Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 269–281 | Cite as

Pollutant removal performance of an integrated system that combines a baffled vertical-flow wetland and a scenic water body

  • Hongxiang ChaiEmail author
  • Wenqian Li
  • Zhiyu Shao
  • Liang Li
  • Qiang He
Research Article


Stormwater treatment requires effective control measures and development of low-cost and high-efficiency technologies. An integrated system is developed by combining a baffled vertical-flow constructed wetland (BVFCW) and a scenic water body for stormwater quality control purpose. The objectives of the study are to compare the pollutant removal performance of the full-scale integrated system with four groups of wetland-to-scenic water body area ratios (WSARs) including 1/11, 2/11, 3/11, 4/11 and investigate its treatment efficiency. Results show that the system performs better in the removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (TN), ammonia nitrogen (NH4+–N), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3–N), and total phosphorus (TP) at the WSAR of 4/11 than that at 3/11 in sixteen-day operation, while it reaches the highest total nitrogen (TN) removal efficiency of 74.0% at the WSAR of 2/11 due to relatively rich carbon source and high influent TN concentration. The integrated system may prove the most effective COD removal at the WSAR of 4/11 for four-time aerobic/anaerobic alternating conditions, a longer flow path and more time to contact with substrates, although the influent COD is lower than that at 2/11 and 1/11. After sixteen-day operation, BVFCW achieved COD removal rate of 90.3%, NH4+–N removal rate of 85.7%, NO3–N removal rate of 68.6%, and TP removal rate of 52.5% at the WSAR of 4/11. At the WSAR of 1/11, effluent met the Class IV requirements in Chinese standards after one-week operation, while effluent met the Class III requirements under the rest conditions. Since effluent in all WSARs met the standards, WSARs of 1/11 and 2/11 were recommended.


Baffled vertical-flow constructed wetland Scenic water body Integrated system Wetland-to-scenic water body area ratio 



We thank the other members of our group, who gave us advice and suggestions regarding this work, for their selfless contributions.

Funding information

This work was financially supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project for Water Pollution Control and Remediation of China: Storm-water Management for Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Research and Demonstration Project (Grant No. 2010ZX07320-001), and the National Key R&D program of China (Grant 2017YFC0404704).


  1. Adyel TM, Oldham CE, Hipsey MR (2016) Stormwater nutrient attenuation in a constructed wetland with alternating surface and subsurface flow pathways: event to annual dynamics. Water Res 107:66–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Avila C, Matamoros V, Reyescontreras C, Piña B, Casado M, Mita L et al (2014) Attenuation of emerging organic contaminants in a hybrid constructed wetland system under different hydraulic loading rates and their associated toxicological effects in wastewater. Sci Total Environ 470-471(2):1272–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cairns J, Palmer SE (1995) Restoration of urban waterways and vacant areas: the first steps toward sustainability. Environ Health Perspect 103(5):452–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calero S, Segura M, Rojo C, Rodrigo MA (2015) Shifts in plankton assemblages promoted by free water surface constructed wetlands and their implications in eutrophication remediation. Ecol Eng 74(74):385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao W, Wang Y, Sun L, Jiang J, Zhang Y (2016) Removal of nitrogenous compounds from polluted river water by floating constructed wetlands using rice straw and ceramsite as substrates under low temperature conditions. Ecol Eng 88:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chai H, Gong H, Shen S, Li S, Zou B, Li L, et al (2014). Integrated system for treating and recycling rainwater. US 20140124424 A1Google Scholar
  8. Chen X, Huang X, He S, Yu X, Sun M, Wang X, Kong H (2013) Pilot-scale study on preserving eutrophic landscape pond water with a combined recycling purification system. Ecol Eng 61(19):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen H, Ivanoff D, Pietro K (2015) Long-term phosphorus removal in the everglades stormwater treatment areas of South Florida in the United States. Ecol Eng 79:158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conn RM, Fiedler FR (2006) Increasing hydraulic residence time in constructed stormwater treatment wetlands with designed bottom topography. Water Environ Res 78(13):2514–2523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du L, Trinh X, Chen Q, Wang C, Wang H, Xia X et al (2017) Enhancement of microbial nitrogen removal pathway by vegetation in integrated vertical-flow constructed wetlands (ivcws) for treating reclaimed water. Bioresour Technol 249:644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fan J, Zhang B, Zhang J, Ngo HH, Guo W, Liu F, Guo Y, Wu H (2013) Intermittent aeration strategy to enhance organics and nitrogen removal in subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Bioresour Technol 141:117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hua G, Kong J, Ji Y, Li M (2017) Influence of clogging and resting processes on flow patterns in vertical flow constructed wetlands. Sci Total EnvironGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes RM, Dunham S, Maas-Hebner KG, Yeakley JA, Schreck C, Harte M, Molina N, Shock CC, Kaczynski VW, Schaeffer J (2014) A review of urban water body challenges and approaches: (1) rehabilitation and remediation. Fisheries 39(1):18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khiadani HM, Zarrabi M, Foroughi M (2013) Urban runoff treatment using nano-sized iron oxide coated sand with and without magnetic field applying. J Environ Health Sci Eng 11(1):43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knowles PR, Griffin P, Davies PA (2010) Complementary methods to investigate the development of clogging within a horizontal sub-surface flow tertiary treatment wetland. Water Res 44(1):320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Land M, Granéli W, Grimvall A, Hoffmann CC, Mitsch WJ, Tonderski KS et al (2013) How effective are created or restored freshwater wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal: a systematic review protocol. Environ Evid 2(1):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li A, Gai Z, Cui D, Ma F, Yang J, Zhang X, Sun Y, Ren N (2012) Genome sequence of a highly efficient aerobic denitrifying bacterium, pseudomonas stutzeri t13. J Bacteriol 194(20):5720–5720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li F, Lu L, Zheng X, Ngo HH, Liang S, Guo W, Zhang X (2014) Enhanced nitrogen removal in constructed wetlands: effects of dissolved oxygen and step-feeding. Bioresour Technol 169(5):395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li H, Chi Z, Yan B, Cheng L, Li J (2016) Nitrogen removal in wood chip combined substrate baffled subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: impact of matrix arrangement and intermittent aeration. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 24(5):1–7Google Scholar
  21. Lian L, Revitt M, Ellis B (2017) An impact assessment for urban stormwater use. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 3:1–12Google Scholar
  22. Lin YF, Jing SR, Lee DY, Chang YF, Chen YM, Shih KC (2005) Performance of a constructed wetland treating intensive shrimp aquaculture wastewater under high hydraulic loading rate. Environ Pollut 134(3):411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lucas R, Babatunde AO (2017) Influence of key design and operating variables on dynamics of pollutant removal in experimental stormwater constructed wetlands. J Environ Eng 143(7):04017015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma F, Sun Y, Li A, Zhang X, Yang J (2015) Activation of accumulated nitrite reduction by immobilized pseudomonas stutzeri, t13 during aerobic denitrification. Bioresour Technol 187:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maltais-Landry G, Maranger R, Brisson J, Chazarenc F (2009) Nitrogen transformations and retention in planted and artificially aerated constructed wetlands. Water Res 43:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matamoros V, Salvadã V (2012) Evaluation of the seasonal performance of a water reclamation pond-constructed wetland system for removing emerging contaminants. Chemosphere 86(2):111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moortel AMKVD, Meers E, Pauw ND, Tack FMG (2010) Effects of vegetation, season and temperature on the removal of pollutants in experimental floating treatment wetlands. Water Air Soil Pollut 212(1–4):281–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nguyen XC, Chang SW, Nguyen TL, Ngo HH, Kumar G, Banu JR et al (2018) A hybrid constructed wetland for organic-material and nutrient removal from sewage: process performance and multi-kinetic models. J Environ Manag 101:378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nie M et al (2001) The technical assessment handbook for ecological residence of China. China Architecture& Building PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Olguín EJ, Sánchez-Galván G, Melo FJ, Hernández VJ, González-Portela RE (2017) Long-term assessment at field scale of floating treatment wetlands for improvement of water quality and provision of ecosystem services in a eutrophic urban pond. Sci Total Environ 584–585:561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rooney RC, Carli C, Bayley SE (2013) River connectivity affects submerged and floating aquatic vegetation in floodplain wetlands. Wetlands 33(6):1165–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saeed T, Sun G (2012) A review on nitrogen and organics removal mechanisms in subsurface flow constructed wetlands: dependency on environmental parameters, operating conditions and supporting media. J Environ Manag 112(24):429–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samsó R, Garcia J (2013) Bio_pore, a mathematical model to simulate biofilm growth and water quality improvement in porous media: application and calibration for constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 54(54):116–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SEPA (2002) Chinese environmental quality standards for surface water (GB3838-2002). State Environmental Protection Administration of China (SEPA), Bei JingGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun Y, Feng L, Li A, Zhang X, Yang J, Ma F (2017) Ammonium assimilation: an important accessory during aerobic denitrification of pseudomonas stutzeri t13. Bioresour Technol 234:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tanner CC, Kadlec RH (2003) Oxygen flux implications of observed nitrogen removal rates in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands. Water Sci Technol 48(5):191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tee HC, Lim PE, Seng CE, Nawi MA (2012) Newly developed baffled subsurface-flow constructed wetland for the enhancement of nitrogen removal. Bioresour Technol 104(1):235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thongtha S, Teamkao P, Boonapatcharoen N, Tripetchkul S, Techkarnjararuk S, Thiravetyan P (2014) Phosphorus removal from domestic wastewater by nelumbo nucifera, gaertn, and Cyperus alternifolius. J Environ Manag 137(4):54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. USEPA (2004) The use of best management practices (BMPs) in urban watersheds. EPA, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  40. Vohla C, Kõiv M, Bavor HJ, Chazarenc F, Mander Ü (2011) Filter materials for phosphorus removal from wastewater in treatment wetlands—a review. Ecol Eng 37(1):70–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walaszek M, Bois P, Laurent J, Lenormand E, Wanko A (2018) Urban stormwater treatment by a constructed wetland: seasonality impacts on hydraulic efficiency, physico-chemical behavior and heavy metal occurrence. Sci Total Environ 637-638:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wei T, Wijesiri B, Jia Z, Li Y, Goonetilleke A (2018) Re-thinking classical mechanistic model for pollutant build-up on urban impervious surfaces. Sci Total Environ 651(Pt 1):114–121Google Scholar
  43. Weiss PT, Asce M, Gulliver JS, Asce F, Erickson AJ, Asce SM (2007) Cost and pollutant removal of storm-water treatment practices. J Water Resour Plan Manag 133(3):218–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wosiack PA, Lopes DD, Damianovic MHRZ et al (2015) Removal of COD and nitrogen from animal food plant wastewater in an intermittently-aerated structured-bed reactor. J Environ Manag 154:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xie H, Yang Y, Liu J, Kang Y, Zhang J, Hu Z, Liang S (2018) Enhanced triclosan and nutrient removal performance in vertical up-flow constructed wetlands with manganese oxides. Water Res 143:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yahoo Maps (2018) Access: September, 2018. Available at:
  47. Yan Y, Xu J (2014) Improving winter performance of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in northern China: a review. Wetlands 34:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zare SO, Saghafian B, Shamsai A (2012) Multi-objective optimization for combined quality–quantity urban runoff control. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(12):4531–4542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhao F, Xi S, Yang X, Yang W, Li J, Gu B, He Z (2012) Purifying eutrophic river waters with integrated floating island systems. Ecol Eng 40(3):53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhong F, Wu J, Dai Y et al (2015) Bacterial community analysis by PCRDGGE and 454-pyrosequencing of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands with front aeration. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:1499–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hongxiang Chai
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Wenqian Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhiyu Shao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liang Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Qiang He
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Three Gorges Reservoir Region’s Eco-Environment, Ministry of EducationChongqing UniversityChongqingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.National Centre for International Research of Low-Carbon and Green BuildingsChongqing UniversityChongqingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations