Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 36, pp 36765–36774 | Cite as

Performance of a constructed wetland as an upstream intervention for stormwater runoff quality management

  • Isa Kabenge
  • Godfrey Ouma
  • Dominic Aboagye
  • Noble Banadda
Short Research and Discussion Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

In most developing countries, stormwater runoff has had significant impacts on aquatic environment by directly causing pollution of receiving water and reduction in treatment performance of wastewater treatment plants. With increasing encroachment on natural wetlands in Uganda, constructed wetlands offer a feasible option for the environment to cope up and buffer the impact of pollutants from the ever-increasing urban masses. This study investigated the performance efficiencies of three configurations (varied by the substrate used) of microcosm wetlands to remove physicochemical parameters from stormwater runoff in Uganda. The parameters monitored included chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP). Hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of 2, 4, 6, and 8 days were studied. The mean concentrations of the physicochemical parameters in the runoff were 219.4 ± 12.8 mg/L COD, 77.4 ± 8.3 mg/L TSS, 9.0 ± 0.4 mg/L TN, and 1.6 ± 0.1 mg/L TP. Configuration A, vegetated with cattail (Typha latifolia) and bulrush (Scirpus lacustris), achieved maximum COD removal of 75.9% (HRT = 6 days), TN removal of 72.8% (HRT = 8 days), and TP removal of 62.8% (HRT = 8 days). Configuration C, the control, with no substrate, achieved the highest TSS removal of 75.6%. The results suggest that vegetated microcosm constructed wetlands can potentially be used to pre-treat stormwater within the catchment. However, an upstream sedimentation process unit is required to enhance their performance and to avoid premature clogging of the wetlands by TSS. The pre-treated stormwater reduces pollutant load into wastewater treatment plants and consequently better raw water quality for water treatment plants.

Keywords

Stormwater runoff Microcosm wetlands Catchment Pre-treatment Physicochemical parameters Hydraulic retention time 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Makerere University, Uganda for providing all necessary support to carry out this research.

