion, distillation units (supplied by
VELP SCIENTIFICA), according to the Kjeldahl method. NO2-N, NO3-N,
TP, and COD concentration was measured according to diazotization,
cadmium reduction, molybdovanadate-acid persulfate digestion, and
reactor digestion methods, respectively; HACH DR 6000 spectropho­
tometer, and HACH DRB 200 reactor block were used for concentration
measurement. BOD5 measurement was carried out with a manometric
instrument (HACH BOD TRAK II), and an incubator operated at 20 ◦ C,
according to the respirometric method. TS and TVS were measured
using an oven operated at 103–105◦ C and 600 ◦ C, respectively. Coliform
measurement was conducted according to the membrane filter method
with Macconkey agar, and an incubator operated at 37 ◦ C.
2.4. SEM analyses and plant uptake
Surface images of the used stone (collected from the biowalls of the
field-scale bioreactor septic tank), and unused (fresh), used stone media
(collected from the biowalls of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank)
were produced using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
All plants from the floating constructed wetland were harvested at
the end of the experimental period. Harvested plants were divided into
roots, shoot and leaf portions, and oven-dried at 80 ◦ C for four days until
the constant dry weight was achieved. Dried portions were powdered,
homogeneously mixed for analyzing nutrient contents according to
digestion-distillation, vanadomolybdophosphoric yellow color protocol.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Performance of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank
Table 2 illustrates the mean environmental and pollutant concen­
tration profiles of the wastewater during its passage through the
different chambers of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank; sewage
discharge guideline (i.e. environment conservation rules, 1997:ECR
1997) of Bangladesh [29] has also been incorporated in Table 2. Fig. 3
represents corresponding pollutant removal percentage. As observed in
Table 2, wastewater pH concentration did not vary substantially within
the chambers. Redox values increased as the wastewater progressed
towards the outlet chamber, but coincided within the anoxic ranges.
Statistical t-test indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05) between
influent-effluent pollutant concentration profiles across the field-scale
bioreactor septic tank. Mean organic biodegradability (the proportion
between BOD and COD concentration of the wastewater: BOD/COD),
and COD/TN ratio values of the influent wastewater were 0.4 and 1.8,
respectively; such composition should be ≥ 0.5 and between 3 and 9,

4
T. Saeed et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606

Table 3 results are summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that significant

Chemical properties of the sludge in the settling chambers. The concentration deviation between NH4–N, NO2–N, NO3–N, TKN, TN concentration of
unit has been expressed in terms of gram/litre. influent wastewater (across the bioreactor septic tank -Table 2) and
Unit Settling chambers sludge (Table 3) indicates the presence of substantial organic N contents.
1 2
Therefore, it could be stated that TN removal (from wastewater) in the
setting chambers was primarily achieved through organic N entrapment
TS g/L 133.3 38.7
by the deposited sludge layer [8]. NH4–N composition of the sludge
TVS 53.3 5.3
NH4-N 0.8 0.2 could have been contributed via two pathways: (a) conversion of
TKN 3.9 0.5 entrapped organic N into inorganic NH4-N by anaerobic digestion, i.e.,
TN 6.8 0.6 hydrolysis and acetogenesis; and (b) assimilation of wastewater NH4–N
COD 210.2 41.6 [8,13,36].
TP 4.5 0.5
Table 3 further illustrates that the sludge (of the settling chambers)
was composed of organic and P in substantial quantity. Wastewater
respectively, to support microbial degradation in a biological reactor organic and P contents were entrapped as the wastewater passed
[30–34]. Thus, the influent wastewater composition was not suitable to through the settled sludge and might have been further subjected to
support pollutant removal in the field-scale bioreactor septic tank via different removal kinetics, i.e., anaerobic digestion and assimilative,
microbial pathways. non-assimilative pathways [2,8,37,38].
The concentration of NH4–N, TN, TP, and organic declined gradually Inefficient pollutant removal performances by the ABR reactors, i.e.,
as the wastewater moved from the influent chamber to the first and minor removal performance and wastewater pollutant concentration
second settling chambers (i.e., settling chambers 1 and 2, respectively- increment in the first ABR and second reactors (Table 2, Fig. 3),
Table 2). NH4–N, TN, TP, and organic removal percentage within the respectively, could be attributed to sludge settling phenomena in these
two settling chambers ranged between 10% and 34%, 7–32%, 25–27%, compartments. Accumulated sludge volume in the first and second
and 41–66%, respectively (Fig. 3). The first settling chamber achieved a settling chambers was 0.9 and 0.2 m3, respectively. The greater sludge
better removal percentage than that of the second chamber due to volume of the first settling chamber (compared to that of the second
greater volume (Table 1). NH4–N, TN, TP, and BOD concentration settling chamber) indicates settlement of heavier particles in the pre­
further decreased as the wastewater flowed from the preceding second ceding settling chambers and light solid particles in the succeeding ABR
settling chamber (i.e., settling chamber 2) to the following first ABR reactors. The presence of light sludge particles might have diminished
reactor (ABR 1) (Table 2). The second ABR reactor (ABR 2) showed pollutant entrapment from wastewater and subsequent microbial
opposite phenomena; NH4–N, TN, TP, and organic concentration values degradation. In addition, downward-upward flow in the ABR tanks
(of wastewater) in the second ABR reactor were beyond those of the could have caused resuspension of the unstable light sludge particles or
preceding first biowall (i.e., biowall 1) (Table 2). The biowalls that colloids, thus decreasing overall removal performance in the ABR re­
followed the ABR reactors reduced incoming NH4-N, TN, TP, and actors [6,12].
organic concentration (Table 2). Nutrient, organic removal percentage Pollutant removal mechanisms in the biowalls of the field-scale
in the first and second biowalls ranged between 31% and 44%, 46–62% bioreactor septic tank differed from those observed in the settling
and 17–38%, 45–55%, respectively. chambers or ABR reactors. The biowalls were packed with stone media;
In a septic tank system, accumulated sludge often influences waste­ the presence of media in biological reactors promotes coexisting
water pollutant removal via physicochemical and microbial pathways pollutant removal kinetics such as filtration, microbial degradation (due
[8,13,35]. Sludge accumulation primarily occurred in the settling to bacterial growth on surface areas), and chemical adsorption [39–41].
chambers of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank. Therefore, the The SEM images of the used media (collected from the biowalls of the
chemical properties of such accumulated sludge were quantified; the field-scale bioreactor septic tank during the monitoring period) provides

Fig. 4. SEM images of the used media employed in the two biowalls of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank.

5
T. Saeed et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606

Table 4 nitrification, denitrification, heterotrophic organic removal occurred,

Chemical composition of the used media in field-scale biowalls. probably in outer and deeper portions of the solid layer depending on
First biowall Second biowall surrounding redox profiles [42]. Regarding chemical adsorption, energy
dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) analyses illustrated the presence of
Elements Weight % Atomic % Weight % Atomic %
different elements in the used media of the biowalls (Table 4); such
Carbon (C) 2.46 4.08 4.67 7.58 phenomena reflect the influence of media-based adsorption (along with
Nitrogen (N) 1.04 1.49 1.09 1.51
Oxygen (O) 49.28 61.39 49.49 60.25
microbial degradation) on observed pollutant removal in the biowalls.
Sodium (Na) 2.88 2.50 2.08 1.77
Magnesium (Mg) 0.35 0.29 0.18 0.15 3.2. Pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank -floating constructed wetland
Aluminium (Al) 6.76 5.00 5.56 4.02
Silicon (Si) 32.63 23.15 32.94 22.84
Phosphorus (P) 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.05 3.2.1. Bioreactor septic tank performance
Sulphur (S) 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 Table 5 illustrates pollutant concentration profiles of the wastewater
Chloride (Cl) 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 during its passage through the different chambers of the pilot-scale
Lead (Pb) 0.17 0.03 0.05 0.01 bioreactor septic tank. Redox profiles illustrate the anoxic nature of
Potassium (K) 2.52 1.29 2.96 1.47
Calcium (Ca) 0.65 0.32 0.30 0.15
the wastewater inside the chambers. Statistical t-test indicates a signif­
Manganese (Mn) 0.18 0.06 0.02 0.01 icant difference (p < 0.05) between influent-effluent nutrient, organic
Iron (Fe) 0.63 0.23 0.20 0.07 concentration profiles across the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank.
Nickel (Ni) 0.18 0.06 0.15 0.05 Organic matter concentration was high in domestic wastewater across
Zinc (Zn) 0.15 0.05 0.18 0.05
the pilot-scale system; the school wastewater across the field-scale
bioreactor septic tank was composed of substantial N contents (Ta­
evidence of solid film formation on the media surface; filtered particu­ bles 2 and 5). Mean organic biodegradability (BOD/COD) and COD/TN
lates and microbial film growth might have formed such a solid layer on ratio of the influent were 0.2 and 12, respectively, and were not favor­
the media surface (Fig. 4). Microbial kinetics, i.e., ammonification, able for supporting microbial removal pathways in a biological reactor.
Influent-effluent concentration profiles (Table 5) indicate a

Table 5
Environmental parameters and pollutant concentration profiles across the different chambers of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank. Standard deviation values are
presented within the bracket.
Unit Concentration profiles across the bioreactor septic tank chambers

Influent chamber Settling chamber Settling chamber ABR 1 Biowall 1 ABR 2 Biowall 2 (effluent
1 2 chamber)

SP 1 SP 2 SP 3 SP 4 SP 5 SP 6 SP 7
pH 7.2(0.6) 7.5(0.2) 7.5(0.1) 7.9(1.3) 7.6(0.3) 7.6(0.2) 7.6(0.2)
Eh mV − 73.1(68.8) 25.6(58.4) 10.6(61.6) 37.6(46.8) 68.5(20.8) 65.9(26.2) 69.7(31.1)
NH4–N mg/L 30.6(12.7) 15.1(4.4) 10.7 (6.5) 4.4(3.1) 2.5(1.6) 2.4(1.5) 1.1(0.8)
NO2–N 0.01(0.01) 0.002(0.003) 0.005(0.01) 0.1 (0.2) 0.1(0.2) 0.07(0.1) 0.08(0.1)
NO3–N 2.5(4.4) 0.5(0.6) 0.7 (0.8) 0.9(1.2) 1.2(1.4) 1.2(1.0) 1.6(1.2)
TN 69.1(32.7) 28.3(7.5) 21.7(11.8) 11.1(5.9) 8.1(4.2) 7.8(2.6) 5.1(2.0)
TP 22.1(13.6) 5.1(3.5) 2(2.1) 0 0 0 0
BOD 152.9(141.4) 15.3(16.5) 25.5(27.8) 0.8(2.6) 3.7(10.5) 0.7(2.2) 0.5(1.6)
COD 823.9(867.5) 52.8(56.7) 64.7(46.6) 3.5(6.9) 18.7(55.3) 1.5(5.1) 1.6(4.5)
TSS 203.9(103.2) 50.3(40.4) 52.9(38.4) 10.3(5.1) 9.1(7.7) 8.1(8.3) 7.4(8.3)
E.Coli CFU/ 1393272.73 65636.3 54772.7 28454.5 14363.6 4636.3 1272.7 (2101.9)
100 mL (520939.2) (81299.7) (75190.8) (50390.7) (23372.1) (11386.5)

Fig. 5. Pollutant removal percentage in different compartments of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank.

6
T. Saeed et al.
Fig. 6. SEM images of the unused and used media employed in the two biowalls of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank.
significant NH4–N, TN, and TP concentration decrease as the wastewater
flowed from the influent chamber to the first and second settling
chambers; the first settling chamber achieved greater concentration
reduction than the second settling chamber (Table 5). In terms of
removal percentage, the settling chambers achieved 29–51%, 23–60%,
and 61–77% NH4–N, TN, and TP removals, respectively (Fig. 5). COD
concentration of the wastewater was 823.9 mg/L in the influent cham­
ber that was reduced to 52.8 mg/L in the first settling chamber; the
second settling chamber increased the organic concentration of the
wastewater. The remaining chambers, i.e., ABR reactors and the bio­
walls, also contributed to incoming pollutant load removal. The ABR
reactors achieved 2–59%, 3–50%, and 80–97% NH4–N, TN, and organic
removals, respectively; the first ABR reactor completely removed
incoming phosphorus. Low NH4–N (1.1–2.5 mg/L) and TN (5.1–8.1 mg/
L) concentration were observed across the effluent of the biowalls (that
received effluent of the ABR reactors); in terms of removal percentage,
the biowalls achieved 44–54% NH4–N and 26–36% TN removal. Effluent
COD concentration across the two biowalls was beyond that of the
preceding ABR reactors (Table 5); such trend reflects an increase of COD
concentration as the wastewater passed through the biowalls.
Pollutant removal percentage was high in the settling chambers of
7
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606
the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank; such removal performances
exceeded those of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank settling cham­
bers. HRT of the pilot and field-scale bioreactor septic tanks was 72 and
24 h, respectively. Greater retention time allowed favorable conditions
for physical separation (i.e., settling) of pollutant, provided better con­
tact between wastewater pollutant and the settled sludge (in the settling
chambers of the pilot-scale system) that improved adsorption and mi­
crobial degradation [4].
The ABR compartments of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank were
efficient in removing wastewater pollutant compared to those of the
field-scale system. In an ABR reactor, the vertical flow direction (due to
the presence of flow controlling structures) improves the contact be­
tween wastewater pollutant and the settled sludge, resulting in the
occurrence of different pollutant removal kinetics, such as particulate,
dissolved pollutant settlement, entrapment, and microbial degradation
in the ABR sludge [8]. The greater retention time of the pilot-scale
bioreactor septic tank provided better contact between wastewater
and sludge, prevented solids resuspension (due to the vertical flow di­
rection) from the settled sludge that improved overall pollutant removal
performance of the ABR compartments [1].
N removal performances in biowalls of the pilot-scale bioreactor
T. Saeed et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606

