Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 154–160

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng

Impact of the hydraulic loading rate on pollutants removal in tropical

horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands
G.M.P.R. Weerakoon a , K.B.S.N. Jinadasa a,∗ , G.B.B. Herath a ,
M.I.M. Mowjood b , J.J.A. van Bruggen c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka
b
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka
c
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft, The Netherlands

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

Article history: This study assessed the pollutant removal potential of horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF) constructed
Received 17 January 2013 wetland systems under tropical conditions subjected to various hydraulic loading rates (HLRs). Three HSSF
Received in revised form wetland units, each 1.4 m × 0.5 m × 0.6 m (length × width × height) in size, filled with 10–20 mm gravel
18 September 2013
as bed media, were used. Two beds were planted with a local emergent macrophyte; narrow-leaf cattail
Accepted 20 September 2013
(Typha angustifolia), while the remaining served as a control without plants. All units were tested with
Available online 20 October 2013
synthetic wastewater mixed with septage sludge at different hydraulic loading rates (2.5–30 cm/day) over
a period of six months. Results show that the planted HSSF wetland units removed pollutants substantially
Keywords:
Horizontal subsurface flow constructed
up to 25 cm/day HLR. Removal efficiencies at planted wetlands were over 80%, 44%, 96.5% and 96.1%, in
wetlands comparison to unplanted wetland removals of 70%, 38%, 95.1% and 94.5% for five day biochemical oxygen
Hydraulic loading rates demand (BOD5 ), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform (FC) and total coliform (TC), respectively.
Wastewater treatment © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Synthetic wastewater
Tropical

1. Introduction they are believed to be suitable for tropical regions as performance

Wastewater treatment is important in preventing public health
hazards as well as mitigating damage caused to ecological systems
as a whole. However, because of economic and skilled manpower
constraints, wastewater treatment is not always at satisfactory lev-
els in most developing sub-tropical and tropical countries (Trang
et al., 2010). Therefore, there is a crucial need for appropriate and
affordable wastewater management techniques today.
Compared to conventional mechanized wastewater treatment
technologies, constructed wetlands have several advantages;
lower construction and operation cost, easy maintenance, effi-
cient and robust treatment with ecological benefits (Potter and
Karanthanasis, 2001; Shrestha, 2008; Islam et al., 2009; Trang et al.,
2010). Hence, constructed wetlands are becoming a popular and
effective wastewater management technology in many parts of the
world today (Farooqi et al., 2007; O’Luanaigh et al., 2010). Wetlands
are capable of tolerating relatively high variability in loading rates
and influent wastewater quality (Truong et al., 2011). In addition,
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shamj@pdn.ac.lk (K.B.S.N. Jinadasa).
expected are better with the higher temperatures and associated
microbial activities (Oketch, 2006; Trang et al., 2010).
Performance of constructed wetlands are nevertheless affected
by factors such as wetland configuration, hydraulic loading char-
acteristics, type of vegetation, type of substrate, influent pollutant
concentrations and effects of the local environment (Jing et al.,
2002; Trang et al., 2010). Out of these, vegetation type, sub-
strate type and hydraulic characteristics such as hydraulic loading
rate (HLR) or hydraulic retention time (HRT) are decided by the
designer. For instance lower HLRs or longer HRTs typically result in
better pollutant removal. Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 1991 reported that
the most efficient pollutant removal can be accomplished within a
4–15 days HRT. However, longer HRTs or lower HLRs demand more
wetland area is a major drawback at many places (Deblina and Brij,
2010). Since wastewater flow and pollutant load do fluctuate over
time, longer HRTs or lower HLRs offer some buffer against such
variations although plant optimization will require the former be
curtailed as much as is feasible. The issue then is the most advanta-
geous hydraulic parameter (how much shorter HRT or higher HLR),
to facilitate reduction of areal requirements while still maintaining
an acceptable level of treatment performance.

0925-8574/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.09.016
 G.M.P.R. Weerakoon et al. / Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 154–160 155

The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of 30.0

laboratory scale horizontal sub-surface flow (HSSF) constructed 27.5
wetlands subjected to different HLRs to identify most suitable
25.0
uppermost HLR within the selected range, which incorporates an
appropriate buffering capacity for substantial pollutant removal for 22.5
flow fluctuations. 20.0

HLR (cm/day)
17.5
2. Materials and methods
15.0

2.1. Wetland mesocosm arrangement 12.5

10.0
This study was conducted using three horizontal subsur- 7.5
face flow (HSSF) constructed wetland units, each of size
5.0
1.4 m × 0.5 m × 0.6 m (length × width × height), operated at the
University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (80◦ 35 59 E, 7◦ 16 00 N). 2.5
First Phase Second Phase
The experimental setup as illustrated in Fig. 1a was located out- 0.0

108
120
132
144
156
168
180
192
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
0
door environment and operated continuously for a period of six
months from July to December 2010. A schematic diagram of a HSSF
constructed wetland system is shown in Fig. 1b. Time (days)
Three wetland beds had 40 cm thick layer of 10–20 mm gravel
Fig. 2. Sequence of HLR application over the study period.
media bed with coarser 30–50 mm gravel packing at the inlet and
outlet zones to facilitate easy distribution and collection of waste-
water. In addition, a 10 cm layer of sandy soil (<5 mm particle size) ther two weeks to flush and rid the system of pollutants before
was laid on top of the bed media to support the plants. A nylon feeding the synthetic wastewater.
mesh (1.5 mm × 1.5 mm size) was used in between the top soil and
bed media to minimize soil particles moving into the gravel layer. 2.2. Synthetic wastewater
Then a local emergent macrophyte, Typha angustifolia (narrow leaf
cattail) was planted in two wetland beds (A-1 and A-2). Eight T. Synthetic wastewater was prepared using: 6 g urea, 20 g normal
angustifolia rhizomes of approximately 30 cm high, containing at granular sugar, 1 g ammonium chloride (NH4 Cl), 10 mg potassium
least two nodes were planted in each bed. The remaining wetland hydrogen phosphate (K2 HPO4 ), 100 mL fertilizer solution contain-
bed (B) was used as the ‘control’ without plants. After the plant- ing N, P, K, S, Mg, Cu, Fe and Mn with 650 mL septage sludge mixed in
ing, the wetland units were kept saturated with tap water for four 250 L of tap water. The septage sludge was collected from municipal
weeks until the plants grew followed by feeding tap water for fur- gulley bowsers and stored below 4 ◦ C until use. Synthetic waste-
water was then pumped into an overhead tank from which it was
channeled through a constant head arrangement to each wetland
unit at predetermined flow rates.
S2
A-1
E 2.3. System operation
f
f The performance of the wetland units under varying HLR was
S1 S3 l
A-2 investigated by changing the HLR from 2.5 to 30 cm/day at 12 days
u
Influent intervals in two phases according to the sequence shown in Fig. 2.
e
n The flow rate corresponding to each HLR was determined consid-
t ering the surface area of a wetland unit, and the wastewater flow
S4 s into each wetland unit was controlled using a valve. The flow rate
B once set was monitored daily to avoid fluctuations.
Initially when wastewater was introduced to wetland systems,
(a) they were left to acclimatize for two weeks before changing into
the next HLR. Anyhow thereafter the HLR was adjusted to the next
level at every 12-day interval.
Vegetation
Water 2.4. Waste removal
Soil level
Influent layer
In order to assess the performance of the wetland systems, sam-
Swivel
pipe ples from influent and effluent were collected at sampling points
S1 , S2 , S3 and S4 as shown in Fig. 1a, at every 12 day intervals (at the
end of each HLR application) in to pre-cleaned 500 mL plastic bot-
tles. Immediately after collection pH, electrical conductivity (EC)
Inlet Effluent
Zone Wetland and dissolved oxygen (DO) were measured using portable pH, EC
Impermeable media Outlet and DO probes (HACH sensION + 5050T pH probe, EcoScan CON 5
barrier Zone
EC probe, Eutech Instruments, Singapore and YSI 5905/5010 BOD
(b) probe, USA). Then, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 ), fecal col-
iform (FC) count, total coliform (TC) count and total suspended
Fig. 1. (a) Arrangement of constructed wetland units (S1 , S2 , S3 , S4 : sample points) A
(A-1, A-2): planted wetland units. B: control (unplanted) wetland unit. (b) Schematic solids (TSS) were assessed in accordance with the standard meth-
diagram of a HSSF constructed wetland system. ods for the examination of water and wastewater (APHA, 1998).
156 G.M.P.R. Weerakoon et al. / Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 154–160
Removal efficiencies for wastewater parameters were calculated as
the percentage change in concentration from influent to the efflu-
ent using Eq. (1). The respective mass loading rate (MLR) and mass
removal rate (MRR) in gP/m2 /day (P = pollutant concentration) for
BOD5 , TSS and in number of CU/m2 /day (CU = coliform units) for
FC and TC were calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3) respectively (Jing
et al., 2002; Chang et al., 2007).
Ci − Co
Removal efficiency(RE) = × 100%
Ci
Mass loading rate(MLR) = Ci × HLR
Mass removal rate(MRR) = (Ci − Co ) × HLR
where Ci = concentration of the wastewater parameter in the
influent and Co = concentration of the same wastewater parameter
in the effluent.
2.5. Plant growth
Non-destructive measurements of plant growth with respect to
the shoot height and shoot density were monitored following each
12 days period throughout the study.
2.6. Statistical analysis
The significant treatment differences between planted and con-
trol wetland systems subjected to varying HLRs were evaluated
by using one-way ANOVA test for normally distributed data and
Mann–Whitney test for non-normal data at 0.05 significant level.
The correlation between mass loading rates and mass removal rates
were identified using the linear regression test.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Wastewater characteristics
Influent and effluent wastewater properties, in both planted and
control wetland units during the entire study period are shown
in Table 1. The coefficient of variations (CV) obtained for influent
wastewater characteristics; TC, FC, BOD5 and TSS using ‘MINITAB
15’ statistical software show 70%, 56%, 14% and 33% levels indicat-
ing significant quality fluctuations over the study period as shown
in Fig. 3. This could be due to the degree of quality variations in
the septage sludge used to prepare the synthetic wastewater. The
normality of the influent wastewater characteristics determined
using ‘MINITAB 15’ software performing the Anderson Darling,
Ryan-Joiner and Kolmogorov–Smirinov tests, show that the BOD5
and TSS were normally distributed (p > 0.05) while FC and TC were
not (p < 0.05). The same were observed for the effluent wastewater
characteristics in both planted and unplanted wetland systems.
3.2. Pollutant removal efficiencies
Fig. 4 illustrates BOD5 , TSS, FC and TC removal efficiencies of
the planted and control wetland systems over the entire study
period. Corresponding HLRs applied too are indicated in the same
plot. Results show that both wetland systems have followed
almost similar removal trends; a decreased removal efficiency with
increasing HLR. In addition, results indicate that the planted wet-
lands removed over 79% of BOD5 , 40% of TSS, 85% of FC and 90%
of TC compared to the unplanted unit removal rates of 50% of
BOD5 , 30% of TSS, 81% of FC and 84% of TC for the same wastewa-
ter up to 30 cm/day HLR. This result suggests that the plants have
had a positive effect with a better buffering capacity for pollutant
removal at these wetlands even under varying HLRs. Anyhow, the
statistical analysis carried out to identify treatment differences by
one-way ANOVA test or Mann–Whitney test (‘MINITAB 15’ statisti-
cal software with ˛ = 0.05 significance level) suggests that the two
wetland systems had a significant treatment difference only with
BOD5 removal (p < 0.05).
Primary BOD5 removal mechanisms in a wetland system include
adsorption, sedimentation and microbial metabolism (Karanthesis
et al., 2003). Compared to unplanted systems, root zones in planted
(1) systems provide additional adsorption capacity as well as space
and favorable environment for enhanced microbial growth for bet-
(2) ter waste removal. Further, increased oxygen releases at the root
zone can have more positive benefits improving the BOD5 and other
(3)
waste assimilation in planted systems.
Fig. 4 results show that the BOD5 removal efficiencies are con-
siderable in the planted wetland system during the second phase
of the study. Food supply with the gradual increase of HLR dur-
ing the phase 2 and increased rooting biomass could be main
reasons for this observed improvement. Statistical analysis too pro-
vides a proof for this difference with a p-value of 0.04. The highest
BOD5 removal efficiency, 98% was obtained at the lowest HLR of
2.5 cm/day (corresponding to 8 day HRT) for the planted wetland
during the second phase. When HLR was increasing, as expected
a reduction in the BOD5 removal was observed. Results obtained
show around 90% BOD5 removal from 3.5 to 12.5 cm/day HLR
range (HRT; 5.7–1.6 days) and further increased HLR (highest tested
being 30 cm/day, HRT = 0.7 days) resulted gradual decrease in BOD5
removal efficiency to 80%. Conversely, the BOD5 removal efficiency
in the control wetland cell was lower throughout the investigation
period, with a decreasing but an indeterminate pattern between
89% and 65%.
Drop in BOD5 removal efficiency at higher HLRs can be
attributed to the insufficient contact time within the system.
According to Reed and Brown (1995) the BOD5 removal in a wetland
system is critical below 1 day HRT and improves until HRT of about
7.5 days. Results obtained during the second phase of this study too
agree well with the above conclusion by Reed and Brown (1995).
In addition, the BOD5 removal efficiencies achieved in this study
under different HLRs are comparable with the averages reported
in many other studies of similar HSSF constructed wetlands using
conventional macrophytes; Trang et al. (2010) reporting 83 ± 6%
and 76 ± 7% BOD5 reduction at 3.1 and 14.6 cm/day HLR for a HSSF
constructed wetland planted with Phragmites vallatoria in Vietnam
under 27 ◦ C temperature conditions, Volker et al. (2001) reporting
average 95% BOD5 reduction at 1 cm/day HLR from a long term
study (1992–1999) for a HSSF wetland system planted with Phrag-
mites australis in Germany but with average annual temperature
varying from −3 to 25 ◦ C and Zurita et al. (2009) reporting 76–80%
BOD5 reduction at 4 cm/day HLR in two wetland systems, each
planted with Zantedeschiar aethiopica and some ornamental plants
in Mexico under an average temperature of 21 ◦ C. According to
Hoddinott (2006), HSSF constructed wetland systems are capable
in 88% of average BOD5 removal. However, unlike other waste-
water treatment techniques wetland systems can never achieve
complete BOD5 reduction due to the decomposition of plant litter
and other naturally occurring organic matter (EPA, 1993). It is noted
that the BOD5 reduction is higher in the wetlands at tropical envi-
ronments with higher temperatures and when conducted at lower
HLRs.
TSS reduction in wetlands is supported by physical processes
such as filtration, sedimentation and microbial assimilation within
the wetland substrate media (Kadlec and Wallace, 2009; Shubiau
et al., 2011). Further, Manios et al. (2003) lists substrate hydraulics
and microbiological characteristics as the other main TSS reduction
processes in a wetland system. According to Manios et al. (2003),
 G.M.P.R. Weerakoon et al. / Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 154–160 157

Table 1
Average wastewater characteristics in the influent and effluents of wetland units.

Parameter n Influent Effluents

Concentrations CV (%) A (planted) B (control)

BOD5 (mg/L) 16 28.8 ± 4.0 14 4.3 ± 2.5 7.0 ± 3.7

TSS (mg/L) 14 160.3 ± 53.0 33 59.2 ± 30.8 68.6 ± 35.4
FC (CFU/100 mL) 10 5.0 ± 2.8 × 105 56 1.5 ± 1.7 × 104 2.1 ± 2.6 × 104
TC (CFU/100 mL) 10 9.1 ± 6.4 × 105 70 2.3 ± 2.6 × 104 3.6 ± 4.4 × 104
DO (mg/L) 14 4.0 ± 2.0 49 5.6 ± 2.0 5.4 ± 1.9
pH (mg/L) 16 7.1 ± 0.4 5 7.0 ± 0.4 7.0 ± 0.4
EC (mg/L) 14 251.8 ± 51.9 21 332.9 ± 56.8 283.2 ± 57.9
HLR (cm/day) 13.3 ± 9.4 13.3 ± 9.4

60–75% of influent waste solids are retained in the first one-third
of a wetland.
The planted system in this study, showed marginally; around
10% better TSS removal compared to the unplanted system (Fig. 4b).
This slightly higher TSS removal at planted system may be as a
result of improved filtration through the rooting biomass and/or by
the effects of attachment/biodegradation of solid particles. In the
planted system TSS removal varied between 68% and 85% during
2.5–15 cm/day HLR range while 60–75% removal were observed in
the unplanted system. However, at HLR above 15 cm/day, a sudden
drop of TSS removal was observed in both planted and unplanted
wetland systems. At the highest HLR (30 cm/day) planted and
unplanted wetland systems removed only 40% and 30% TSS respec-
tively. At increased HLRs solid particles have more tendencies to
escape the substrate media with increasing flow velocities. Simi-
lar results were observed in other studies too. Manios et al. (2003)

(a) Influent Planted Control HLR (c)

40 35 7
Influent Planted Control HLR
10 35
35 30
30
30 6
25 10
25

HLR (cm/day)
BOD5 (mg/L)

25
HLR (cm/day)

FCU/100 mL

20 20
20 5
10
15 15
15
10 10
10 4
10

5 5 5

3
0 0 10 0
108

120

132

144

156

168

180

192
72

84

96
108
120
132
144
156
168
180
192
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
0

Time (days) Time (days)

(b) (d)
Influent Planted Control HLR
Influent Planted Control HLR
300 35 7
10 35

250 30
30
6
25 10
25
200
HLR (cm/day)
HLR (cm/day)

TCU/100 mL
TSS (mg/L)

20 20
150 10
5

15 15
100
10 4 10
10
50 5 5

3
0 0 10 0
108

120

132

144

156

168

180

192
72

84

96
108
120
132
144
156
168
180
192
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
0

Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 3. Variation of (a) BOD5 , (b) TSS, (c) FC and (d) TC concentrations at the influent and effluents of planted and unplanted wetland systems with respect to different HLRs
during the study period.
158 G.M.P.R. Weerakoon et al. / Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 154–160

(a) (c) Planted Control HLR

Planted Control HLR
100 35 100 35
98
30 30
90
96
BOD5 Removal Efficiency (%)

FC Removal Efficiency (%)

25 94 25
80

HLR (cm/day)
HLR (cm/day)
92
20 20
70 90
15 15
88
60 86
10 10
84
50 5 5
82

40 0 80 0

108

120

132

144

156

168

180

192
72

84

96
108
120
132
144
156
168
180
192
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
0

Time (days) Time (days)

(b) (d)
Planted Control HLR Planted Control HLR
90 35 100 35

98
80 30 30
TC Removal Efficiency (%)
TSS Removal efficiency (%)

96
70 25 25

HLR (cm/day)
94
HLR (cm/day)

60 20 92 20

50 15 90 15
88
40 10 10
86
30 5 5
84

20 0 82 0
108
120
132
144
156
168
180
192
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
0

108

120

132

144

156

168

180

192
72

84

96

Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 4. Variation of (a) BOD5 , (b) TSS, (c) FC and (d) TC removal efficiencies of planted and unplanted wetland systems with respect to different HLRs during the study period.

illustrates TSS removal depends on the type and size of the sub-
strate media and hydraulic retention time (HRT) or HLR. According
to the current study gravel based systems with smaller pore sizes
with sufficient HRT can produce better solid retention at lower
HLRs.
Coliform removal mechanism in a constructed wetland include
physical processes; filtration, sedimentation, aggregation, ultra-
violet radiation, etc., chemical processes; adsorption, oxidation,
die-off due to toxins and biological activities; ingestion by nema-
todes and protozoan, release of antibiotics by plant roots and
natural die-off (Hoddinott, 2006). Further, it is believed that the
plant coverage, hydraulic retention time and settling of microor-
ganisms too play key roles in coliform reduction efficiency (Hinds
et al., 2004). Many of these factors, however, are interrelated (Smith
et al., 2005) and therefore ascertaining most influential factors in
a particular case can be complex. Results in Fig. 4 show that the FC
removal efficiencies fluctuated between 99.5–96.5% in the planted
system and 99.2–94.0% in the unplanted system respectively for
HLRs from 2.5 to 25 cm/day. Similarly, the TC removal efficien-
cies fluctuated between 99.7–96.1% and 99.5–94.4% respectively in
planted and unplanted systems from 2.5 to 25 cm/day HLR range.
Then, a sudden significant drop of both FC and TC removal effi-
ciencies were obtained at 30 cm/day HLR. Accordingly FC removal
dropped to 85.7% and 80.8% in the planted and unplanted sys-
tems while TC removal dropped to 90.5% and 83.8% in the planted
and unplanted systems respectively. Similar to other tested waste
parameters, these results show the planted system is better in
removing coliforms compared to the unplanted system. Though
obtained results illustrate the subsurface flow constructed wetland
systems are more effective in coliform removal below 25 cm/day
HLR, further confirmation is necessary to confirm this limit.
Results of this study reveal that laboratory scale HSSF wetlands
planted with T. angustifolia are capable in substantial reduction of
pollutants, specifically BOD5 , TSS, FC and TC, with a good buffering
capacity under varying HLRs up to 25 cm/day. When the wastewa-
ter flow is highly variable in real waste streams, this result can be
used in designing HSSF constructed wetland systems. These find-
ings show that though the constructed wetland technology is yet
to spread in Sri Lanka, there is a high potential for using them for
wastewater treatment specifically in rural and semi urban areas.
3.3. Mass loading rates versus mass removal rates
Applied mass loading rates (MLR) and corresponding mass
removal rates (MRR) of BOD5 , TSS, FC and TC, together with
coefficient of determination (R2 ) values obtained from the linear
 G.M.P.R. Weerakoon et al. / Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 154–160 159

Table 2
Mass loading rates, Mass removal rates and R2 values.

Parameter Unit MLR MRR R2

Planted Control Planted Control

BOD5 g/m2 day 0.75–9.75 0.73–7.93 0.61–6.99 0.979 0.944

TSS g/m2 day 3.5–60 2.3–26.8 2.6–23.0 0.858 0.768
FC CFU/m2 day 1.08–21.6 × 108 1.07–20.9 × 108 1.06–20.3 × 108 0.997 0.994
TC CFU/m2 day 2.15–50 × 108 2.11–72.6 × 108 2.1–48 × 108 0.986 0.998

regression analysis test using MINITAB 15 for both planted and ies (5.12 ± 2.27–20.49 ± 9.08 g/m2 day; Deblina and Brij, 2010 and
unplanted wetland systems are shown in Table 2. The relationship 0.35 ± 0.04–2.34 ± 0.23 g/m2 day; Chang et al., 2007). However, the
between applied MLRs and corresponding MRRs for BOD5 , TSS, FC BOD5 mass removal rates of planted systems (0.73–7.93 g/m2 day)
and TC in both planted and unplanted wetland systems are repre- and unplanted systems (0.61–6.99 g/m2 day) showed strong cor-
sents in Fig. 5. Accordingly, the mass removal rates of the planted relation with the incoming loads, with R2 values of 0.979 and
wetland system were slightly higher than that of the unplanted 0.944 respectively. TSS mass loading rates in this study have
system throughout the investigation. Yet a good linear correlation been fluctuated between 3.5 and 60 g/m2 day showing a very
between the incoming mass loads and the mass removal rates were high variation. However, the relationship between mass load-
observed for all wastewater parameters, in both wetland systems. ing versus mass removal for TSS showed a moderate correlation
The BOD5 loading rates were found to be moderate in this with R2 = 0.858 and R2 = 0.768 for planted and unplanted systems
study (0.74–9.75 g/m2 day), compared to some previous stud- respectively.

(a) (c)
8 Planted Control Planted Control
9
2.0x10
7
MRR (g BOD5/m .day)

6
MRR (FCU/m .day)

6
9 y = 0.951 x + 2 * 10
1.5x10
2

Y = 0.750 x + 0.209 2
R = 0.997
5
2

2
R = 0.979
4 9 6
1.0x10 y = 0.925 x + 6 * 10
2
3 Y = 0.608 x + 0.328 R = 0.994
2
R = 943
8
2 5.0x10

1
0.0
0 8 9 9 9 9
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.0 5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10 2.5x10
2 2
MLR (g BOD5/m .day) MLR (FCU/m .day)

(b) (d)
Planted Control
9
7x10 Planted Control
25
9
Y = 0.426 x + 2.626 6x10
2
20 R = 0.878
MRR (TCU/m .day)
MRR (g TSS/m .day)

9
5x10 y = 1.235 - 2*10
8

2
2

9 R = 0.998
15 4x10

9
Y = 0.358 x + 2.821 3x10 7
10 2 y = 0.821 + 8*10
R = 0.839 2
2x10
9 R = 0.998

5 9
1x10

0 0
9 9 9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 2.0x10 4.0x10 6.0x10
2 2
MLR (g TSS/m .day) MLR (TCU/m .day)

Fig. 5. Relationship between mass loading rates versus mass removal rates of (a) BOD5 , (b) TSS, (c) FC and (d) TC in planted and unplanted control wetland systems.
160 G.M.P.R. Weerakoon et al. / Ecological Engineering 61 (2013) 154–160

Shoot Height Shoot density HLR References

250 70

Shoot density (No.) and HLR (cm/day)

APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
60 water, 20th ed. American Public Health Association/American Water
200 works Association/Water Environmental Federation, Washington, DC,
USA.
50
Shoot Height (cm)

EPA, 1993. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

– A Technological Assessment. United States Environmental Protection
150 Agency.
40
Chang, J., Zhang, X., Perfler, R., Xu, Q., Niu, X., Ge, Y., 2007. Effect of hydraulic loading
rate on the removal efficiency in a constructed wetland in subtropical China.
30 Fresenius Environ. Bull. 16 (9a), 1082–1086.
100 Deblina, G., Brij, G., 2010. Effect of hydraulic retention time on the treatment of
secondary effluent in a subsurface flow constructed wetland. Ecol. Eng. 36,
20 1044–1051.
50 Farooqi, I.H., Basheer, F., Chaudhari, R.J., 2007. Constructed wetland systems (CWS)
10 for wastewater treatment. In: Proceedings of TAAL, The 12th World Lake Con-
ference., pp. 1004–1009.
Hinds Jr., T.D., Brown, R.R., Burns Jr., E.H., 2004. Reduction of fecal coliform levels in
0 0 two created wetlands at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park. Coliforms
Exp. Wetlands, 69–72.
108
120
132
144
156
168
180
192
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
0

Time (days)
Fig. 6. Shoot height and shoot density measurements during the study period.
Similarly, incoming FC and TC loads (CFU/m2 day) have
been increased enormously during the study period with HLR
increment from 2.5 to 30 cm/day. However, the FC and TC removal
rates (CFU/m2 day) in both planted and unplanted wetland systems
showed a very strong linear correlation to the incoming loads with
corresponding R2 values of more than 0.9 as shown in Table 2.
3.4. Plant growth performance
Fig. 6 illustrates both average shoot heights and average shoot
densities of plants during the entire study period. Shoot heights
showed a rapid growth during the first three months irrespective
of the applied HLRs. On the other hand, there is a smooth increase in
shoot density throughout the study period, with a noticeable jump
at the beginning and at the end. However, results show that there
is no significant impact on plant growth due to changing HLRs.
4. Conclusions
This study investigated the effects of HLR variation on treat-
ment performance in HSSF constructed wetlands treating synthetic
wastewater. Based on the obtained results, it is evident that the
HLR had a critical impact on pollutant removal and hence HLR is a
significant design parameter determining the treatment efficiency
in HSSF wetlands. Results reveal planted HSSF constructed wet-
lands are capable in substantial reduction of BOD5 , TSS, FC and
TC concentrations with a good buffering capacity under varying
flow conditions between 2.5 and 25 cm/day HLR range. This makes
the HSSF constructed wetland systems as a useful alternative at
places with high flow fluctuations, reducing the stringent land area
requirement.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the UNESCO-IHE Insti-
tute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands for providing
funds to carry out this study.
Hoddinott, B.C., 2006. Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands for on-site
wastewater treatment. MSc Thesis. Wright State University, Dayton, OH, 25 pp.
Islam, A.M., Tudor, T., Mates, M., 2009. Evaluation of the pollutant removal mecha-
nisms of a Reed bed system: biochemical parameters. In: Second International
Workshop – Advances of Cleaner Production, 20th–22nd May, Sao-Paulo, Brazil.
Jing, S.R., Ling, Y.F., Wang, J.W., Lee, Y., 2002. Microcosm wetlands for wastewater
treatment with different hydraulic loading rates and macrophytes. J. Environ.
Quality 31, 690–696.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D., 2009. Treatment Wetlands, second ed. CRC Press/Taylor
& Francis Group, Boca Raton, USA.
Karanthesis, A.D., Potter, C.L., Coyne, M.S., 2003. Vegetation effects on fecal bacteria,
BOD, and suspended solid removal in constructed wetlands treating domestic
wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 20, 157–169.
Manios, T., Stentiford, E.I., Millner, P., 2003. Removal of total suspended solids from
wastewater in constructed horizontal flow subsurface wetlands. J. Environ. Sci.
Health A38 (6), 1073–1085.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and
Reuse, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, New York, 1334 pp. (revised by G. Tchobanoglous
and F.L. Burton).
O’Luanaigh, N.D., Goodhue, R., Gill, L.W., 2010. Nutrient removal from on-site
domestic wastewater in horizontal subsurface flow reed beds in Ireland. Ecol.
Eng. 36, 1266–1276.
Oketch, M.A., 2006. The potential role of constructed wetlands in protection and
sustainable management of lake catchments in Kenya. In: Proceedings of the
11th World Lakes Conference, vol. 2, pp. 41–46.
Potter, C.L., Karanthanasis, A.D., 2001. Vegetation effects on the performance
of constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater. On-site wastewa-
ter treatment. In: Proceedings of Ninth National Symposium on Individual
and Small Community Sewage Systems, 11th–14th March 2001, Texas, USA,
pp. 662–672.
Reed, S.C., Brown, D., 1995. Subsurface flow wetlands – a performance evaluation.
Water Environ. Res. 67 (2), 244–248.
Shrestha, K.L., 2008. Decentralised wastewater management using constructed wet-
lands in Nepal. WaterAid Report.
Shubiau, W., Austin, D., Lin Liu, Dong, R., 2011. Performance of integrated household
constructed wetland for domestic wastewater treatment in rural areas. Ecol.
Eng. 37, 948–954.
Smith, E., Gordon, R., Madani, A., Stratton, G., 2005. Pathogen removal in agricultural
constructed wetland in cold climates. J. Environ. Inform. 6 (1), 46–50.
Trang, N.T.D., Chiem, N.T., Anh, L., Brix, H., 2010. Kinetics of pollutant removal from
domestic wastewater in a tropical horizontal subsurface flow constructed wet-
land system: effects of hydraulic loading rate. Ecol. Eng. 36, 527–535.
Truong, H.D., Quang, L.N., Nguyen, H.C., Brix, H., 2011. Treatment of high-
strength wastewater in tropical constructed wetlands planted with Sesbania
sesban: horizontal subsurface flow versus vertical downflow. Ecol. Eng. 37,
711–720.
Volker, L., Elke, E., Martina, L.W.A., Richard, L.M.G., 2001. Nutrient removal effi-
ciency and resource economics of vertical flow and horizontal flow constructed
wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 18, 157–171.
Zurita, F., Anda de, J., Belmont, M.A., 2009. Treatment of domestic wastewater and
production of commercial flowers in vertical and horizontal subsurface flow
constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 35 (5), 861–869.