References

  1. Akratos CS, Tsihrintzis VA (2007) Effect of temperature, HRT , vegetation and porous media on removal efficiency of pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 9:173–191Google Scholar
  2. Allen D (2005) Green engineering principles promote low-impact development. Environ Sci Technol 39(16):338A–344AGoogle Scholar
  3. Avila C, Salas JJ, Martín I, Aragón C, García J (2013) Integrated treatment of combined sewer wastewater and Stormwater in a hybrid constructed wetland system in southern Spain and its further reuse. Ecol Eng 50:13–20Google Scholar
  4. Barałkiewicz D, Chudzińska M, Szpakowska B, Świerk D, Gołdyn R, Dondajewska R (2014) Storm water contamination and its effect on the quality of urban surface waters. Environ Monit Assess 186(10):6789–6803Google Scholar
  5. Barbosa AE, Fernandes JN, David LM (2012) Key issues for sustainable urban Stormwater management. Water Res 46(20):6787–6798Google Scholar
  6. Barrett ME (2010) Evaluation of sand filter performance. Technical Report - University of Texas at Austin, Center for Research in Water Resources Vol. 10. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/10896/CRWR online report 10–07.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  7. Basker G, Deeptha VT, Annadurai R (2014) Comparison of treatment performance between constructed wetlands with different plants. Int J Res Eng Technol 3(4):210–214 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/454e/a97a7c1d84275ac196a8a12b6d69d1c224f6.pdf Google Scholar
  8. Brisson J, Chazarenc F (2009) Maximizing pollutant removal in constructed wetlands: should we pay more attention to Macrophyte species selection? Sci Total Environ 407(13):3923–3930Google Scholar
  9. Brix H (1997) Do Macrophytes play a role in constructed treatment wetlands? Water Sci Technol 35(5):11–17Google Scholar
  10. Butterworth E, Richards A, Jones M, Mansi G, Ranieri E, Dotro G, Jefferson B (2016) Performance of four full-scale artificially aerated horizontal flow constructed wetlands for domestic wastewater treatment, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  11. Cheng C, Xie H, Yang E, Shen X, Dai P, Zhang J (2016) RSC advances nutrient removal and microbial mechanisms in constructed wetland microcosms treating high nitrate/nitrite polluted river water †. RSC Adv 6(3):70848–70854Google Scholar
  12. Choi JY, Maniquiz-Redillas MC, Hong JS, Lee SY, Kim LH (2015) Comparison of the treatment performance of hybrid constructed wetlands treating stormwater runoff. Water Sci Technol 72(12):2243–2250Google Scholar
  13. Dong Y, Wilinski PR, Dzakpasu M, Scholz M (2011) Impact of hydraulic loading rate and season on water contaminant reductions within integrated constructed wetlands. Wetlands 31(3):499–509Google Scholar
  14. Gersberg RM, Elkins BV, Lyon SR, Goldman LCR (1986) Role of aquatic plants in wastewater. Water Res 20(3):363–368Google Scholar
  15. Guo W, Li Z, Cheng S, Liang W, He F, Wu Z (2014) Performance of a pilot-scale constructed wetland for stormwater runoff and domestic sewage treatment on the banks of a polluted urban river. Water Sci Technol 69(7):1410–1418Google Scholar
  16. Haberl R, Grego S, Langergraber G, Kadlec RH, Cicalini A-R, Dias SM, Novais JM, Aubert S, Gerth A, Thomas H, Hebner A (2003) Constructed wetlands for the treatment of organic pollutants. J Soils Sediments 3(2):109–124Google Scholar
  17. Hadad HR, Maine MA, Bonetto CA (2006) Macrophyte growth in a pilot-scale constructed wetland for industrial wastewater treatment. Chemosphere 63(10):1744–1753Google Scholar
  18. Hench KR, Bissonnette GK, Sexstone AJ, Coleman JG, Garbutt K, Skousen JG (2003) Fate of physical, chemical, and microbial contaminants in domestic wastewater following treatment by small constructed wetlands. Water research. 1;37(4):921–7.Google Scholar
  19. Hsieh C-h, Davis AP, Needelman BA (2007) Bioretention column studies of phosphorus removal from urban stormwater runoff. Water Environ Res 79(2):177–184Google Scholar
  20. Karathanasis AD, Potter CL, Coyne MS (2003) Vegetation effects on fecal bacteria, BOD, and suspended solid removal in constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater. Ecol Eng 20(2):157–169Google Scholar
  21. Kayombo S (2005) Waste stabilization ponds and constructed wetlands design manual. UNEP-IETC with the Danish International Development Agency (Danida). http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8380/-WasteStabilizationPondsandConstructedWetlands_DesignManual-20043595.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
  22. Khajah M (2017) Pathways and mechanisms of nitrogen removal in engineered wetland systems. Doctor of philosophy (PhD) thesis. http://orca.cf.ac.uk/100956/1/2017KhajahMPhD.pdf
  23. Kyambadde J (2005) Nitrogen and phosphorus removal in substrate-free pilot constructed wetlands with horizontal surface flowing Uganda. Water Air Soil Pollut 165(1):37–59Google Scholar
  24. Lee S, Maniquiz-Redillas MC, Kim LH (2014) Settling basin design in a constructed wetland using TSS removal efficiency and hydraulic retention time. J Environ Sci (China) 26(9):1791–1796Google Scholar
  25. Li YC, Zhang DQ, Wang M (2017) Performance evaluation of a full-scale constructed wetland for treating stormwater runoff. Clean Soil Air Water 45(11)Google Scholar
  26. Lu S, Zhang X, Wang J, Pei L (2016) Impacts of different media on constructed wetlands for rural household sewage treatment. J Clean Prod, Elsevier Ltd:1–6Google Scholar
  27. Mallin M a, Johnson VL, Ensign SH, MacPherson T a (2006) Factors contributing to hypoxia in rivers, lakes, and streams. Limnol Oceanogr 51(1_part_2):690–701Google Scholar
  28. Mcmahan EK (2006) Impacts of rainfall events on wastewater treatment processes. University of South Florida. Masters thesis. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5042&context=etd
  29. Merino-Solís M, Villegas E, de Anda J, López-López A (2015) The effect of the hydraulic retention time on the performance of an ecological wastewater treatment system: an anaerobic filter with a constructed wetland. Water 7(3):1149–1163Google Scholar
  30. Muserere ST, Hoko Z, Nhapi I (2014) Characterisation of raw sewage and performance assessment of primary settling tanks at Firle sewage treatment works, Harare, Zimbabwe. Phys Chem Earth 67–69:226–235Google Scholar
  31. Niu S, Park K, Cheng J, Kim Y (2016) An investigation into the relationship between water quality volume (design storage volume) and stormwater wetland performance. Water Sci Technol 73(6):1483–1491Google Scholar
  32. Ong S-a, Uchiyama K, Inadama D, Ishida Y, Yamagiwa K (2010) Bioresource technology performance evaluation of laboratory scale up-flow constructed wetlands with different designs and emergent plants. Bioresour Technol 101(19):7239–7244Google Scholar
  33. Pedescoll A, Uggetti E, Llorens E, Granés F, García D, García J (2009) Practical method based on saturated hydraulic conductivity used to assess clogging in subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 35(8):1216–1224Google Scholar
  34. Qiu J, Shen Z, Chen L, Xie H, Sun C, Huang Q (2014) The stakeholder preference for best management practices in the three gorges reservoir region. Environ Manag 54(5):1163–1174Google Scholar
  35. Ragusa SR, McNevin D, Qasem S, Mitchell C (2004) Indicators of biofilm development and activity in constructed wetlands microcosms. Water Res 38(12):2865–2873Google Scholar
  36. Rousseau DP, Vanrolleghem PA, De Pauw N (2004) Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis. Ecological Engineering. 1;23(3):151–63Google Scholar
  37. Saeed T, Sun G (2011) Bioresource technology the removal of nitrogen and organics in vertical flow wetland reactors : predictive models. Bioresour Technol 102(2):1205–1213Google Scholar
  38. Saeed T, Sun G (2017) A comprehensive review on nutrients and organics removal from different wastewaters employing subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 47(4):203–288Google Scholar
  39. Schulz C, Gelbrecht J, Rennert B (2004) Constructed wetlands with free water surface for treatment of aquaculture effluents. J Appl Ichthyol 20(1):64–70Google Scholar
  40. Sharley DJ, Sharp SM, Marshall S, Jeppe K, Pettigrove VJ (2017) Landscape and urban planning linking urban land use to pollutants in constructed wetlands : implications for stormwater and urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan 162:80–91Google Scholar
  41. Sharma AK, Vezzaro L, Birch H, Arnbjerg Nielsen K, Mikkelsen PS (2016) Effect of climate change on stormwater runoff characteristics and treatment efficiencies of stormwater retention ponds : a case study from Denmark using TSS and cu as Indicator pollutants. Springerplus 5:1984Google Scholar
  42. Shi W, Li H, Li A (2018) Mechanism and infl uencing factors of nitrogen removal in subsurface flow constructed wetland. Appl Chem Eng 2:9–14 http://systems.enpress-publisher.com/index.php/ACE/article/viewFile/344/189 Google Scholar
  43. Solano ML, Soriano P, Ciria MP (2004) Constructed wetlands as a sustainable solution for wastewater treatment in small villages. Biosyst Eng 87(1):109–118Google Scholar
  44. Stottmeister U, Wießner A, Kuschk P, Kappelmeyer U, Kästner M, Bederski O, Müller RA, Moormann H (2003) Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Biotechnol Adv 22(1–2):93–117Google Scholar
  45. Sultana M-Y, Akratos C, Vayenas D, Pavlou S (2015) Constructed wetlands in the treatment of agro-industrial wastewater: a review. Hemijska Industrija 69(2):127–142.  https://doi.org/10.2298/HEMIND150121018S Google Scholar
  46. Sylaios GK, Tsihrintzis VA, Akratos C, Haralambidou K (2006) Quantification of water, salt and nutrient exchange processes at the mouth of a Mediterranean coastal lagoon. Environ Monit Assess 119(1–3):275–301Google Scholar
  47. Tanl S (1990) An assessment of the nitrogen removal efficiency and performance of RUCK septic systems in the new Jersey Pinelands December 1990 New Jersey pinelands commission, No. December. https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/38979/pdf/1/
  48. Tee H-c, Lim P-e, Seng C-e, Nawi M-a M (2012) Bioresource technology newly developed baffled subsurface-flow constructed wetland for the enhancement of nitrogen removal. Bioresour Technol 104:235–242Google Scholar
  49. Todeschini S (2012) Trends in Long Daily Rainfall Series of Lombardia ( Northern Italy ) Affecting Urban Stormwater Control. 919(March 2011):900–919Google Scholar
  50. USEPA (1993) Subsurface flow constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. A technology assessment. Ecol Eng 2(4):382Google Scholar
  51. Verhoeven JTA, Meuleman AFM (1999) Wetlands for wastewater treatment: opportunities and limitations. Ecol Eng 12:5–12Google Scholar
  52. Vymazal J (2002) The use of sub-surface constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic: 10 years experience. Ecol Eng 18(5):633–646Google Scholar
  53. Walker C, Tondera K, Lucke T (2017) Stormwater treatment evaluation of a constructed floating wetland after two years operation in an urban catchment. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(10):1–10Google Scholar
  54. Woltemade CJ (2000) Ability of restored wetlands to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in agricultural drainage water. J Soil Water Conserv. ;55(3):303–9Google Scholar
  55. Wu H, Zhang J, Li P, Zhang J, Xie H, Zhang B (2011) Nutrient removal in constructed microcosm wetlands for treating polluted river water in northern China. Ecol Eng 37(4):560–568Google Scholar
  56. Wu H, Zhang J, Wei R, Liang S, Li C, Xie H (2013) Nitrogen transformations and balance in constructed wetlands for slightly polluted river water treatment using different macrophytes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(1):443–451Google Scholar
  57. Wu S, Wallace S, Brix H, Kuschk P, Kipkemoi W, Masi F, Dong R (2015) Treatment of industrial ef fl uents in constructed wetlands : challenges , operational strategies and overall performance. Environ Pollut 201:107–120Google Scholar
  58. Xia R, Peng Y, Zhong S, Tu L, Xie Y, and Zhang L (2017) Performance of the iron-Caron coupling constructed wetland for rural sewage treatment performance of the iron-caron coupling constructed wetland for rural sewage treatment. In IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 51Google Scholar
  59. Xu B, Wang X, Liu J, Jiaqiang W, Zhao Y, Cao W (2017) Improving urban stormwater runoff quality by nutrient removal through floating treatment wetlands and vegetation harvest. Sci Rep 7(1):1–11Google Scholar
  60. Yuan Q, Guerra HB, Youngchul K (2017) An investigation of the relationships between rainfall conditions and pollutant wash-off from the paved road. Water 9:232Google Scholar
  61. Zhang L, Xie J (2013) Pretreatment of herbicides production wastewater by spherical micro-electrolysis media, pp 1079–83Google Scholar
  62. Zhang D, Gersberg RM, Keat TS (2009) Constructed wetlands in China. Ecol Eng 35(10):1367–1378Google Scholar
  63. Zhang L-y, Zhang L, Liu Y-d, Shen Y-w, Liu H, Xiong Y (2010) Effect of limited arti fi cial aeration on constructed wetland treatment of domestic wastewater. DES 250(3):915–920Google Scholar
  64. Zhang L, Xia X, Zhao Y, Xi B, Yan Y, Guo X, Xiong Y (2011) The ammonium nitrogen oxidation process in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 37(11):1614–1619Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Biosystems EngineeringMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda

Personalised recommendations