Table 6 Table 8
Chemical composition of the unused and used media employed in the biowalls of Nutrient concentration in different portions of plants.
the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank. Dry weight (g) Concentration
Element Unused media Used media of the Used media of the
N (mg/L) P (mg/L)
first biowall second biowall
Leaf 74.3 0.000079 0.000013
Weight Atomic Weight Atomic Weight Atomic
Shoot 251.2 0.000048 0.000015
% % % % % %
Root 77.5 0.00011 0.000014
Carbon (C) 7.21 12.18 13.79 20.03 14.47 21.07
Nitrogen (N) – – 2.33 2.91 1.99 2.49
Oxygen (O) 53.61 67.98 56.97 62.12 55.19 60.34 primarily composed of C, O, and Ca; however, different elements either
Sodium (Na) – – 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 in high or low percentage was quantified in the used media. These re­
Magnesium 5.91 4.24 4.76 3.42
sults suggest that wastewater pollutant was also adsorbed by the media,
– –
(Mg)
Aluminium – – 3.53 2.28 2.38 1.54 along with microbial decomposition during its passage through the
(Al) biowalls.
Silicon (Si) – – 6.18 3.84 12.16 7.58
Phosphorus – – 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.03 3.2.2. Floating constructed wetland as a polishing step
(P)
Sulphur (S) – – 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.00
Table 7 illustrates influent (i.e., the effluent of the pilot-scale
Lead (Pb) – – 0.47 0.04 0.25 0.02 bioreactor septic tank) pollutant concentration profile, and effluent
Chloride – – 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.04 concentration, removal performance of the floating constructed wetland
(Cl) that operated as a polishing stage of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank
Potassium 0.64 0.29 0.32 0.14
-floating constructed wetland configuration (Fig. 2). In general, influent
– –
(K)
Calcium 39.18 19.84 7.96 3.46 5.83 2.54 pollutant concentration across the floating constructed wetland was not
(Ca) substantial (Table 7) because of efficient pollutant removal performance
Titanium – – 0.30 0.11 0.25 0.09 by the preceding pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank. The mean BOD/COD
(Ti) ratio of the influent across the floating constructed wetland was 0.3;
Chromium – – 0.13 0.04 0.26 0.09
(Cr)
influent COD concentration was very low (Table 7). Hence, the influent
Iron (Fe) – – 1.14 0.36 1.03 0.32 wastewater (i.e., the effluent of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank)
Nickel (Ni) – – 0.18 0.05 0.54 0.16 was composed of non-biodegradable organic contents that were
Zinc (Zn) – – 0.11 0.03 0.43 0.11 removed by the hanging root-zone through filtration, mineralization,
and microbial degradation [22]. An increment of solids in the effluent of
the floating constructed wetland was observed, probably due to the
Table 7 washout of the root fragments.
Environmental parameters and pollutant concentration profiles across the Influent (i.e., the effluent of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank)
floating constructed wetland. NH4–N, NO2–N, NO3–N, and TN concentration reduced as the waste­
Parameters Unit Concentration and removal profiles across the water passed through the floating constructed wetland (Table 7). A
floating wetland significant difference between influent-effluent NH4–N, NO2–N, NO3–N,
Influent Effluent Removal (%) and TN concentration profiles (p < 0.05) were observed across the
floating constructed wetland. N components removal indicates the
pH 7.6 (0.2) 7.5 (0.3) –
Eh mV 69.7(31.1) 84.1(23.4) – occurrence of nitrification and denitrification in the aerobic and
NH4–N mg/L 1.1(0.8) 0.9(0.7) 16.9 anaerobic pockets, respectively, of the hanging bulk root zone (inside
NO2–N 0.08(0.1) 0.01 (0.02) 77.4 the water column); the organic carbon (C) requirement to complete
NO3–N 1.5(1.1) 0.6(0.8) 56.8 denitrification could have been fulfilled by the root zone, as the influent
TN 5.1(2.0) 3.3(2.6) 34.3
wastewater was composed of non-biodegradable organic contents [23,
TP 0 0 –
BOD 0.5(1.7) 0.6(1.7) – 27,43,44].
COD 1.6(4.5) 0.2(0.7) 85.0 Nutrient uptake capacity of the plants often improves removal per­
TSS 7.4(8.3 15.7(18.1) – formances of the constructed wetlands [45]. Therefore, nutrient con­
E. Coli CFU/100 mL 1272.7 (2101.9) 125.0 (353.5) 90.1
centration in leaf, shoot, and root portions of the floating wetland plant
Phragmites species was measured and presented in Table 8. According to
septic tank exceeded those of the field-scale system. Efficient N removal Table 8, N concentration was very low in leaf, shoot and root portions;
by the preceding ABR reactors reduced influent concentration and low N composition of the incoming wastewater triggered intense
improved removal performances (of the biowalls) via microbial and competition between plant uptake and microbial degradation kinetics
chemical pathways. SEM images of the unused (fresh) and used stone for utilizing available N contents [46]. These results confirm that N
media (that were employed in the pilot-scale biowalls) illustrate notable removal in floating wetlands was mainly achieved via microbial
surface area characteristics difference (Fig. 6). Void spaces were nitrification-denitrification kinetics.
observed on the unused media’s surface; such properties were not visible
in the used media, probably due to biofilm formation and solids depo­ 3.3. Coliform removal
sition. Used media of the field-scale biowalls showed similar phenomena
(Fig. 4). Increment of NO3–N concentration in the effluent of the bio­ The settling chambers of both bioreactor septic tanks contributed to
walls (Table 5) and NH4–N and TN concentration reduction indicates the substantial coliform removal: maximum removal percentage reached
occurrence of nitrification-denitrification inside the biofilms formed on 66% and 95% in the field and pilot-scale bioreactor septic tanks,
the surface media. respectively (Figs. 3 and 5). Physical separation such as coliform bac­
Table 6 summarizes the results of EDS analyses that were conducted teria attachment into settleable suspended solids could have influenced
to quantify the chemical composition of the unused (fresh) and used coliform removal in the settling chambers [47]. ABR reactors, biowalls
media (employed in the biowalls of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic of the field, and pilot-scale bioreactor septic tanks achieved 12–18%,
tank). According to the EDS analyses, the unused stone media was and 48–73% coliform removal, respectively; physical (filtration),
chemical (exposure to biocides, oxidation), and biological routes

8
T. Saeed et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606

Table 9
Comparative pollutant removal performance evaluation.
Septic tanks Wastewater HRT Removal performances (%) Sources

