Constructed wetland scale model: organic matter and nutrients removal from the effluent of a fish processing plant

  • M. PiñeyroEmail author
  • G. Chalar
  • F. Quintans
Original Paper


Constructed wetlands are suitable for treating industrial effluents due to their low cost and effectiveness, thus preventing the deterioration of waterways witnessed in recent decades at global level. Advances in the study of wetland design are necessary for the development of constructed wetlands. An artificial wetland model with subsurface flow (three replications), Typha domingensis, and hydraulic retention time of 5 days was used. It was designed for the post-treatment of the effluent from a fish processing plant. All samples were taken at the model system inlet and outlet every 21 days for 1 year. Significant removal of nitrogen and organic matter (biochemical oxygen demand and the chemical oxygen demand) was achieved, but phosphorus removal was less than expected. Wetland performance was not affected by seasonal variations in ambient temperature. The increase in the C/N ratio was related with a higher wetland efficiency of organic matter removal. Overall performance for the wetland model under in situ environmental conditions was determined by the intrinsic reaction rate of the system.


Intrinsic reaction rate Typha Waste water treatment 



The authors wish to thank Novabarca S.A. who allowed the use of its facilities and Urunova SRL, for donated materials for the construction of the model. We also want to thank the staff of the Limnology Section, Faculty of Science, Udelar, for the facilities provided. We are also grateful to E. Calabuig and his team of collaborators in the area of Ecology (Department of Biodiversity and Environmental Management, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences of the University of León) for the help provided. We are very grateful to Federico Mas for his valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript. This research was partially financed by a MSc scholarship from the National Research and Innovation Agency (ANII) POS_2011_1_3461.


