A Review of Constructed Wetland On Type, Treatment and

Environmental Technology & Innovation 21 (2021) 101261
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Technology & Innovation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eti
A review of constructed wetland on type, treatment and

technology of wastewater✩
∗
Divyesh Parde a , Aakash Patwa a , Amol Shukla b , Ritesh Vijay (Ph. D) b , ,
Deepak J. Killedar (Ph. D) a , Rakesh Kumar (Ph. D) b
a
Shri G. S. Institute of Technology and Science, Indore 452001, India
b
CSIR – NEERI, Nagpur 440020, India
article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: The performance of constructed wetland depends upon the types of constructed wetland,
Received 3 March 2020 vegetation, applied hydraulic load, and media used in the bed. This paper describes
Received in revised form 8 November 2020 the review of constructed wetland on type, technology and treatment of various
Accepted 18 November 2020
types of wastewater generated such as textile waste, dairy waste, industrial waste,
Available online 21 November 2020
piggery waste, tannery waste, petrochemical waste, municipal waste, etc. The review
Keywords: summarizes the types of constructed wetlands considering media, vegetation, removal
Constructed wetland efficiency, construction cost, maintenance cost and land area requirement using life
Sewage cycle cost analysis. The review compares how and why constructed wetland is a better
Wastewater option as per treatment efficiency, their payback period and cost-effective with the
Media
other wastewater treatment technologies. Further, there is no proper guidelines for the
Vegetation
selection of media and vegetation in the constructed wetland. It is found that Typha
Latifolia and Phragmites Australis have a better removal efficiency than other species.
Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA), saw dust, zero-valent iron and gravels can
be effectively used as a media for the removal of organic matter, phosphorus, sulphate
and arsenate. Constructed wetland with low Hydraulic Loading Rate (HLR) performs
exceptionally well and can remove 80%–91% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), 60%–
85% Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and 80%–95% Total Suspended Solids (TSS). It
requires a very low operation and maintenance than others. This review on constructed
wetland further suggests research and development related to land area, media, plants,
engineering design and automation of treatment units.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Constructed wetland—Types ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Free water surface constructed wetland................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetland (HFCW) ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland (VFCW) ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.4. French vertical flow constructed wetland ................................................................................................................................ 4
2.5. Hybrid constructed wetland ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
✩ Acknowledgement: CSIR-NEERI, Nagpur and S.G.S.I.T.S. Indore to provide infrastructure for the study.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: divyesh.parde@gmail.com (D. Parde), aakashpatwa007@gmail.com (A. Patwa), amolshukla16@gmail.com (A. Shukla),
r_vijay@neeri.res.in (R. Vijay), djkilledar@gmail.com (D.J. Killedar), r_kumar@neeri.res.in (R. Kumar).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.101261
2352-1864/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D. Parde, A. Patwa, A. Shukla et al. Environmental Technology & Innovation 21 (2021) 101261
2.6. Baffled sub-surface flow constructed wetland ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.7. Aerated constructed wetland ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.8. Multi-tropic free flow engineered wetland .............................................................................................................................. 4
3. Constructed wetland — Media and vegetation.................................................................................................................................... 4
4. Constructed wetland — Treatment......................................................................................................................................................... 5
5. Constructed wetland — technology ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
5.1. Phytorid technology .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
5.2. Soil bio technology ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7
6. Constructed wetland — Advantages and disadvantages..................................................................................................................... 7
7. Constructed wetland — Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA).................................................................................................................... 8
8. Constructed wetland — Further research............................................................................................................................................. 8
9. Summary and conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Declaration of competing interest.......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Acknowledgment ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
1. Introduction
Construction Wetlands (CW) are practised for the primary and secondary treatment to treat domestic wastewater,
agricultural wastewater, coal drainage wastewater, petroleum refinery wastewater, compost and landfill leachates, fish
pond discharges, industrial wastewater from pulp and paper mills, textile mills, seafood processing, etc. CW is a low cost
and effective treatment unit if designed, operated and maintained carefully (Davis et al., 1995). A constructed wetland can
also be designed for the recreational purpose in the urban regions. Constructed wetland is a sustainable treatment method
which causes a minimum threat to the downstream water bodies (Melbourne water, 2005). As suggested by Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Institute, constructed wetland includes a high degree of aerobic biological improvement and can
be used as secondary treatment. Constructed wetland are of two types i.e. free water surface flow constructed wetland
(FWSCW) and sub-surface flow constructed wetland. Subsurface flow is divided into vertical flow (VF) CW, horizontal
flow (HF) CW, french vertical flow (FVF) CW and hybrid type CW (Vymazal and Kröpfelová, 2008).
Free water surface constructed wetlands was first developed in Hungary, 1968 which can treat various types of
wastewater such as domestic wastewater, municipal wastewater, etc. (Kadlec and Wallace, 2008). In Great Britain,
subsurface flow reed bed system having gravel as bed medium with sloping bottom was built which provides hydraulic
gradient to the bed. The constructed wetland has a long term performance and remains steady for many years. The minor
fraction of metals and metalloids reduced by plant uptake (Paulo et al., 2013). A constructed wetland can be used to
treat various types of wastewater i.e. agricultural wastewater (Koskiaho et al., 2003; Maddox and Kingsley, 1989; Saeed
et al., 2018), industrial dairy wastewater (Yazdania and Golestanib, 2019), industrial tannery wastewater (Calheiros et al.,
2007; Saeed et al., 2012), industrial textile wastewater (Mbuligwe, 2005; Saeed and Sun, 2013), pulp and paper industry
wastewater (Knight et al., 2000), acid mine drainage wastewater (Kleinmann and Girts, 1987), etc. Persistent organic
pollutants and fertilizer in agriculture wastewater remain into the food chain and cause serious public health problem
but it can be safely tackled by wetland plant species which can accumulate these persistent pollutant (Ngweme et al.,
2020).
Pollutant removal mechanism of constructed wetland includes physical, chemical and biological processes. The physical
process involves sedimentation of the suspended particles present in the wastewater which leads to the removal of
pollutants. Higher the wastewater retention time more will be the sedimentation (DBT, 2019). Sedimentation process
is a settlement of the particles which depends upon gravity and these particles get deposited at the bottom of the tank.
Sedimentation process not only reduce the organic matter but also eliminates the coliform bacteria (Carter and Norton,
2007; Dotro et al., 2015). Adsorption is an important process for the removal of phosphorus which is high in iron-rich
cupola slag because it has high adsorption capacity (Saeed et al., 2012). Heavy metals also removed by the adsorption
process. When zeolite media is used, phosphorus removal is high due to effective adsorption (Liu et al., 2008) .
Constructed wetland media is helpful for the accumulation of organic matter, phosphorus, sulphate, arsenate and
removal of pathogens (Stanković, 2017). To achieve better functioning of constructed wetland, various types of media
can be used such as sugar bagasse, marble chips, iron powder, Sylhet sand, soil, biochar of rice husk, coco-peat, cupola
slag, recycled bricks, stones, lightweight expanded clay aggregate, gravels, sand, sawdust, coal, zero-valent iron, etc. (Saeed
et al., 2012; Saba et al., 2014; Yazdania and Golestanib, 2019; Saeed et al., 2014, 2018; Mesquita et al., 2013; Kadaverugu
et al., 2016; Eljamal et al., 2013; Witthayaphirom et al., 2020).
Macrophytes used in the wetland provide huge surface area for the microbial growth which helps in stabilizing the
organic matter and enhance functioning for physical filtration and it also prevents vertical flow system from clogging
(Brix, 1994). Constructed wetland performance depends upon the various factors like temperature, applied hydraulic load,
vegetation, media, etc (Tilak et al., 2016; Solano et al., 2004).
Ammonification is the first step for the transformation of nitrogen. It is the conversion of organic N to NH4 -N. Ammoni-
fication depends upon the pH and temperature (Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Patrick and Wyatt, 1964). Ammonification occurs
2
rapidly in an aerobic condition and occurs slowly in an anaerobic condition (Reddy et al., 1984). After ammonification, next
step for the transformation of nitrogen is nitrification. Nitrification is a two-stage process. Nitrification process converts
ammonium to nitrate and nitrate to nitrite. The bacteria required for the nitrification process is nitrosomonas, nitrosococcus
and nitrosospira. (Metcalf et al., 1972; Reddy et al., 1984). De-nitrification is a process which converts nitrate into the
nitrogen gas. The bacteria useful for the de-nitrification are bacillus, enterobacter, micrococcus pseudomona and spirillum
(Metcalf et al., 1972; Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
Photosynthesis is the process in which plants, bacteria’s and algae use the energy from the sunlight to form carbon-
di-oxide and water. Constructed wetland consists of bacteria, fungi, algae and protozoa microorganism which undergoes
photosynthesis. Fermentation is a process if occurs in the absence of oxygen decomposes the organic carbon to produce
methane, alcohol, volatile fatty acids (DBT, 2019).
There are various types of wastewater treatment technologies such as Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP), Duckweed
Pond, Activated Sludge Process (ASP), Trickling Filters, Up-flow anaerobic Baffled Reactor (UASB), Moving Bed Biofilm
Reactor (MBBR) and Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR). Every treatment technology has different land area requirement, cost,
payback period, and removal efficiency (Von Sperling and de Lemos Chernicharo, 2005; Sato et al., 2007; Gnanadipathy
and Polprasert, 1993; Chernicharo and dos Reis Cardoso, 1999; Sawajneh et al., 2010; Chernicharo et al., 2009; Sundaresan
and Philip, 2008; Chen et al., 2010). Among all above mentioned technologies, constructed wetland found to be sustainable
and low-cost treatment technology with less operational and maintenance period (Sonavane et al., 2008; Khazaleh and
Gopalan, 2018). Further, there are no proper guidelines for the selection of media and vegetation as well as dynamic
behaviour of constructed wetland to treat different types of wastewater in aerobic, facultative and anaerobic zone. Based
on the literature and limitations, the main focus of this review paper is to find out the effective working of constructed
wetland, considering types of media, plants, removal efficiency of organic matter and nutrients from the wastewater and
Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for its performance and payback period. The main objectives of this review paper are
i. The design setup, hydraulic load, media and vegetation required to treat various types of wastewater in constructed
wetland.
ii. The removal rates of pollutants such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD),
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH4 -N), Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3 -N), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total
Phosphorus (TP).
iii. Advantages and disadvantages of the constructed wetland including LCCA.
iv. Comparison of constructed wetland with other wastewater treatment technologies.
2. Constructed wetland—Types
2.1. Free water surface constructed wetland
Free water surface constructed wetland is a natural wetland in which wastewater flows over the surface. It is helpful
for flood prevention and shoreline erosion control along with wastewater quality improvement (Farooqi et al., 2008). A
wide range of plants can be used in the free water surface constructed wetland as emergent plants (Typha, Phragmites,
Scirpus), submerged plants (Potamogeon, Elodea) and floating plants (Eichornia, Lemna) (DBT, 2019). It has mean removal
efficiency for trace metals (Iron 53%, Copper 45%, Zinc 52% and for Lead 52%), BOD and COD (50%–60%), TSS (70%–80%)
and Nitrogen (50%–65%) (El-Sheikh et al., 2010). The Free water surface constructed wetland is shown in Fig. A.1.
2.2. Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetland (HFCW)
Horizontal flow constructed wetland is also known as a reed bed system. The wastewater flows horizontally in the
bed of the constructed wetland. The land area requirement for HFCW is 5–10 m2 /PE (PE — Population Equivalent) (DBT,
2019). The wastewater undergoes aerobic and anaerobic condition. In HFCW, aerobic condition occurs at the root zone
and the organic matter degrades by anaerobic condition (DBT, 2019). The HFCW is efficient for the removal of pollutants
such as BOD, COD, Ammoniacal Nitrogen, Phosphate, TSS, etc. (Solano et al., 2004; Steer et al., 2002). HFCW can be used
to treat different types of wastewater i.e. industrial waste, agricultural waste, mine waste, etc. HFCW requires more land
area than vertical flow constructed wetland but it undergoes better de-nitrification (Saeed et al., 2012; Knight et al., 2000;
Calheiros et al., 2007; Sudarsan et al., 2018). The Horizontal flow constructed wetland is shown in Fig. A.2.
2.3. Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland (VFCW)
Vertical flow constructed wetland is a wetland in which wastewater submerged from the top of the wetland and
drained out from the bottom. The wastewater flows vertically through the bed (Tilley et al., 2014). Vertical flow
constructed wetland offers aerobic condition, therefore, achieved high nitrification, BOD, COD and other pollutant
removals. The land area requirement for vertical flow constructed wetland is 1–3 m2 /PE which is less than HFCW but
it requires more maintenance than HFCW (DBT, 2019). The Vertical flow constructed wetland is shown in Fig. A.3.
3
2.4. French vertical flow constructed wetland
The French based constructed wetland is a two-stage vertical flow constructed wetland arranged in a parallel manner
and functions in series. It is a type of vertical constructed wetland and having similar removal efficiency like vertical flow
constructed wetland but it saves construction cost. The land area requirement for the wetland is 2.0–2.5 m2 /PE (DBT,
2019). This wetland shows negligible variations due to changes in the hydraulic loading and climate (Paing et al., 2015).
The French Vertical constructed wetland is shown in Fig. A.4.
2.5. Hybrid constructed wetland
Hybrid constructed wetland is a system having a multistage of the treatment which means a combination of HFCW
and VFCW (Davis et al., 1995). The removal efficiency of hybrid constructed wetland is more as compared to other type
of constructed wetland. The different types of constructed wetland have different removal efficiency as per aerobic or
anaerobic conditions according to the characteristics of the wastewater, hybrid constructed wetland units can be arranged
(Saeed et al., 2012; Yazdania and Golestanib, 2019; Barbera et al., 2009). The Hybrid constructed wetland is shown in
Fig. A.5.
2.6. Baffled sub-surface flow constructed wetland
The baffled sub-surface flow constructed wetland consists of vertical baffle along the width of the wetland which guides
the wastewater to flow up and down through the wetland bed. This system provides a long pathway to the wastewater
and more contact time between the wastewater and media. The nitrogen removal from the wastewater is an important
parameter which can be highly achieved in the baffled sub-surface flow constructed wetland (DBT, 2019). The Baffled
sub-surface constructed wetland is shown in Fig. A.6.
2.7. Aerated constructed wetland
To fulfil the oxygen requirement, aerated constructed wetland is a better option. The aerated constructed wetland
requires less energy than conventional treatment. Due to the low availability of oxygen, the present organic matter
decomposes at lower rate. Therefore, the efficiency of constructed wetland is improved by using aerators in the wetland
(Sánchez-Monedero et al., 2008). The Aerated constructed wetland is shown in Fig. A.7.
2.8. Multi-tropic free flow engineered wetland
Floating aquatic plant grows in the wastewater. Floating plants used in the wetlands are Eichhornia crassipes, Lemna
sp. etc. Floating plants useful for the removal of nitrogen and phosphates but have a low removal of BOD and COD.
To get better efficiency from the free flow engineered wetland, regular harvesting is required. Floating aquatic plants
produces higher biomass which can be further used as a fuel, fertilizer, animal feed supplement, etc. (Tilak et al., 2016).
The Multi-tropic free flow engineered wetland is shown in Fig. A.8.
3. Constructed wetland — Media and vegetation
In constructed wetland technology, media plays an important role in the removal of phosphorus sulfates, arsenate
and it also provides a surface for the bacterial activity. Apart from sand, broken bricks, stones and aggregates some of
the sorbent media that can also be adopted in the constructed wetland technologies which will enhance the removal
efficiency of pollutants. Zero-valent iron is a media which can be used for the sorption of arsenate. It could also enhance
the sorption process (Eljamal et al., 2013). Zero-valent iron and bimetallic iron/copper also helpful for the removal of
phosphorus (Eljamal et al., 2020). Sawdust is a low cost material rich in carbon source that enhance the biological sulphate
reduction from the wastewater and also helpful for the bacterial activity (Eljamal et al., 2007, 2008, 2009). Marble dust
used as a media can achieve higher removal of phosphorus (Osama et al., 2012). Waste compost can also be used as a
media which will be a solution of a waste management. Waste compost maintains the alkaline nature in a media which
will be helpful for the plant growth (Benito et al., 2005; Spiers and Fietje, 2000). Biochar as a filter media also has an
ability to remove pollutants like suspended solids, nutrients and heavy metals (Reddy et al., 2014; Khan et al., 2019).
Constructed wetland having volcanic tufa as a media and planted with the Sugarcane, Phragmites and Reeds shows
variations in the removal efficiency when compared with the media of gravel and river stones planted with sugarcane
and reeds. Before treatment sedimentation, facultative pond and a seasonal reservoir were present. Result shows that TSS
is almost same for all the constructed wetland whereas Nitrogen uptake decreases with the increase in hydraulic load.
Nitrogen uptake was only 63.8% in volcanic tufa media planted with Phragmites while phosphorus removal was 41.9% in
a gravel bed. (Avsar et al., 2007).
Two setups were made having Pista stratiotes in the inlet and outlet of the treatment unit. The main unit was planted
with Typha latifolia, Lemongrass and Hybrid Napier Paragrass. The dimensions of the inlet and outlet were 1 m×3 m and the
4
main unit of 4 m×3 m. Total dimension was 10 m×3 m. Media used was gravel and sand. The HLR for the first setup was
4.45 cm/day and for second 5.77 cm/day. Results of this setup show that constructed wetland with Pistia straitotes, Typha
latifolia and Lemongrass has removal percentage of nitrogen 35.4%. To maximize the nutrient uptake for a longer period,
harvesting is necessary for Pistia stratiotes (Tilak et al., 2016). Klomjek and Nitisoravut (2005) estimated the working of
eight species of CW for the removal of pollutant and found that Typha angustifolia has better removal percentages for
nitrogen and Asia crabgrass for BOD.
Two HFCW in which one is unplanted and another is planted with Phragmites australis having media Lightweight
Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) of 4–8 mm size applied with lower and higher loading rates. Results show that LECA is
suitable to use as a media in Constructed wetland because it has higher porosity, fast adhesion which is useful for the
formation of biofilm and it provides surface area for fast growth of the plant. LECA media shows better results for lower
loading rate i.e. 73.90% COD and 59.3% NH4 -N removal (Mesquita et al., 2013). Constructed wetland was constructed in
which pretreated wastewater from Imhoff tank flows into HFCW followed by VFCW then HFCW planted with the reed
and Phragmites australis. It can be concluded that the removal percentage of setup was TSS 97.1%, COD 94.6%, BOD 97.2%,
TN 71.2% and PO4 -P 82.2% (Ghrabi et al., 2011). Phragmites Karka planted in Ujjain city having 60 cm depth of peanut
size gravel bed. The effective area of 900 m2 (100 m×9 m). The reduction of TSS, TS, TDS, COD, BOD and TKN was 80%,
78%, 76.48%, 78.64, 69.54% and 70% respectively (Panwar and Makvana, 2017). Phragmites sp. And Typha sp. was planted
in CW to treat the petrochemical wastewater in which media having gravel and a layer of sand. Results show that Typha
sp. is more efficient in treating the wastewater than Phragmites sp. but both the species are highly effective in treating
petrochemical wastewater under Indian conditions. The BOD, COD and turbidity removal of P. australis and Typha spp.
were 85.33%, 89.9%, 66.02% and 90.41%, 93.83%, 58.97% respectively (Sudarsan et al., 2018).
Treated septic tank effluent was used in two HFCW planted with Ranunculus Muricatus and Typha latifia having
dimensions 0.37 m×0.37 m×0.37 m. This setup shows both the species have effective removal of pollutants but Typha
shows higher reduction than Ranunculus. Ranunculus has better performance removal for bacteria than Typha and working
more enhanced in summer months. The removal percentage was 76.5% for TSS, 74% TDS, 82.55% BOD, 80.95% COD, 60.07%
sulfates, 78.56% phosphate and 55.75% chloride for Ranunculus and removal percentage was 78% for TSS, 59% TDS, 80.95%
BOD, 80.95% COD, 66.28% sulfates, 80.58% phosphate and 54.13% chloride for Typha latifia (Aziz et al., 2015).
4. Constructed wetland — Treatment
To treat textile wastewater in the constructed wetland, a system consisting of two CW i.e. VFCW followed by HFCW is
tested with two different hydraulic loads. The sugarcane bagasse used in the VFCW as a media having 1.4 m depth. And
planted with Phragmites australis and D. Sanderina. The Sylhet sand media used in the HFCW having 0.65 m depth and
planted with these two species and Asplenium Platyneuron. The VFCW shows higher removal for biodegradable organics
and achieved nitrification and de-nitrification whereas HFCW having good efficiency for the removal of colour. The system
which has a low hydraulic load (556–2830 mm/day) has better removal efficiency for NH4 — N, turbidity and suspended
solids whereas higher hydraulic load (1132–5660 mm/day) has better removal for NO3 -N, BOD5 and COD and there was
no effect of hydraulic load on (Nitrite Nitrogen) NO2 -N. For lower and higher hydraulic loading, removal percentage of
Turbidity, NH4 -N, NO2 -N, NO3 -N, COD, BOD and TSS were 89.7%, 80.5%, 86.5%, 72.1%, 88.6%, 95.0%, 62.5% and 82.7%,
69.9%, 86.6%, 76.6%, 89.3%, 96.6%, 37.7% respectively (Saeed et al., 2012). To treat the textile dye waste, 2 systems of
the constructed wetland was built. System 1 having a media of soil and rice husk in the same proportion while system
2 having a media of soil and bio-char of rice husk. Both of the systems were planted with Prescaria barbata. Result of
this study shows that system 1 has the removal of COD — 43.11% & Colour — 78.74% whereas system 2 has the removal
of COD — 44.31% & Colour — 75%. The removal percentage of dye is affected by pH, adsorbent dose, agitation rate (Saba
et al., 2014).
For the dairy industrial wastewater, three vertical flow constructed wetland were used. One was unplanted and other
was planted with Phragmites australis and Juncacae Spp. These plants can be adaptable for the mild tropical and subtropical
climates. Plants can be grown in saturated soils and saline water. Dimensions of pilot-scale CW having 100 cm height,
20 cm diameter and volume 30 litres in which 90 cm media are of stone, gravel, sand and soil and 10 cm for wastewater
collection. It was concluded that Phragmites australis has better performance in terms of BOD, COD and TSS removal
than Juncacae but turbidity removal was high in Juncacae. The removal percentage of COD, TSS, turbidity for Phragmites
and Juncacae were 93.6%, 86.0%, 78.9% and 92.3%, 84.1%, 83.4% respectively (Yazdania and Golestanib, 2019). As (Queiroz
et al., 2017) suggested that the Eichhornia paniculata has higher performance than Polygonum Sp. for BOD and COD.
After comparing the results of (Yazdania and Golestanib, 2019) and (Queiroz et al., 2017) Phragmites australis have better
removal efficiency than others.
Constructed wetland having 4 HFCW followed by 2 HFCW and 2 VFCW. 4 system in which two were planted with
Phragmites sp. and other with Spontaneous Plant Species (SPS) i.e. Phalaris Spp. and Chrysantemum segetum. Each bed was
rectangular having 1.5 m×3.0 m×0.6 m. It is concluded that DO is very less in HFCW whereas 4–5 mg/l in VFCW. TN
removal is effective for VFCW. Phragmites have a better performance for nitrate, phosphorus and BOD5 in HFCW but SPS
for VFCW. TSS removal exceeds 85% for all the systems. TN removal was 54% in VFCW and 37% in HFCW (Barbera et al.,
2009).
For the treatment of industrial wastewater, two sets of constructed wetland having VFCW followed by HFCW planted
with Canna indica. One set having recycled brick as a media whereas another one having agricultural by-product
5
(sugarcane bagasse). The dimensions of HFCW is 0.90 m×0.30 m×0.92 m. The depth in VFCW is 1.5 m and 0.9 m in HFCW.
It was observed that DO increased in VFCW and decreased when passed through HFCW. VFCW having recycled brick media
2
shows higher removal for NH4 -N and sulphate (SO− 4 ) as compared to sugarcane bagasse media. Higher phosphorus and
colour removal was observed in a recycled brick media. VFCW with organic media (sugarcane bagasse) having higher TN
removal due to C leaching from media. Biodegradation was low in recycled media as compared to sugarcane bagasse.
Nitrification and de-nitrification highly achieved in VFCW recycled brick media. Nitrogen and BOD5 removal percentages
is effective in recirculation. The removal percentage for recycled brick and sugarcane bagasse of P, SO4 , COD, BOD, TSS,
NH4 -N, colour, TN were 89%, 38.7%, 83.2%, 87%, 95%, 81%, 82.5%, 80% and 64.2%, 82.4%, 67%, 74%, 55.1%, 40.3%, 45.7%, 67.5%
respectively (Saeed et al., 2018).
For the treatment of piggery wastewater, hybrid constructed wetland was designed having 3 parallel VFCW connected
with one HFCW in series. One VFCW planted with Canna indica and another with Symphytum officinale and HFCW was
planted with Phragmites australis. The 2 VFCW has gravel media and the last one has zeolite media. The dimension of
VFCW was 1.07 m×1 m×0.7 m (l×b×h). The dimension of HFCW was 25 m long, 4 m wide and 0.7 m deep. HFCW
reduces COD efficiently. VFCW and HFCW has similar performance for TN and TP. The removal of COD, TN, NH4 -N, NO3 -N
and phosphorus were 79%, 64%, 63%, 53%, and 61% respectively (Borin et al., 2013).
To treat tannery wastewater, hybrid constructed wetland having VFCW followed by HFCW and another VFCW with
different media in each stage. The dimension of first VFCW was 0.73 m×0.91 m and having a coco-peat as a media
of size 1.2–2.3 mm and another having a pea gravel of the same size of depth 0.6 m. The dimension of HFCW was
1.32 m×1.01 m×0.78 m filled with cupola slag of 19–20 mm. All were planted with Phragmites australis. Results shows
that higher porosity of coco-peat helped nitrification whereas phosphorus removal was higher in iron-rich cupola slag.
It was predicted that coco-peat and cupola slag will not provide long term performance. Overall treatment has removal
of BOD, COD, TSS, NH4 , NO3 and PO4 were 98%, 98%, 55%, 86%, 50% and 87% respectively (Saeed et al., 2012). Calheiros
et al. (2007) used six constructed wetland planted to treat tannery wastewater with different species i.e. Canna Indica, T.
latifolia, P. australis, Stenotaphrum secundatum, I. pseudacorus and one is unvegetated Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate
(LECA) was used as a media. Result of this setup shows that COD and BOD removal was high in T. latifolia and P. australis
and it was 57.6% and 49.2%. TSS removal in T. latifolia is 76% whereas low removal of NH3 and NO3 was noted i.e. 20.2%
and 13.8%. Calheirus et al. 2012 also used another setup having 2 HFCW with 3 beds in each setup. HFCW have sands
in media. One setup planted with Arunda donax and another with Sarcocornia fruticosa. Result of this study shows that
pollutant removal percentage of COD, BOD, TSS, TP, TKN, NH4 and NO3 for Arundo and Sarcocornia were 64.4%, 75.55%,
67.03%, 82.8%, 76.07%, 73.13%, 95% and 65.4%, 73.33%, 63.7%, 78.7%, 74.8%, 73.13%, 95% respectively.
To treat municipal wastewater, a system having VFCW, HFCW and Surface flow (SF) floating treatment. The dimen-
sions of VFCW is 0.7 m×0.7 m×0.7 m, it includes 4 baffles of 0.5 m length and 0.18 m distance whereas HFCW is
2.5 m×1. 0m×1.1 m and have 3 baffles of 0.7 m length and 0.61 m distance and the SF units were 1.40 m×1.01 m×0.78 m.
The VFCW consists media of sawdust (0.6 m deep) and coal (0.3 m). The HFCW consist of small size gravel (0.2 m) and
sylhet sand (0.7 m). The SF units have small size gravel (0.2 m), sylhet sand (0.35 m) and large size gravel — oyster shell
(0.12 m). BOD removal was effective for both HFCW and VFCW and very less in SF unit. HFCW efficient for phosphorus
and E. coli removal. SF floating treatment achieves de-nitrification whereas NO3 -N and NH4 -N removal are very less in
HFCW. The pollutant removal percentage for BOD, COD, turbidity, NH4 -N, NO2 -N, NO3 -N, P and E. coli were 97%, 94.4%,
98.7%, 82.3%, 83.6%, 89.6%, 74.1% and 99.9% respectively (Saeed and Sun, 2012).
Four constructed wetland of size 20 m×2 m×1 m with Cattails and Reeds were used to treat the wastewater of rural
area. Constructed wetland was applied with two Hydraulic Application Rate (HAR) 75 mm/day and 150 mm/day. It was
concluded that for reeds, there was a large variation in the performance with different HAR but higher efficiency was
observed with low HAR. Both Cattails and Reeds have effective removal for BOD5 , COD and TSS in the summer season.
The removal efficiency of pathogens was more in the first year as compared to the second year. Total coliform removal
was more in reeds. But overall performance for removal of pollutant is better in cattails in every season as compared to
reeds. Cattails produce more biogas and more suitable for energy purposes than reeds (by the factor of 2). For 75 mm/day
hydraulic load, removal is 81% for BOD, 76% COD, 90% TSS in cattails and for reeds 85% BOD, 77% COD, 91% TSS (Solano
et al., 2004). As per Vecchiet and Jodice (2000) by using reeds in the constructed wetland, removal efficiency can be
enhanced by the application of lower hydraulic application rate in the second year of the CW. As per Mandi et al. (1998)
and Neralla et al. (1998), there is a greater difference in the performance of plants in the summer season to another
season.
Various studies have been conducted for the treatment of wastewater in a constructed wetland. As per Environment
and Public Health Organization (2010) in Nepal, wastewater treated with Phragmites australis plant has removal percentage
90.9% for TSS, 90% BOD, 48.3% COD, 15.3% TN. Yoon et al. (2001) observed that, In South Korea wastewater treated with
reed plant has removal percentage 90% for TSS, 93.04% BOD, 41.17% TP and 19.6% TN. Liu et al. (2008) found that, In china
wastewater treated with Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia and Canna indica plants has removal percentage 62.06% for
TP, 81.7% BOD, 73.3% COD and 44.3% TN. As per Steer et al. (2002) In USA wastewater treated with Bulrushes and Acorus
plant have removal percentage 72.1% for TSS, 76.1% BOD, 35.7% TP, 48.3% TN. Verhoeven and Meuleman (1999) found
that In Netherland wastewater treated with Phragmites australis plants has removal percentage 99% for TSS, 95% BOD,
80% COD, 35% TN and 25% TP.
6
In Silicy, Italy after trickling filter HFCW was used as tertiary treatment. Four HFCW were constructed and planted
with reeds having dimensions of 78 m×28 m with HLR 0.077 m/day. The bed consists gravel of 0.6 m depth. By the study
of five years, it was concluded that HFCW can be used as a tertiary treatment and having a removal efficiency of TSS, BOD,
COD, TN, TP, TC and E. Coli were 98.21%, 85%, 63%, 71%, 42%, 31%, 98.57% and 98.21% respectively. It also very effective
for the removal of salmonella and helminth (Cirelli et al., 2007).
HFCW planted with Typha spp., Scirpus spp. and Phragmites australis to treat different types of wastewater such as cattail
feeding, dairy, poultry and swine was used. The removal of BOD, TSS and NH4 -N was 83%, 81% and 57% respectively for
cattail feeding waste. The removal of BOD, TSS, TN and NH4 -N was 68%, 47%, 51 and 60% respectively for dairy waste. The
removal of BOD, TSS, TN and NH4 -N was 58%, 52%, 39% and 40% respectively for swine waste and for poultry, it was very
low 25% BOD, 20% NH4 -N and 22% TN (Payne and Knight, 1997).
Solar driven disinfection technologies were used after HFCW that shows no bacterial count on treated water and there
was also a reduction in organic matters and increase in Dissolved Oxygen (DO) values. The removal of NO3 was 84.1%,
PO4 77% and BOD 80% (Mishra et al., 2018). The various types of wastewater and treatment methods shown in Table A.1.
5. Constructed wetland — technology
5.1. Phytorid technology
Phytorid technology is designed and patented by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nag-
pur. Phytorid technology involves a physical, chemical and biological process. It has three independent units i.e. advanced
filter unit (AFC), phytorid treatment cell (PTC) and final collection cell (FCC). The AFC has a different size of stone and
gravel where anaerobic digestion occurs and PTC treats wastewater without chemical use. Phytorid technology improves
biological treatment capacity (Biswas et al., 2020). It has a better results for secondary and tertiary treatment of municipal
wastewater. Mainly plants used in Phytorid are P. australis, Phalaris arundinacea, Glyceria Maxima, Typha spp., Scirpus spp.,
Canna spp. The expected removal for TSS 75%–95%, BOD 80%–96%, COD 80%–94%, TN 80%–92%, TP 80%–92% and faecal
coliform 85%–95% (Patil and Gawande, 2016). The removal efficiency of parameters BOD, COD and nutrients are up to
95% which can be reused in agriculture. It is cost-effective and ecofriendly (Balpande and Mhaske, 2017). In the Phytorid
technology, if the inlet zone was composed of crushed bricks and stones of different sizes as a media is used then, this
uptake lead of 13.9% and the efficiency was better for low hydraulic loading i.e. for 10ppm concentration reduction is
80.9%, for 20ppm concentration its reduction decrease 69.5% and for 40ppm, the reduction is 53.2% (Kundu et al., 2016).
Wastewater from the biotechnology lab and botany lab was treated in Phytorid bed and found that the removal percentage
of BOD was 80.18%, COD 38.81% and TDS 22.32% (Kejariwal et al., 2017). The figures of Phytorid is shown in Fig. A.9.
5.2. Soil bio technology
Soil Bio Technology is a treatment process which is done by the soil microorganism like geophagus earthworms. Soil
Bio Technology has an ideal treatment process for sewage having less than 5 MLD. Soil Bio Technology capable to
remove BOD, COD, ammonia, nitrogen, nitrate, suspended solids, bacteria, colour and odour. Soil Bio Technology engages
the fundamental process of nature such as photosynthesis, respiration and mineral weathering. SBT is a single aerobic
system includes physical, chemical and biological processes. The removal percentage of bacteria is 99.99%. The land area
requirement for the SBT is 0.021 m2 /person/day (MDWS, 2015). Soil Bio technology is shown in Fig. A.10.
6. Constructed wetland — Advantages and disadvantages
Constructed Wetland is a cheaper treatment process to treat wastewater with low operation and maintenance cost
i.e. 1%–2% of plant cost. A constructed wetland can be used to treat various types of wastewater i.e. agricultural wastewater
(Koskiaho et al., 2003; Maddox and Kingsley, 1989; Saeed et al., 2018), industrial dairy wastewater (Weis and Weis, 2004;
Yazdania and Golestanib, 2019), industrial tannery wastewater (Calheiros et al., 2007; Saeed et al., 2012), industrial textile
wastewater (Mbuligwe, 2005; Saeed et al., 2012), pulp and paper industry wastewater (Knight et al., 2000), acid mine
drainage wastewater (Kleinmann and Girts, 1987), etc. Treated water of constructed wetland can be used for purposes like
recreational and gardening. Treated water reduces the concentration of pollutants which goes to the downstream water
bodies (Melbourne water, 2005). Constructed Wetland provides higher removal efficiency of BOD (80%–90%), COD (60%–
85%) and TSS (80%–95%). The constructed wetland also helpful in the removal of ammoniacal nitrogen and phosphorus.
Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia used as vegetation in a wetland provide higher removal rate of nitrogen and
phosphorus (Sudarsan et al., 2018). Media such as LECA, marble dust, sawdust, zero-valent iron and gravel efficient to
remove sulfates, arsenate, phosphorus and also supports bacterial activity in the wetland (Osama et al., 2012; Eljamal
et al., 2013, 2009). Constructed wetland treatment method provides higher removal rates (Avsar et al., 2007). Constructed
wetland is a decentralized wastewater treatment so that the wastewater of community can be collected at one place and
treated.
Every treatment processes has its limitations. The disadvantages of constructed wetlands are –
7
i. Vegetation used in the constructed wetland produces higher biomass that is why regular harvesting is required to
obtain optimal removal efficiency of the system. This increase the maintenance cost of the constructed wetland.
ii. Every species have different removal rates for pollutants and only a few species can be planted in the site that is
why removal of every pollutant is not possible in the constructed wetland.
iii. The treatment process in constructed wetland takes time as compared to other treatment processes. It is effective
on seasonal basis (Chintakovid et al., 2008). In the summer season, the removal efficiency of many species gets
better when compared to the winter season.
iv. Contaminated plants which are in the constructed wetland has to dispose in a proper way (Ahalya et al., 2003;
Ghosh and Gopal, 2010; Lasat, 2000).
v. Constructed wetland treatment process varies for a different compound in the contaminated wastewater. It is not
applicable for every compound which presents in the wastewater (Trapp and Karlson, 2001).
vi. In free water surface constructed wetland, some pollutants are not efficient for the aquatic phytoremediation like
heavy metals. In the free water surface, mosquito breeding is also the main problem.
7. Constructed wetland — Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
Constructed wetland is a low-cost treatment technology as compared to other technologies. As constructed wetland
requires more area when compared with the other technologies such as Activated Sludge Process (ASP), Moving Bed
Biofilm Reactor (MBBR), Trickling Filter, Up-flow Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (UASB) and Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR).
The operational and maintenance cost in constructed wetland is also very low (1%–2% of capital cost) as compared to other
technologies. There is no utility of energy in the constructed wetland (Balpande and Mhaske, 2017). As per (Rousseau et al.,
2004) for the 201 m3 design capacity of free water surface constructed wetland requires average investment 392 euro, for
158 m3 VFCW requires 507 euro, 251 m3 HFCW requires 1258 euro, combined reed system of 272 m3 requires 919 euro
and tertiary constructed wetland requires 1654 euro. The removal percentage of COD, TSS, TN and TP for FWSCW and
VFW are 61%, 75%, 31%, 26% and 94%, 98%, 65% and 70% respectively. Söderqvist (2002) concluded that for the reduction of
nitrogen i.e. 1000 kg-N/ha implies the cost of 2.15 USD/kg of reduced nitrogen in constructed wetland. DiMuro et al. (2014)
compared the cost of SBR with a constructed wetland. They found that SBR requires 75,00,000 KW/year electricity, labour
cost 12 Full time equivalent (FTE)/year, Maintenance cost 1.9 DFC/year, miscellaneous cost 2,45,000 USD/year, operation
and maintenance cost of 3 million dollar whereas constructed wetland requires 2,60,000 KW/year electricity, labour cost
0.75 FTE/year, Maintenance cost 0.9 DFC/year, miscellaneous cost 26,000 USD/year, operation and maintenance cost of
1,22,000 dollars. SBR and constructed wetland compare with the impact factor. 1 m3 treated water of SBR design causes
(3.7 kg CO2 -eq) impact on global warming whereas constructed wetland 1.5 kg CO2 -eq. The SBR has an impact on ozone
depletion i.e. 3.3×10−7 kg CFC — eq whereas CW causes 6.6×10−9 kg CFC — eq. (Tsihrintzis et al., 2007) estimated that
Free water surface CW requires construction cost 3,05,000 euro and operation and maintenance cost 22.07/PE/day and
VFCW requires construction cost 4,10,850 euro and operation and maintenance cost 36.18/PE/day.
Comparing different wastewater technologies, it was found that Activated sludge process (ASP) (Cakir and Stenstrom,
2005), MBBR (Seghezzo, 2004), Extended aeration and SBR has higher BOD removal percentage i.e. 80-90, 85–95, 95–98
and 95–99 respectively. For suspended solids, higher removal percentage is for MBBR (85–90), SBR (95–99), extended
aeration (80–90) and CW (80–95). COD removal percentage is highly achieved in ASP (85–90), trickling filter (80–90),
MBBR (85–95) and SBR (95–99). The HRT of ASP mainly adopted 12–14 h (Cakir and Stenstrom, 2005), for USAB 4–10 h
(Sato et al., 2007; Gnanadipathy and Polprasert, 1993; Chernicharo and dos Reis Cardoso, 1999; Sawajneh et al., 2010),
for trickling filter it is 13–14 h, for waste stabilization pond 8–15 days, for MBBR it is 8–12 h, for Phytorid technology it is
15–24 h, For extended aeration 18–36 h, facultative pond it is 3–5 days, for constructed wetland it is 2–8 days, duckweed
pond has HRT 6–8 days and SBR requires 6–14 h. The wastewater technology differs as per their land requirement area in
which MBBR and SBR technology require less area i.e. 450 m2 for 1 MLD and for SBR 0.05–0.01 m2 / person whereas larger
area is required for waste stabilization pond (2–3 m2 /person), constructed wetland (1.5–2.5 m2 /person), Phytorid (1500
m2 for 1 MLD) and duckweed pond (2.5–6.0 m2 /person). As per Balpande and Mhaske (2017), the maintenance cost for
ASP, UASB, trickling filter and waste stabilization pond is about 10%–15% of capital cost. For Phytorid (1%–2% of capital
cost), extended aeration (3%–5% of capital cost), facultative pond (3% of capital cost), constructed wetland (1% of capital
cost) and duckweed pond (3%–5% of capital cost) whereas maintenance cost is very high for MBBR (20%–25% of capital
cost) and 25%–30% for SBR. Balpande and Mhaske (2017) also suggested that payback period for ASP, UASB and phytorid
is about 3–4 years whereas more than 5 years for extended aeration and facultative pond. The comparison of wastewater
treatment technologies is shown in Table A.2 and performance parameters, land area and operation and maintenance cost
of constructed wetland is shown in Table A.3.
8. Constructed wetland — Further research
Constructed wetlands are an eco-friendly treatment process. Various research studies have already been carried out
in the field of constructed wetland but still further research is required as per the review outcome -
i. Need of further research on sustainable media and plant species for the constructed wetland treatment which has
a long term performance, higher retention of organic substitutes and removal of heavy metals and nutrients.
8
ii. Position of baffle walls and hybrid baffled system needs to be identified for better efficiency.
iii. Pre and post-treatment of sewage/wastewater requirement after the constructed wetland treatment.
iv. Payback period of various wastewater technologies including constructed wetland needs to be assessed and
quantified.
v. Further research and development regarding land area optimization, media, plants, engineering design and automa-
tion in the constructed wetland.
9. Summary and conclusion
A constructed wetland can be adopted for the treatment of different types of wastewater with higher removal of
BOD, COD, NH4 -N, NO3 -N, TN, TP, etc. In constructed wetland, various materials are used in the bed such as cupola
slag, coco-peat, gravels, sand, volcanic rock, volcanic tufa, recycled brick, sugarcane bagasse, etc. from which cupola slag
removes high phosphorus concentration. Gravels and recycled brick removes organic matters whereas organic material
like sugarcane bagasse removes bacteria efficiently. Light Expanded Clay Aggregate (LCCA) is also a better substitute as a
media. Sawdust, zero-valent iron, bio char can be used as adsorbent media in the constructed wetland for the removal of
phosphorus, sulphate and heavy metals. Based on the review, constructed wetland has removal efficiencies 80%–91% BOD,
60%–85% COD and 80%–95% TSS. The application of low hydraulic loading provides better performance in a constructed
wetland. Various types of vegetation are planted in the constructed wetlands. The nineteen types of macrophytes, Canna
spp., common reeds, etc. can be used in the constructed wetland. From all of them, Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia
shows higher removal efficiency. These plants can uptake nitrogen and phosphorus present in the wastewater up to 70%.
The Canna indica, Ranunculus and Iris pseudacorus has better aesthetic than other types of wetland plant species.
While comparing the life cycle cost analysis of different wastewater technologies, it is observed that MBBR and SBR
require high construction cost, operation and maintenance cost but also have a higher removal efficiency and required less
land area whereas constructed wetland and Phytorid technology requires larger area but have a higher removal efficiency
of organic matter and nutrients, low energy and low operation and maintenance cost. Constructed wetland requires only
1%–2% of capital cost for its operation and maintenance which is very low as compared to other treatment technologies.
The review paper also suggests further research is required in constructed wetland considering land area requirement,
media or substrate, plant species, position of baffles, automation in treatment unit for better understanding of dynamics
and rate kinetics in constructed wetland.
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
Authors would like to acknowledge CSIR-NEERI, Nagpur to provide infrastructure and necessary support to carry out
this review.
Appendix
See Figs. A.1–A.10 and Tables A.1–A.3.
Fig. A.1. Free water surface constructed wetland.
9
Fig. A.2. Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetland (HFCW).
Fig. A.3. Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland (VFCW).
Fig. A.4. French Vertical Constructed Wetland.
10
Fig. A.5. Hybrid Constructed Wetland.
Fig. A.6. Baffled Sub-surface Constructed Wetland.
Fig. A.7. Aerated Constructed Wetland.
11
Fig. A.8. Multi-tropic Free Flow Constructed Wetland.
Fig. A.9. Phytorid Technology.
Fig. A.10. Soil Bio Technology.
12
D. Parde, A. Patwa, A. Shukla et al.
Table A.1
Various types of wastewater and treatment methods.
Sr. Wastewater CW setup Media Plantation Targeted pollutants Remark References
No. (% Removal)
1 Textile waste VFCW Sugarbagasse P. australis & D. BOD — 79.2, COD Test performed for Saeed et al. (2012)
Sanderina — 62.5, NH4 -N-66.4, two hydraulic load
turbidity — 67.6 (566–2830 mm/day
and 1132–5660
mm/day), better
results is for low
hydraulic load
HFCW Sylhet sand P. australis& D. BOD — 76.1, COD
Sanderina & — 69.7, NH4 -N
Asplenium −42.1, turbidity
Platyneuron — 68.1
Hybrid (VFCW + Sugarbagasse and P. australis & D. BOD — 96.6, COD
HFCW) sylhet sand Sanderina & A. — 89.3, NH4 -N
Platyneuron −80.5, turbidity
— 89.7
2. Textile dye waste CW Soil and rice Prescaria barbata COD — 43.11, Dye removal affected Saba et al. (2014)
husk Colour-78.74 by pH, adsorbent
dose, agitation rate
Soil and bio COD — 44.31,
char of rice Colour — 75
husk
13
3. Dairy waste VFCW Stone, gravel P. australis COD — 93.62%, Plants used for mild, Yazdania and
&sand Turbidity — 78.94%, subtropical & tropical Golestanib (2019)
TSS — 86.04% climates.
Juncacae spp. COD — 92.33%, —
Turbidity — 83.46%,
TSS — 84.18%
Unplanted COD — 67.62%,

Turbidity — 64.63%,
TSS — 78.50%
4. Dairy waste HFCW – Typha spp., Scirpus BOD — 68, TSS47, – Knight et al.
spp., P. australis NH4 -N — 60, TN — (2000)
51
5. Piggery waste Hybrid unit VFCW 1 with gravel Canna india HCW; COD — 79, VFCW & HFCW have Borin et al. (2013)
(HCW)- 3 NH4 -N — 63, NO3 similar performance
parallel VFCW -N — 53, TN — 64, for TN & TP. VFCW
connected with TP — 61 requires 1/4th surface
HFCW in series than HFCW.
VFCW 2 with gravel Symphytum officinale
VFCW 3 with gravel, Symphytum officinale
sand & zeolite media
HFCW washed gravel Phragmites australis
6. Swine waste HFCW – Typha spp. Scirpus BOD — 58, TSS — – Knight (1997)
spp., P. australis 52, NH4 -N-40, TN
— 39
(continued on next page)

Table A.1 (continued).
Sr. Wastewater CW Media Plantation Targeted pollutants (% Remark References
No. setup Removal)
7. Tannery waste VFCW Coco-peat Phragmites australis BOD — 78, COD — 57, TS — Coco-peat and cupola (Saeed et al., 2012)
20, NH4 — 52, NO3 — 54, PO4 slag will not provide
— 48 long term performance.
HFCW Cupola slag BOD — 66, COD — 75, TS —
26, NH4 — 22, NO3 — 25, PO4
— 61
HFCW Pea gravel BOD — 73, COD — 83, TS —
23, NH4 — 62, PO4 — 34
HCW – BOD — 98, COD — 98, TS —
55, NH4 — 86, NO3 — 50, PO4
— 87
8. Tannery waste HFCW LECA Canna Indica COD — 54.31, BOD — 48.89, T, latifolia & P. australis (Calheiros et al., 2007)
TSS — 74.6, TKN — 25.8, NH3 has better removal
— 20.2, NO3 — 13.8 efficiency than others
T. latifolia COD — 57.6, BOD — 49.2, TSS
— 76, TKN — 25.4, NH3 —
20.2, NO3 — 13.8
P. australis COD — 57.6, BOD — 48.6, TSS
— 74.6, TKN — 26, NH3 —
17.56, NO3 — 13.8
Stenotaphrum COD — 54.6, BOD — 46.5, TSS
14
secundatum — 72, TKN — 26.2, NH3 —

17.5, NO3 — 13.8
I. pseudacorus COD — 55.03, BOD — 46.4,
TSS — 73.33, TKN — 6.2, NH3
— 18.9, NO3 -13.8
Unvegetated COD —53.5, BOD — 45.6, TSS
— 73.33, TKN — 25.8, NH3

-20.2, NO3 — 11.1
9. Tannery waste 2 HFCW Filtralite and Arundo donax In COD — 34.5, BOD — 46.67, The plant species (Calheiros et al., 2012)
with 3 Sand CW1 TSS — 35.1, TP — 58.9, TKN Arundo and Sarcocornia
bed in — 49.6, NH4 — 31.3, NO3 -55 IN WHICH Arundo is
each considered the most
promising species
because of its deeper
root system, its more
vigorous growth and
higher capacity to take
up nutrients.
Arundo donax In COD — 51.03, BOD — 66.67,
CW2 TSS — 51.6, TP — 70.5, TKN —
63.8, NH4 — 56.7, NO3 — 85
Arundo donax In COD — 64.4, BOD — 75.5, TSS
CW3 — 67.03, TP — 82.8, TKN —
76.07, NH4 -73.13, NO3 — 95
No. setup Removal)
Sarcocornis fruticosa COD —36.08, BOD — 44.44,
In CW4 TSS — 29.6, TP — 56.1, TKN —
48.4, NH4 — 31.3, NO3 — 55
Sarcocornis fruticosa COD —52.5, BOD — 62.22, TSS
In CW5 — 49.4, TP — 67.1, TKN —
57.6, NH4 — 59.7, NO3 — 80
Sarcocornis fruticosa COD —65.4, BOD — 73.33, TSS
In CW6 — 63.7, TP — 78.7, TKN —
74.8, NH4 — 73.13, NO3 — 95
10. Petrochemical HFCW Gravels and a Phragmites spp. BOD — 85.33, COD — 89.9, Typha spp. Has higher Sudarsan et al. (2018)
waste layer of sand turbidity — 66.02 efficiency than
phragmites spp.
Typha spp. BOD — 90.41, COD — 93.83,
turbidity — 58.97
11. Poultry waste HFCW – Typha spp. Scirpus BOD — 25, NH4 -N — 20, TN – Knight (1997)
spp., P. australis — 22
12. Domestic HFCW HFCW Volcanic gravel SPS TN — 37%, TSS exceeds 85% for all Barbera et al. (2009)
Waste setup, COD removal was
about 61% for all. HFCW
15
with Phragmites Spp.

Produced higher biomass
(4701 g/m2 )
HFCW HFCW Volcanic gravel Phragmites spp. TN — 37%, BOD — 74%
HFCW VFCW Volcanic sand SPS TN — 54% , BOD — 61%
& Volcanic
gravel

HFCW VFCW Volcanic sand Phragmites spp. TN — 54% , BOD — 61%
& Volcanic
gravel
13. Municipal raw HFCW Gravel Cattails BOD — 81, COD — 76, TSS Cattails produced higher Solano et al. (2004)
waste — 90 biomass than reeds (by
the factor of 2)
Reeds BOD — 85, COD — 77, TSS
— 91
14. Industrial VFCW + Recycled brick Canna Indica BOD — 87, COD – 83.2, TSS — Nitrogen and BOD Saeed et al. (2018)
waste HFCW 95, Colour — 82.5, NH4 -N — removal improved as
81, TP — 89, TN — 80 recirculation performed.
VFCW + Sugarcane BOD — 74, COD — 67, TSS —
HFCW bagasse 55.1, Colour — 45.7, NH4 -N
— 40.3, TP — 64.2, TN — 67.5

No. setup Removal)
15. Municipal VFCW Sawdust & coal Macrophytes BOD — 77.3, COD — 63.1, SFFCW has very low Saeed et al. (2014)
waste Turbidity — 73.7, NH4 -N- 50, removal of BOD &
NO2 -N- 30.1, NO3 -N- 55.1, P- NO3 -N, NH4 -N removal
37.5, E. coli — 49.7 is very less in HFCW.
HFCW Small gravel & BOD — 83, COD — 55.8,
sylhet sand Turbidity — 63.7, NH4 -N-
28.9, NO2 -N — 42.7, NO3 -N
— 12.2, P — 63.5, E. coli —
98.1
SFFCW Gravel, sylhet BOD — 21.1, COD — 66.1,
sand & oyster Turbidity — 86.5, NH4 -N —
shell 50.5, NO2 -N — 60.4, NO3 -N
— 73.8, P — 27.3, E. coli —
96.6
Hybrid – BOD — 97, COD — 94.4,
unit Turbidity — 98.7, NH4 -N-
82.3, NO2 -N — 83.6, NO3 -N
— 89.6, P — 74.1, E. coli —
99.9
16
16. Recreational Infiltra- Coarse sand P. australis TSS — 99, BOD — 95, COD — Verhoeven and
tion 80, TN — 35, TP — 25 Meuleman (1999)
wetlands
17. Domestic HFCW River bed gravel Arrowhead, Acorus TSS — 72.1, BOD — 76.1, TN Steer et al. (2002)
calamus, Lobelia — 48.3, TP — 35.7
carinalis and

Asclepias incarnate
18. Domestic, FWS, Zeolite, gravel, P. australis, Typha BOD — 81.7, COD — 73.3, TN Liu et al. (2008)
Industrial and HFCW, soil, limestone, latifolia & Canna — 44.3, TP — 62.06
agricultural VFCW, coal, ash, slag, grit indica
HCW
19. Domestic HFCW Sand Reeds TSS — 90, BOD — 93.04, TN Yoon et al. (2001)
— 19.6, TP — 41.17
20. Institutional HFCW & Coarse sand & gravel Phragmites karka TSS — 90.9, BOD — 90, COD Environment and Public
VFCW — 48.3, TN — 15.3 Health Organization
(2010)
21. Domestic HFCW Gravel Phragmites australis TSS — 85, BOD — 63, COD — HFCW completely Cirelli et al. (2007)
71, TN — 42, TP — 31, E. coli removes salmonella &
— 98.21 helminth

Sr. Wastewater CW setup Media Plantation Targeted pollutants (% Remark References
No. Removal)
22. Domestic HFCW Gravelled rock Sugarcane COD — 62.5, TSS — 90.1, NH4 Nitrogen uptake Avsar et al. (2007)
& river stone -N — 55.1, PO4 -P — 29.0 decreases with increase
in hydraulic load.
Gravelled rock Reed COD — 63.1, TSS — 88.3, NH4
& river stone -N — 51.3, PO4 -P — 29.5
Gravelled rock Sugarcane COD — 59.8, TSS — 89.8, NH4
& river stone -N — 56.9, PO4 -P — 41.9
Volcanic tufa Sugarcane COD — 67.3, TSS — 92.3, NH4
-N — 50.1, PO4 -P — 16.2
Volcanic tufa Phragmites COD — 71.8, TSS — 92.9, NH4
-N — 63.8, PO4 -P — 30.5
Volcanic tufa Reeds COD — 60.2, TSS — 89.1, NH4
-N — 53.3, PO4 -P — 33.3
23. Domestic In- Sand & gravel Typha latifolia & TSS-85.1, COD —55.55, PO4 Pista stratiotes is higher Tilak et al. (2016)
let+2HFCW+ Lemon grass -1.93, NH4 -N-35.4, accumulator of the
outlet NO3 -N-38.7 nitrogen and phosphorus
Hybrid napier & TSS — 96.3, COD — 33.33,
Paragrass PO4 — 19.06, NH4 -N —
26.04, NO3 -N — 38.4
24. Domestic HFCW Light weight Unplanted COD —38.50, NH4 -N — 33.9 LECA has higher Mesquita et al. (2013)
expanded clay porosity, fast adhesion,
17
aggregate(LECA) surface area for fast

growth of plant
Phragmites australis COD — 73.90, NH4 -N — 59.3
25. Municipal HFCW Gravel Reeds, Phragmites TSS — 74.4, COD — 42.7, BOD Completed removal of E. Ghrabi et al. (2011)
waste australis — 85.4, TN — 7.1, PO4 -P — coli is obtained
38.08

VFCW TSS — 50.6, COD — 85.8, BOD
— 8 6.8, PO4 -P — 76.91
HFCW TSS-38.4, COD — 28.6,
TN-47.8
HCW TSS — 97.1, COD — 94.6, BOD
— 97.2, TN — 71.2, PO4 -P —
82.2
26. Domestic HFCW Gravel Phragmites karka TSS — 80, TS — 78, TDS — – Panwar and Makvana
76.48, BOD — 69.54, TKN — (2017)
69.54, NH4 -N — 69
27. Domestic HFCW Gravel Ranunculus muricatus TSS — 76.5, TDS — 74, BOD — Ranunculus muricatus Aziz et al. (2015)
82.55, COD — 80.95, PO4 has better removal for
-P-78.56, chloride — 55.75 bacteria
Typha latifia TSS — 78, TDS — 59, BOD —
80.95, COD — 80.95, PO4 -P
— 80.58, chloride — 54.13

Sr. Wastewater CW setup Media Plantation Targeted pollutants (% Remark References
No. Removal)
28. Domestic HFCW with Gravel and Typha and Comelina BOD-80, NO3 — 84.1, PO4 — Disinfection reduces BOD Mishra et al. (2018)
disinfection zeolite medium bengalensis 77 and TN values. Complete
technology killing of bacteria.
29. Domestic Vertical Gravels and soil contain vermiculite Commelina NH3 - 50, NO3 - 78, PO4 - 93 Phosphate removal is Farahbakhshazad et al.
Up-flow CW beghalensis, Canna & high in soil (2000)
Phragmites
30. Swine waste Vertical Oyster shell, brick and red soil Phragmites australis TN — 63.3, NH4 -N — 65.1, – Huang et al. (2015)
up-flow CW COD — 70.5, TP — 92.29
18
31. Municipal Phytorid Gravel of different sizes Phragmites spp, TS S − − − 75 − −95, BO Balpande and Mhaske
technology Typha spp, Canna D − − − 70 − −80, CO (2017)
spp. D − − − 60 − −75, TN- –
60–70, P − − − 50 − −60
32. Domestic Soil Bio Soil and granular bed Aloe vera TDS — 75–80, TSS – 78–85, Removal efficiency is Kanani and Patel (2017)
technology BOD — 85–93, COD — 80–90, high at 10 h retention

NH4 -N — 60–65 time, E. fetida
earthworm is suited best
for wastewater
treatment
VFCW — vertical flow constructed wetland, HFCW — Horizontal flow constructed wetland, SFFCW — surface free floating constructed wetland, HCW — Hybrid constructed wetland.
Table A.2
Comparison of wastewater treatment technologies.
Sr. Treatment Removal percentage of HRT Land requirement Maintenance cost per Payback period References
No. technology parameters year
BOD COD TSS
1. Activated sludge 85–92 80–95 85–90 12–14 h 1820 m2 (for 1MLD) 10%–15% of capital 3–4 years (Seghezzo, 2004; Leitão, 2004; Alvarez
process cost et al., 2006; Ruiz et al., 1998; Abdelgadir
et al., 2014; Cakir and Stenstrom, 2005;
2. USAB 75–78 70–80 70–80 4–10 h 0.1–0.2 m2 /person 10%–15% of capital 3–4 years
Van Lier, 2008; Khalil et al., 2008;
cost
Von Sperling and de Lemos Chernicharo,
3. Trickling filter 80–90 85–90 75–85 13–14 h 1620 m2 (for 1MLD) 10%–15% of capital – 2005; Sato et al., 2007; Gnanadipathy
cost and Polprasert, 1993; Chernicharo and
19
4. Waste 75–85 70–85 70–85 8-15 days 2–3 m2 /person 10%–15% of capital – dos Reis Cardoso, 1999; Sawajneh et al.,
Stabilization Pond cost 2010; Chernicharo et al., 2009;
Sundaresan and Philip, 2008; Chen
5. MBBR 85–95 85–90 85–90 8–12 h 450 m2 (for 1MLD) 20%–25% of capital – et al., 2010; Zimmo et al., 2005; Salvadó
cost and Gracia, 1993; Patil and Gawande,
7. Extended Aeration 95–98 80–90 80–90 18–36 h 0.1–0.2 m2 /person 3%–5% of capital cost More than 5 2016); (Balpande and Mhaske, 2017;
years Boguniewicz-Zabłocka and Capodaglio,

2017; Li and Zhou, 2011; Mara, 2006;
9. Constructed 80–91 60–85 80–95 2–8 days 1.5–2.5 m2 /person 1%–2% of capital cost –
Mburu et al., 2013)
Wetland
10. Duckweed Pond 75–85 70–80 75–85 6–8 days 2.5–6.0 m2 /person 3%–5% of capital cost –
(–) means data not found.

Table A.3
Performance parameters, land area and operation and maintenance cost of constructed wetland.
Sr. No. Treatment technology Removal percentage of parameters Land requirement Maintenance cost References
per year
BOD COD TSS TN TP NH3 –-N Coliform
(a) Horizontal flow 70–80 60–75 70–85 30–50 10–20 20–30 2log10 5–10 m2 /PE 20 euro/year Dotro et al. (2017),
constructed wetland Tsihrintzis et al. (2007)
20
(b) Vertical flow 70–85 70–80 85–85 < 20 10–20 >90 2-4log10 1–3 m2 /PE 36.81 euro/PE Dotro et al. (2017),
constructed wetland Tsihrintzis et al. (2007)
(c) French vertical flow 73–75 65–75 34–75.5 <20 10–20 >90 1-3log10 2.0–2.5 m2 /PE same as VFCW DBT (2019), Molle et al.
constructed wetland (2015), Dotro et al. (2017),
Tsihrintzis et al. (2007)
(d) Free water surface 50–80 – 50–80 30–50 10–20 60–80 1log10 – 22.07 euro/PE (Dotro et al., 2017;

constructed wetland Tsihrintzis et al., 2007)
References
Abdelgadir, A., Chen, X., Liu, J., Xie, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, K., Liu, N., 2014. Characteristics, process parameters, and inner components of anaerobic
bioreactors. Biomed. Res. J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/841573.
Ahalya, N., Ramachandra, T.V., Kanamadi, R.D., 2003. Biosorption of heavy metals. Res. J. Chem. Environ. 7 (4), 71–79.
Alvarez, J.A., Ruiz, I., Gómez, M., Presas, J., Soto, M., 2006. Start-up alternatives and performance of an UASB pilot plant treating diluted municipal
wastewater at low temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 97 (14), 1640–1649.
Avsar, Y., Tarabeah, H., Kimchie, S., Ozturk, I., 2007. Rehabilitation by constructed wetlands of available wastewater treatment plant in sakhnin. Ecol.
Eng. 29 (1), 27–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.07.008.
Aziz, S., Ali, M., Asghar, S., Ahmed, S., 2015. Comparative analysis of ranunculus muricatus and Typha latifolia as wetland plants applied for domestic
wastewater treatment in a mesocosm scale study. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Biol. Biomol. Agric. Food Biotech. Eng. 9 (1), 110–118.
Balpande, S.S., Mhaske, A., 2017. Quality of sewage water and phytorid technology for its reuse in agriculture. J. Glob. Biosci. 6 (6), 5114–5119.
Barbera, A.C., Cirelli, G.L., Cavallaro, V., Di Silvestro, I., Pacifici, P., Castiglione, V., Milani, M., 2009. Growth and biomass production of different plant
species in two different constructed wetland systems in Sicily. Desalination 246 (1-3), 129–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.03.046.
Benito, M., Masaguer, A., De Antonio, R., Moliner, A., 2005. Use of pruning waste compost as a component in soilless growing media. Bioresour.
Technol. 96 (5), 597–603.
Biswas, P., Mamatha, S., Varghese, K., Johnson, R., Vijay, R., Kumar, R., 2020. 3D printing of high surface area ceramic honeycombs substrates and
comparative evaluation for treatment of sewage in Phytorid application. J. Water Process. Eng. 37, 101503.
Boguniewicz-Zabłocka, J., Capodaglio, A.G., 2017. Sustainable wastewater treatment solutions for rural communities’: Public (centralized) or individual
(on-site)–case study. Econ. Environ. Stud. 17 (44), 1103–1119.
Borin, M., Politeo, M., De Stefani, G., 2013. Performance of a hybrid constructed wetland treating piggery wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 51, 229–236.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.064.
Brix, H., 1994. Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 29 (4), 71–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.1994.0160.
Cakir, F.Y., Stenstrom, M.K., 2005. Greenhouse gas production: a comparison between aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment technology. Water
Res. 39 (17), 4197–4203.
Calheiros, C.S., Quitério, P.V., Silva, G., Crispim, L.F., Brix, H., Moura, S.C., Castro, P.M., 2012. Use of constructed wetland systems with Arundo and
Sarcocornia for polishing high salinity tannery wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 95 (1), 66–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.003.
Calheiros, C.S., Rangel, A.O., Castro, P.M., 2007. Constructed wetland systems vegetated with different plants applied to the treatment of tannery
wastewater. Water Res. 41 (8), 1790–1798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.01.012.
Carter, C.B., Norton, M.G., 2007. Ceramic materials: science and engineering. 716, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3523-5.
Chen, X.G., Zheng, P., Cai, J., Qaisar, M., 2010. Bed expansion behavior and sensitivity analysis for super-high-rate anaerobic bioreactor. J. Zhejiang
Univ. Sci. 11 (2), 79–86.
Chernicharo, C.D.L., Almeida, P.G.S., Lobato, L.C.S., Couto, T.C., Borges, J.M., Lacerda, Y.S., 2009. Experience with the design and start up of two full-scale
UASB plants in Brazil: enhancements and drawbacks. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (2), 507–515. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.383.
Chernicharo, C.A.L., dos Reis Cardoso, M., 1999. Development and evaluation of a partitioned up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor for
the treatment of domestic sewage from small villages. Water Sci. Technol. 40 (8), 107–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00615-0.
Chintakovid, W., Visoottiviseth, P., Khokiattiwong, S., Lauengsuchonkul, S., 2008. Potential of the hybrid marigolds for arsenic phytoremediation and
income generation of remediators in Ron Phibun District, Thailand. Chemosphere 70 (8), 1532–1537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2007.08.031.
Cirelli, G.L., Consoli, S., Di Grande, V., Milani, M., Toscano, A., 2007. Subsurface constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in agriculture:
five years of experiences in Sicily, Italy. Water Sci. Technol. 56 (3), 183–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.498.
Davis, L., Edwards, R., Garber, L., Isaacs, B., 1995. A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands, General Considerations, Vol. 1, US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Washington DC.
DBT, 2019. Manual on constructed wetland as an alternative technology for sewage management in india. Department of Bio Technology (DBT), New
Delhi.
DiMuro, J.L., Guertin, F.M., Helling, R.K., Perkins, J.L., Romer, S., 2014. A financial and environmental analysis of constructed wetlands for industrial
wastewater treatment. J. Ind. Ecol. 18 (5), 631–640.
Dotro, G., Fort, R.P., Barak, J., Jones, M., Vale, P., Jefferson, B., 2015. Long-term performance of constructed wetlands with chemical dosing for
phosphorus removal. In: The Role of Natural and Constructed Wetland in Nutrient Cycling and Retention on the LandScape. Springer, Cham, pp.
273–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08177-9_19.
Dotro, G., Langergraber, G., Molle, P., Nivala, J., Puigagut, J., Stein, O., Von Sperling, M., 2017. Treatment Wetlands, Vol. 7. IWA publishing, London,
UK.
El-Sheikh, M.A., Saleh, H.I., El-Quosy, D.E., Mahmoud, A.A., 2010. Improving water quality in polluted drains with free water surface constructed
wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 36 (10), 1478–1484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.06.030.
Eljamal, O., Jinno, K., Hosokawa, T., 2007. Modeling of biologically mediated redox processes using sawdust as a matrix. Proc. Hydraul. Eng. 51,
19–24.
Eljamal, O., Jinno, K., Hosokawa, T., 2008. Modeling of solute transport with bioremediation processes using sawdust as a matrix. Water Air Soil
Pollut. 195 (1–4), 115–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-008-9731-y.
Eljamal, O., Jinno, K., Hosokawa, T., 2009. Modeling of solute transport and biological sulfate reduction using low cost electron donor. Environ. Geol.
56 (8), 1605–1613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1258-4.
Eljamal, O., Sasaki, K., Hirajima, T., 2013. Sorption kinetic of arsenate as water contaminant on zero valent iron. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2013 (5),
563–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2013.56057.
Eljamal, O., Thompson, I.P., Maamoun, I., Shubair, T., Eljamal, K., Lueangwattanapong, K., Sugihara, Y., 2020. Investigating the design parameters for
a permeable reactive barrier consisting of nanoscale zero-valent iron and bimetallic iron/copper for phosphate removal. J. Molecular Liquids 299,
112144.
Environment and Public Health Organization (ENPHO), 2010. Factsheet on decentralized wastewater treatment systems 1 to 10 (DEWATS).
Farahbakhshazad, N., Morrison, G.M., Salati Filho, E., 2000. Nutrient removal in a vertical upflow wetland in Piracicaba, Brazil. AMBIO. J. Hum. Environ.
29 (2), 74–78.
Farooqi, I.H., Basheer, F., Chaudhari, R.J., 2008. Constructed wetland system (CWS) for wastewater treatment. In: Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th
World Lake Conference. pp. 1004–1009.
Ghosh, D., Gopal, B., 2010. Effect of hydraulic retention time on the treatment of secondary effluent in a subsurface flow constructed wetland. Ecol.
Eng. 36 (8), 1044–1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.04.017.
Ghrabi, A., Bousselmi, L., Masi, F., Regelsberger, M., 2011. Constructed wetland as a low cost and sustainable solution for wastewater treatment
adapted to rural settlements: the Chorfech wastewater treatment pilot plant. Water Sci. Technol. 63 (12), 3006–3012. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2011.563.
21
Gnanadipathy, A., Polprasert, C., 1993. Treatment of a domestic wastewater with UASB reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 27 (1), 195–203. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.2166/WST.1993.0047.
Huang, X., Liu, C., Li, K., Su, J., Zhu, G., Liu, L., 2015. Performance of vertical up-flow constructed wetlands on swine wastewater containing tetracyclines
and tet genes. Water Res. 70, 109–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.11.048.
Kadaverugu, R., Shingare, R.P., Raghunathan, K., Juwarkar, A.A., Thawale, P.R., Singh, S.K., 2016. The role of sand, marble chips and typha latifolia
in domestic wastewater treatment–a column study on constructed wetlands. Environ. Technol. 37 (19), 2508–2515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09593330.2016.1153156.
Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC, Baca Raton, FL, pp. 236–276.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S., 2008. Treatment Wetlands, second ed. CRC press.
Kanani, H., Patel, B., 2017. Domestic wastewater treatment by soil biotechnology. Int. J. Adv. Res. Innov. Ideas Educ. 3 (2), 4143–4147.
Kejariwal, M., Tiwari, A., Sahani, S., Momaya, A., Chouhan, K., Modha, H., 2017. Effect on growth of plants under phytorid technology based on treated
water at education institute: RD national college. Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, SRJIS, July-Sept, 2017. 6/33, 316-327.
Khalil, N., Sinha, R., Raghav, A.K., Mittal, A.K., 2008. UASB technology for sewage treatment in India: experience, economic evaluation and its potential
in other developing countries. In: Twelfth International Water Technology Conference. pp. 1411–1427.
Khan, A., Szulejko, J.E., Samaddar, P., Kim, K.H., Liu, B., Maitlo, H.A., Ok, Y.S., 2019. The potential of biochar as sorptive media for removal of hazardous
benzene in air. Chem. Eng. J. 361, 1576–1585.
Khazaleh, M., Gopalan, B., 2018. Constructed wetland for wastewater treatment. J. Mod. Sci. Technol. 6 (1), 78–86.
Kleinmann, R.L.P., Girts, M.A., 1987. Acid mine water treatment in wetlands: an overview of an emergent technology. In: Aquatic Plants for Water
Treatment and Resource Recovery. pp. 255–261.
Klomjek, P., Nitisoravut, S., 2005. Constructed treatment wetland: a study of eight plant species under saline conditions. Chemosphere 58 (5), 585–593.
Knight, R.L., Payne Jr, V.W., Borer, R.E., Clarke Jr, R.A., Pries, J.H., 2000. Constructed wetlands for livestock wastewater management. Ecol. Eng. 15
(1–2), 41–55.
Koskiaho, J., Ekholm, P., Räty, M., Riihimäki, J., Puustinen, M., 2003. Retaining agricultural nutrients in constructed wetlands—experiences under boreal
conditions. Ecol. Eng. 20 (1), 89–103.
Kundu, D., John, D.J., Adhikari, T., Ghosh, P., Sarkar, S., Mitra, A.K., 2016. Study of rhizospheric association in improving the effectiveness of a phytorid
plant towards bioremediation.
Lasat, M.M., 2000. The Use of Plants for the Removal of Toxic Metals from Contaminated Soils. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Leitão, R., 2004. Robustness of UASB reactors treating sewage under tropical conditions.
Li, Y., Zhou, J., 2011. Discussion on sewage treatment technology of rural areas in Beijing. In: 2011 International Conference on Consumer Electronics,
Communications and Networks. pp. 4922–4925.
Liu, D., Ge, Y., Chang, J., Peng, C., Gu, B., Chan, G.Y., Wus, X., 2008. Constructed wetlands in China: recent developments and future challenges. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 7 (5), 261–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070110.
Maddox, J.J., Kingsley, J.B., 1989. Waste treatment for confined swine with an integrated artificial wetland and aquaculture system. In: Constructed
WetlandS for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural. pp. 191–200.
Mandi, L., Bouhoum, K., Ouazzani, N., 1998. Application of constructed wetlands for domestic wastewater treatment in an arid climate. Water Sci.
Technol. 38 (1), 379–387.
Mara, D.D., 2006. Constructed wetlands and waste stabilization ponds for small rural communities in the United Kingdom: a comparison of land
area requirements, performance and costs. Environ. Technol. 27 (7), 753–757.
Mbuligwe, S.E., 2005. Comparative treatment of dye-rich wastewater in engineered wetland systems (EWSs) vegetated with different plants. Water
Res. 39 (2–3), 271–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.09.022.
Mburu, N., Tebitendwa, S.M., van Bruggen, J.J., Rousseau, D.P., Lens, P.N., 2013. Performance comparison and economics analysis of waste stabilization
ponds and horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater: A case study of the juja sewage treatment works. J.
Environ. Manag. 128, 220–225.
Melbourne water, 2005. Constructed shallow lake system: Design guideline for developers. Version 2.
Mesquita, M.D.C., Albuquerque, A., Amaral, L., Nogueira, R., 2013. Effect of vegetation on the performance of horizontal subsurface flow constructed
wetlands with lightweight expanded clay aggregates. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 10 (3), 433–442.
Metcalf, L., Eddy, H.P., Tchobanoglous, G., 1972. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation, 2015. Technical options for solid and liquid waste management in rural areas.
Mishra, V.K., Otter, P., Shukla, R., Goldmaier, A., Alvarez, J.A., Khalil, N., Ameršek, I., 2018. Application of horizontal flow constructed wetland and
solar driven disinfection technologies for wastewater treatment in India. Water Pract. Technol. 13 (3), 469–480.
Molle, P., Lombard Latune, R., Riegel, C., Lacombe, G., Esser, D., Mangeot, L., 2015. French vertical-flow constructed wetland design: adaptations for
tropical climates. Water Sci. Technol. 71 (10), 1516–1523.
Neralla, S., Weaver, R.W., Lesikar, B.J., 1998. Plant selection for treatment of septic effluent in subsurface wetlands. ASAE, on-site wastewater treatment.
In: Proceedings of the Eighth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage System, Orlando. FL. pp. 247–253.
Ngweme, G.N., Al Salah, D.M.M., Laffite, A., Sivalingam, P., Grandjean, D., Konde, J.N., Poté, J., 2020. Occurrence of organic micropollutants and human
health risk assessment based on consumption of Amaranthus viridis, Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sci. Total Environ. 754,
142175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142175.
Osama, E., Junya, O., Kazuaki, H., 2012. Removal of phosphorus from water using marble dust as sorbent material. J. Environ. Prot. 3, 709–717.
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, 46–52.
Panwar, R.S., Makvana, K.S., 2017. Reed-Phragmitis karka based constructed wetland for the treatment of domestic wastewater in Ujjain city of
Central India. Int. J. Sci. Res. Biol. Sci. 4, 1–5.
Patil, A.M., Gawande, S., 2016. Implementation of sewage treatment plant by using phytorid technology. Int. J. Innov. Res. Technol. 3 (1), 121–123.
Patrick, W.H., Wyatt, R., 1964. Soil nitrogen loss as a result of alternate submergence and drying. Soil Sci. Am. J. 28 (5), 647–653.
Paulo, P.L., Azevedo, C., Begosso, L., Galbiati, A.F., Boncz, M.A., 2013. Natural systems treating greywater and blackwater on-site: integrating treatment,
reuse and landscaping. Ecol. Engineeirng 50, 95–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.022.
Payne, V.W.E., Knight, R.L., 1997. Constructed wetlands for animal waste treatment. In: Manual on Performance, Design, and Operation with Case
Histories. Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, MS.
Queiroz, R.C.S., Andrade, R.S., Dantas, I.R., Ribeiro, V.S., Neto, L.B.R., Almeida, J.A., 2017. Use of native aquatic macrophytes in the reduction of organic
matter from dairy effluents. Intern. J. Phytoremediation 19, 781–788.
Reddy, K.R., Patrick, W.H., Broadbent, F.E., 1984. Nitrogen transformations and loss in flooded soils and sediments. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.
13 (4), 273–309.
Reddy, K.R., Xie, T., Dastgheibi, S., 2014. Evaluation of biochar as a potential filter media for the removal of mixed contaminants from urban storm
water runoff. J. Environ. Eng. 140 (12), 04014043.
Rousseau, D.P., Vanrolleghem, P.A., De Pauw, N., 2004. Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis. Ecol. Eng. 23 (3), 151–163.
22
Ruiz, I., Soto, M., Veiga, M.C., Ligero, P., Vega Martín, A.D., Blazquez, R., 1998. Performance of and biomass characterization in a UASB reactor treating
domestic waste water at ambient temperature. Water SA 24 (3), 215–222.
Saba, B., Jabeen, M., Mahmood, T., Aziz, I., 2014. Treatment comparison efficiency of microbial amended agro-waste bio-char constructed wetlands
for reactive black textile dye. Int. Proc. Chem. Biol. Environ. Eng. 65, 13–16.
Saeed, T., Afrin, R., Al Muyeed, A., Sun, G., 2012. Treatment of tannery wastewater in a pilot-scale hybrid constructed wetland system in Bangladesh.
Chemosphere 88 (9), 1065–1073.
Saeed, T., Al-Muyeed, A., Afrin, R., Rahman, H., Sun, G., 2014. Pollutant removal from municipal wastewater employing baffled subsurface flow and
integrated surface flow-floating treatment wetlands. J. Environ. Sci. 26 (4), 726–736.
Saeed, T., Muntaha, S., Rashid, M., Sun, G., Hasnat, A., 2018. Industrial wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands packed with construction
materials and agricultural by-products. J. Cleaner Prod. 189, 442–453.
Saeed, T., Sun, G., 2012. 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, 429–448.
Saeed, T., Sun, G., 2013. A lab-scale study of constructed wetlands with sugarcane bagasse and sand media for the treatment of textile wastewater.
Bioresour. Technol. 128, 438–447.
Salvadó, H., Gracia, M.P., 1993. Determination of organic loading rate of activated sludge plants based on protozoan analysis. Water Res. 27 (5),
891–895.
Sánchez-Monedero, M.A., Aguilar, M.I., Fenoll, R., Roig, A., 2008. Effect of the aeration system on the levels of airborne microorganisms generated at
wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 42 (14), 3739–3744.
Sato, N., Okubo, T., Onodera, T., Agrawal, L.K., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2007. Economic evaluation of sewage treatment processes in India. J. Environ.
Manag. 84 (4), 447–460.
Sawajneh, Z., Al-Omari, A., Halalsheh, M., 2010. Anaerobic treatment of strong sewage by a two stage system of AF and UASB reactors. Water Sci.
Technol. 61 (9), 2399–2406.
Seghezzo, L., 2004. Anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater in subtropical regions.
Söderqvist, T., 2002. Constructed wetlands as nitrogen sinks in southern Sweden: An empirical analysis of cost determinants. Ecol. Eng. 19 (2),
161–173.
Solano, M.L., Soriano, P., Ciria, M.P., 2004. Constructed wetlands as a sustainable solution for wastewater treatment in small villages. Biosyst. Eng.
87 (1), 109–118.
Sonavane, P.G., Munavalli, G.R., Ranade, S.V., 2008. Nutrient removal by root zone treatment systems: a review. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. 50 (3), 241–248.
Spiers, T.M., Fietje, G., 2000. Green waste compost as a component in soilless growing media. Compost Sci. Util. 8 (1), 19–23.
Stanković, D., 2017. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Gradevinar 69 (08), 639–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.14256/JCE.2062.2017.
Steer, D., Fraser, L., Boddy, J., Seibert, B., 2002. Efficiency of small constructed wetlands for subsurface treatment of single-family domestic effluent.
Ecol. Eng. 18 (4), 429–440.
Sudarsan, J.S., Subramani, S., Rajan, R.J., Shah, I., Nithiyanantham, S., 2018. Simulation of constructed wetland in treating wastewater using fuzzy
logic technique. J. Phys. 1000 (1), 012137, IOP Publishing.
Sundaresan, N., Philip, L., 2008. Performance evaluation of various aerobic biological systems for the treatment of domestic wastewater at low
temperatures. Water Sci. Technol. 58 (4), 819–830.
Tilak, A.S., Wani, S.P., Patil, M.D., Datta, A., 2016. Evaluating wastewater treatment efficiency of two field scale subsurface flow constructed wetlands.
Current Sci. 110 (09), 1764–1772.
Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Luthi, C., 2014. Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies, second ed. Eawag.
Trapp, S., Karlson, U., 2001. Aspects of phytoremediation of organic pollutants. J. Soil. Sediment. 1 (1), 37.
Tsihrintzis, V.A., Akratos, C.S., Gikas, G.D., Karamouzis, D., Angelakis, A.N., 2007. Performance and cost comparison of a FWS and a VSF constructed
wetland system. Environ. Technol. 28 (6), 621–628.
Van Lier, J.B., 2008. High-rate anaerobic wastewater treatment: diversifying from end-of-the-pipe treatment to resource-oriented conversion
techniques. Water Sci. Technol. 57 (8), 1137–1148.
Vecchiet, M., Jodice, R., 2000. Sewage treatment with giant reed (Arundo donax L.) bed system and water reuse in agriculture water quality and
costs of treatment. In: 1st World Conference and Exhibition on Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla, Spain.
Verhoeven, J.T., Meuleman, A.F., 1999. Wetlands for wastewater treatment: opportunities and limitations. Ecol. Eng. 12 (1–2), 5–12.
Von Sperling, M., de Lemos Chernicharo, C.A., 2005. Biological Wastewater Treatment in Warm Climate Regions. IWA publishing.
Vymazal, J., Kröpfelová, L., 2008. Wastewater Treatment in Constructed WetlandS with Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow, Vol. 14. Springer Science &
Business Media, pp. 566–578.
Weis, J.S., Weis, P., 2004. Metal uptake, transport and release by wetland plants: implications for phytoremediation and restoration. Environ. Int. 30
(5), 685–700.
Witthayaphirom, C., Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., 2020. Optimization of reactive media for removing organic micro-pollutants in constructed
wetland treating municipal landfill leachate. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (20), 24627–24638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06010-3.
Yazdania, V., Golestanib, H.A., 2019. Advanced treatment of dairy industrial wastewater using vertical flow constructed wetlands. Desalin. Water
Treat. 162, 149–155.
Yoon, C.G., Kwun, S.K., Ham, J.H., 2001. Feasibility study of a constructed wetland for sewage treatment in a Korean rural community. J. Environ. Sci.
Health A 36 (6), 1101–1112.
Zimmo, O.R., Van Der Steen, N.P., Gijzen, H.J., 2005. Effect of organic surface load on process performance of pilot-scale algae and duckweed-based
waste stabilization ponds. J. Environ. Eng. 131 (4), 587–594.
23

A Review of Constructed Wetland On Type, Treatment and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review of Constructed Wetland On Type, Treatment and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Technology & Innovation 21 (2021) 101261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Technology & Innovation