BOD COD TSS NH4- TN TP E.Coli

N

Performance of different SludgeHammer (aerated unit) Domestic 3–11d 92 82 92 55 50 67 – Pishgar, Morin

septic tank [37]
configurations Anaerobic baffle reactor Domestic 0.5d 47 59 47 – – – – Haydar, Anis
1d 58 69 54 – – – – [11]
2d 62 72 59 – – – –
Upflow septic tank Domestic 36–50d – 74–86 86–88 26–32 – 38–74 – Daija, Selberg
[4]
Vertical baffled septic tank Synthetic 1–3d 94.4 – 99.5 46.8 – 71.7 99.9 Anil and Neera
coupled with zeolite filter and wastewater [56]
disinfection
Integrated anaerobic reactor Domestic 1d 86.3 88.6 91.2 – – 20.9 99.2 Sharma,
and filter Khursheed[13]
Conventional septic tank Domestic 1–3d 53–69 53–66 55–66 -4–7 – 25–30 83–86 Nasr and
Baffle septic tank 60–77 57–74 68–76 -7–15 – 29–34 90–95 Mikhaeil[8]
Upflow septic tank Residential 6–24 h 33–85 31–77 33–86 – – – – Moussavi,
sewer Kazembeigi[6]
Field-scale bioreactor septic School 1d 84 81 85 60 56 76 87 This study
tank wastewater
Pilot-scale bioreactor septic Domestic 3d 99 99 96 96 93 100 99.9
tank
Performance of septic tank Septic tank-UASB Residential 1d – 80 87 – – – – Adhikari and
followed by another buildings 4d – 88 83 – – – – Lohani[1]
treatment unit Septic tank-recirculating Domestic 2d 93.7 95.5 96.1 98.2 51.9 – – Al-Zreiqat,
subsurface flow constructed Abbassi[15]
wetland
Two septic tanks-two Domestic 4.5d 95.8 94.9 96 90.7 – 67.3 99.97 Gikas and
subsurface flow wetlands-a Tsihrintzis[18]
zeolite tank
Bioreactor septic tank Domestic 3d 99 99 92 97 95 100 99.99 This study
-floating constructed
wetland

(predation) could have been the major coliform removal pathways in
ABR reactors and biowalls [47–50].
The floating constructed wetland further reduced influent (i.e., the
effluent of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank) coliform concentration;
mean effluent coliform concentration and removal percentage was 125
CFU/100 mL and 90.1%, respectively (Table 7). Removal mechanisms
such as retention or entrapment by plant roots, secretions from the root-
zone, settlement, natural die-off, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation
could have caused coliform mortality in the floating constructed
wetland [51–55]. Hence, floating constructed wetland could be an
attractive option for reducing coliform concentration from the effluent
of the bioreactor septic tank system.
3.4. Comparative performance evaluation
Table 9 summarizes comparative organic, nutrient, solids, and coli­
form removal percentage in septic tank systems with different configu­
rations (as reported in previous studies), along with observed removal
performances in the field and pilot-scale bioreactor septic tanks of this
study. Organic and solids removal performances in both systems of this
study exceeded those of the reported systems; nutrient removal perfor­
mance differences between the bioreactor septic tanks of this study and
previously reported septic tanks are noteworthy. It should be noted that
the previously reported septic tanks were primarily designed as upflow
or downflow-upflow treatment systems. The bioreactor septic tanks of
this study were distinct from the reported technologies due to integra­
tion of settling, flow diversion (i.e., upward-downward flow), and
attached growth process that improved removal performances.
The settling chambers triggered physical removal, i.e., settling of the
incoming biodegradable, non-biodegradable pollutant. The accumu­
lated sludge layer removed wastewater pollutant via adsorption,
entrapment, and microbial degradation. The ABR reactors supported
solids settling and forced contact (through upflow-downflow direction)
between wastewater pollutant and the settled solids. The biowalls
removed pollutant by filtration and microbial degradation (i.e., attached
growth process). Inefficient pollutant removals in the ABR reactors (of
the field-scale system) were counterbalanced by the following biowalls.
Wastewater retention time increment in the pilot-scale bioreactor septic
tank maintained pollutant removals in both ABR reactors and increased
overall removal performances.
Table 9 also illustrates the overall pollutant removal performances of
the previously reported septic tanks combined with other treatment
technologies such as upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), or sub­
surface flow constructed wetland and bioreactor septic tank -floating
constructed wetland systems of this study. According to Table 9, the
combination of the septic tank (in previous studies) or bioreactor septic
tank (in this study) with wetland systems produced high overall
pollutant removal percentage, primarily due to efficient pollutant
removal in the following wetland systems. Although the floating con­
structed wetland of this study received low pollutant concentration due
to enhanced pollutant removal performance of the preceding bioreactor
septic tank, previous research studies reported high organic, nutrient
removal performances in these recently emerged wetlands that received
effluent composed of substantial pollutant contents [24,26]. As such,
pollutant removal performance decrease in the bioreactor septic tank
(due to pollutant generation inside the systems or substantial accumu­
lation of sludge) might be counterbalanced if a floating constructed
wetland is employed as a polishing stage and should be investigated in
future research studies.
It should be noted that the effluent NO2–N, TP, TSS, and BOD con­
centration values produced across the effluent chambers of the field
(Table 2) and pilot-scale (Table 5) bioreactor septic tanks are substan­
tially beneath those of the sewage discharge guidelines (ECR 1997-
Table 2) in Bangladesh. Therefore, the developed bioreactor septic tank
of this study could be an attractive option for wastewater treatment in
decentralized areas of Bangladesh or other parts of the world.

9
T. Saeed et al.
In this study, the volumetric (m3) ratio between the pilot-scale
bioreactor septic tank and the floating constructed wetland was 3.5:1
(Fig. 2). However, this ratio should not be considered as a guideline for
calculating the area requirements of the integrated bioreactor septic
tank-floating wetland system. Such requirements would depend on the
HRT of the septic system, the number of populations to be served, and
the BOD strength of the incoming wastewater. More studies should be
conducted on the integrated proposed system, which would formulate a
comprehensive data set, hence allowing optimal area requirement se­
lection for wastewater treatment in decentralized areas.
4. Conclusions
Organic and nutrient removal in the settling chambers, ABR reactors,
biowalls of the field, and pilot-scale bioreactor septic tanks were ach­
ieved through physical (settling, filtration), chemical (adsorption), and
biological (organic removal, nitrification, denitrification) processes.
Settling chambers contributed to substantial wastewater pollutant
removal in the bioreactor septic tanks. The ABR reactors of the field-
scale bioreactor septic tank were not efficient in terms of pollutant re­
movals; upward-downward flow direction created turbulence in the
ABR reactors of the field-scale bioreactor septic tank, resuspended
lightweight solids, colloids from the settled sludge layer, and diminished
pollutant removal performances. Such reduced performances were
counterbalanced by the succeeding biowalls. Wastewater retention time
increment improved pollutant removal in all the compartments and
overall performance of the pilot-scale bioreactor septic tank. Aerobic-
anaerobic pockets inside the hanging root network of the floating con­
structed wetland supported nitrification and denitrification. Coliform
removal in the bioreactor septic tanks and floating constructed wetland
was influenced by filtration, oxidation, predation, natural die-off, and
exposure to ultraviolet radiation, biocides. This study shows the po­
tential application of the bioreactor septic tank and floating constructed
wetland (as a polishing stage) for producing better effluent quality in
decentralized areas.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tanveer Saeed: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administra­
tion, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Rumana Afrin: Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Abdullah Al-
Muyeed: Funding acquisition, Methodology. Md Jihad Miah: Re­
sources, Supervision. Hasin Jahan: Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the funding provided by WaterAid
Bangladesh for conducting this research study.
References
[1] J.R. Adhikari, S.P. Lohani, Design, installation, operation and experimentation of
septic tank – UASB wastewater treatment system, Renew. Energy 143 (2019)
1406–1415, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.059.
[2] M.G. Lusk, G.S. Toor, Y.-Y. Yang, S. Mechtensimer, M. De, T.A. Obreza, A review of
the fate and transport of nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, and trace organic
chemicals in septic systems, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (7) (2017)
455–541, https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2017.1327787.
[3] T. Saeed, G. Sun, A comprehensive review on nutrients and organics removal from
different wastewaters employing subsurface flow constructed wetlands, Crit. Rev.
10
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606
Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (4) (2017) 203–288, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10643389.2017.1318615.
[4] L. Daija, A. Selberg, E. Rikmann, I. Zekker, T. Tenno, T. Tenno, The influence of
lower temperature, influent fluctuations and long retention time on the
performance of an upflow mode laboratory-scale septic tank, Desalin. Water Treat.
57 (40) (2016) 18679–18687, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1094421.
[5] T. Koottatep, T. Pussayanavin, C. Polprasert, Nouveau design solar septic tank:
reinvented toilet technology for sanitation 4.0, Environ. Technol. Innov. 19 (2020),
100933, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.100933.
[6] G. Moussavi, F. Kazembeigi, M. Farzadkia, Performance of a pilot scale up-flow
septic tank for on-site decentralized treatment of residential wastewater, Process
Saf. Environ. Prot. 88 (1) (2010) 47–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2009.10.001.
[7] S.T. Magwaza, L.S. Magwaza, A.O. Odindo, A. Mditshwa, Hydroponic technology
as decentralised system for domestic wastewater treatment and vegetable
production in urban agriculture: a review, Sci. Total Environ. 698 (2020), 134154,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134154.
[8] F.A. Nasr, B. Mikhaeil, Treatment of domestic wastewater using conventional and
baffled septic tanks, Environ. Technol. 34 (16) (2013) 2337–2343, https://doi.org/
10.1080/09593330.2013.767285.
[9] Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, in: G. Tchobanoglous, F. Burton,
H. Stensel (Eds.), Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.
[10] T. Sabry, Evaluation of decentralized treatment of sewage employing Upflow
Septic Tank/Baffled Reactor (USBR) in developing countries, J. Hazard. Mater. 174
(1) (2010) 500–505, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.09.080.
[11] S. Haydar, M. Anis, G.E. Hina, J.A. Aziz, M. Arbi, An innovative design of septic
tank for wastewater treatment and its performance evaluation: an applicable model
for developing countries, Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 26 (4) (2018) 886–891, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cjche.2017.10.015.
[12] S. Luostarinen, W. Sanders, K. Kujawa-Roeleveld, G. Zeeman, Effect of temperature
on anaerobic treatment of black water in UASB-septic tank systems, Bioresour.
Technol. 98 (5) (2007) 980–986, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.04.018.
[13] M.K. Sharma, A. Khursheed, A.A. Kazmi, Modified septic tank-anaerobic filter unit
as a two-stage on-site domestic wastewater treatment system, Environ. Technol. 35
(17) (2014) 2183–2193, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2014.896950.
[14] M.K. Sharma, A.A. Kazmi, Anaerobic on-site treatment of black water using filter-
based packaged system as an alternative of conventional septic tank, Ecol. Eng. 75
(2015) 457–461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.12.014.
[15] I. Al-Zreiqat, B. Abbassi, T. Headley, J. Nivala, M. van Afferden, R.A. Müller,
Influence of septic tank attached growth media on total nitrogen removal in a
recirculating vertical flow constructed wetland for treatment of domestic
wastewater, Ecol. Eng. 118 (2018) 171–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2018.05.013.
[16] L. Cui, Y. Ouyang, W. Yang, Z. Huang, Q. Xu, G. Yu, Removal of nutrients from
septic tank effluent with baffle subsurface-flow constructed wetlands, J. Environ.
Manag. 153 (2015) 33–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.035.
[17] T. Koottatep, T. Pussayanavin, S. Khamyai, C. Polprasert, Performance of novel
constructed wetlands for treating solar septic tank effluent, Sci. Total Environ. 754
(2021), 142447, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142447.
[18] G.D. Gikas, V.A. Tsihrintzis, A small-size vertical flow constructed wetland for on-
site treatment of household wastewater, Ecol. Eng. 44 (2012) 337–343, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.04.016.
[19] T. Saeed, G. Sun, A review on nitrogen and organics removal mechanisms in
subsurface flow constructed wetlands: dependency on environmental parameters,
operating conditions and supporting media, J. Environ. Manag. 112 (2012)
429–448, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.011.
[20] A. Białowiec, A. Albuquerque, P.F. Randerson, The influence of evapotranspiration
on vertical flow subsurface constructed wetland performance, Ecol. Eng. 67 (2014)
89–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.032.
[21] H. Hakk, L. Sikora, F.X.M. Casey, Fate of estrone in laboratory-scale constructed
wetlands, Ecol. Eng. 111 (2018) 60–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2017.11.005.
[22] T.R. Headley, C.C. Tanner, Constructed wetlands with floating emergent
macrophytes: an innovative stormwater treatment technology, Crit. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 42 (21) (2012) 2261–2310, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10643389.2011.574108.
[23] A. Barco, M. Borin, Treatment performances of floating wetlands: a decade of
studies in North Italy, Ecol. Eng. 158 (2020), 106016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2020.106016.
[24] T. Saeed, M.J. Miah, N. Majed, M. Hasan, T. Khan, Pollutant removal from landfill
leachate employing two-stage constructed wetland mesocosms: co-treatment with
municipal sewage, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (22) (2020) 28316–28332, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09208-y.
[25] M.J. Shahid, M. Arslan, M. Siddique, S. Ali, R. Tahseen, M. Afzal, Potentialities of
floating wetlands for the treatment of polluted water of river Ravi, Pakistan, Ecol.
Eng. 133 (2019) 167–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.04.022.
[26] T. Saeed, N. Majed, T. Khan, H. Mallika, Two-stage constructed wetland systems
for polluted surface water treatment, J. Environ. Manag. 249 (2019), 109379,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109379.
[27] T. Saeed, B. Paul, R. Afrin, A. Al-Muyeed, G. Sun, Floating constructed wetland for
the treatment of polluted river water: a pilot scale study on seasonal variation and
shock load, Chem. Eng. J. 287 (2016) 62–73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2015.10.118.
[28] P.F. Schwammberger, T. Lucke, C. Walker, S.J. Trueman, Nutrient uptake by
constructed floating wetland plants during the construction phase of an urban
T. Saeed et al.
residential development, Sci. Total Environ. 677 (2019) 390–403, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.341.
[29] ECR, Environment conservation rules 1997, D. Ministry of environment and
forests, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh., Editor. 1997: Dhaka.
[30] N. Ferreiro, M. Soto, Anaerobic hydrolysis of primary sludge: influence of sludge
concentration and temperature, Water Sci. Technol. 47 (12) (2003) 239–246.
[31] H. Zhu, B. Yan, Y. Xu, J. Guan, S. Liu, Removal of nitrogen and COD in horizontal
subsurface flow constructed wetlands under different influent C/N ratios, Ecol.
Eng. 63 (2014) 58–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.018.
[32] V. Torrijos, I. Ruiz, M. Soto, Effect of step-feeding on the performance of lab-scale
columns simulating vertical flow-horizontal flow constructed wetlands, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (28) (2017) 22649–22662, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
017-9925-1.
[33] T. Saeed, N. Yasmin, G. Sun, A. Hasnat, The use of biochar and crushed mortar in
treatment wetlands to enhance the removal of nutrients from sewage, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 26 (1) (2019) 586–599, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3637-z.
[34] G. Sun, T. Saeed, Kinetic modelling of organic matter removal in 80 horizontal flow
reed beds for domestic sewage treatment, Process Biochem. 44 (7) (2009)
717–722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2009.03.003.
[35] R.P. Singh, W. Kun, D. Fu, Designing process and operational effect of modified
septic tank for the pre-treatment of rural domestic sewage, J. Environ. Manag. 251
(2019), 109552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109552.
[36] E. Sánchez, R. Borja, P. Weiland, L. Travieso, A. Martín, Effect of temperature and
pH on the kinetics of methane production, organic nitrogen and phosphorus
removal in the batch anaerobic digestion process of cattle manure, Bioprocess Eng.
22 (3) (2000) 247–252, https://doi.org/10.1007/s004490050727.
[37] R. Pishgar, D. Morin, S.J. Young, J. Schwartz, A. Chu, Characterization of domestic
wastewater released from ’green’ households and field study of the performance of
on-site septic tanks retrofitted into aerobic bioreactors in cold climate, Sci. Total
Environ. 755 (2021), 142446, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142446.
[38] C. Zamalloa, J.B.A. Arends, N. Boon, W. Verstraete, Performance of a lab-scale bio-
electrochemical assisted septic tank for the anaerobic treatment of black water,
N. Biotechnol. 30 (5) (2013) 573–580, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nbt.2013.01.009.
[39] T. Saeed, M.J. Miah, N. Majed, M.K. Alam, T. Khan, Effect of effluent recirculation
on nutrients and organics removal performance of hybrid constructed wetlands:
landfill leachate treatment, J. Clean. Prod. 282 (2021), 125427, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125427.
[40] Z. Han, J. Dong, Z. Shen, R. Mou, Y. Zhou, X. Chen, X. Fu, C. Yang, Nitrogen
removal of anaerobically digested swine wastewater by pilot-scale tidal flow
constructed wetland based on in-situ biological regeneration of zeolite,
Chemosphere 217 (2019) 364–373, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2018.11.036.
[41] J. GarcÍA, D.P.L. Rousseau, J. MoratÓ, E.L.S. Lesage, V. Matamoros, J.M. Bayona,
Contaminant removal processes in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: a review,
Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (7) (2010) 561–661, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10643380802471076.
[42] L. Doherty, Y. Zhao, X. Zhao, W. Wang, Nutrient and organics removal from swine
slurry with simultaneous electricity generation in an alum sludge-based
11
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 105606
constructed wetland incorporating microbial fuel cell technology, Chem. Eng. J.
266 (2015) 74–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.12.063.
[43] G.S. Colares, N. Dell’Osbel, P.G. Wiesel, G.A. Oliveira, P.H.Z. Lemos, F.P. da Silva,
C.A. Lutterbeck, L.T. Kist, Ê.L. Machado, Floating treatment wetlands: a review and
bibliometric analysis, Sci. Total Environ. 714 (2020), 136776, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136776.
[44] M.J. Shahid, M. Arslan, S. Ali, M. Siddique, M. Afzal, Floating wetlands: a
sustainable tool for wastewater treatment, Clean Soil Air Water 46 (10) (2018),
1800120, https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201800120.
[45] A. Ijaz, G. Shabir, Q.M. Khan, M. Afzal, Enhanced remediation of sewage effluent
by endophyte-assisted floating treatment wetlands, Ecol. Eng. 84 (2015) 58–66,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.07.025.
[46] T. Saeed, S. Muntaha, M. Rashid, G. Sun, A. Hasnat, Industrial wastewater
treatment in constructed wetlands packed with construction materials and
agricultural by-products, J. Clean. Prod. 189 (2018) 442–453, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.115.
[47] A. Ghermandi, D. Bixio, P. Traverso, I. Cersosimo, C. Thoeye, The removal of
pathogens in surface-flow constructed wetlands and its implications for water
reuse, Water Sci. Technol. 56 (3) (2007) 207–216, https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2007.511.
[48] O. Decamp, A. Warren, Investigation of Escherichia coli removal in various designs
of subsurface flow wetlands used for wastewater treatment, Ecol. Eng. 14 (3)
(2000) 293–299, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(99)00007-5.
[49] C.A. Papadimitriou, A. Papatheodoulou, V. Takavakoglou, A. Zdragas, P. Samaras,
G.P. Sakellaropoulos, M. Lazaridou, G. Zalidis, Investigation of protozoa as
indicators of wastewater treatment efficiency in constructed wetlands,
Desalination 250 (1) (2010) 378–382, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2009.09.060.
[50] H. Wand, G. Vacca, P. Kuschk, M. Krüger, M. Kästner, Removal of bacteria by
filtration in planted and non-planted sand columns, Water Res. 41 (1) (2007)
159–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.08.024.
[51] M.R. Karim, F.D. Manshadi, M.M. Karpiscak, C.P. Gerba, The persistence and
removal of enteric pathogens in constructed wetlands, Water Res. 38 (7) (2004)
1831–1837, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2003.12.029.
[52] L. Boutilier, R. Jamieson, R. Gordon, C. Lake, W. Hart, Adsorption, sedimentation,
and inactivation of E. coli within wastewater treatment wetlands, Water Res. 43
(17) (2009) 4370–4380, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.06.039.
[53] J. Wang, W. Wang, J. Xiong, L. Li, B. Zhao, I. Sohail, Z. He, A constructed wetland
system with aquatic macrophytes for cleaning contaminated runoff/storm water
from urban area in Florida, J. Environ. Manag. 280 (2021), 111794, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111794.
[54] J.A.N. Vymazal, Removal of enteric bacteria in constructed treatment wetlands
with emergent macrophytes: a review, J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 40 (6–7)
(2005) 1355–1367, https://doi.org/10.1081/ESE-200055851.
[55] T. Saeed, A. Al-Muyeed, R. Afrin, H. Rahman, G. Sun, Pollutant removal from
municipal wastewater employing baffled subsurface flow and integrated surface
flow-floating treatment wetlands, JEnvS 26 (4) (2014) 726–736, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60476-3.
[56] R. Anil, A.L. Neera, Modified septic tank treatment system, Procedia Technol. 24
(2016) 240–247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.05.032.