  1. Akratos Ch, Tsihrintzis V (2007) Effect of temperature, HRT, vegetation and porous media on removal efficiency of pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 29:173–191Google Scholar
  2. Ansola G, Fernández C, de Luis E (1995) Removal of organic matter and nutrients from urban wastewater by using an experimental emergent aquatic macrophyte system. Ecol Eng 5:13–19Google Scholar
  3. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. APHA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Atlas R, Bartha R (2002) Ecología microbiana y microbiología ambiental, 4th edn. Pearson Addison-Wesley, MadridGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachard P, Horne A (1999) Denitrification in constructed free-water surface wetlands: II effects of vegetation and temperature. Ecol Eng 14(1–2):17–32Google Scholar
  6. Bonilla S, Haakonsson S, Somma A, Gravier A et al (2015) Cianobacterias y cianotoxinas en ecosistemas límnicos de Uruguay. Innotec 10:9–22Google Scholar
  7. Boutilier L, Jamieson R, Gordon R, Lake C, Hart W (2010) Performance of surface-flow domestic wastewater treatment wetlands. Wetlands 30:795–804Google Scholar
  8. Boyer T, Polasky S (2004) Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 24(4):744–755Google Scholar
  9. Brock MT, Madigan JM, Martinko JM, Parker J (2009) Biología de los microorganismos, 12th edn. Pearson Educación S.A, MadridGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell CS (1999) The concept of sustainable development. In: Campbell CS, Ogden M (eds) Constructed wetlands in the sustainable landscape. Wiley, New York, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  11. Chalar G, Garcia-Pesenti P, Silva-Pablo M, Perdomo C, Olivero V, Arocena R (2017) Weighting the impacts to stream water quality in small basins devoted to forage crops, dairy and beef cow production. Limnol Ecol Manag Inland Waters 65:76–84Google Scholar
  12. Cheng B, Hu C, Zhao Y (2010) Effects of plants development and pollutant loading on performance of vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8(1):177–186Google Scholar
  13. Chowdhury P, Viraraghavan T, Srinivasan A (2010) Biological treatment processes for fish processing wastewater–a review. Biores Technol 101:439–449Google Scholar
  14. De Azcoitia E (2012) Efecto de sobrecargas hidráulicas en el rendimiento de humedales construidos para la depuración de aguas. Tesina d´especialitat. Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya. Escola técnica superior d´enginyers de camins, canals I ports de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  15. Decreto (1979). Decreto 253/79. Normas para prevenir la contaminación ambiental.
  16. Ding Y, Song X, Wang Y, Yan D (2012) Effects of dissolved oxygen and influent COD/N ratios on nitrogen removal in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland. Ecol Eng 46:107–111Google Scholar
  17. El Hanandeh A, Gharaibeh M, Albalasmeh A (2018) Phosphorus removal efficiency from wastewater under different loading conditions using sand biofilters augmented with biochar. Int J Environ Sci Technol 15(5):927–934Google Scholar
  18. El-Khateeb M, Al-Herrawy A, Kamel M, El-Gohary F (2009) Use of wetlands as post-treatment of anaerobically treated effluent. Desalination 245:50–59Google Scholar
  19. Fan J, Wang B, Zhang B, Guo Y, Ngo H, Guo W, Zhang J, Wu H (2013) Nitrogen removal in intermittently aerated vertical flow constructed wetlands: impact of influent COD/N ratios. Biores Technol 143:461–466Google Scholar
  20. García J, Corzo A (2008) Depuración con humedales construidos. Guía práctica de diseño, construcción y explotación de sistemas de humedales de flujo subsuperficial: pp. 108. Google Earth. 20 Jan, 2012
  21. INIA, (2012). GRAS-Clima. Consulted on 30.05.2012
  22. Jessop J, Spyreas G, Pociask G, Benson T, Ward M, Kent A, Matthews J (2015) Tradeoffs among ecosystem services in restored wetlands. Biol Cons 191:341–348Google Scholar
  23. Juang D, Chen P (2007) Treatment of polluted river water by a new constructed wetland. Int J Environ Sci Technol 4(4):481–488Google Scholar
  24. Kadlec RH, Knight RL (1996) Treatment wetlands. Lewis Publ, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  25. Kadlec R, Wallace S (2009) Treatment wetlands, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatónGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaushal M, Patil M, Wani S (2018) Potency of constructed wetlands for deportation of pathogens index from rural, urban and industrial wastewater. Int J Environ Sci Technol 15(3):637–648Google Scholar
  27. Kumari M, Tripathi B (2015) Effect of phragmitesaustralis and Typha latifolia on biofiltration of heavy metals from secondary treated effluent. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(3):1029–1038Google Scholar
  28. Lee Ch, Fletcher T, Sun G (2009) Nitrogen removal in constructed wetland systems. Eng Life Sci 9(1):11–22Google Scholar
  29. Lopsik K (2013) Life cycle assessment of small-scale constructed wetland and extended aeration activated sludge wastewater treatment system. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10(6):1295–1308Google Scholar
  30. Margalef R (1983) Limnología. Omega, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitsch W, Gosselink J (2000) Wetlands, 3º edn. Wiley, NewYork, p 920Google Scholar
  32. Neiff J (1999) El régimen de pulsos en ríos y grandes humedales de Sudamérica. Ríos y grandes humedales de Sudamérica 229:90–136Google Scholar
  33. Ojeda E, Caldentey J, Saaltink M, García J (2008) Evaluation of relative importance of different microbial reactions on organic matter removal in horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetlands using a 2D simulation model. Ecol Eng 3(4):65–75Google Scholar
  34. Persson J, Somes N, Wong T (1999) Hydraulics efficiency of constructed wetlands and ponds. Water Sci Technol 40(3):291–300Google Scholar
  35. Piñeyro M (2013) Pilot experience in constructed wetlands: effects of annual seasonality during a year in the treatment of effluents from a fish processing plant. MSc Thesis, Faculty of Science, MontevideoGoogle Scholar
  36. Piñeyro M, Cabrera J, Quintans F, Tejera M, Chalar G (2016) Effects of hydraulic residence time in experimental constructed wetlands on wastewater treatment of a fish factory. Pan-Am J Aqua Sci 11(2):93–102Google Scholar
  37. Sezerino P, Pellizaro A, Decezaro S, Magri M, Philippi L (2015) Experiências brasileiras com wetlands construídos aplicados ao tratamento de águas residuárias: parâmetros de projeto para sistemas horizontais. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental 20(1):151–158Google Scholar
  38. Sharma P, Takashi I, Kato K, Letsugu H, Tomita K, Nagasawa T (2012) Seasonal efficiency of a hybrid sub-surface flow constructed wetland system in treated milking parlor wastewater at northern Hokkaido. Ecol Eng 53:257–266Google Scholar
  39. Shutes R (2001) Artificial wetlands and water quality improvement. Environ Int 26:441–447Google Scholar
  40. Smith VH, Tilman GD, Nekola JC (1999) Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs of freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ Pollut 100(1–3):179–196Google Scholar
  41. Sohsalam P, Englande A, Sirianuntapiboon S (2006) Effect of plant species on microbial groups and pollutants removal in small constructed wetland. In: International conference on environment, Penang, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  42. Solano M, Soriano P, Ciria M (2004) Constructed wetlands as a sustainable solution for wastewater treatment in small villages. Biosys Eng 87(1):109–118Google Scholar
  43. Stottmeister U, Wießner A, Kuschk P, Kappelmeyer U, Kästner M, Bederski O, Müller R, Moormann H (2003) Effects of plants and microorganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Biotechnol Adv 22:93–117Google Scholar
  44. Tanner C (2001) Plants as ecosystem engineers in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands. Water Sci Technol 44(11–12):9–17Google Scholar
  45. Valderrama J (1981) The simultaneous analysis of total nitrogen and total phosphorus in natural waters. Mar Chem 10:109–122Google Scholar
  46. Vidal G, López D, Viera I, Chamorro S, Baeza A (2013) Control de la contaminación de aguas servidas en áreas rurales de alta sensibilidad sísmica a través de humedales construidos. Seguridad y Medio Ambiente, año 131:52–60Google Scholar
  47. Vymazal J (2001) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic. Water Sci Technol 44(11–12):369–374Google Scholar
  48. Vymazal J (2002) The use of sub-surface constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic: 10 years experience. Ecol Eng 18:633–646Google Scholar
  49. Vymazal J (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 380:48–65Google Scholar
  50. Vymazal J (2009) The use constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow for various types of wastewater. Ecol Eng 3(5):1–17Google Scholar
  51. Watson J, Reed S, Kadlec R, Knight R, Whitehouse A (1989) Performance expectations and loading rates for constructed wetlands. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Municipal, industrial and agricultural. Lewis publishers, Chelsea Michigan, pp 319–351Google Scholar
  52. Wood J, Gordon R, Madani A, Stratton G (2008) A long term assessment of phosphorus treatment by a constructed wetland receiving dairy wastewater. Wetlands 28:3715–3723Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Zalewski M (2002) Ecohydrology—the use of ecological and hydrological processes for sustainable management of water resources. Hydrol Sci J 47(5):823–832Google Scholar
  55. Zhu W, Cui L, Ouyang Y, Long C, Tang X (2011) Kinetic adsorption of ammonium nitrogen by substrate materials for constructed wetlands. Soil Science Society of China. Pedosphere 21(4):454–463Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de la RepúblicaMontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations