i An update to this article is included at the end

Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Review

Constructed wetlands for combined sewer overflow treatment:

A state-of-the-art review
A. Rizzo a, K. Tondera b,c,⁎, T.G. Pálfy c,j, U. Dittmer d, D. Meyer e, C. Schreiber f, N. Zacharias f, J.P. Ruppelt g,
D. Esser h, P. Molle c, S. Troesch i, F. Masi a
a
Iridra Srl, Via La Marmora 51, 50121 Florence, Italy
b
IMT Atlantique Bretagne—Pays de Loire, Department of Energy Systems and Environment, 44307 Nantes, France
c
INRAE, REVERSAAL, F-69625, Villeurbanne, France
d
Institute for Water, Infrastructure and Resources, Department for Urban Water Management, TU Kaiserslautern, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 14, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
e
Municipal government City of Mayen, Department 3.1 - City Planning and Construction Supervision, Town Hall Rosengasse, D-56727 Mayen, Germany
f
Institute for Hygiene and Public Health, University Hospital Bonn, GeoHealth Centre, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany
g
Institute of Environmental Engineering (ISA), RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany
h
SINT, Société d'Ingénierie Nature & Technique, Chef-Lieu, F-73370 La Chapelle du Mont du Chat, France
i
Eco Bird, 3 route du Dôme, 69630 Chaponost, France
j
University of Sopron, Institute of Geomatics and Civil Engineering, H-9400 Sopron, Hungary

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) con-

vey significant pollutant loads to water
bodies.
• Constructed wetlands (CWs) are
Nature-Based Solutions for CSO pollu-
tion control.
• Review gives state-of-the-art of CSO-
CWs based on research and year-long
practice.
• CSO-CWs show effective removal of
conventional, emerging and pathogenic
pollutants.
• CSO-CWs can provide other ecosystem
services (e.g. flood protection,
biodiversity).

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

Article history: Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are a major source of surface water pollution and degradation. This is partic-
Received 21 November 2019 ularly visible where sewage collection with combined sewer and centralized treatment are well established, such
Received in revised form 10 March 2020 as in Europe and North America: an overwhelming number of surface water bodies are in insufficient status of
Accepted 8 April 2020
ecology, hydrology and physico-chemical parameters. Therefore, several countries have started implementing
Available online 16 April 2020
constructed wetlands (CWs) as mainstream on-spot treatment. This paper summarizes the main design ap-
Editor: Jan Vymazal proaches that can be adopted. We identified eight different schemes for the implementation of CSO-CWs,
based on our international experience and documented by a literature analysis. The performance review includes
Keywords: conventional water quality parameters, as well as pathogen and emergent contaminant removal. Furthermore,
Stormwater management modelling tools for advanced design and for understanding a wide applicability of these green infrastructures
Constructed wetland are presented. This paper also provides a review on other side benefits offered by the adoption of Nature-

⁎ Corresponding author at: IMT Atlantique Bretagne—Pays de Loire, Department of Energy Systems and Environment, 44307 Nantes, France.
E-mail address: katharina.tondera@inrae.fr (K. Tondera).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138618
0048-9697/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618

Treatment wetland Based Solutions for CSO treatment, such as ecosystem services, and the most common issues related to their op-
Combined sewer overflow eration and maintenance. Our analysis has produced a list of key factors for design and operation, all derived from
Nature-Based Solutions full-scale installations in operation up to more than ten years.
Retention soil filter
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Literature analysis and treatment schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. German approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. French approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Italian approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. American approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Combination of CSO tanks and conventional CW solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Aerated systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Treatment performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Conventional pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Micropollutants and heavy metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Microbiological parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Modelling tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Process-based model experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Models for CSO-CW design support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Ecosystem services additional to water quality improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Design and operational experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. German experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. French experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Design recommendation for the reviewed treatment schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Discussion and conclusions: gap of knowledge and future research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1. Introduction
Combined sewers convey both domestic sewage and stormwater
runoff in a single pipe, differently from separated sewers, in which sep-
arate pipes convey the two streams. Although several countries are
pushing for a large implementation of separate sewers, many cities
are still served by combined systems, e.g. in the European Union coun-
tries such as Italy, many regions in Germany and France, Belgium,
Greece and Poland (Pistocchi et al., 2019).
In order reduce the frequency of flooding in urban areas, combined
sewers were designed for heavy storm events, with the assumed return
period usually varying from 2 to 10 years. Since the treatment capacity
of centralized wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is limited, waste-
water flow within the combined sewer is controlled with a series of
overflow structures within the served catchment. The results is that,
during heavy rain events, combined sewer overflow (CSO) structures
discharge an untreated mixture of domestic sewage and stormwater
into surface water bodies.
Pollutant and hydraulic shock from CSOs are a serious environmen-
tal threat for inland and coastal waters (Marsalek, 1998). The term
“urban stream syndrome”, for example, describes the general degrada-
tion of streams receiving urban runoff (Chocat et al., 1994). Various
studies show that CSO pollutant loads have magnitudes similar to the
emissions from WWTPs for many substances on annual basis, or even
higher (e.g. Gasperi et al., 2012a; Launay et al., 2015; Schreiber et al.,
2016). However, in contrast to continuous WWTP effluents, CSOs hap-
pen at maximum a few dozen times per year, and have a much lower
water quality comparable to mechanically treated domestic wastewa-
ter. Discharge events are short, but release large volumes and consider-
able pollutant loads. This means not only that carbon and nutrient
compounds enter surface waters without any treatment, but also
micropollutants, heavy metals and pathogens (Tondera et al., 2013;
Tondera et al., 2019; Schreiber et al., 2016). Consequently, water moni-
toring shows a clear increase in microorganism concentrations in natu-
ral waters subjected to CSO discharge events (Rechenburg et al., 2006;
Rechenburg and Kistemann, 2009) as well as an increase in
micropollutant loads (Launay et al., 2015). Taking as an example the
European Union, the current legislation misses to address CSOs directly
in its directives. According to Pistocchi et al. (2019), CSO pollutant loads
have been recognised as one of the most relevant loads remained un-
treated according to the Water Framework Directive (2006/7/EC), and
CSOs are considered as one the main reasons of the failure in achieving
good status of water bodies at European scale (European Commission,
2019). Moreover, CSOs are one of the most common causes of losing
bathing water status set by the EU Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/
EC), as pointed out by Al Aukidy and Verlicchi (2017).
Another challenging point regarding the CSO environmental pollu-
tion control is the large diffusion of combined sewer structures in the
drained catchment. Many examples can be given to this regard. The
“Grand Lyon” sewer system in the Yzeron catchment serves 950,000
PE (the 2nd most densely populated area in France) and has about
200 CSO discharge points. A feasibility study on the potential impact
of CSOs on water quality status of water bodies in Lambro-Seveso-
Olona catchment (Lombardia Region), commissioned by the Po River
Basin, identified up to 47 critical CSO discharging points (among the
hundreds present in the territory) distributed over the whole
catchment, i.e. across four provinces and 33 different cities. These few
examples show how control of CSOs is mainly a catchment-scale issue,
which cannot be simply addressed with conventional end-of-pipe
WWTPs.
A full conversion from combined to separated system of an existing
sewer is often unfeasible for cost-benefit reasons. Therefore, the manag-
ing of CSOs has been seen as a way to address their environmental im-
pact. Although solutions such as (1) continuous primary treatment (e.g.
 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
grit removal, sedimentation, enhanced flocculation); (2) increasing the
use of available storage capacity through integrated sewer manage-
ment; (3) storage methods such as first flush tanks; and (4) the combi-
nation of these with disinfection or chemical treatment (EPA, 1995;
Lainé et al., 1998; De Cock et al., 1999; Zukovs and Marsalek, 2004;
Barco et al., 2008; Gasperi et al., 2012b; Fuchs et al., 2014; Tondera
et al., 2016) are often implemented, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) for
continuous CSO treatment are rapidly gaining momentum and form
the topic of our review. Constructed wetlands (CWs, referred to also
as treatment wetlands - Kadlec and Wallace, 2009) are widely known
NBS, and have various designs to treat different sorts of polluted waters.
According to the path of flow, CWs can be distinguished in surface or
subsurface-flow CWs, both a state-of-the-art CSO treatment. In case of
sub-surface flow CWs, the wastewater flows through a porous media,
which is composed of sand or gravel with sufficient and stable hydraulic
conductivity. Macrophytes create a root zone of enhanced interaction
between the roots, the biofilm and the water which flows through the
system. The media has the physical filtering role that enhances solid re-
tention, and provides surface for adsorption and a stable environment
for biofilm development. In the case of surface flow wetlands (usually
referred as free water surface – FWS - systems), water is normally shal-
low and the CW is planted with either emergent or free-floating macro-
phytes. FWS systems imitate the natural treatment capacity of surface
waters such as wetlands, lakes, and ponds. Constructed wetlands for
combined sewer overflow treatment (CSO-CWs) were initially
engineered to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) and chemical oxygen
demand (COD) while providing additional retention volume for CSOs.
Since then, they have been subsequently optimized to remove a large
number of other pollutants.
The first CSO-CWs were built in Germany in the late 1980s, using a
vertical subsurface flow system. Pilot sites in the middle of the 1990s
were then subject to research in the German states of Baden-
Wuerttemberg and North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) to evaluate CSO-
CW performance (Grotehusmann et al., 1997; LfU, 1998; Liebeskind,
2001). Today, there are 139 CSO-CWsin NRW (www.elwasweb.nrw.
de; accessed on 21st October 2019). Other states and countries have
been building CSO-CWs as well, from small-scale pilot studies in
Portugal (Amaral et al., 2013; Pisoeiro et al., 2016), to a quickly growing
number of full-scale systems in France (Pálfy et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2017c),
Italy (Masi et al., 2017), and the United States (Tao et al., 2014). Full-scale
CSO-CW technology is established, showing how it is well suited to con-
trol water pollution from CSOs in line with the sewer system. Meyer et al.
(2013) revised European schemes and Tao et al. (2014) reported the US
experience in review papers, without reporting detailed treatment per-
formance. Since then, performance studies have been published,
reporting on conventional and emerging pollutants as well as reduction
of indicator microorganisms (Christoffels et al., 2014; Pálfy et al., 2017a;
Tondera, 2019; Tondera et al., 2019). CSO-CWs were also targeted by
modelling, both for better understanding the internal removal processes
(e.g. Pálfy et al., 2016) and to develop state-of-the-art design tools
(Meyer and Dittmer, 2015; Pálfy et al., 2017c; Pálfy et al., 2018). Other
aspects highlighted by research were the role of CSO-CWs at watershed
scale (e.g. Schreiber et al., 2016; Tondera et al., 2017; Bachmann-
Machnik et al., 2018), and the ecosystem services of multi-purpose
CSO-CWs (Liquete et al., 2016; Masi et al., 2017; Rizzo et al., 2018).
This manuscript gives a comprehensive review of CSO-CW state-of-
the-art, based on recent evidence published by the scientific commu-
nity. Doing so, our review (1) identifies the proposed treatment
schemes through a literature analysis in Chapter 2; (2) discusses the
treatment performance of standard pollutants, micropollutants, and mi-
crobial contamination in Chapter 3; (3) provides an overview of model-
ling studies in Chapter 4; (4) highlights additional ecosystem services
that can be assured by CSO-CWs in Chapter 5; (5) summarizes key de-
sign parameters and potential issues learnt from long-term operation
and literature-based evidence in Chapter 6; and (6) discusses the cur-
rent knowledge gaps and future research needs in Chapter 7.
3
2. Literature analysis and treatment schemes
The peer reviewed literature was screened using SCOPUS and
searching the three keywords which were used to target CW treatment,
“constructed wetland”, “treatment wetland”, and “retention soil filter”
(see Section 2.1), and the keyword “combined sewer overflow”. Forty-
two articles were found; each article was labelled according to its key
topic. The details of the literature analysis are reported in Supplemen-
tary online material.
In order to identify suitable designs, grey literature was also consid-
ered. This included the conference proceedings of two major CW con-
ferences: the “IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for
Water Pollution Control” and the “International Symposium on Wetland
Pollutant Dynamics and Control” (WETPOL). Three studies were identi-
fied accounting for: (i) an aerated wetland of Hawes et al. (2016), (ii)
the US case study of Harbor Brook presented by Monge et al. (2017),
and (iii) the CW treating CSO upstream the centralized WWTP of
Carimate reported by Masi et al. (2019).
The results of the literature analysis are summarised in Fig. 1, while
the full results are in the Supplementary online materials (Table S1).
Eight papers (19% of all) regard pilot-scale systems, which are usually
tested to prepare new CW schemes to go full-scale. This recites the
early 2000s. Sixteen papers (35%) regard full-scale systems. This con-
firms the technological readiness of CSO-CWs to reduce CSO impacts
on inland waters and the shoreline. Eleven papers (28%) address the
conditions faced by CSO-CWs, such as the stochastic variability of influ-
ent loads via modelling studies .
We categorised eight CW treatment schemes in our review (Fig. 2).
Such differences in CSO-CW approaches can be attributed to a general
fragmentation in how legislation deals with CSO pollution control.
Since a uniform legislation for CSO is generally lacking, both in EU
(European Commission, 2019) and in US (Levy et al., 2014; Tao et al.,
2014), varying CSO-CW designs have been proposed in different coun-
tries, in order to meet local needs in water pollution control and/or ef-
fluent water quality targets.
CSOs convey large amount of solid particles, including sands and
sediments. Therefore, CSO-CWs usually have preliminary treatments
(e.g. sand and grease trap). Since sand and other kind of coarse ma-
terials can lead to clogging, we included a preliminary treatment
stage in all proposed treatment schemes. A concise description for
each CSO-CW scheme is provided in the following subchapters.
Technical details of the German, French and Italian approaches are
well-described in Meyer et al. (2013), the American ones in Tao
et al. (2014).
2.1. German approach
National guidelines such as those of the German Water Association
(DWA) stipulate a unique nomenclature. The term corresponding to
CSO-CWs translates as retention soil filter (RSF). The name stems from
the late 1980s, when the first systems were built with soil as filter
Fig. 1. Pie chart on the results from the literature analysis on CSO-CWs.
4 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618

Fig. 2. Schemes of CSO-CW treatment on the basis of literature analysis. AEW: aerated wetland. FWS: free water surface flow. FTW: floating treatment wetland. HF: horizontal subsurface
flow. VF: vertical subsurface flow.

material (Brunner, 1995). Due to problems with clogging, the filter ma-
terial is nowadays usually sand (0/2 mm), with a steep sieve curve. Co-
hesive soil is no longer allowed for new systems. The German approach
remains distinguished as RSF (“Retention Soil Filter”), although it would
be more logical to refer to it as “Retention Sand Filter”, as done in Meyer
et al. (2013).
In Germany, most WWTPs in combine sewer systems are designed
to treat 2–6 L·s−1·per hectare of connected impermeable area (Aimp).
Any runoff exceeding this value is stored in CSO tanks, which are not
necessarily situated at the locations of WWTPs, but are mostly distrib-
uted along the drainage system and connected to different WWTP
sub-catchments. Storage volumes are 10–40 m3·ha−1 Aimp, to catch
1–4 mm of rainfall. In many catchments, rainfall events exceeding
these values cause fifteen to forty overflows annually. Over the last
20 years, several hundred RSFs have been built at these discharge points
to protect the receiving waters. The current national guideline considers
RSF and CSO tanks as one treatment unit, allowing the substitution of
missing CSO tank volume with the retention volume of the RSF (DWA,
2019).
In terms of technology, a RSF is a vertical-subsurface flow (VF) wet-
land with sand filter material and a detention volume on top of the filter
level. The filter is planted with reed to prevent clogging. The filtrate is
collected by perforated drain pipes. The filtration rate is limited by a
throttle orifice at the outlet structure to qout b 0.05 L·s−1·m−2 (DWA,
2019), and many systems operate with lower values. The limitation en-
sures a quasi-uniform percolation rate in the entire active pore system.
To achieve optimal aeration, the filter is completely drained after each
loading event. The material usually used for the filter layer is quartz
sand (granulation 0.063–2.0 mm) containing up to 20% of limestone,
and the filter bed has a layer of broken limestone on top. The limestone
provides calcium buffering of pH to prevent acidification that could be
caused by biochemical processes such as nitrification.
 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
2.2. French approach
The French approach treats CSO in a VF wetland without CSO tank or
sedimentation basin. Similarly to French domestic wastewater treat-
ment wetlands (Molle et al., 2005), the objective is to minimize sludge
management. French regulation assigns new CSO-CWs as treatment
plants that need to ensure the same outlet quality as the WWTPs. To
maximize the performance, several design specificities were included
in the first guideline (ANR, 2013). The bottom layer with the drainage
pipes is kept saturated limiting reed stress during dry periods and also
hydraulic short-circuiting at the beginning of events, as well as improv-
ing TSS removal. An aeration pipe is implemented above the saturation
layer to favor oxygen transfer during resting periods. As the German
systems, the French systems also have a detention volume above the fil-
ter surface and the outflow rate is limited by a throttle orifice in the out-
let structure with a targeted percolation rate of 0.01–0.05 L·s−1·m−2.
Clogging is delayed by two specificities: by the use of coarse sand
(d10 N 0.4 mm) and by building two filter cells to allow alternating feed-
ing and resting periods. Small but frequent events use only one cell,
while the other cell rests. In case of events with larger inflow, both
cells are flooded in order to make use of the full detention volume.
The resting periods promote good sludge mineralisation. The cells in op-
eration are switched on a monthly frequency to uniformly distribute the
sediments on both. Interestingly, a similar scheme is also proposed for
German RSFs by the recent German guidelines (DWA, 2019). When am-
monium reduction is required to be high, zeolite replaces a 0.06 to
0.18 m thick layer of sand with similar particle size distribution. This is
estimated to assure an outlet concentration of NH+ 4 -N below 5 mg/L.
2.3. Italian approach
The Italian approach developed from the peculiarities of the Gorla
Maggiore CSO-CW (Meyer et al., 2013; Masi et al., 2017). Local regula-
tion (regional law of Lombardy on CSO, R.R. 3/2006), at the year of de-
sign, required the treatment of the first flush volume – defined as 50
m3·ha−1Aimp – and the limitation of flow rates into the water bodies for
flood risk mitigation.
Consequently, designers proposed the following treatment scheme.
Firstly, a VF wetland as first stage treats first flush, with analogies to
the German and French approaches. Similar to the French systems, the
preliminary treatment is simple (grit, sand, and oil removal), the bed
of the actual filter unit is filled with a coarse media (gravel 2–6 mm)
and the outflow rate is limited by a throttle valve. The value of the out-
flow rate was chosen equal to 0.004–0.020 L·s−1·m−2. Secondly, a free
water surface (FWS) wetland polishes the effluent as second stage. The
FWS wetland receives the effluent from the VF first stage and the CSO
surpassing the first flush. It is designed with high free banks to also
work as an extended retention basin.
2.4. American approaches
Due to the typically higher available space to implement NBS, as
compared to Europe, the US approaches were mainly based on exten-
sive FWS systems with larger footprints. According to Tao et al.
(2014), a few CSO-CWs have already been implemented in the US.
Those plants are difficult to compare in terms of design characteristics;
indeed, they satisfy and function under different site specific conditions,
highlighting the lack of homogeneous guidelines as pointed out by Levy
et al. (2014). However, the experiences of Tao et al. (2014) allow the
definition of two different American treatment schemes:
• American approach I: the scheme is highly naturalistic, consisting of a
simple preliminary treatment and a subsequent treatment by a FWS
wetland. An example is the CSO-CW of Arch/Bar, situated in Elkhart
(Indiana).
• American approach II: after a preliminary treatment with a swirl
5
separation unit, the system implements a floating treatment wetland
(FTW) as first stage, which maintains a vegetated cover while accu-
mulating the volume of a CSO to be treated with a variable water
depth. The accumulated CSO is then treated in a second VF stage
(filled with sand) and a final polishing FWS wetland. The scheme is
based on the full-scale pilot plant of Harbor Brook, built in Syracuse
(New York). The different stages can work both in series and in paral-
lel; to the best of our knowledge, the monitoring campaign is still on-
going and clear indications on the best configuration have yet to be
identified (Monge et al., 2017).
2.5. Combination of CSO tanks and conventional CW solutions
We have identified a number of treatment schemes that are addi-
tional to those reviewed by Meyer et al. (2013) and Tao et al. (2014).
One is based on the Portuguese trials on pilot-scale horizontal subsur-
face flow (HF) systems, which show the capability of HF wetlands to
treat CSOs (Amaral et al., 2013; Pisoeiro et al., 2016). However, a proper
treatment chain must be established, one that allows to counteract CSO
variability and let the wetlands work in conditions that are comparable
to those experienced by CWs at municipal wastewater systems. There-
fore, a CSO tank is mandatory. The tank coincides with the first flush
tank usually proposed to reduce the impact of CSO pollutant loads on
water bodies (e.g. Barco et al., 2008). First flush tanks are used to cap-
ture the most polluted fraction of the CSO, which is pumped back
again in the sewer when the CSO event ends. Different from the conven-
tional use of first flush tank, the schemes here proposed conjugates con-
ventional first flush tanks with CWs, treating the captured CSO volume
in situ. This permits to reduce the pollutant loads conveyed to central-
ized WWTPs, which does not have to treat the diluted CSO conveyed
by a conventional use of first flush tanks. For instance, a modelling
study of Masseroni et al. (2018) investigates and proposes a combina-
tion of first flush tank and CW similar to those discussed here. We report
on three further CW schemes on the basis of the most relevant subsur-
face flow systems (Dotro et al., 2017):
- preliminary treatment, CSO tank, primary treatment (e.g., septic
tanks) and HF wetland;
- preliminary treatment, CSO tank, primary treatment and VF wetland
filled with sand;
- preliminary treatment, CSO tank, VF wetland with gravel (in accor-
dance to the French Systems for wastewater treatment (Molle
et al., 2005))
2.6. Aerated systems
Hawes et al. (2016) report a successful application of intensified
CWs for CSO treatment. Therefore, the possibility to use aerated systems
cannot be excluded from our treatment schemes. Aerated wetlands are
expected to increase performance, robustness, and resilience of the
CSO-CW, in comparison to a conventional CW solution, requiring a
slightly more complex implementation and input of energy for the aer-
ation system. A FWS wetland polishing stage can be included.
3. Treatment performance
Treatment performance depends on wetland design and operation.
But it is also impacted by the stochastic nature of sewer overflows, in
term of intensity, length, frequency and pollutant levels. Variable inlet
conditions affect removal and system behaviour. Consequently, the di-
lution level of inlet wastewater, the load arriving on the wetland during
an event or the period between two overflow events are important.
The majority of data comes from German RSFs. The State of NRW
provides a database, and reports 139 sites in operation on combined
sewer systems and 48 on separate sewer systems (www.elwasweb.
nrw.de; accessed on 21st October 2019). Removal processes and
6 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618

efficiencies have been extensively analysed in various research projects, COD is eliminated by 42–47% only. Numerous case studies have permit-
including small-scale lab experiments, filter columns, pilot-scale and in- ted statistical analysis on data from several systems. Results from
tensive monitoring of full-scale plants (Dittmer, 2006; Frechen et al., Tondera, 2019 are summarised in Table 1, regarding 23 RSF systems.
2006; Henrichs et al., 2007; Woźniak et al., 2007; Woźniak, 2008; Further confirmation of CSO-CW capability to control conventional
Waldhoff, 2008; Henrichs et al., 2009; Dittmer and Schmitt, 2011; pollutants comes from the experience with the French approach.
Meyer, 2011; Tondera et al., 2013, 2019; Christoffels et al., 2014; Fournel et al. (2013) and Fournel (2012) report results from nine differ-
Scheurer et al., 2015; Schreiber et al., 2016; Tondera, 2019; Ruppelt ent pilots, each of them with a surface of 20 m2. Pálfy et al. (2017a,
et al., 2018; Ruppelt et al., 2019; Ruppelt et al., 2020). These studies 2017b) discuss results from the first full-scale system at Marcy-
allow a consistent description of key processes in RSFs. CSO-CW tech- L'Étoile as the successor of the Fournel et al. (2013) and Fournel
nology has spread into other countries too, where treatment schemes (2012) pilots, with a construction dating to 2011. COD and TSS removal
have evolved further. We report the key aspects and removal efficien- in the French system is described to be in correlation with the inflow
cies of RSF systems according to their importance, in conjunction with concentration. For COD, a background constant (below 23 mgCOD·L−1)
the removal efficiencies of the full-scale and pilot plants of other CSO- can describe outlet concentration at diluted inflows (below 70
CW schemes. It must be stressed that a direct comparison in terms of mgCOD·L−1). Removal rates are then different for COD between 70 and
treatment performance among different CSO-CWs is out of the scope 250 mgCOD·L−1 and above, with much higher removal in the upper
of this chapter. Indeed, different local regulations and targeted pollut- band (Pálfy et al., 2018). This is because pollution above 250 mgCOD·L−1
ants led to different design approaches, making it difficult to compare mostly consists by particulates that are filtered very efficiently, but re-
them. moval depends on the biological activity too. Namely, dry period length
and evapotranspiration impact subsequent removal, since they can im-
3.1. Conventional pollutants pact the biomass by the depletion of the substrates or drying out (Pálfy
et al., 2017a).
CSO treatment targets (1) solids and pollutants associated to particle At the full-scale site of Marcy L'Étoile, removal performance was es-
transport, (2) the reduction of organic loads, and (3) the reduction of timated in terms of event mean concentration (EMC) and was in agree-
peak concentrations of ammonium nitrogen. Suspended solids (SS) ment to that of RSFs. TSS removal was very high regardless of the
are retained on the filter surface, forming a sludge layer on top and to coarser media (median: 97%). The removal of total COD was at 80%,
a lesser extent within the filter media. Concentrations of SS and partic- with a lower performance for the dissolved fraction (37%) and the par-
ulate COD (CODX) are reduced to a background level. Mineralisation ticulate fraction comparable to that of TSS (93%). NH+ 4 -N removal was
happens between events (inter-event period) when aerobic conditions 85% for events that were equal or smaller than the design load (arriving
favor heterotrophic degradation. The sludge layer is nonetheless perma- volume with a one-year return period). The amendment of a 0.12 m ze-
nent, improves adsorption capacity and hosts the highest biological olite layer enhanced NH+ 4 -N retention compared to purely sand-based
activity. filters. The filter retained around 45% of total phosphorus, but this was
Concentration of active biomass is expected low in RSF, comparing probably due to the filtration of particulate phosphorus, since the
with wetlands used to treat sewage. Due to this, intra-event degrada- PO3−
4 -P retention was about 18% on average with a decreasing trend
tion of solute COD compounds (CODS) is also expected to be limited, over time to almost zero.
and, to some extent, CODS is mostly retained by adsorption. The elimi- The Italian approach was described based on monitoring of the full-
nation rate can be described as constant. In case of extremely low inflow scale plant of Gorla Maggiore (Masi et al., 2017). Influent EMCs were in
concentrations a minimum background concentration remains in the line with literature data and equal to 382 ± 217 and 7.1 ± 1.3 mg/L for
effluent. As for particulate compounds, degradation mainly takes place COD and NH+ 4 -N, respectively. Due to lack of effluent flow meters, re-
inter-event. moval efficiencies were estimated with two different approaches, both
Ammonium elimination has two steps: during the events, ammo- highlighting good removal performance: (1) mean concentration re-
nium is adsorbed almost completely by biofilms within the filter layer. moval of 89.6% (range 74–98%) and 93.5% (range 72–99%) for COD
−1
Effluent concentrations of NH+ 4 -N are reduced to b0.2 mg·L . The and NH+ 4 -N, respectively; (2) annual pollutant load reduction of 68.0%
retained ammonium is nitrified and the sorption capacity regenerates for COD and 94.8% for NH+ 4 -N (based on a theoretical approach using
as nitrate is washed out at the beginning of the next loading event. measured flow rates from sixty-nine CSO events). The estimation of dif-
The activity of nitrifying bacteria is highest immediately after the ferent CSO pollutant loads was assigned to (i) washout from the sewer
draining and re-aeration of the filter layer. Sorption capacity is re- and the drained watershed, (ii) sewage to centralized WWTP, and (iii)
established almost completely within a few days. In cases of prolonged second flushes. Particularly, an estimation of the load in second flushes
loads, the input of ammonium can exceed the adsorption capacity, was carried out using a conservative approach, showing such load to be
which leads to a breakthrough of the infiltrating concentration only due to diluted blackwater. Masi et al. (2017) report that washout
(Dittmer, 2006; Pálfy et al., 2017b). effect is prevalent, but treatment of second flushes is not negligible,
Direct plant uptake has been observed to play a minor role in re-
moval processes. On the other hand, plants are fundamental since
Table 1
they play an active role in supplying of oxygen and root exudates, help-
Treatment performance of RSF from Tondera, 2019.
ing to maintain a healthy microbial life within the wetland even during
drying periods (Brix, 1997). Moreover, stems movement due to wind COD TSS TP
and roots within the media work against clogging, helping to maintain In Out In Out In Out
a proper drainage capacity of the wetland.
Number of samples 226 284 274 284 335 338
RSFs have been extensively studied in terms of treatment perfor- Sampled RSFsa 12 14 13 13 15 16
mance for conventional pollutants, showing stable and high removal ef- Concentrations [mg·L−1] Minimum 15 15 1 1 0.1 0.1
ficiencies. For instance, Uhl and Dittmer, 2005 report removal higher Median 44 16 25 3 0.6 0.2
Mean 69 18 39 6 0.9 0.3
than 84% and 96% for COD and NH+ 4 -N, respectively. Other research pro-
Maximum 918 89 1123 214 16.1 2.7
jects confirm reduction rates of 67–93% for COD based on data covering Removal Median 61% 87% 70%
over two decades and several systems (Liebeskind, 2001; Tondera et al., Mean ± SD 49% ± 44% 38% ± 251% 34% ± 112%
2013). The results reflect those obtained with column tests (Woźniak, a
Values based on samples taken on 23 RSFs designed according to the same standard;
2008). Dittmer (2006) distinguishes between dissolved and particulate values provided by operator treated as if taken on one site; not all samples were corre-
COD: while particulate COD is almost completely retained, dissolved sponding ones, therefore, the number of outflow samples N number of inflow samples.
 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
since second flushes intercepted an additional 12.1 tCOD·year−1 and
0.28 tN-NH4·year−1 (14.5% and 43.9% in terms of annual loads) as com-
pared to annual pollutant load estimated from CSOs.
Performance information regarding conventional pollutants is also
available from the other CSO-CW approaches. Tao et al. (2014) report
that performance data on CSO-CWs in the United States are limited,
since plants are often authorized without mandatory monitoring of ef-
fluent water quality. However, monitored U.S. systems show good per-
formance in terms of conventional pollutants. The Arch/Bar and the
Washington CSO-CWs have a FWS wetland as main treatment stage
and represent American approach I. The Arch/Bar is reported to have
mean removal efficiencies of 91% for COD, 92% for TSS, 98% for NH+ 4 -N,
and 96% for TP. The Washington CSO-CW is known to release
TSS b 15 mg·L−1, and BOD5 b 7 mg·L−1. The American approach II
(FTW + VF wetland or HF wetland + FWS wetland) from the full-
scale pilot plant of Harbor Brook removes BOD5 66%, TSS 56%, NH+ 4 -N
42%, and TP 47% (Monge et al., 2017).
The Portuguese experiences on pilot-scale experiments confirm that
HF -CW can properly treat conventional pollutants in CSOs. Amaral et al.
(2013) and Pisoeiro et al. (2016) highlight that one day of hydraulic re-
tention time (HRT) is already sufficient to get high removal on COD and
TSS, as summarised in Table 2. Hawes et al. (2016) also report satisfying
removal in the first aerated systems, with averages of 88% for BOD and
94% for NH+ 4 -N.
3.2. Micropollutants and heavy metals
A number of studies investigate the removal of micropollutants in
RSFs, and heavy metal reduction was extensively studied in the full-
scale plant of Marcy-L'Etoile. The results help identifying prevailing re-
moval pathways of emerging pollutants.
Micropollutants removal depends on both the chemical characteris-
tics and operational parameters of the system, and the varying concen-
trations of CSOs are a common challenge for the evaluation and
comparison for this field of research (Tondera et al., 2013). Aerobic deg-
radation of adsorbed micropollutants is the main purification process.
Therefore, sufficient oxygen supply in between two events is crucial
(Matamoros and Bayona, 2007). Precipitation, sorption, and plant-
uptake are expected to be main heavy metal removal processes in
CSO-CWs. However, the changes in redox conditions driven by the
CSO variability could promote remobilization of precipitated metals,
such as iron (Kadlec and Wallace, 2009; Tondera et al., 2018), and it
must be properly addressed during the design of CSO-CWs if the
heavy metal removal is a key target. Additionally, filtration can be a
key process for removal of both metals and organic pollutants, since
they are often linked to solid particles. Filtration and sorption processes
can promote important degradation pathways for organic pollutants,
due to very long residence times. Table 3 shows removal efficiencies
for micropollutants in the French and German systems. Table 4 presents
the heavy metal removal efficiencies.
For RSFs, Scheurer et al. (2015) report a reduction for diclofenac of
81% on average, based on sampling inflow and outflow during five
CSO events. Christoffels et al. (2014) used a different evaluation proce-
dure, leading to the limit of quantification (LOQ) of diclofenac in only
68% of water samples (n = 343, 33 events over 14 months), and only
9% of the outflow samples (LOQ: 100 ng·L−1). Hence, the maximum
Table 2
Performance of Portuguese HF pilot in function of different hydraulic retention time
(HRT), from Pisoeiro et al. (2016).
Substance Experiments HRT 1 day HRT N 1 daya
COD Amaral et al. (2013) 82–88% 93–97%
Pisoeiro et al. (2016) 63–85% 77–90%
TSS Amaral et al. (2013) 86–95% 94–99%
Pisoeiro et al. (2016) 85–96% 88–99%
a
Duration not further specified in the references.
7
concentration of diclofenac in the outflow was 65% lower than that in
the inflow.
Another group of micropollutants is reported from the full-scale
plant of Marcy-L'Etoile (French approach), including seven Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are listed as priority substances
by the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Pálfy et al.
(2017a) report high removal of three PAHs that had been present in
concentrations sufficient enough to quantify reduction of benzo(a)
pyrene (80%), phenanthrene (80%), and naphtalene (92%). Effluent con-
centration of these and other PAHs are summarised in Table 3.
Pálfy et al. (2017a) confirm good removal for the majority of the
monitored metals, too, as shown in Table 4. The authors report on
twenty-five elements in dissolved and particulate phases. Most metals
were bound to particles in CSO, which is in accordance with Dembélé
et al. (2009) reporting these to make up 55–85% of the pollution in a
comparable catchment. It was concluded that Al, Ti, Cr and Ba are re-
moved well during all phases of CSO-CW operation. Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn and
Sr are released at the early stages of CSO loads but improve importantly
after long-term filter operation.
3.3. Microbiological parameters
Information on pathogen removal performance is widely available
for RSFs. This includes studies that investigated the reduction of bacteria
and bacteriophages in full-scale systems.
Waldhoff (2008) is the first study with a comprehensive investiga-
tion of pilot- and full-scale CSO-CWs in terms of reduction rates of
Escherichia coli (E. coli; median reduction of 1.2 log10) and intestinal En-
terococci (I.E., median reduction of 0.9 log10) reduction rates. Ruppelt
et al. (2018) report similar reductions on pilot-scale systems; reduction
of faecal indicator bacteria ranges between 1 and 2 log10, with filtration,
straining processes and adsorption serving as the main removal mech-
anisms. Somatic coliphages decrease 1.0 to 1.2 log10. Reductions could
be further improved by using a series connection of two RSFs with a fil-
tration layer of 0.75 m (E. coli 2.3 log10, intestinal Enterococci 2.2 log10,
somatic coliphages 2.1 log10; median reduction of all events sampled).
Other results from full-scale systems confirm these values. Merkel
and Schaule (2010) quantify the performance of four established but
sparsely-loaded RSFs in NRW after 3.5 to 4 years of operation. In these
RSFs, the reduction of E. coli varies between a median of 1.4 to almost
3 log10. Tondera et al. (2019) conclude on long-term performance.
They observe slightly decreasing reduction for indicator bacteria, and
quantify removal to be 1.1 log10 for E. coli and 1.3 log10 for I.E. after
seven years, compared to 0.8 log10 for E. coli and 0.8 log10 for I.E. after
ten years. In contrast, somatic coliphages reduction evolves in the oppo-
site direction, with 0.6 log10 and 1.0 log10 reduction after seven and ten
years, respectively.
Schreiber et al. (2016) describe the reduction performance of a RSF
located in the river Swist catchment area (289 km2) in the federal
state of NRW of 2 to 4 log10 depending on the microbiological parame-
ter. This performance is in the same range of the removal of microbio-
logical parameters in conventional WWTPs. Christoffels et al. (2014)
rely on event composites CSO samples and show that this RSF had a
higher reduction capacity than other investigated systems. Indeed, the
median reduction capacity of the RSF studied by Christoffels et al.
(2014) were at least 3 log10 for faecal indicator bacteria, faecal patho-
genic bacteria and somatic coliphages. This median is calculated from
all single reduction capacities of every mean concentration, out of
250 L sample volume each, from all events sampled. It is argued that
the better results observed by Christoffels et al. (2014) are due to the
lower regulated flow rate (0.015 L·s−1 m−2) in comparison to the
higher value requested by national guidelines (0.03 L·s−1 m−2).
Pathogen removal performance is indicated also for CSO-CWs
different to RSFs, confirming the CSO-CW potentiality of bacteria re-
moval in general. For American approach I, the Arch/Bar CSO-CW
show a reduction of 5 to 6 log10 in terms of E. coli (Tao et al., 2014).
8 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618

Table 3
Removal efficiencies for micropollutants of German and French approaches reported in literature.

Micropollutant Removal Effluent conc.[μg/L] CSO-CW scheme References

Acenaphtene NA 0.011 French Pálfy et al., 2017a

Benzo(a) anthracene NA 0.028 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Benzo(a) pyrene 80% 0.002 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Benzo(b) fluoranthene NA 0.006 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene NA 0.006 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Bisphenol A 64 ± 35% 0.232a RSF Tondera et al., 2019
53 ± 162% 0.071a RSF after 7 years
33 ± 104% 0.077 ± 0.066 RSF 0.75 m sand layer Ruppelt et al., 2020
28 ± 89% 0.103 ± 0.093 RSF 0.5 m sand layer

65 ± 28% 0.065 ± 0.062 Two RSF 0.75 m each in series connecetion

Benzotriazole 66 ± 20% RSF Scheurer et al., 2015
a
26 ± 42% 1.019 RSF after 7 years Tondera et al., 2019
−39 ± 117% 3.580a RSF after 10 years
29 ± 35% 1.203 ± 0.773 RSF 0.75 m sand layer Ruppelt et al., 2020
28 ± 24% 1.354 ± 0.830 RSF 0.5 m sand layer
26 ± 56% 1.028 ± 0.566 Two RSF 0.75 m each in series connection
Carbamazepine 21 ± 49% 0.206a RSF after 7 years Tondera et al., 2019
−4 ± 84% 0.211a RSF after 10 years
−41 ± 74% 0.138 ± 0.043 RSF 0.75 m sand layer Ruppelt et al., 2020
−32 ± 64% 0.132 ± 0.041 RSF 0.5 m sand layer
−69 ± 145 0.151 ± 0.047 Two RSF 0.75 m each in series connection
Chrysene NA 0.010 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Diatrizoic acid −4 ± 20% RSF Tondera et al., 2013
Diclofenac 67 ± 23% 0.227a RSF after 7 years Tondera et al., 2019
34 ± 47% 0.418a RSF after 10 years
65% RSF Mertens et al., 2012
29 ± 23% 0.302 ± 0.172 RSF 0.75 m sand layer Ruppelt et al., 2020
19 ± 18% 0.339 ± 0.179 RSF 0.5 m sand layer
61 ± 20% 0.159 ± 0.095 Two RSF 0.75 m each in series connection
EDTA 12 ± 51% 1.479a RSF after 7 years Tondera et al., 2019
52 ± 58% 7.538a RSF after 10 years
Fluoranthene NA 0.013 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Fluorene NA 0.011 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Ibuprofen 55% RSF Mertens et al., 2012
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.006 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Metoprolole 58 ± 23% 0.227a RSF after 7 years Tondera et al., 2019
36 ± 46% 0.247a RSF after 10 years
72 ± 24% 0.079 ± 0.041 RSF 0.75 m sand layer Ruppelt et al., 2020
69 ± 25% 0.090 ± 0.044 RSF 0.5 m sand layer
88 ± 9% 0.038 ± 0.024 Two RSF 0.75 m each in series connecetion
Naphthalene 92% 0.034 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Phenanthrene 80% 0.010 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Pyrene NA 0.013 French Pálfy et al., 2017a
Sulfamethoxazole 4 ± 101% 0.117a RSF after 7 years Tondera et al., 2019
−544 ± 928% 0.239a RSF after 10 years
−21 ± 66% 0.366 ± 0.693 RSF 0.75 m sand layer Ruppelt et al., 2020
−5 ± 47% 0.375 ± 0.786 RSF 0.5 m sand layer
−98 ± 162% 0.313 ± 0.436 Two RSF 0.75 m each in series connecetion
TCPP 34 ± 54% 1.511a RSF after 7 years Tondera et al., 2019
−14 ± 109% 0.216a RSF after 10 yearsb

NA: concentrations too close to the quantification limit to calculate removal performance (Pálfy et al., 2017a).
a
Mean value, 5–12 samples.
b
Inflow concentrations after ten years of operation much lower than after seven years (Tondera et al., 2019).

The American approach II shows a mean removal of approx. 0.6 log10 for
Table 4 faecal coliform (Monge et al., 2017). Amaral et al. (2013) and Pisoeiro
Removal efficiencies for heavy metals of French approach reported in literature. et al. (2016) investigate the dependence of Enterococci removal to HRT
Source: Pálfy et al. (2017a). in Portuguese HF wetland pilot plants, showing 1.6 to 2.7 log10 removals
Metals Removal efficiencies [%] with HRT of one day and 4.6 to 5.7 log10 removal with HRT greater than
one day.
Al 39–99%
Ti 46–91%
Cr 76–84% 4. Modelling tools
Mn Up to 36%, but with releasing events
Fe Up to 86%, but with releasing events
Different models have been developed to simulate CW performance
Ni 96–97%
Cu Up to 96%, but with releasing events and to fit different purposes (Meyer et al., 2015). Generally, models can
Zn Up to 79%, but with releasing events be listed into two groups: complex models, used to better understand
Sr Up to 61%, but with releasing events internal functioning (process-based), and generally simpler models,
Ba 61–100% aimed to support wetland design. CSO-CW complex modelling has pro-
Pb 56–65%
vided good results, but process-based models remain too complex and
 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
too time-consuming to be included in the design phases of CSO-CWs.
Simulation tools for CSO-CWs have been developed therefore to be
fast, easy-to-use, and, in the end, to target practitioners and decision
makers. The following sections discuss the modelling tools and the re-
sults of CSO-CW modelling.
4.1. Process-based model experiences
The HYDRUS modelling toolkit with the CW2D biokinetic model (©
PC Progress s.r.o.) is communicated to be the first process-based model
that has been used for CSO-CW modelling. Its capability to simulate CWs
with stochastic CSO loads is investigated by several authors with various
levels of success. Henrichs et al. (2007, 2009,) model ammonium suc-
cessfully, and also COD removal for single loads by setting adsorption
for slowly biodegradable COD. Fournel et al. (2013) study the methods
of fitting hydraulic conditions. Meyer (2011) fits hydraulic conditions,
but also effluent concentrations for single events. The author adjusts
manually initial bacterium concentrations to this aim, in order to have
a vertical simulated bacteria profile that is similar to measured DNA/
RNA/ATP concentrations in the experimental columns that accompa-
nied the experiment. Additionally, Meyer (2011) implements a particu-
late deposition and transport sub-model too, and highlights a gap in the
knowledge about the bacteria dynamics in inter-event (dry) periods.
Pálfy et al. (2016) experiment further to overcome limits of previous
studies. To this aim, Pálfy et al. (2016) report new biokinetic parameters
like (i) hydrolysis rate; (ii) growth rate of bacteria; (iii) COD fractions
generated in biomass lysis, (iv) yield coefficients and the non-
biokinetic settings like COD adsorption. With the new settings, a
quasi-stable biomass is reached by simulating 160 days of inoculation.
The previous assumptions permit Pálfy et al. (2016) to successfully sim-
ulate a series of multiple loads into laboratory CSO columns, meaning
good fit to measured COD and NH+ 4 -N in the effluent.
4.2. Models for CSO-CW design support
The first design-support modelling tool is the RSF model family
(RSF_Disc and RSF_SIM), described by Dittmer (2006) and Meyer and
Dittmer, 2015. RSF_Sim aims to support the RSF design (German ap-
proach). It is still used only for scientific purpose, but it could be imple-
mented into sewer system models to estimate potential CSO pollutant
removal from RSF positioned overall the sewer catchment.
Results from France and Germany were merged into a design-
support modelling tool called Orage, which is based on RSF_SIM and
permits the design optimization of both the German and the French
CSO-CW systems. The tool is based on results from column, pilot, and
full-scale CSO CWs as well as simulation studies (Dittmer et al., 2005;
Dittmer, 2006; Frechen et al., 2006; Heinrichs et al. 2007, 2009;
Woźniak et al., 2007; Waldhoff, 2008; Woźniak, 2008; Dittmer and
Schmitt, 2011; Fournel, 2012; Felmeden, 2013; Fournel et al., 2013;
Pálfy et al., 2016; Pálfy et al., 2017a). Orage optimizes dimensions and
materials of CSO CWs site-specifically, based on inflow CSO time series
and a low number of input parameters. Optimization is based on a
core model (Pálfy et al., 2018) that is handled by an optimization algo-
rithm (iterative shell). Simulations are based on inflow data and desired
wetland parameters (Pálfy et al., 2017c). The core model simulates CSO-
CW hydraulics and removal performance in terms of TSS, COD, and
NH+ 4 -N. Despite a simplified process description, Orage remains a dy-
namic and deterministic model. Indeed, flow and transport processes
are simplified and represented as three continuously stirred tank reac-
tors by filter cell, plus a common one representing their common stor-
age basin (seven tanks altogether). The simulation of outflow rates is
based on a constant, which represents the deterministic effect of the
outflow orifice in the real system hydraulic. In order to allow easy han-
dling, Orage has a design-optimization algorithm that follows pre-
defined logic to look for a filter with (i) the simplest possible material
9
and (ii) the smallest filter area to satisfy effluent flow and concentration
thresholds.
TSS and COD removal are based on empirical kinetic equations. For
TSS, these return a nearly constant background value. For COD, Orage
works with a background value too, but only at low input concentra-
tions. Above a concentration limit, the COD correlation changes to first
order, and again, at even higher concentrations, a higher COD removal
rate is used as the extension of this three-stage linear approach. More-
over, the tool adjusts COD kinetic parameters based on the inter-event
duration, the season and the climate region. Indeed, dry and hot days
cause COD removal to drop in CSO-CWs, that is assumed to be caused
by bacterial starvation and, likely in extreme cases, die-off due to
draught as well (Pálfy et al., 2016; Dittmer, 2006).
Removal of NH+ 4 -N is modelled as a two-step process. These steps
are adsorption and subsequent nitrification, although the model does
not account for nitrogen as product. For calculating adsorption, Orage
has a database of two-stage linear adsorption isotherms that approxi-
mate Freundlich isotherms of different filter materials. Equilibrium is
calculated for the whole mass of the process layer. During hydraulic
short-circuiting, the water-contacted mass is estimated and only the ad-
sorption capacities of this mass is considered. Nitrification, that is lim-
ited in the tool to the regeneration of adsorption capacities, starts as
soon as the process layer begins to empty. The rate is the function of
the mean seasonal temperature in a given climate region and the
mass in the solid phase. Calibration matches field measurements at
full-scale, involving consecutive events with closed adsorption and ni-
trate flush cycles (Pálfy et al., 2017b).
As a result, Orage is a relatively simple model that allows simulating
one year functioning of a CSO-CW (only French and German ap-
proaches) in short simulation time (about 5 min). The graphical inter-
face is user-friendly and it requires a maximum of eight input
parameters relatively easy to be obtained: (i) selection from climate re-
gions by name; (ii) entering available land; (iii to v) entering threshold
concentrations on three different pollutants; (vi) selecting if the sewer
is combined or separated (Orage is also suitable to simulate CW perfor-
mance for stormwater treatment); (vii) the maximum allowed outflow
rate; and (viii) desired volumetric storage, based on return periods.
These features allow the use of Orage in real design phases, such as
the study on CSO pollutant mitigation in Rhône-Alpes (unpublished
data).
5. Ecosystem services additional to water quality improvement
Usually, CSO-CWs are designed with the single purpose to be techni-
cal treatment systems. In these cases, despite their “natural” appear-
ance, they are not specifically designed to provide other benefits.
Taking biodiversity as an example, the choice of plants (monocultures
of Phragmites australis) is often motivated only by technical concerns
(e.g. limiting the risk of clogging) and practical reasons (suppression
of other planted species in past trials).
However, CSO-CWs are part of the larger family of NBS, which are, as
referred by the WWAP (2018), “inspired and supported by nature and
use, or mimic natural processes to contribute to the improved manage-
ment of water” and “usually offer multiple water-related benefits and
often help address water quantity, quality and risks simultaneously”.
Therefore, CSO-CWs should be designed, wherever possible, to provide
multiple benefits.
The most representative CSO-CW in terms of multipurpose design is
an Italian case study, the Water Park of Gorla Maggiore (Liquete et al.,
2016; Masi et al., 2017). The CSO-CW design prioritized effective treat-
ment, changing an abandoned poplar plantation in proximity of the
Olona River into a water park accessible for recreation. Moreover, the
FWS wetland was designed to also be a detention basin for flood mitiga-
tion and a site of high biodiversity. To assess ecosystem services, this
water park is compared with grey infrastructure (i.e. a first flush tank
plus occasionally a dry detention basin) through a multi-criteria
10 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
analysis (MCA) by Liquete et al. (2016) and is hydraulically modelled by
Rizzo et al. (2018).
The modelling study of Rizzo et al. (2018) investigates the flood mit-
igation effect of the park. It models the hydraulic functioning of both the
VF and FWS wetlands. The model simulate different CSO events:
(i) from single to up to five consecutive CSO peaks (i.e. different increas-
ing and decreasing phases within the same CSO event); (ii) the design
CSO hydrograph with return time of ten years; and (iii) a complete
time series that covers seventy CSO peaks and corresponding dry pe-
riods between March and August 2014. Dynamic behaviour and overall
attenuation effect are comprehensively analysed. The simulations show
peak flow reductions from 52.7% to 95% and a retention volume of about
8800 m3. Interestingly, also the VF first stage contributes well by itself to
flood reduction, even if the available storage volume on top of the VF
bed is less in comparison to French and German CSO-CW systems. The
mean of CSO flow peaks can be reduced by the VF stage as much as by
95.4%, increasing the hydrograph duration by a factor of twenty-one,
and storing 92% of the volume. The stored volume is important (12%)
also for the CSO event with a return time of ten years. The VF stage at-
tenuation capacity gets less relevant only in the case of consecutive
CSO peaks, where CSO-CW overall attenuation mainly relies on the
FWS second stage. As main evidence of the simulations, the Water
Park significantly contributes to restore the hydrological response of
the catchment with Gorla Maggiore town from a post-development
(high peak and short duration) back to a pre-development status (low
peak and high duration), in accordance with urban hydrology concepts
(e.g. Fletcher et al., 2013). Flood mitigation benefits can be also consid-
ered, even if not targeted to, for single VF stages of German and French
approaches, in which accumulation depth above the surface can be up
to 2 m (Meyer et al., 2013; DWA, 2019). The capacity to attenuate CSO
peak flow was also highlighted for extensive FWS systems proposed
in the US (Tao et al., 2014).
In terms of ecological benefits, the FWS second stage was designed
to enhance biodiversity. Its bottom topography is diversified to favor
different autochthone macrophytes, both emergent (Typha angustifolia,
Lythrum salicaria, Mentha aquatic, Iris pseudacorus, Lysimachia vulgaris)
and floating (Nymphaea alba, Nuphar lutea, Ranunculus aquatilis,
Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L., Ceratophyllum demersum). The MCA of
Liquete et al. (2016) quantifies the biodiversity contribution with the
sub-criterion “wildlife support”, which compares the CSO-CW Italian
scheme used in the Water Park of Gorla (VF + FWS), defined as a
green infrastructure, to a first flush tank plus a dry detention basin
with grass bottom, defined as grey infrastructure. The presence of
open water is advantageous in terms of biodiversity, leading to a score
for the sub-criterion “wildlife support” of about 85% for the green infra-
structure, while the same criterion is equal to 40% for the grey
Fig. 3. Pictures from the Water Park of Gorla Maggiore (Italy). Courtesy: Giacomo Galimberti.
infrastructure (Liquete et al., 2016). Similar ecological benefits are ex-
pected also from other CSO-CW approaches including a FWS stage, i.e.
for the American approaches, Tao et al. (2014) report a high ecological
value of the CSO-CW installed in Arch/Bar, where 30 different species
of native aquatic and transitional vegetation were put in place.
The Water Park of Gorla Maggiore has also become a recreational
park (Fig. 3) with restored riparian tree vegetation, green open space,
walking and cycling paths and supporting services (e.g. picnic table, toi-
lets, bar). The park is maintained by a voluntary association (http://
www.calimali.org/). The MCA of Liquete et al. (2016) estimates the
sub-criterion “Improve people recreation and health” based on visitor
numbers, uses and frequency of visits from a successful mail survey.
The results confirm the validity of the multi-purpose approach of the
CSO-CW, since the score for the recreation sub-criterion results were
85% for the green infrastructure and 40% for grey infrastructure. Indeed,
the grey infrastructure is marked less attractive due to the lack of biodi-
versity and related educational facilities.
6. Design and operational experiences
This chapter presents the design indications and operational experi-
ences from the two most detailed sources of practical information avail-
able up to now: (i) the experience gained by the long-term German use
of RSFs, and correlated guidelines; (ii) the detailed monitoring of the
French System at the Marcy L'Étoile full-scale plant, including the infor-
mation gained from the modelling studies used to define French guide-
lines. Many of the reported German and French experiences should be
considered valuable for CSO-CWs in general and, therefore, also useful
for the design of other CSO-CW schemes proposed in this review. The
chapter ends with design recommendation for the different schemes,
also based on a deep understanding of German and French CSO-CW
schemes.
6.1. German experience
Today, RSFs are standardly applied in Germany. Over two hundred
full-scale systems have been implemented during the last twenty-five
years, and a lot of experience has been gained in design and operation.
Sand is nowadays used as a reliable filter media instead of the cohesive
soil materials in the 1990s, which are prone to clogging. The accumula-
tion of sediments and dead biomass from the Phragmites coverage cre-
ates a dynamic layer on the filter surface. These secondary layers
contain mostly organic material and contribute to the overall removal
by adding to the sorption capacity. This is a process of maturation rather
than ageing of the filter. An aerobic environment within the bed is nec-
essary for a successful long-term functioning. Since filter feeding is
 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
linked to mostly short wet weather events, sufficient oxygen is provided
both under submerged and dry conditions.
RSFs have returning aerobic conditions and this promotes nitrifica-
tion, but inhibits denitrification and thus total nitrogen elimination.
Therefore, the need of a permanently submerged zone within the filter
has been investigated in various stormwater management studies.
However, filters have various shortcomings when it comes to denitrifi-
cation, not just the lack of a permanently saturated bottom. For exam-
ple, Pálfy et al. (2017b) investigate filters similar to RSFs with
saturated bottom and find no indication of the process. We can conclude
that denitrification needed addressing the following, non-favorable fea-
tures of CSO-CWs: (1) usually, there is no permanently saturated bot-
tom in the filters; (2) organic carbon is required to drive
denitrification, but its concentration is always low in the water of the
saturated bottom (if there is one); (3) organic carbon-containing
water arrives with each new CSO load, but contact times with nitrate
are too short and nitrate is flushed out whether there is a permanently
saturated zone or not; and (4) the stochasticity of CSOs arriving into the
filter mean anoxic conditions are unstable.
The German experience shows that denitrification in RSFs is possible
with a special filter setup. Saturating the bottom was put under trial at
several full-scale plants, mainly to store water for the reed (Dittmer
et al., 2016). In the long run, this led to a degradation of the filter mate-
rial and odour development, which could then be reduced installing
aeration pipes directly above the saturation zone (as in the French de-
sign). Other potential negative impacts were the iron precipitates in
the filter outlet structure, the degradation of limestone (if present),
and the corrosion due to hydrogen sulphide generation.
An additional design parameter is the infiltration speed through the
filter bed. Different studies report better bacteria removal when limiting
the effluent rate to 0.015 L·s−1 m−2 (e.g. Merkel and Schaule, 2010).
Hence, the State guideline of NRW for planning, construction and oper-
ation of RSFs (MKULNV, 2015) recommends an effluent rate limited to
0.01 L·s−1 m−2 if the removal of pathogens is targeted;
0.02 L·s−1 m−2 for NH+ 4 -N and 0.03 L·s
−1
m−2 for TSS, COD, BOD,
heavy metals and phosphorus.
One reason why public water authorities invest in RSFs is the avail-
ability of clear guidelines. According to the first guidelines, a maximum
hydraulic load of 40–60 m3·m-2·year−1 was recommended (Uhl and
Dittmer, 2005). Based on the evaluation of more than fifty systems de-
signed to these standards (Grotehusmann et al., 2017), this design ap-
proach was revised from hydraulic to pollutant loading rates, namely
fine solids. The tolerable annual load of fine solids (TSSfine, defined as
TSS b 0.63 μm) is estimated today through long-term sewer simulations
and should not exceed 7 kg·m−2·year−1 (DWA, 2019). Moreover, new
design guidelines try to fix the main problem encountered during the
years of operation of RSFs, i.e. oversizing of the surface area, which can
result in short-circuiting and an under loading in case of small events.
6.2. French experience
The French approach is represented by pilot-scale research followed
by research of one full-scale system with advanced online instrumenta-
tion, the continuous development of the specialized design-support
modelling tool Orage (Pálfy et al., 2017c; Pálfy et al., 2018) and at
least seven full-scale sites that are currently in various stages of design
and implementation. The single operating full-scale plant is at Marcy-
L'Etoile, and was commissioned to the operator after the investigations.
The system at Marcy L'Étoile was intensively monitored (Pálfy et al.,
2017a, 2017b), and provided important insights on key parameters for a
proper design of CSO-CWs. The hydraulic buffer capacity is important as
it attenuates well the hydraulic impact on the minor stream receiving
the effluents. The outlet orifice can be regulated to ensure a flow be-
tween 0.008 and 0.016 L·s−1·m−2 in the wetland, and was fixed to be
≤0.05 L·s−1·m−2 in the French design guideline. Hydraulic attenuation
11
during the research period reported by Pálfy et al. (2017b) was 85% or
more, even during intensive storms.
For a regular CSO event, flows allow rapid filter saturation, usually
within less than half an hour after its start. Hydraulic short-circuits
should remain insignificant in terms of total operation time; instead,
the filter saturates progressively from the bottom and allows a ponding
depth of up to 2.3 m height aboveground. The wastewater passes
through the filter within typically around 5 to 8 h which favors pollutant
degradation.
For small events or low inlet flow, the primary filter cell in a CSO-CW
does not saturate and all wastewater infiltrates close to the CSO inlet
structure. Under these conditions, water passes rapidly through the fil-
ter and builds a hydraulic short-circuit that causes low removal perfor-
mance. To limit short-circuiting, the depth of the saturated layer at the
bottom is a design parameter of importance, because stored water di-
lutes the percolating water upon drainage. Pálfy et al. (2017b) show
that a larger filter surface is becoming active as the filter is getting closer
to saturation; above 0.45 m of saturation from the drainage pipes, the
short-circuiting flows have little impact on the effluent quality.
In terms of treatment capability, both dissolved COD and NH+ 4 -N re-
moval performance decrease once the volume that the filter supposed
to be able to treat (design volume) passes the outlet. Extreme events
might lead to an important pollutant loss, but still with decreased flux.
Because inflow, concentration and return period impact performance,
target conditions need to be defined in the design phase to properly de-
sign the CSO-CW size.
The design-support model Orage (Pálfy et al., 2018, 2017c), de-
scribed in chapter 4, provides special design values and indications for
the French approach and for CSO-CWs in general. Pálfy et al. (2017c)
show that treatment of any CSO might be satisfied by different designs.
They show also why both under- and over-scaled filters are problem-
atic. Under-scaled filters: (i) lack treatment potential for the adsorption
capacities of NH+ 4 -N; (ii) can be easily saturated by larger events; and
(iii) their annual hydraulic load might be higher than considered opti-
mal by the present practice, probably leading to clogging issues (espe-
cially if fed with raw wastewater). Large filters can also be
problematic, because the orifice that limits outflow is proportional to
the filter area. This means large filters suffer lasting or even continuous
hydraulic short-circuiting that similarly to an under-scaled filter will
trigger elevated NH+ 4 -N, but also COD concentrations in the effluent
(Pálfy et al., 2017a). Similar issues can be present for all the CSO-CWs
using VF wetland plus throttle orifice systems, as confirmed by short-
circuiting in oversized RSF systems observed in Germany. Generally
speaking, a favorable range of net filter areas of potential solutions can
be considered, between over- and under-scaled filters. Simulations con-
firm this range to include filters where the net filter area is significantly
smaller than the area needed for a storage basin, if zeolite is mixed to
the filter media. Simulations in Orage highlight also the importance to
have a good knowledge on sewer response to rain events. For that, it
is recommended to make flow and rain measurements at the overflow
structure for at least ten significant events. These can be used to simu-
late the sewer with rain data set of at least one year on a 6–15 min
time step. Thanks to that, a series of one year (minimum) overflow
data set will be used to design the filter. For quality aspects, five over-
flow events have to be monitored to better analyse variability of over-
flow concentrations on COD, TSS and ammonia (ANR, 2013).
On the basis of monitoring data from the full-scale system and of
modelling analysis, the following rules were fixed to ensure the normal
functioning of the French system over time, and can be relevant for CSO-
CW design in general:
- Outlet throttle has to deliver an outflow between 0.01 and
0.05 L·s−1·m−2
- Maximum ponding depth at 2.5 m above the filter's surface and
a N 2 m ponding frequency below two per year.
- Cumulated hydraulic load below 100 m·yr−1.
12 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
- Saturated bottom layer of 0.3 m minimum to limit the impact of hy-
draulic preferential flows.
6.3. Design recommendation for the reviewed treatment schemes
The design of treatment stages for event-driven pollutant loads is a
challenging task. Quality of stormwater runoff varies over a wide
range between sites, between events at a given site and within the
course of each event. Variability is even higher in combined sewers
due to the varying mixing ratio with wastewater and the remobilization
of sewer sediments (e.g. Suarez and Puertas, 2005). Any sampling of
CSO discharge only reflects a small section of a randomly fluctuating sig-
nal. Long-term average concentrations and loads are commonly un-
known, since CSO structures are usually scattered within the
catchment and difficult to monitor. Input concentrations of CSO-CWs
are subject to high uncertainty and design approaches have to account
for this uncertainty. Therefore, robustness against varying flow and pol-
lutant loads is more important than accuracy in estimating effluent con-
centrations. This complexity and site specific needs (e.g. different target
pollutants) lead to complex design procedures. Therefore, the values re-
ported in Table 2 must be considered as only indicative; indeed, this re-
view remains a non-critical enumeration and comparison of available
schemes and provides no exact design rules. More design details are
available in the technical literature (Meyer et al., 2013; Tao et al.,
2014; ANR, 2013; MKULNV, 2015; DWA, 2019), in literature discussing
design-support modelling (Pálfy et al., 2018; 2017c) and related
software.
7. Discussion and conclusions: gap of knowledge and future research
needs
This work has identified eight CSO-CW configurations to effectively
treat CSOs. For the German approach, a high number of full-scale appli-
cations have been built and data from them are available. The number is
less for the other approaches, but the systems are recent and were mon-
itored with the newest technologies in certain cases (e.g. Marcy
L'Étoile). Treatment performance is promising for all treatment
schemes; a critical comparison of the configurations is neither possible
nor necessary at this stage. Firstly, different CSO-CW approaches have
risen from different targets. Both European (European Commission,
2019) and US (Levy et al., 2014; Tao et al., 2014) cases have shown a
fragmented permitting and law framework regarding CSO. Therefore,
single states have decided to address CSO issue on their own, trying to
fit with general water quality objectives; this led to different objectives.
For instance, the goal for using RSFs in Germany is to reduce surface
water pollution in order to reach a good quality of water bodies as re-
quired by the European WFD, thereby not fixing strict effluent water
quality standards and aiming mostly to remove TSS, COD and ammonia,
whereas TN removal was not specifically targeted and the systems have
not been optimized for denitrification. The French approach differs sig-
nificantly, since the effluent water quality standards for CSO-CWs are
those of centralized WWTPs (COD 125 mg/L, BOD b25 mg/L, TSS
b35 mg/L). Comparing CSO-CWs designed to meet different water qual-
ity targets can result in misleading conclusions. Secondly, CSO-CW re-
search needs more results in order to further optimize design schemes
with a lower number of installations and to properly compare the differ-
ent CSO-CW configurations. Even if monitoring of CSOs remains a chal-
lenge, as pointed out by Tao et al. (2014), we hope that future studies
are going to estimate the treatment performance with EMC and mass
balance approaches rather than simply based on concentrations.
Intensive monitoring of full-scale CSO-CWs is an option to investigate
potential optimization needs. For example, Pálfy et al. (2017a, 2017b) re-
port results from online monitoring, and relies on scientific as well as
data science methods to obtain them. Findings show how hydraulic
short-circuiting diminishes as the filter pores saturate from bottom to
top. Saturation time was concluded to be dependent on the (1) inflow
rate; (2) the area of the filter; and (3) the orifice limiting the outflow, im-
plying that filling could be speeded up by using two orifices instead of
one. If a top orifice with a proper diameter is established near the vertical
level of the filter surface, the drainage time should be just slightly de-
layed and filling could happen much quicker even at low inflows. This
theory is to be confirmed via modelling or at full-scale yet.
Another design parameter requiring future investigation is the max-
imum annual hydraulic load. Pálfy et al. (2017b) evidence that the use
of zeolite or natural materials with high cation exchange capacity
(i.e., high NH+4 -N sorption capacity) permits to build a new filter cate-
gory called compact filters. Decreasing the filter area could push the an-
nual hydraulic load higher. Modelling simulations of Pálfy et al. (2017c)
show that up to 250 m·yr−1 could be tested instead of presently
40–80 m·yr−1, minding premature clogging is the risk to be overcome
at high loads. Studying solid retention techniques at the overflow
point, the mineralisation rate of organic deposits on the filters and filter
alternation strategy are necessary to test such high hydraulic loading
rate. Compact filters, on the other hand, might need to have a large
free area next to the filter to store the CSO volume to be treated, since
less area for compact filters also means less available volume on top of
the bed (maximum allowed water storage height equal to 2.5 m). The
volume to be treated could be implemented next to the filter, for in-
stance in grassed areas; however, selecting of the right plants (grass,
reed, sedge, wet gardens) suitable to be flooded is an open field, and it
needs to be studied to promote a good integration into the urban
environment.
As seen in chapter 6, there is still uncertainty on the usefulness of
saturated bottom layer in VF filters for CSO treatment. The French expe-
rience confirms the positive effects of a saturated bottom layer in terms
of water reservoir for plants during dry periods and of avoiding hydrau-
lic shortcuts for small CSO events. On the other hand, German experi-
ence doubts its effectiveness in terms of denitrification. If the
denitrification is a design target for CSO-CWs, an alternative option is
the use of a natural second stage, which could be able to provide the
needed carbon source from the natural environment itself (e.g. decayed
plant biomass (Hang et al., 2016) or root exudates (Zhai et al., 2013)).
For instance, Tanner and Kadlec (2013) suggest that FWS wetlands
can successfully denitrify agricultural runoff under time-variable influ-
ent water flow patterns, which have comparable temporal flow patterns
to CSO-CW releases.
Regarding system optimization, the greatest challenge remains the
collection of data for accurate simulation, such as using the Orage
model. Collecting long-term CSO flow and concentration series of
good quality would be crucial for design-support modelling and CSO-
CWs in general. For example, data gaps will be interpreted by the tool
Orage as regeneration periods that restore NH+ 4 -N adsorption capacity.
The same gaps, where too long, will degenerate COD removal perfor-
mance as compared to reality. Using other than a full inflow
pollutograph leads, therefore, to incomplete optimization of filter area
or even material. Sub-optimal wetland design might provide adequate
treatment, but there are cost implications (land area, construction)
that can be huge for one system and could add up due to the number
of overflow points. Concerning the reliability of design-support models
themselves, apart from data, Orage is in use for design-support. But as
other models, it should be involved in further research to gain feedback.
Intensive monitoring of a model-designed full-scale system could pro-
vide feedback for how to build and calibrate the model themselves so
that it provides the best for practitioners.
The in-situ management of pollutant loads can be considered as the
most cost-effective solution for CSO pollution control, if compared to the
development of a fully separated sewer starting from an existing com-
bined one. A relevant example is given by the study for solving the
CSO pollution issue of the Yzeron catchment, a west peri-urban area of
the Greater Lyon Metropolitan Area. A feasibility study was developed
after the successful installation of the CSO-CW at Marcy-L'Étoile (Pálfy
 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
et al., 2017a) to test different options (Canto, 2018). The price compar-
ison shows that separating sewage from stormwater for 14 km would
cost 41 million Euro, while separating sewage from stormwater for
only 5 km and implementing CSO-CWs on the catchment would cost
23 million Euro. The Greater Lyon example is in line with experiences
in the United States reviewed by Tao et al. (2015), which evidences con-
struction cost savings if using CSO-CWs instead of separating sewers
and enlarging the WWTP (Akron: $0.7 million for CSO-CW, $5.1 million
for grey option) or physical/chemical treatment (Washington: CSO-CW
$40 million, $26.4 million for grey solution). Considering the manage-
ment of CSO pollutant loads at the discharging point, a cost comparison
between grey infrastructure (e.g. first flush tank) and CSO-CW was de-
veloped by Liquete et al. (2016), who report a negligible difference in
terms of both construction and maintenance costs. Liquete et al.
(2016) also highlight that the added value of CSO-CWs in comparison
to grey infrastructure lies in the additional ecosystem services provided
by the wetland system, in particular biodiversity support and social ben-
efits. Further evidences are needed to confirm this statement also for
other CSO-CW schemes. Particularly, the advantages of using CSO-
CWs optimized only for CSO treatment (i.e. with less ecosystem ser-
vices) in comparison to conventional first flush tank needs to be inves-
tigated, considering also the advantage of CSO-CWs to avoid CSO
volume to be treated by WWTP at the end of rainfall events, as it is
the case for first flush storage tanks (Barco et al., 2008). Tondera et al.
(2017) simulated 21 scenarios for reduction of bacteria from CSOs in a
catchment in Germany. Although the study shows that combinations
of different treatment techniques are necessary to reduce a maximum
amount of bacteria, the most cost-effective scenarios always include
CSO-CWs.
Authors expect a great diffusion of CSO-CWs also outside of Germany.
One key element for a vast diffusion is the presence of successful imple-
mentation of full-scale CSO-CWs, which could work as reference for
other CSO-CW systems. Italy, and in particular the Lombardia Region, is
an example. The success of the Gorla Maggiore Water Park (see chapter
5), in which the Italian approach was tested (Masi et al., 2017), pushed
the Lombardy Region to invest in a number of similar installations to fur-
ther investigate the use of NBS for CSOs. Four further full-scale CSO-CWs
have been realized. Two are very significant in terms of sizes, since they
treat the CSOs upstream two centralized WWTPs (Carimate, 70,000 PE,
total CSO-CW area 13,000 m2, presented in Masi et al. (2019); Merone,
120,000 PE, total CSO-CW area 4800 m2, in which the main treatment
stage is an aerated wetland). All the systems are designed to be multipur-
pose, having a free access for visitors and being designed with an open-
water stage for biodiversity purposes. The exploitation of multiple eco-
system services could be, therefore, another important driver to push
the application of CSO-CWs; this highlight the importance to consider
the implementation of more extensive FWS systems (e.g. Italian or
American approaches), when space is available, increasing ecosystem
services, especially biodiversity support. Lombardia Region also expects
to increase the use of CSO-CWs with a new regulation (no 6/2019),
which clarifies the amount of CSO to be treated on-site (up to
750–1000 L⋅d-1 per PE) and that NBS can be used for CSOs. Lombardia Re-
gion is also releasing a new guideline to support the design of both tech-
nological (mainly primary treatments) and NBS. The experience of the
Lombardia Region was here reported as an example of policies aimed
to diffuse CSO-CWs, which encounter also the agreement of literature.
For instance, the need of guidelines was advocated as an important
way to promote the diffusion of CSO-CWs systems by Levy et al. (2014).
Although the main locations of CSO-CWs are the dispersed CSO
discharging points within the sewer catchment, they can also be used
to treat the CSO upstream big centralized WWTPs. In this case, the at-
tractiveness of CSO-CWs could theoretically be increased by using
them in dry periods to polish effluent from centralized WWTPs
(Griffin, 2004; Brunsch et al., 2020). However, the implication on treat-
ment performance and long-term effects for the CW itself needs to be
part of future research. Brunsch et al. (2020) use the concept of the
13
combined use, treating both CSO and WWTP effluent in one RSF. The
study was conducted at a RSF pilot plant under real conditions and
using artificial CSO. They could show that when applying a dry period
of 18 h (minimum) between CSO and WWTP feeding, the dual use of
RSF was most effective.
Another attractive added value is the use of CSO-CWs as polishing
step for micropollutants and emerging contaminants (Brunsch et al.,
2018; Brunsch et al., 2020). Indeed, trapping persistent organic pollut-
ants in an ecosystem characterised by a high biodiversity can offer sev-
eral pathways of degradation, with the long retention time and
adsorbed organic molecules in a complex organic matrix, and therefore
CWs could represent one of the most suitable alternatives for dealing
with the currently quite uncontrolled release of these substances into
the environment. Although the effectiveness of CSO-CWs in treatment
of emerging pollutants has already been reported, as reviewed in this
work, this is surely a hot topic to be further investigated in the future.
Finally, a greater inclusion of CSO-CWs into urban and peri-urban
spaces are expected and desired. NBS for urban environment are gaining
momentum, especially after the release of the UN WATER Report
(WWAP, 2018). Increasing attention is given to NBS for sustainable
stormwater management, not only by engineers, but particularly by ar-
chitects and landscapers. NBS have the capability to be multipurpose
and easily implementable into urban green spaces and green-blue infra-
structure. Following these principles, urban design concepts like Sus-
tainable Drainage Systems (SuDS – Woods-Ballard et al., 2015), Water
Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD – Wong and Brown, 2009), Low Impact
Development (LID – Dietz, 2007) or Sponge Cities (Li et al., 2017) are
gaining increasing attention. All these concepts, however, are only fo-
cused on stormwater generating urban runoff, while similar negative
impacts are generated also by stormwater mixed with wastewater con-
veyed by combined sewers and discharged as CSOs. Similar to urban
stormwater runoff, not only the water quality of receiving water bodies
is threatened by CSOs; flood reduction is also required (Rizzo et al.,
2018); an urban green space with a stream receiving a CSO can compro-
mise the use by the citizens of the green space itself (Liquete et al.,
2016). Therefore, CSO- CWs should be included into the portfolio of
NBS for sustainable stormwater management in future SuDS, LID, and
WSUD manuals and guidelines. Currently, there are limited examples
for the implementation of CSO treatment facilities in these concepts,
which also lies in a limited collaboration between the expert groups of
constructed wetlands and urban drainage. Another reason might be mi-
crobial and pollutant contamination that is higher compared to separate
stormwater outlets, pointing towards public health and possible liability
concerns in municipal administration. Nonetheless, our reviews shows
CWs are ready to be used for CSO pollution control at full-scale as they
provide solutions for the ever-increasing pressure on receiving urban
waters. Research with societal discourse on the use of CSO-CWs in
urban spaces is necessary to foster the diffusion of this technology in
urban spaces and parks.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138618.
References
Al Aukidy, M., Verlicchi, P., 2017. Contributions of combined sewer overflows and treated
effluents to the bacterial load released into a coastal area. Sci. Total Environ. 607,
483–496.
14 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
Amaral, R., Ferreira, F., Galvao, A., Matos, J.S., 2013. Constructed wetlands for combined
sewer overflow treatment in a Mediterranean country, Portugal. Water Sci. Technol.
67 (12), 2739–2745.
ANR, 2013. Système extensifs pour la Gestion et le Traitement des Eaux Urbaines de
temps de Pluie. Extensive Systems for the Management and Treatment of Urban
Stormwaters. Guideline. https://epnac.inrae.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/
ANRsegteup-GUIDE-Vfin-novembre2013-corrige.pdf, Accessed date: 10 March 2020
(in French).
Bachmann-Machnik, A., Meyer, D., Waldhoff, A., Fuchs, S., Dittmer, U., 2018. Integrating
retention soil filters into urban hydrologic models–relevant processes and important
parameters. J. Hydrol. 559, 442–453.
Barco, J., Papiri, S., Stenstrom, M.K., 2008. First flush in a combined sewer system.
Chemosphere 71 (5), 827–833.
Brix, H., 1997. Do Macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Sci-
ence Technology 35 (5), 11–17.
Brunner, P.G., 1995. Regenwasserbehandlung in Bodenfilterbecken. Treatment of rainwa-
ter in soil filter basins. Wasserwirtschaft 85 (3), 134–138 (in German).
Brunsch, A.F., ter Laak, T.L., Christoffels, E., Rijnaarts, H.H.M., Langenhoff, A.A.M., 2018. Re-
tention soil filter as post-treatment step to remove micropollutants from sewage
treatment plant effluent. Sci. Total Environ. 637, 1098–1107. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.063.
Brunsch, A.F., Zubieta Florez, P., Langenhoff, A.A.M., ter Laak, T.L., Rijnaarts, H.H.M., 2020.
Retention soil filters for the treatment of sewage treatment plant effluent and com-
bined sewer overflow. Sci. Total Environ. 699, 134426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.134426.
Canto, A., 2018. Les filtres plantés de roseaux pour le traitement des eaux pluviales se
développent. Reed beds for the treatment of stormwater runoff are developing.
Environnement & Technique 380 (in French).
Chocat, B., Cathelain, M., Mares, A., Mounchel, J.M., 1994. La pollution due aux rejets
urbains de temps de pluie: impacts sur les milieux récepteurs. Pollution Caused by
Urban Stormwater: Impacts on Receiving Waters. vols. 1-2. La Houille Blanche,
pp. 97–105 (in French).
Christoffels, E., Mertens, F.M., Kistemann, T., Schreiber, C., 2014. Retention of pharmaceu-
tical residues and microorganisms at the Altendorf retention soil filter. Water Sci.
Technol. 70 (9), 1503–1509.
De Cock, W., Blom, P., Vaes, G., Berlamont, J., 1999. The feasibility of flocculation in a stor-
age sedimentation basin. Wat. Sci. Tech. 39 (2), 75–83.
Dembélé, A., Becouze, C., Bertrand-Krajewski, J.L., Cren-Olivé, C., Barillon, B., Coquery, M.,
2009. Quantification des pollutants prioritaires dans les rejets urbains de temps de
pluie. Quantification of priority pollutants in urban stormwater 104 (4), 60–76.
https://doi.org/10.1051/tsm/200904060 TSM. (in French, English abstract).
Dietz, M.E., 2007. Low impact development practices: a review of current research and
recommendations for future directions. Water Air Soil Pollut. 186 (1–4), 351–363.
Dittmer, U., 2006. Prozesse des Rückhaltes und Umsatzes von Kohlenstoff- und
Stickstoffverbindungen in Retentionsbodenfiltern zur Mischwasserbehandlung. Re-
tention and transformation processes of carbon and nitrogen compounds in retention
soil filters for CSO treatment. PhD thesis. Schriftenreihe des Fachgebiets
Siedlungswasserwirtschaft der Technischen Universität Kaiserslautern Volume 23.
Kaiserslautern Technical University. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:
nbn:de:hbz:386-kluedo-20509, Accessed date: 4 August 2016 (in German, English
abstract).
Dittmer, U., Schmitt, T.G., 2011. Purification processes in biofilter systems for CSO treat-
ment. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Porto
Alegre, Brazil https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulrich_Dittmer/publication/
268002715_Purification_Processes_in_Biofilter_Systems_for_CSO_Treatment/links/
54c7669f0cf22d626a365adf/Purification-Processes-in-Biofilter-Systems-for-CSO-
Treatment.pdf, Accessed date: 14 August 2019.
Dittmer, U., Meyer, D., Langergraber, G., 2005. Simulation of a subsurface vertical flow
constructed wetland for CSO treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (9), 225–232.
Dittmer, U., Meyer, D., Tondera, K., Lambert, B., Fuchs, S., 2016. Treatment of CSO in reten-
tion soil filters - lessons learned from 25 years of research and practice. Novatech. 9th
International Conference: Planning and Technologies for Sustainable Urban Water
Management. Lyon (28/06-01/07/2016).
Dotro, G., Langergraber, G., Molle, P., Nivala, J., Puigagut, J., Stein, O., Von Sperling, M.,
2017. Treatment Wetlands. IWA Publishing.
DWA, 2019. Retentionsbodenfilteranlagen. Retention soil filter sites. DWA-A 178, German
Water Association. ISBN: 978-3-88721-826-3.
EPA, 1995. Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Long-term Control Plan. US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
European Commission, 2019. Evaluation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
SWD, Brussels.
European Union, 2006. DIRECTIVE 2006/7/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL of 15 February 2006 Concerning the Management of Bathing Water
Quality and Repealing Directive 76/160/EEC.
Felmeden, J., 2013. Phosphorrückhalt in der Mischwasserbehandlung durch
Retentionsbodenfilter-Anlagen. Retention of the Phosphorous in Combined Sewer
Overflows Using Retention Soil Filters. Department of Sanitary and Environmental
Engineering, University of Kassel PhD thesis. publication No. 33. http://www.
unikassel.de/upress/online/frei/978-3-89958-610-7.volltext.frei.pdf, Accessed date:
4 August 2016 (in German).
Fletcher, T.D., Andrieu, H., Hamel, P., 2013. Understanding, management and modelling of
urban hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: a state of the art. Adv.
Water Resour. 51, 261–279.
Fournel, J., 2012. Systemes extensifs de gestion et de traitement des eaux urbaines de
temps de pluie. Extensive Systems for the Management and Treatment of Urban Run-
offs in Rainy Weather. Universite de Montpellier II, Sciences et Techniques du
Languedoc PhD thesis. http://www.biu-montpellier.fr/florabium/jsp/nnt.jsp?nnt=
2012MON20111;, Accessed date: 14 August 2019 (in French, English abstract).
Fournel, J., Forquet, N., Molle, P., Grasmick, A., 2013. Modelling constructed wetlands with
variably saturated vertical subsurface-flow for urban stormwater treatment. Ecol.
Eng. 55, 1–8.
Frechen, F.B., Schier, W., Felmeden, J., 2006. The plant-covered retention soil filter (RSF):
the mechanical and biological combined sewer overflow (CSO) treatment. Plant. Eng.
Life Sci. 6 (1), 74–79.
Fuchs, S., Mayer, I., Haller, B., Roth, H., 2014. Lamella settlers for storm water treatment –
performance and design recommendations. Water Sci. Technol. 69 (2), 278–285.
Gasperi, J., Zgheib, S., Cladière, M., Rocher, V., Moilleron, R., Chebbo, G., 2012a. Priority pol-
lutants in urban stormwater: part 2 – case of combined sewers. Water Res. 46,
6693–6703.
Gasperi, J., Laborie, B., Rocher, V., 2012b. Treatment of combined sewer overflows by
ballasted flocculation: removal study of a large broad spectrum of pollutants. Chem.
Eng. J. 211–212, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.09.025.
Griffin, P., 2004. Ten years experience of treating all flows from combined sewerage sys-
tems using package plant and constructed wetland combinations. Water Sci. Technol.
48 (11−12), 93–99.
Grotehusmann, D., Kerpen, T., Ruß, H.-J., 1997. Mischwasserbehandlung in
Bodenfilteranlagen. Treatment of combined sewage in soil filter plants.
Umweltqualitäten und Wirtschaften? Was wurde erreicht? Wo geht es hin?, 38th
Essener Tagung für Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, Aachen, Germany. 158.
Gewässerschutz, Wasser, Abwasser, pp. 10/1–10/14 (in German).
Grotehusmann, D., Lambert, B., Fuchs, S., Uhl, M., Leutnant, D., 2017.
Erhebungsuntersuchung zur Optimierung der Retentionsbodenfilter in NRW. In:
Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer
Protection of the German Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia (Ed.), Investiga-
tion to Optimize Retention Soil Filter in NRW Final Report. Düsseldorf. https://
www.lanuv.nrw.de/fileadmin/tx_mmkresearchprojects/Abschlussbericht_RBF_NRW.
pdf, Accessed date: 6 August 2019 (in German).
Hang, Q., Wang, H., Chu, Z., Ye, B., Li, C., Hou, Z., 2016. Application of plant carbon source
for denitrification by constructed wetland and bioreactor: review of recent develop-
ment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (9), 8260–8274.
Hawes, P., Wallace, S., Cooper, D., 2016. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) treatment by
aerated wetland. 15th IWA International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water
Pollution Control, ICWS 2016. 4–9 September (Gdansk, Poland).
Henrichs, M., Langergraber, G., Uhl, M., 2007. Modelling of organic matter degradation in
constructed wetlands for treatment of combined sewer overflow. Sci. Total Environ.
380 (1), 196–209.
Henrichs, M., Welker, A., Uhl, M., 2009. Modelling of biofilters for ammonium reduction in
combined sewer overflow. Water Sci. Technol. 60 (3), 825–831.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D., 2009. Treatment Wetlands. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
USA.
Lainé, S., Poujol, T., Dufay, S., Baron, J., Robert, P., 1998. Treatment of stormwater to bath-
ing water quality by dissolved air flotation, filtration and ultraviolet disinfection. Wat.
Sci. Tech. 38 (10), 99–105.
Launay, M.A., Dittmer, U., Steinmetz, H., 2015. Organic micropollutants discharged by com-
bined sewer overflows – characterisation of pollutant sources and stormwater-related
processes. Water Res. 104, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.068.
Levy, Z.F., Smardon, R.C., Bays, J.S., Meyer, D., 2014. A point source of a different color:
identifying a gap in United States regulatory policy for “green” CSO treatment using
constructed wetlands. Sustainability 6 (5), 2392–2412.
LfU, 1998. Bodenfilter zur Regenwasserbehandlung im Misch- und Trennsystem. Soil fil-
ters for stormwater treatment in combined and separate sewer system. Handbuch
Wasser 4 Band 10. Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe
(95 p. + annexes (in German).
Li, H., Ding, L., Ren, M., Li, C., Wang, H., 2017. Sponge city construction in China: a survey
of the challenges and opportunities. Water 9 (9), 594.
Liebeskind, M., 2001. Untersuchung der Leistungsfähigkeit von Bodenfiltern in NRW. In-
vestigation on Efficiency of Retention Soil Filter in NRW. Final Report. Forschungsinstitut
für Umwelttechnik und Umweltanalytik, Wasserlaboratorien Roetgen GmbH (un-
published (in German).
Liquete, C., Udias, A., Conte, G., Grizzetti, B., Masi, F., 2016. Integrated valuation of a
nature-based solution for water pollution control. Highlighting hidden benefits. Eco-
system Services 22, 392–401.
Marsalek, J., 1998. Challenges in urban drainage. In: Environment NAS (Ed.),
Hydroinformatic Tools for Planning, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Sewer
Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, pp. 1–23.
Masi, F., Bresciani, R., Rizzo, A., Conte, G., 2017. Constructed wetlands for combined sewer
overflow treatment: ecosystem services at Gorla Maggiore, Italy. Ecol. Eng. 98,
427–438.
Masi, F., Bresciani, R., Martinuzzi, N., Bernasconi, M., Rizzo, A., 2019. Treatment of com-
bined sewer overflow upstream centralized treatment plants with nature-based solu-
tions: the constructed wetland system of Carimate WWTP, Italy. 8th International
WETPOL Symposium (Aarhus, Denmark, June 17–21).
Masseroni, D., Ercolani, G., Chiaradia, E.A., Maglionico, M., Toscano, A., Gandolfi, C.,
Bischetti, G.B., 2018. Exploring the performances of a new integrated approach of
grey, green and blue infrastructures for combined sewer overflows remediation in
high-density urban areas. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 49 (4), 233–241.
Matamoros, V., Bayona, J.M., 2007. Behavior of emerging pollutants in constructed wet-
lands. In: Barceló, Damià, Petrovic, Mira (Eds.), Emerging Contaminants from Indus-
trial and Municipal Waste. Springer, pp. 199–217.
Merkel, W., Schaule, G., 2010. Bewertung der Leistungsfähigkeit von vier
Retentionsbodenfiltern hinsichtlich der Rückhaltung hygienisch relevanter
Mikroorganismen. Evaluating the Retention Capacity of Four Retention Soil Filters
 A. Rizzo et al. / Science of the Total Environment 727 (2020) 138618
in Terms of Hygienically Relevant Microorganisms Final report. https://www.lanuv.
nrw.de/fileadmin/tx_mmkresearchprojects/Abschlussbericht_Retentionsbodenfilter_
unterzeichnet.pdf, Accessed date: 3 October 2019 (in German).
Mertens, F.M., Christoffels, E., Schreiber, C., Kistemann, T., 2012. Rückhalt von Arzneimitteln
und Mikroorganismen am Beispiel des Retentionsbodenfilters Altendorf. Retention of
pharmaceuticals and microorganisms at the example of the retention soil filter Altendorf.
59. KA-Korrespondenz Abwasser, Abfall, pp. 1137–1143 (in German).
Meyer, D., 2011. Modellierung und Simulation von Retentionsbodenfiltern zur
weitergehenden Mischwasserbehandlung. Modelling and simulation of constructed
wetlands for combined sewer overflow treatment. PhD dissertation. 31. Kaiserslau-
tern Technical University. Schriftenreihe des Fachgebiets Siedlungswasserwirtschaft
der Technischen Universität Kaiserslautern. https://kluedo.ub.unikl.de/files/2843/
Dissertation_Daniel_Meyer_online.pdf, Accessed date: 4 August 2016 (in German).
Meyer, D., Dittmer, U., 2015. RSF_Sim–a simulation tool to support the design of con-
structed wetlands for combined sewer overflow treatment. Ecol. Eng. 80, 198–204.
Meyer, D., Molle, P., Esser, D., Troesch, S., Masi, F., Dittmer, U., 2013. Constructed wetlands
for combined sewer overflow treatment—comparison of German, French and Italian
approaches. Water 5 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/w5010001.
Meyer, D., Chazarenc, F., Claveau-Mallet, D., Dittmer, U., Forquet, N., Molle, P., Morvannou,
A., Pálfy, T., Petitjean, A., Rizzo, A., Campà, R.S., 2015. Modelling constructed wetlands:
scopes and aims–a comparative review. Ecol. Eng. 80, 205–213.
MKULNV, 2015. Retentionsbodenfilter. Handbuch für Planung, Bau und Betrieb. Retention
Soil Filter-Planning, Construction, and Operation Manual. Ministry of Environment,
Agriculture, Conservation and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-
Westphalia https://www.umwelt.nrw.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Broschueren/
retentionbodenfilter_handbuch.pdf, Accessed date: 6 August 2019 (in German).
Molle, P., Liénard, A., Boutin, C., Merlin, G., Iwema, A., 2005. How to treat raw sewage with
constructed wetlands: an overview of the French systems. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (9),
11–21.
Monge, Z., Bays, J., Pries, J., Rhoads, T., 2017. Treating combined sewer overflows naturally
with engineered wetlands: Harbor brook CSO 018, Onondaga County, New Y. “7th In-
ternational WETPOL Symposium” Big Sky, Montana, USA, August 21–25.
Pálfy, T.G., Molle, P., Langergraber, G., Troesch, S., Gourdon, R., Meyer, D., 2016. Simulation
of constructed wetlands treating combined sewer overflow using HYDRUS/CW2D.
Ecol. Eng. 87, 340–347.
Pálfy, T.G., Gerodolle, M., Gourdon, R., Meyer, D., Troesch, S., Molle, P., 2017a. Performance
assessment of a vertical flow constructed wetland treating unsettled combined sewer
overflow. Water Sci. Technol. 75 (11), 2586–2597.
Pálfy, T.G., Gourdon, R., Meyer, D., Troesch, S., Olivier, L., Molle, P., 2017b. Filling hydraulics
and nitrogen dynamics in constructed wetlands treating combined sewer overflows.
Ecol. Eng. 101, 137–144.
Pálfy, T.G., Gourdon, R., Meyer, D., Troesch, S., Molle, P., 2017c. Model-based optimization
of constructed wetlands treating combined sewer overflow. Ecol. Eng. 101, 261–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.01.020.
Pálfy, T.G., Meyer, D., Troesch, S., Gourdon, R., Olivier, L., Molle, P., 2018. A single-output
model for the dynamic design of constructed wetlands treating combined sewer
overflow. Environ. Model. Softw. 102, 49–72.
Pisoeiro, J., Galvão, A., Ferreira, F., Matos, J., 2016. Potential for CSO treatment with hori-
zontal flow constructed wetlands: influence of hydraulic load, plant presence and
loading frequency. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (20), 20591–20599.
Pistocchi, A., Dorati, C., Grizzetti, B., Udias, A., Vigiak, O., Zanni, M., 2019. Water Quality in
Europe: Effects of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. A Retrospective and
Scenario Analysis of Dir. 91/271/EEC, EUR 30003 EN. Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg 978-92-76-11263-1 https://doi.org/10.2760/303163.
Rechenburg, A., Kistemann, T., 2009. Sewage effluent as a source of Campylobacter sp. in a
surface water catchment. Int J Environ Heal R 19, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09603120802460376.
Rechenburg, A., Koch, C., Claßen, T., Kistemann, T., 2006. Impact of sewage treatment
plants and combined sewer overflow basins on the microbiological quality of surface
water. Wat Sci Tech 54, 95–99.
Rizzo, A., Bresciani, R., Masi, F., Boano, F., Revelli, R., Ridolfi, L., 2018. Flood reduction as an
ecosystem service of constructed wetlands for combined sewer overflow. J. Hydrol.
560, 150–159.
Ruppelt, J.P., Tondera, K., Schreiber, C., Kistemann, T., Pinnekamp, J., 2018. Reduction of
bacteria and somatic coliphages in constructed wetlands for the treatment of com-
bined sewer overflow (retention soil filters). Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 221 (4),
727–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.04.011.
Ruppelt, J.P., Tondera, K., Van der Weken, L., Vorenhout, M., Pinnekamp, J., 2019. Redox
potential as a method to evaluate the performance of retention soil filters treating
combined sewer overflows. Sci. Total Environ. 650, 1628–1639. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.043.
15
Ruppelt, J.P., Pinnekamp, J., Tondera, K., 2020. Elimination of micropollutants in four test-
scale constructed wetlands treating combined sewer overflow: influence of filtration
layer height and feeding regime. Water Res. 169, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.115214.
Scheurer, M., Heß, S., Lüddeke, F., Sacher, F., Güde, H., Löffler, H., Gallert, C., 2015. Removal
of micropollutants, facultative pathogenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria in a full-
scale retention soil filter receiving combined sewer overflow. Environ Sci: Proc Im-
pacts 17, 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4em00494a.
Schreiber, C., Rechenburg, A., Koch, C., Christoffels, E., Claßen, T., Willkomm, M., Mertens,
F.M., Brunsch, A.F., Herbst, S., Rind, E., Kistemann, T., 2016. Two decades of system-
based hygienic–microbiological research in Swist river catchment (Germany). Envi-
ron. Earth Sci. 75 (21). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6100-9.
Suarez, J., Puertas, J., 2005. Determination of COD, BOD, and suspended solids loads during
combined sewer overflow (CSO) events in some combined catchments in Spain. Ecol.
Eng. 24 (3), 199–217.
Tanner, C.C., Kadlec, R.H., 2013. Influence of hydrological regime on wetland attenuation
of diffuse agricultural nitrate losses. Ecol. Eng. 56, 79–88.
Tao, W., Bays, J.S., Meyer, D., Smardon, R.C., Levy, Z.F., 2014. Constructed wetlands for
treatment of combined sewer overflow in the US: a review of design challenges
and application status. Water 6 (11), 3362–3385.
Tondera, K., 2019. Evaluating the performance of constructed wetlands for the treatment
of combined sewer overflows. Ecol. Eng. 137, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2017.10.009.
Tondera, K., Koenen, S., Pinnekamp, J., 2013. Survey monitoring results on the reduction of
micropollutants, bacteria, bacteriophages and TSS in retention soil filters. Water Sci.
Technol. 68 (5), 1004–1012. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2013.340.
Tondera, K., Klaer, K., Koch, C., Ahmed Hamza, I., Pinnekamp, J., 2016. Reducing pathogens
in combined sewer overflows using performic acid. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 219
(7), 700–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.04.009.
Tondera, K., Klaer, K., Roder, S., Brueckner, I., Pinnekamp, J., 2017. Improving the microbi-
ological quality of the Ruhr River near Essen: comparing costs and effects for the re-
duction of Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci. Water Sci. Technol. 75 (11),
2659–2668. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.141.
Tondera, K., Blecken, G.T., Chazarenc, F., Tanner, C.C., 2018. Ecotechnologies for the treat-
ment of variable stormwater and wastewater flows. SpringerBriefs in Water Science
& Technology. Springer, Cham, Switzerland ISBN 978-3319700120.
Tondera, K., Ruppelt, J., Pinnekamp, J., Kistemann, T., Schreiber, C., 2019. Reduction of
micropollutants and bacteria in a constructed wetland for combined sewer overflow
treatment after 7 and 10 years of operation. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 917–927. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.174.
Uhl, M., Dittmer, U., 2005. Constructed wetlands for CSO treatment: an overview of prac-
tice and research in Germany. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (9), 23–30.
Waldhoff, A., 2008. Sanitation of combined sewer in retention soil filters (RSFs) [in Ger-
man]. Hygienisierung von Mischwasser in Retentionsbodenfiltern (RBF). Department
of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, University of Kassel PhD thesis. publica-
tion No. 30. http://www.uni-kassel.de/upress/online/frei/978-3-89958-606-0.
volltext.frei.pdf, Accessed date: 14 August 2019 (in German).
Wong, T.H.F., Brown, R.R., 2009. The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water Sci.
Technol. 60 (3), 673–682.
Woods-Ballard, B., Wilson, S., Udale-Clarke, H., Illman, S., Scott, T., Ashley, R., Kellagher, R.,
2015. The SuDS Manual, C753. CIRIA, London, UK (ISBN 978-0-86017-760-9).
Woźniak, R., 2008. Ermittlung von Belastungsgrenzen an Bodensubstraten zur
weitergehenden Michwasserbehandlung in Retentionsbodenfiltern. Determination
of load limits on filter substrates of constructed wetlands for combined sewer over-
flow treatment. PhD thesis at the. Band 24. Department of Architecture/Regional De-
velopment and Environmental Planning/Civil Engineering at TU Kaiserslautern,
Schriftenreihe. https://kluedo.ub.uni-kl.de/files/1948/Diss_Wozniak_SIWAWI.pdf,
Accessed date: 4 August 2016 (in German).
Woźniak, R., Dittmer, U., Welker, A., 2007. Interaction of oxygen concentration and reten-
tion of pollutants in vertical flow constructed wetlands for CSO treatment. Water Sci.
Technol. 56 (3), 31–38.
WWAP, 2018. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based
Solutions for Water. (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-
Water. UNESCO, Paris.
Zhai, X., Piwpuan, N., Arias, C.A., Headley, T., Brix, H., 2013. Can root exudates from emer-
gent wetland plants fuel denitrification in subsurface flow constructed wetland sys-
tems? Ecol. Eng. 61, 555–563.
Zukovs, G., Marsalek, J., 2004. Planning and design of combined sewer overflow treat-
ment. Water Qual. Res. J. 39 (4), 439–448.
 Update
Science of the Total Environment
Volume 772, Issue , 10 June 2021, Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146174
 Science of the Total Environment 772 (2021) 146174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “Constructed wetlands for combined sewer

overflow treatment: A state-of-the-art review”
[Sci. Total Environ. 727 (2020) 138618]

A. Rizzo a, K. Tondera b,c,⁎, T.G. Pálfy c,j, U. Dittmer d, D. Meyer e, C. Schreiber f, N. Zacharias f, J.P. Ruppelt g,
D. Esser h, P. Molle c, S. Troesch i, F. Masi a
a
Iridra Srl, Via La Marmora 51, 50121 Florence, Italy
b
IMT Atlantique Bretagne—Pays de Loire, Department of Energy Systems and Environment, 44307 Nantes, France
c
INRAE, REVERSAAL, 69625 Villeurbanne, France
d
Institute for Water, Infrastructure and Resources, Department for Urban Water Management, TU Kaiserslautern, Paul-Ehrlich-Straße 14, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
e
Municipal government City of Mayen, Department 3.1 - City Planning and Construction Supervision, Town Hall Rosengasse. D-56727, Mayen, Germany
f
Institute for Hygiene and Public Health, University Hospital Bonn, GeoHealth Centre, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany
g
Institute of Environmental Engineering (ISA), RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany
h
SINT, Société d'Ingénierie Nature & Technique, Chef-Lieu, F-73370 La Chapelle du Mont du Chat, France
i
Eco Bird, 3 route du Dôme, 69630 Chaponost, France
j
University of Sopron, Institute of Geomatics and Civil Engineering, H-9400 Sopron, Hungary

The authors regret that the printed version of the above article
contained a number of errors. The correct and final version follows.
The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
In Section 6.3, a table is missing. The sentence “Therefore, the values
reported in Table 2 must be considered as only indicative; indeed, this
review remains a non-critical enumeration and comparison of available
schemes and provides no exact design rules” is misleading, it should link
to the missing Table 5, which can be found below: “Therefore, the values
reported in Table 5 must be considered as only indicative; indeed, this
review remains a non-critical enumeration and comparison of available
schemes and provides no exact design rules.” The authors would like to
apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

DOI of original article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138618.

⁎ Corresponding author at: IMT Atlantique Bretagne—Pays de Loire, Department of Energy Systems and Environment, 44307 Nantes, France.
E-mail address: katharina.tondera@inrae.fr (K. Tondera).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146174
0048-9697/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Rizzo, K. Tondera, T.G. Pálfy et al. Science of the Total Environment 772 (2021) 146174

Table 5
Indicative design parameters of CSO-CW treatment schemes and their treatment chain in order.

Treatment scheme Indicative design parameters Consulted references

A) German approach
- sedimentation tank The filtration speed is regulated (e.g. outflow orifice): 0.036–0.180 m·h−1 MKULNV (2015)
- VF wetland (0.01–0.05 L·s−1·m−2 or 10−5 - 5·10−5 m·s−1) DWA (2019)
B) French approach Meyer et al. (2013)
- VF wetland with two filter cells The filtration speed is regulated (e.g. outflow orifice): 0.036–0.180 m·h−1
(0.01–0.05 L·s−1·m−2 or 10−5 - 5·10−5 m·s−1)
C) Italian approach Masi et al. (2016)
- VF wetland The filtration speed (VF) is regulated by (e.g. outflow orifice): 0.036–0.360 m·h−1
- FWS wetland (0.01–0.10 L·s−1·m−2 or 10−5 - 10−4 m·s−1)
The HRT of the FWS is 6–12 h at least
D) American approach I Tao et al. (2014)
- FWS wetland The HRT is 72–120 h at least
E) American approach II Tao et al. (2014)
- FTW wetland The HRT of the FTW is 12–24 h at least Pisoeiro et al. (2016)
- HF or VF wetland The HRT of the HF is 24–48 h at least Dotro et al. (2017)
- FWS wetland The HLR of the VF is based on design values for domestic wastewater and never tops 80–120 L·m−2·d−1
Hydraulic retention time (FWS) is 6–12 h at least
F) Portuguese approach Pisoeiro et al. (2016)
- first flush tank The HRT of the HF is 24–48 h at least Dotro et al. (2017)
- HF or VF wetland with sand The HLR of the VF is based on design values for domestic wastewater and never tops 80–120 L·m−2·d−1
G) Meyer et al. (2013)
- first flush tank The filtration speed is regulated (e.g. outflow orifice): 0.036–0.360 m·h−1
- VF wetland with gravel (0.01–0.10 L·s−1·m−2 or 10−5 - 10−4 m·s−1)
H) Masi et al. (2016) and
- aerated wetland The minimum emptying time of the aerated wetland fed by the CSO is 12–24 h unpublished
- FWS wetland (optional) The HRT (FWS) is 6–12 h at least data on aerated systems