Constructed Wetlands Manual - UN

United Nations Human Settlements Programme
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS MANUAL CONSTRUCTED

WETLANDS MANUAL
United Nations Human Settlements Programme
CONSTRUCTED
WETLANDS MANUAL
2008
Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2008
All rights reserved. The material in this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part
or in any form for education or non-profit uses without special permission from the copyright
holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. UN-HABITAT would appreciate
receiving a copy of any publication which uses this publication as a source.
Citation
UN-HABITAT, 2008. Constructed Wetlands Manual. UN-HABITAT Water for Asian
Cities Programme Nepal, Kathmandu.
United Nations Human Settlements

Programme (UN-HABITAT)
P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Tel (254-20) 7621234
Fax (254-20) 7624266
E-mail [email protected]
Web www.unhabitat.org
HS Number: HS/980/08E
ISBN Number: (Volume) 978-92-1-131963-7
Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the
United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its
authorities or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or regarding its economic
system or degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of the
ii report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Human Settlements
Programme (UN-HABITAT), the Governing Council of UNHABITAT or its Member
Constructed Wetlands Manual
States.
April, 2008
foreword
In a rapidly urbanizing world, poor environmental sanitation has emerged as a major
challenge, threatening the health and livelihoods particularly of the poor. It is also now
clear, that if business continues as usual, the sanitation related MDG to halve by 2015, the
proportion of people without sustainable access to basic sanitation will not be met.
Mere provision of toilets is not enough to ensure good environmental sanitation. Excreta
from toilets needs to be transported and disposed of safely without creating an environmental
health hazard. While in the large cities of industrialized countries this is usually achieved
through centralized wastewater management systems with advanced treatment technologies,
such systems tend to be expensive and difficult to operate.
Smaller, decentralized, wastewater management and treatment systems such as constructed

wetlands can be a viable alternative for many urban areas in developing countries. Constructed
wetlands are relatively inexpensive to build where land is affordable and can be easily
operated and maintained even by the community.
This manual, drawing upon a number of examples in Nepal, provides basic guidance on the
design, construction and operation and maintenance of constructed wetlands and also
indicates situations where this may not be a feasible alternative.
I believe that the experiences and the case studies described in this manual can serve as
useful reference material for municipal officials and water and sanitation professionals and
hope that it will stimulate local action for affordable and simple wastewater management
systems and technologies.
iii
Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka

Executive Director, UN-HABITAT
iv
Preface
With support from the Water and Sanitation Trust fund, UN-HABITAT is implementing the Water
For Asian Cities Programme (WAC) which is currently operational in India, People’s Republic of
China, Nepal, Lao PDR and Vietnam and is being extended to Cambodia, Indonesia and Pakistan.
With the overarching goal of creating an enabling environment for pro-poor investments in cities,
the WAC programme is demonstrating innovative approaches for improving access to water and
sanitation for the poor. These pilot and demonstration projects usually aim to tackle difficult water
and environmental sanitation problems through practical community based approaches. One such
problem confronting the rapidly urbanizing cities in Asia is the safe treatment and disposal of
wastewater. Conventional solutions using advanced technologies are simply not affordable or are too
complex to maintain in most small and medium sized towns.
Under the WAC’s “normative” work programme, lessons learnt through pilot projects are documented
for wider dissemination. This publication on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of
constructed wetlands was prepared under the WAC programme on the basis of experiences in Nepal
and in recognition of the need for a viable alternative to conventional wastewater treatment and
disposal technologies. It should however be noted that constructed wetlands have their limitations-
the unavailability or the cost of land can make them unviable; and climatological aspects and
wastewater parameters can affect their proper functioning.
The preparation of the manual was coordinated by Dr. Roshan Shrestha, Chief Technical Adviser,
WAC, Nepal. The WAC programme also appreciates the contribution of Mr. Shirish Singh, Dr. Guenter
Langergraber and Dr. Elif Asuman Korkusuz of the University of Natural Resources and Applied
Sciences Vienna in the development of this manual.
Andre Dzikus
Chief
Water and Sanitation Section II v
Water, Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

vi
Contents
iii foreword
v preface
1 chapter ONE introduction
3 chapter TWO what is a constructed wetland?

2.1 Advantages of constructed wetlands 5
2.2 Limitations of constructed wetlands 5
7 chapter THREE configurations of constructed wetland

3.1 Horizontal Flow (HF) 7
3.2 Vertical Flow (VF) 8
3.3 Hybrid 9
11 chapter FOUR how does a constructed wetland function
15 chapter FIVE design of constructed wetland

5.1 Preliminary treatment 15 vii
5.2 Primary treatment 16
5.2.1 Septic Tank 16

5.2.2 Anaerobic Baffle Reactor (Improved septic tank) 17
5.3 Sizing of the wetland 18
5.3.1 Sizing based on equation 18
5.3.2 Sizing based on specific area requirement per Population Equivalent 20
5.4 Depth 21
5.4.1 HF wetland 21
5.4.2 VF wetland 22
5.5 Bed cross section area (only for HF wetland) 22
5.6 Media selection 23
5.6.1 HF wetland 23
5.6.2 VF wetland 24
5.7 Bed Slope 24
5.8 Sealing of the bed 25
5.9 Inlet and outlet structures 26
5.9.1 Inlets 26
5.9.2 Outlet 32
5.10 Vegetation 33
35 chapter SIX construction of constructed wetland

6.1 Basin Construction 35
6.2 Lining of the basin 35
Permeability test 36
6.3 Substrate filling 37
6.3.1 HF wetland 37
6.3.2 VF wetland 37
Sand suitability test 38
6.4 Inlet and Outlet Structures 39
6.5 Planting vegetation 40
6.6 Water level management for the growth of vegetation 41
47 chapter SEVEN operation and maintenance

7.1 Start-up 47
7.2 Routine operation 47
7.2.1 Adjustment of water levels 48
7.2.2 Maintenance of flow uniformity 48
viii
7.2.3 Vegetation management 48
7.2.4 Odor Control 50

7.2.5 Maintenance of berms (Walls) 51
7.3 Long-term operations 51
53 chapter EIGHT constructed wetland for sludge drying

55 chapter NINE case studies
9.1 Hospital wastewater treatment (Dhulikhel Hospital) 55
9.1.1 Technical description 55
9.1.2 Performance 57
9.1.3 Operation and maintenance 58
9.1.4 Costs 58
9.2 Combined laboratory and domestic wastewater
treatment and reuse (ENPHO) 58
9.2.4 Costs 61
9.3 Institutional wastewater treatment (Kathmandu University) 61
9.3.4 Costs 64
9.4 Municipal wastewater treatment (Sunga) 64
9.4.4 Costs 67
9.5 Grey water treatment (Private residence) 67
9.5.4 Costs 69
9.6 Septage and landfill leachate treatment (Pokhara) 70
9.6.2 Costs 71
73 references
ix
77 Annex - A: How to treat raw sewage with constructed wetlands: An overview of the
French systems
Tables
Table 1 Major International Conferences 5
Table 2 Pollutant Removal Mechanisms in Constructed Wetlands 12
Table 3 Basic design criteria for two-compartment septic tank 16
Table 4 Basic design criteria for an anaerobic baffle reactor 18
Table 5 Fortnightly O & M action list 51
Table 6 Two-monthly O & M action list 52
Table 7 Yearly O & M action list 52
Table 8 Technical description of Dhulikhel Hospital Constructed Wetland 56
Table 9 Technical description of ENPHO Constructed Wetland 59
Table 10 Technical description of Kathmandu University Constructed Wetland 62
Table 11 Technical description of Sunga Constructed Wetland 65
Table 12 Average concentrations of pollutants at Sunga 67
Table 13 Technical description of Constructed Wetland at Private Residence 68
Figures
Figure 1 Improved sanitation coverage in 2002 1
Figure 2 Components of a constructed wetland 3
Figure 3 Schematic cross- section of a horizontal flow constructed wetland 8
Figure 4 Schematic cross- section of a vertical flow constructed wetland 9
Figure 5 Pollutant removal mechanism 11
Figure 6 Oxygen transfer from roots 12
Figure 7 Nitrogen transformations in a constructed wetland 13
Figure 8 Schematic cross- section of a two-compartment septic tank 16
Figure 9 Schematic cross- section of an up flow anaerobic baffle reactor 17
Figure 10 KBOD for HF plotted against Temperature for substrate depth 40 cm and porosity 40% 19
Figure 11 KBOD for VF plotted against Temperature for substrate depth 70 cm and porosity 30% 19
Figure 12 Specific area requirement per PE for HF and VF wetland for
different specific wastewater discharges 20
Figure 13 Substrate arrangement in a HF wetland 24
Figure 14 Substrate arrangement in a VF wetland 25
Figure 15 Substrate arrangement in a VF wetland 27
Figure 16 Outlet devices 32
Figure 17 Typical grain size distribution 38
Figure 18 Sand suitability test 38
Figure 19 The effect of wetland layout configuration on effective flow distribution 39
Figure 20 Results of sand suitability test 39
Figure 21 Technique for planting rhizome cuttings 40
Figure 22 Substrate profile for sludge drying bed 54
Figure 23 Schematic representation of constructed wetland at Dhulikhel Hospital 55
Figure 24 Performance of constructed wetland at Dhulikhel Hospital from 1997 to 2006 57
Figure 25 Schematic representation of constructed wetland at ENPHO 59
x Figure 26 Performance of constructed wetland at ENPHO from 2002 to 2006 60
Figure 27 Schematic representation of constructed wetland at Sunga 61
Figure 28 Performance of constructed wetland at Kathmandu University from 2001 to 2006 63

Figure 29 Schematic representation of constructed wetland at Kathmandu University 64
Figure 30 Performance of constructed wetland at Sunga from August 2006 to August 2007 66
Figure 31 Schematic representation of constructed wetland at private residence 67
Figure 32 Performance of constructed wetland at private residence from May 1998 to May 2000 69
Figure 33 Schematic representation of septage and landfill leachate treatment plant 70
chapter
ONE
introduction
ALMOST all of the world’s major cities have gone in to the 21st Century facing an
environmental crisis. The world’s cities not only face the challenge of supplying adequate
sanitation facilities to its residents (Figure 1), but must also ensure that the available water
resources are not contaminated. The discharge of untreated wastewater is a major contributor
to deteriorating health conditions and pollution of nearby water bodies. The problem is
expected to increase due to rapid pace of urban growth, unless measures are taken to control
and treat effluents.
The approach of centralized, water-based sewer systems was applied to attain considerable
public health improvement in urban areas of industrialized countries. However, the cost of
such a sewer-based system is enormous and is unaffordable to many of the developing
countries. Centralized systems require conventional (intensive) treatment systems, which
are technologically complex and financially expensive, so many communities of the
developing countries cannot afford the construction and operation of conventional treatment
systems. For these communities, alternative natural treatment systems, which are simple
1
Percentage of population
using improved sanitation
Less than 50%
50% to 75%
76% to 90%
91% to 100%
Insufficient data FIGURE 1 Improved sanitation coverage in 2002 (WHO/UNICEF, 2004) FIGURE 1
in the construction and operation, yet inexpensive and environmentally friendly, seem to
be appropriate.
Constructed Wetlands (CWs) are a natural, low-cost, eco-technological biological wastewater

treatment technology designed to mimic processes found in natural wetland ecosystems,
which is now standing as the potential alternative or supplementary systems for the
treatment of wastewater.
This manual is not a plea to implement constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment but
aims at providing a comprehensive description of the issues related to wastewater treatment
through constructed wetlands. This manual has been prepared as a general guide to the
design, construction, operation and maintenance of constructed wetlands for the treatment
of domestic wastewater as well as introduction to the design of constructed wetland for
sludge drying.
Chapter 2 presents an introduction of the constructed wetlands and its development.

Chapter 3 describes the configurations of constructed wetlands and gives insight of the
horizontal and vertical flow constructed wetlands. Chapter 4 aims at providing an overview
of working principle of constructed wetlands and describes the removal mechanisms of
specific pollutants. Chapter 5 illustrates the various aspects to be considered during the
design of a subsurface flow constructed wetland. The constructional aspects of the wetland
are illustrated with pictures in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 states the operation and maintenance
of wetlands for smooth functioning and Chapter 8 gives an introduction on the design of
constructed wetlands for sludge drying. Six case studies of constructed wetlands in Nepal
for the treatment of different types of wastewater are described in Chapter 9. The case study
describes the technical details, performance of the wetland, its operation and maintenance
as well as associated costs.
2
chapter
TWO
what is a
constructed wetland?
A CONSTRUCTED wetland is a shallow basin filled with some sort of filter material
(substrate), usually sand or gravel, and planted with vegetation tolerant of saturated
conditions. Wastewater is introduced into the basin and flows over the surface or through
the substrate, and is discharged out of the basin through a structure which controls the
depth of the wastewater in the wetland.
A constructed wetland comprises of the following five major components:

• Basin
• Substrate
• Vegetation
• Liner
• Inlet/Outlet arrangement system.
Substrate Vegetation
3
Inlet Outlet
Liner Basin
Components of a constructed wetland FIGURE 2

The excavated basin is filled with a permeable substrate (rock, gravel, sand and soil have all
been used), and the water level is maintained below the top of the substrate so that all flow
is supposed to be subsurface. This substrate supports the roots system of the same types of
emergent vegetation, which are planted in the top surface of the substrate. The equal
distribution and collection of wastewater is achieved by inlet and outlet arrangement
systems. A liner is used, if the protection of the groundwater is important.
Since the 1950s, CWs have been used effectively to treat different wastewaters with different
configurations, scales and designs throughout the world. Existing systems of this type range
from those serving single-family dwellings to large-scale municipal systems. Nowadays,
constructed wetlands are common alternative treatment systems in Europe in rural areas
and over 95% of these wetlands are subsurface flow wetlands. In the following years, the
number of these systems is expected to be over 10,000 only in Europe (Platzer, 2000).
Even though the potential for application of wetland technology in the developing world is
enormous, the rate of adoption of wetlands technology for wastewater treatment in those
countries has been slow. It has been identified that the current limitations to widespread
adoption of CW technology for wastewater treatment in developing countries is due to the
fact that they have limited knowledge and experience with CW design and management.
Due to the enormous potential of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, a number
of international conferences are organized for the dissemination of the new developments
in this field. Apart from other international conferences, the International Water Association
(IWA) organizes the International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution
Control every two year. The list of the IWA international conferences are shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1 Major international conferences

CONFERENCE DATE VENUE
1st International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 1988 Chattanooga, USA
2nd International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 24 to 28 Sept 1990 Cambridge, U.K.
3rd International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 30 Nov to 03 Dec 1992 Sydney, Australia
4th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 6 to 10 Nov 1994 Guangzhou, P.R. China
5th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 15 to 19 Sept 1996 Vienna, Austria
4 6th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 27 Sept to 02 Oct 1998 Sao Pedro, Brazil
7th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 11 to 16 Nov 2000 Florida, USA
8th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 16 to 19 Sept 2002 Arusha, Tanzania
9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 26 to 30 Sept 2004 Avignon, France
10th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 25 to 29 Sept 2006 Lisbon, Portugal
11th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control 01 to 07 Nov 2008 Indore, India
2.1 Advantages of constructed wetlands
• wetlands can be less expensive to build than other treatment options
• utilization of natural processes,
• simple construction (can be constructed with local materials),
• simple operation and maintenance,
• cost effectiveness (low construction and operation costs),
• process stability.
2.2 Limitations of constructed wetlands

• large area requirement
• wetland treatment may be economical relative to other options only where land is
available and affordable.
• design criteria have yet to be developed for different types of wastewater and climates.
5
6
chapter
THREE
configurations of
constructed wetland
THERE are various design configurations of constructed wetlands (Haberl, 1999) and they
can be classified according to the following items:
• Life form of the dominating macrophytes (free-floating, emergent, submerged),
• Flow pattern in the wetland systems (free water surface flow; subsurface flow: horizontal
and vertical),
• Type of configurations of the wetland cells (hybrid systems, one-stage, multi-stage
systems),
• Type of wastewater to be treated,
• Treatment level of wastewater (primary, secondary or tertiary),
• Type of pretreatment,
• Influent and effluent structures,
• Type of substrate (gravel, soil, sand, etc.), and
• Type of loading (continuous or intermittent loading).
Among the various classifications listed above, only subsurface flow constructed wetlands
have been considered in this manual. There are mainly two types of flow directions used in
these wetlands. These are horizontal flow (HF) and vertical flow (VF).
3.1 Horizontal flow (HF) 7

Figure 3 shows schematic cross section of a horizontal flow constructed wetland. It is called
HF wetland because the wastewater is fed in at the inlet and flow slowly through the porous
substrate under the surface of the bed in a more or less horizontal path until it reaches the
outlet zone. During this passage the wastewater will come into contact with a network of
aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic zones. The aerobic zones will be around the roots and
rhizomes of the wetland vegetation that leak oxygen into the substrate. During the passage
of wastewater through the rhizosphere, the wastewater is cleaned by microbiological
degradation and by physical and chemical processes (Cooper et al. 1996). HF wetland can
effectively remove the organic pollutants (TSS, BOD5 and COD) from the wastewater. Due
to the limited oxygen transfer inside the wetland, the removal of nutrients (especially
nitrogen) is limited, however, HF wetlands remove the nitrates in the wastewater.
Vegetation
Inlet Pipe Treatment

Water level
Zone (sand)
Impermeable liner
Distribution Collection Zone Adjustable

Zone (gravel) (gravel) standpipe
Schematic cross- section of a horizontal flow constructed wetland (Morel & Diener, 2006) FIGURE 3
3.2 Vertical flow (VF)

VF constructed wetland comprises a flat bed of sand/gravel topped with sand/gravel and
vegetation (Figure 4). Wastewater is fed from the top and then gradually percolates down
through the bed and is collected by a drainage network at the base.
Dristribution Pipes
Gravel
8 Sand
Impermeable Liner
Drainage Pipes
Schematic cross- section of a vertical flow constructed wetland (Morel & Diener, 2006) FIGURE 4
VF wetlands are fed intermittently in a large batch flooding the surface. The liquid gradually
drains down through the bed and is collected by a drainage network at the base. The bed drains
completely free and it allows air to refill the bed. The next dose of liquid traps this air and this
together with aeration caused by the rapid dosing onto the bed leads to good oxygen transfer
and hence the ability to nitrify. The oxygen diffusion from the air created by the intermittent
dosing system contributes much more to the filtration bed oxygenation as compared to oxygen
transfer through plant. Platzer (1998) showed that the intermittent dosing system has a
potential oxygen transfer of 23 to 64 g O2.m-2.d-1 whereas Brix (1997) showed that the oxygen
transfer through plant (common reed species) has a potential oxygen transfer of 2 g O2.m-2.
d-1 to the root zone, which mainly is utilized by the roots and rhizomes themselves.
The latest generation of constructed wetlands has been developed as vertical flow system
with intermittent loading. The reason for growing interest in using vertical flow systems
are:
• They have much greater oxygen transfer capacity resulting in good nitrification;
• They are considerably smaller than HF system,
• They can efficiently remove BOD5, COD and pathogens.
3.3 Hybrid
HF wetland is approved well to remove BOD5 and TSS for secondary wastewater treatment
but not for nitrification due to the limited oxygen transfer capacity. As a result there has
been a growing interest in VF wetland because they have a much greater oxygen transfer
capacity and considerably less area requirement than HF. But VF wetlands also have some
limitation like less efficient in solids removal and can become clogged if the media selection
is not correct. Due to these reasons, there has been a growing interest in combined (hybrid)
wetlands. In these systems, the advantages and disadvantages of the HF and VF can be
combined to complement each other.
Depending on the purpose, hybrid wetlands could be either HF wetland followed by VF

wetland or VF wetland followed by HF wetland.
9
10
chapter
FOUR
how does a constructed

wetland function
A CONSTRUCTED wetland is a complex assemblage of wastewater, substrate, vegetation
and an array of microorganisms (most importantly bacteria). Vegetation plays a vital role
in the wetlands as they provide surfaces and a suitable environment for microbial growth
and filtration. Pollutants are removed within the wetlands by several complex physical,
chemical and biological processes as depicted in Figure 5.
Marsh Plants
Volatilization Wastewater
Inflow
Pollutant
Plant metabolism Bacterial
Degradation
Filtration & Adsorption Sedimentation,

precipitation & Adsorption
Sediment
Pollutant removal mechanism (modified from Wetlands International, 2003) FIGURE 5 11

The pollutant removal mechanisms in constructed wetland are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Pollutant Removal Mechanisms in Constructed Wetlands (Cooper et al., 1996)
WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS REMOVAL MECHANISM
• Sedimentation
Suspended Solids
• Filtration
• Aerobic microbial degradation
Soluble organics
• Anaerobic microbial degradation
• Matrix sorption
Phosphorous
• Plant uptake
• Ammonification followed by microbial nitrification
• Denitrification
Nitrogen • Plant uptake
• Matrix adsorption
• Ammonia volatilization (mostly in SF system)
• Adsorption and cation exchange
• Complexation
Metals • Precipitation
• Plant uptake
• Microbial Oxidation /reduction
• Sedimentation
• Filtration
• Natural die – off
Pathogens
• Predation
• UV irradiation (SF system)
• Excretion of antibiotics from roots of macrophytes
Settleable and suspended solids that are not removed

in the primary treatment are effectively removed in
the wetland by filtration and sedimentation. Particles
settle into stagnant micropockets or are strained by
flow constrictions.
Attached and suspended microbial growth is

New Shoot
responsible for the removal of soluble organic
compounds, which are degraded biologically both Root
aerobically (in presence of dissolved oxygen) as well Oxidised Zone
as anaerobically (in absence of dissolved oxygen). Oxygen
The oxygen required for aerobic degradation is
supplied directly from the atmosphere by diffusion
12 or oxygen leakage from the vegetation roots into the
rhizosphere, however, the oxygen transfer from the

roots is negligible (Figure 6). Root Hair
Reduced
Enlarged
Zone
The mechanisms for phosphorus removal in Rhizome
constructed wetlands are adsorption, complexation Oxygen transfer from roots
and precipitation, storage, plant uptake and biotic (modified from Wetlands
assimilation (Watson et al., 1989). International, 2003) FIGURE 6
The removal mechanisms for nitrogen in constructed wetlands are manifold and include
volatilization, ammonification, nitrification/denitrification, plant uptake and matrix
adsorption (Figure 7). The major removal mechanism in most of the constructed wetlands
is microbial nitrification/denitrification. Ammonia is oxidized to nitrate by nitrifying
bacteria in aerobic zones. Nitrates are converted to dinitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria
in anoxic and anaerobic zones.
The process of metal removal in wetlands include sedimentation, filtration, adsorption,

complexation, precipitation, cation exchange, plant uptake and microbially-mediated
reactions especially oxidation (Watson et al., 1989). Adsorption involves the binding of
metal ions to the plant or matrix surface, whereas the presence of bacteria causes the
precipitation of metal oxides and sulphides within the wetland. Some wetland species have
a well-established ability for direct uptake of metals.
Pathogens are removed in wetland during the passage of wastewater through the system
mainly by sedimentation, filtration and adsorption by biomass. Once these organisms are
entrapped within the system, their numbers decrease rapidly, mainly by the processes of
natural die-off and predation (Cooper et. al, 1996).
Volatilisation Matrix absorption Biomass uptake
NH4+
Anaerobic Zone Nitrific Aerobic Zone
ation
N2 ' N2 ' N2O Ammonification NO2- Biomass
N2O gas uptake
Den
itri Organiv N tion
fica
tion trifica
Ni
NO3-
Biomass uptake
Nitrogen transformations in a constructed wetland (Cooper et al., 1996) FIGURE 7
13
14
chapter
FIVE
design of
constructed wetland
BEFORE designing a constructed wetland, it should be borne in mind that the substrate
of the wetland can be rapidly filled up with debris, grit, and solids from raw wastewater if
these materials are not removed prior to the wetland. Therefore, a minimum preliminary/
primary treatment should be provided to remove the settleable solids. However, some
systems in France have avoided the primary treatment units and used staged vertical flow
constructed wetlands, that are operated in parallel, instead (Molle et al., 2004). These systems
are out of the scope of this manual. Please refer to the research paper “How to treat raw
sewage with constructed wetlands: An overview of the French Systems” presented as
Annex–A of this manual.
5.1 Preliminary treatment

Preliminary treatment mainly separates the coarsely dispersed solids out of the liquid phase.
The preliminary treatment prepares wastewater influent for further treatment in wetland
by reducing or removing problem wastewater characteristic that could otherwise impede
operation or unduly increase maintenance of the wetland and pumps (if any). The typical
problem characteristics include large solids and rags; grit; odours etc.
The preliminary treatment of wastewater comprises of mainly screen and grit chamber. A
screen is a device with openings, generally of uniform size, that is used to retain solids found
15
in the influent wastewater to the treatment plant, which removes coarse materials from the
wastewater. Grit chamber remove grit, consisting of sand, gravel, or other heavy sold materials
that have specific gravities much greater than those of the organic solids in the wastewater.
(The Reader is recommended to follow standard text books for preliminary treatment of
wastewater.)
5.2 Primary treatment
Primary treatment separates the suspended matter by physical operations mainly
sedimentation. Raw wastewater contains suspended particulate heavier than water; these
particles tend to settle by gravity under quiescent conditions. Primary treatment reduces
suspended solids, organic load to the wetland and also equalises raw wastewater quality and
flow to a limited degree.
5.2.1 Septic Tank

The septic tank is the most common primary treatment used in small-scale constructed
wetland worldwide. A two-compartment septic tank will remove more solids than a single
compartment tank (Loudon et al., 2005). Figure 8 depicts a schematic cross-section of a
typical double-compartment septic tank.
Scum
Sludge
Schematic cross- section of a two-compartment septic tank (Morel and Diener, 2006) FIGURE 8
Septic tanks will generally need to be desludged, otherwise they produce very poor effluents
with high suspended solids content, which can be detrimental to the constructed wetland
(clogging of beds). To ensure continuous effective operation, the accumulated material
must therefore be emptied periodically. This should take place when sludge and scum
accumulation exceeds 30 percent of the tank’s liquid volume. The basic design criteria for
a two-chambered septic tank is shown in Table 3.
16 Table 3 Basic design criteria for two-compartment septic tank

Hydraulic retention time > 12 hours at maximum sludge depth and scum accumulation
Sludge accumulation rate Depending on TSS removal rate and wastewater flow (70 – 100 litres/person/year)
Sludge and scum accumulation volume Sludge accumulation rate multiplied by sludge accumulation rate
Desludging interval > 1 year
Volume of first compartment Two-third of the entire tank volume
Further information on septic tank design is available from Mara D. (1996), Crites and
Tchobanoglous (1998), Sasse L. (1998) or any other standard references.
EXAMPLE
The example presented here is a general case. Let us calculate the sizing of a two-chambered septic tank for a population of 400
with specific wastewater flow of 80 litres per person per day.
• Average volume of wastewater (Q) = 400 x 80 / 1000 = 32 m3/d
• Hydraulic Retention time (HRT) = 1.5 day = 36 hours (assumed)
• Required volume of septic tank = Q x HRT = 32 x 1.5 = 48 m3
• Volume of 1st compartment = 2/3 of required volume = 2/3 x 48 = 32 m3
• Volume of 2nd compartment = 1/3 of required volume = 1/3 x 48 = 16 m3
• Depth of septic tank = 2 m (assumed)
• Width of septic tank = 4 m (assumed)
Then,
• Length of 1st compartment = Volume/(Depth x Width) = 32/(1.7* x 4) = 4.7 m
• Length of 2nd compartment = Volume/(Depth x Width) = 16/(1.7* x 4) = 2.35 m
* Please note that the depth of septic tank is taken as 1.7 m after deducting a free board of 0.3 m)
Check the HRT after sludge accumulation:

• Sludge accumulation rate = 70 litres/person/year
• Desludging interval = 1 year
• Sludge volume = sludge accumulation rate x number of users x desludging interval = (70 x 400 x 1)/1000 = 28 m3
• Available volume for wastewater in septic tank = Total volume – sludge volume = 48 – 28 = 20 m3
• HRT after sludge accumulation = Available volume for wastewater in septic tank/Average volume of wastewater = 20/32 =
0.625 days = 15 hours (Since HRT > 12 hours, the design is OK)
5.2.2 Anaerobic Baffle Reactor (Improved septic tank)

In recent years, anaerobic baffle reactor (improved septic tank) designs have been developed
to enhance removal efficiencies of solids and organic pollutants. The basic principle of such
systems is to increase contact between the entering wastewater and the active biomass in
the accumulated sludge. This is achieved by inserting baffles into the tank and forcing the
wastewater to flow under and over the baffles as the wastewater passes from inlet to outlet.
Wastewater flowing from bottom to top passes through the settled sludge and enables
contact between wastewater and biomass.
Scum
17
Sludge
Schematic cross- section of an up flow anaerobic baffle reactor (Morel and Diener, 2006) FIGURE 9
The basic design criteria for an anaerobic baffle reactor are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Basic design criteria for an anaerobic baffle reactor

Hydraulic retention time > 24 hours at maximum sludge depth and scum accumulation
Sludge accumulation rate Depending on TSS removal rate and wastewater flow (70 – 100 litres/person/year)
Sludge and scum accumulation volume Sludge accumulation rate multiplied by sludge accumulation rate
Desludging interval > 1 year
Number of upflow chambers >2
Maximum upflow velocity 1.4 – 2 m/h
Further information on anaerobic baffle reactor design is available from Sasse (1998),
Wanasen (2003), Foxon et al., (2004) etc.
5.3 Sizing of the wetland

5.3.1 Sizing based on equation
The wetland might be sized based on the equation proposed by Kickuth:
Ah = Qd (ln Ci – ln Ce)
KBOD
• Ah = Surface area of bed (m2)
• Qd = average daily flow rate of sewage (m3/d)
• Ci = influent BOD5 concentration (mg/l)
• Ce = effluent BOD5 concentration (mg/l)
• KBOD = rate constant (m/d)
KBOD is determined from the expression KTdn, where,
• KT = K20 (1.06)(T-20)
• K20 = rate constant at 20 ºC (d-1)
• T = operational temperature of system (ºC)
18 • d = depth of water column (m)
• n = porosity of the substrate medium (percentage expressed as fraction)
KBOD is temperature dependent and the BOD degradation rate generally increases about
10 % per ºC. Thus, the reaction rate constant for BOD degradation is expected to be higher
during summer than winter. It has also been reported that the KBOD increases with the age
of the system.
a) KBOD for HF wetland
Figure 10 shows KBOD for a HF wetland. The graph has been plotted based on the above
equation for temperatures ranging from 10 ºC to 25 ºC. The depth of HF wetland has been
taken as 40 cm and the porosity of the substrate as 40%. The value of K20 has been taken as
1.1 d-1.
0.25
0.20
0.15
KBOD
0.10
0.05
10 15 20 25
Temperature (degree)
KBOD for HF plotted against Temperature for substrate depth 40 cm and porosity 40% FIGURE 10
b) KBOD for VF wetland
Figure 11 shows KBOD for a VF wetland. The graph has been plotted based on the same
equation as for HF wetland for temperatures ranging from 10 ºC to 25 ºC. The depth of VF
wetland has been taken as 70 cm and the porosity of the substrate as 30%. The value of K20
has been taken as 1.1 d-1.
0.35
0.30
0.25
KBOD
0.20 19
0.15
0.10
10 15 20 25
Temperature (degree)
KBOD for VF plotted against Temperature for substrate depth 70 cm and porosity 30% FIGURE 11
5.3.2 Sizing based on specific area requirement per
Population Equivalent (PE)
The specific area requirement per PE holds true where there is uniformity in the specific
wastewater quantity and quality. In general, the rules of thumb suggested by several works
can be served as a safe bed (depending on the climatic conditions). However the investment
costs tend to be higher due to conservative aspects of this approach.
Specific area requirement for HF and VF constructed wetland has been calculated for various
specific wastewater discharges for a certain population. The BOD contribution has been
taken as 40 g BOD/pe.d, 30% BOD load is reduced in the primary treatment and the effluent
concentration of BOD is taken as 30 mg/l. The KBOD for HF and VF wetlands are taken as
0.15 and 0.20 respectively. It is seen that a specific area requirement of 1 – 2 m2/pe would
be required of HF constructed wetlands where as a specific area of 0.8 – 1.5 m2/pe for the
VF wetland.
wetland
2.00 ement for HF
equir
Area requirement (m2/pe)
Area r
wetland
1.50 uirement for VF
Area req
1.00
0.10
40 80 120 160 160
Specific wastewater flow (lpcd)
Specific area requirement per PE for HF and
VF wetland for different specific wastewater discharges FIGURE 12
Taking into considerations of the cases in Nepal, it is to be noted that the specific area
requirement presented in the graph is less than the specific area requirement given in various
literatures because the KBOD used in the literatures are lower and the specific wastewater
20 discharges are high.
EXAMPLE
The example presented here is a general case. The local circumstances and standards needs to be taken into account by the designer.
Let us calculate the sizing of a constructed wetland for a population of 400 with specific wastewater flow of 80 litres per person per
day.
• Average volume of wastewater (Q) = 400 x 80 / 1000 = 32 m3/d

To determine the influent BOD5 concentration, the wastewater sample should be analyzed in an accredited laboratory. In the absence
of a laboratory, the concentration can calculated as below:
• BOD5 contribution = 40 g BOD5/pe.d
• BOD5 concentration = 40 x 1000/80 = 500 mg/l
• Let us assume that 30% BOD5 is removed by the primary treatment unit, then the influent BOD5 concentration to the wetland
(Ci) = 350 mg/l
• Effluent BOD5 concentration (Ce) = 30 mg/l
• KBOD = 0.15 m/d for HF wetland and 0.2 m/d for VF wetland
Substituting the values in the equation below:
A = Qd (ln Ci – ln Ce)
KBOD
• Area for HF wetland = 524.10 m2

• Specific area per PE for HF wetland = 1.31 m2
• Area for VF wetland = 393.08 m2
• Specific area per PE for VF wetland = 0.98 m2
5.4 Depth
In general, the depth of substrate in a subsurface flow constructed wetland is restricted to
approximately the rooting depth of plants so that the plants are in contact with the flowing
water and have an effect on treatment. However, Hydraulic Retention Time – HRT (time
the wastewater is retained in the wetland) is to be considered in the selection of the depth
of the wetland.
5.4.1 HF wetland
Most HF wetlands in Europe provide a bed depth of 60 cm (Cooper et al., 1996). In the
United States, HF wetlands have commonly been designed with beds 30 cm to 45 cm deep
(Steiner and Watson, 1993). An experimental study carried out in Spain showed that shallow
HF wetlands with an average depth of 27 cm were more effective than deep HF wetlands 21
with an average water depth of 50 cm. (Garcia et al., 2004).
It is recommended to use an average depth of 40 cm taking into considerations of the

precipitation, which could cause surface flow.
5.4.2 VF wetland
Generally, VF systems are built with larger depths compared to HF systems. Most VF systems
in UK are built 50 – 80 cm deep (Cooper et al., 1996). In contrast to that, depth greater than
80 cm is recommended in Germany (ATV, 1998). Similarly, in Austria a depth of 95 cm is
recommended (ÖNORM 1997). A minimum of 100 cm depth is recommended in Denmark
(Brix, 2004). The VF systems in Nepal were also built about 100 cm deep but nowadays
shallower depths are being practiced.
In a subtropical climate, it is possible to increase the applied loading rates above guidelines
issued in Central Europe and achieve nitrification in VF system. The average results by
vertical beds of 75 cm depth showed better performance in comparison with vertical beds
of 45 cm depth (Philippi et al., 2004).
It is recommended to use substrate depth of 70 cm, which can provide adequate nitrification
in addition to the organic pollutants removal.
5.5 Bed cross section area (only for HF wetland)

Dimensioning of the bed is derived from Darcy’s law and should provide subsurface flow
through the gravel under average flow conditions. Two important assumptions have been
made in applying the formula:
• hydraulic gradient can be used in place of slope, and
• the hydraulic conductivity will stabilize at 10-3 m/s in the established wetland.
The equation is:
Ac = Qs / Kf (dH/ds)
• Ac = Cross sectional area of the bed (m2)

• Qs = average flow (m3/s)
• Kf = hydraulic conductivity of the fully developed bed (m/s)
• dH/ds = slope of bottom of the bed (m/m)
22 For graded gravels a value of Kf of 1 x 10-3 to 3 x 10-3 m/s is normally chosen. In most cases,
dH/ds of 1% is used.
There is no hard and fast rule on the optimum width of the wetland, however, it is
recommended that if the width of the wetland is more than 15 m, the wetland cell should
be partitioned to avoid short circuiting of wastewater inside the wetland. It should also be
kept in mind that it is better to use at least two parallel cells instead of a single wetland cell
for the ease in operation and maintenance of the wetland.
EXAMPLE
Let us find the bed cross sectional area required for the HF wetland that was calculated in section 5.3
• Qs = 32 m3/d = 0.00037 m3/s
• Kf = 2 x 10-3 m/s
• dH/ds = 0.01
Substituting the values in the above equation,
• Ac = 18.52 m2
Considering the depth of the wetland as 0.4 m, the width of the wetland would be 46.30 m. Length of the wetland = Plan area/width
= 524.1/46.3 = 11.3 m
It is recommended that if the width of the wetland is greater than 15 m, the wetland cell should be partitioned. Now let us take 3
wetlands in parallel, then
• Qs = 0.00012 m3/s
• Kf = 2 x 10-3 m/s
• dH/ds = 0.01
Substituting the values in the above equation,
• Ac = 6.17 m2
Considering the depth of the wetland as 0.4 m, the width of the wetland would be 15.43 m. Let us provide a width of 15 m.
Length of the wetland = Plan area/width/number of wetlands = 524.1/15/3 = 11.6 m
In VF wetlands, since the flow is vertical, the width and cross-sectional area of VF beds are
not set by a requirement to keep the flow below surface and prevent surface flow.
5.6 Media selection

The media perform several functions. They:
• are rooting material for vegetation,
• help to evenly distribute/collect flow at inlet/outlet,
• provide surface area for microbial growth, and
• filter and trap particles.
Very small particles have very low hydraulic conductivity and create surface flow. Very large
particles have high conductivity, but have little wetted surface area per unit volume of
microbial habitat. Large and angular medium is inimical to root propagation. The compromise
is for intermediate-sized materials generally characterized as gravels. It is recommended
that the gravels are washed because this removes fines that could block the void spaces. 23
5.6.1 HF wetland
It is reported that the diameter size of media used in HF wetlands varies from 0.2 mm to
30 mm (ÖNORM B 2505, 1996, Vymazal, 1997, GFA, 1998, EC/EWPCA, 1990, U.S. EPA,
1988, Steiner and Watson, 1993, U.S. EPA, 1993, Reed et al., 1995, U.S. EPA, 2000).
It is recommended that the media in the inlet and outlet zones should be between 40 and
80 mm in diameter to minimize clogging and should extend from the top to the bottom of
the system. For the treatment zone, there does not appear to be a clear advantage in pollutant
removal with different sized media in the 10 to 60 mm range (U.S. EPA, 2000). Figure 13
shows the recommended substrate sizes, which uses 40 – 80 mm media at the inlet/outlet
zones and 5 – 20 mm at the treatment zone.
Inlet Pipe
40-80mm
gravel
0.4m
40-80mm outlet pipe

gravel min. Plastic Liner 5-20mm gravel
0.75m
Substrate arrangement in a HF wetland FIGURE 13
5.6.2 VF wetland
The substrate properties, d10 (effective grain size), d60 and the uniformity coefficient (the
quotient between d60 and d10) are the important characteristics in the selection of the
substrate. There is not one uniform standard substrate design for the construction of VF
wetland. Various literatures reports effective grain size should be 0.2 < d10 < 1.2 mm,
uniformity coefficient 3 < d60/d10 < 6 and hydraulic conductivity Kf 10-3 to 10-4 m/s (Reed
et al., 1990, Vymazal et al., 1998, GFA, 1998, Liénard et al., 2000, Brix, H., 2004, Korkusuz,
E.A., 2005). The filter media used at Dhulikhel Hospital had d10 = 0.4 mm and d60/d10 = 1.5
(Shrestha R.R., 1999).
The rate of decrease in permeability for similar SS influent characteristics is highest for
porous media with smaller pore sizes. Compared to the gravel, the sands show a relatively
more rapid reduction in their permeability due to effects of sediment accumulation at the
surface of the sands. However, the depth of clogging is higher for larger particle sizes
(Walker, 2006).
It is recommended to use sand (0 – 4 mm) as main substrate with d10 > 0.3 mm, d60/d10 <
4 and having permeability of 10-3 to 10-4 m/s. The substrate shall be arranged as shown in
24 Figure 14.
5.7 Bed slope

The top surface of the media should be level or nearly level for easier planting and routine
maintenance. Theoretically, the bottom slope should match the slope of the water level to
maintain a uniform water depth throughout the bed. A practical approach is to uniformly
5-10mm gravel 5cm
1-4mm thk. sand
45cm
70cm
5-10mm gravel 5cm
15cm
20-40mm gravel
Substrate arrangement in a VF wetland FIGURE 14
slope the bottom along the direction of flow from inlet to outlet to allow for easy draining
when maintenance in required. No research has been done to determine an optimum slope,
but a slope of 0.5 to 1% is recommended for ease of construction and proper draining.
5.8 Sealing of the bed

Subsurface flow wetlands providing secondary treatment should be lined to prevent direct
contact between the wastewater and groundwater. Liners used for wetlands are the same
as those typically used for ponds.
Native soils may be used to seal the wetlands if they have sufficiently high clay content to
achieve the necessary permeability. The thickness of the linings depends on the permeability
of the soil. The advice given in the European Guidelines (Cooper, 1990) was that if the local
soil had a hydraulic conductivity of 10-8 m/s or less then it is likely that it contained high
clay content and could be “puddled” to provide adequate sealing for the bed. As a general
guide, the following interpretations may be placed on values obtained for the in situ
coefficient of permeability:
• k>10-6 m/s: the soil is too permeable and the wetlands must be lined;
• k>10-7 m/s: some seepage may occur but not sufficiently to prevent the wetlands from
having submerged condition;
• k<10 m/s: the wetlands will seal naturally;
-8
25
• k<10-9 m/s: there is no risk of groundwater contamination (if k>10-9 m/s and the
groundwater is used for potable supplies, further detailed hydrogeological

studies may be required).
The soil could be mixed with ordinary Portland cement (8 kg/m2) to decrease the soil
permeability and compacted to seal the wetlands. Bentonite mixed with the native soils and
compacted has been used in the developed countries.
Other synthetic liners include:
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
• Polyethylene (PE)
• Polypropylene
Liners should be selected based on its availability and cost effectiveness. Preparation of the
subgrade under the liner is crucial for successful liner installation. The finished subgrade
should be free from materials that might puncture the liner.
5.9 Inlet and outlet structures

Inlet and outlet structures distribute the flow into the wetland, control the flow path through
the wetland, and control the water depth. Multiple inlets and outlets spaced across either
end of the wetland are essential to ensure uniform influent distribution into and flow through
the wetland. These structures help to prevent “dead zones” where exchange of water is poor,
resulting in wastewater detention times that can be much less than the theoretical detention
times.
The inlet structure must be designed to minimize the potential for short-circuiting and
clogging in the media, and maximize even flow distribution, whereas, the outlet structure
must be designed to minimize the potential for short-circuiting, to maximize even flow
collection, and to allow the operator to vary the operating water level and drain the bed.
5.9.1 Inlets
Inlet structures at subsurface wetlands include surface and subsurface manifolds such as a
perforated pipe, open trenches perpendicular to the direction of the flow etc. A single inlet
would not be suitable for a wide wetland cell because it would not be possible to achieve
uniform flow across the cell. In general, perforated or slotted manifolds running the entire
wetland width typically are used for the inlets. Sizes of the manifolds, orifice diameters, and
spacing are a function of the design flow rate.
Where possible, the inlet manifold should be installed in an exposed position to allow access
26 by the operator for flow adjustment and maintenance. A subsurface manifold avoids the
build-up of algal slimes and the consequent clogging that can occur next to surface
manifolds, but it is difficult to adjust and maintain.
a) HF wetland
In HF wetlands, the aim is to get even distribution across the full cross-sectional area of the
inlet end of the bed. In most beds, the flow is distributed onto a stone inlet zone, which
comprises of large graded stones. The examples of HF inlet designs are shown in Figure 15.
Cleanout (both ends)
Control valve
Gravel
ELEVATION
Cleanout
PLAN a) Submerged perforated pipe
b) Gabion feed
Settled
sewage
or
Reed
effluent
bed 0.5m
ELEVATION Liner
Wire mesh gabion
with 60-100mm stones
PLAN
Wire mesh gabions
Level surface
Soil cover over liner
uPVC Swivelling
pipe Tees
back-filled
Reed with Stones 27
bed
0.5m
Wire Mesh gabion (optional) Liner
with 60-100mm stones ELEVATION
900 tees with "O" ring seals Inlet
PLAN c) Swivel tee
Examples of HF CW inlet designs (U.S. EPA, 2000) FIGURE 15

Plates 1 to 6 show different types of HF inlet systems.
Perforated pipe
inlet
PLATE 1
Slotted pipe inlet

PPLLA
LAT
ATE 1
PLATE PLATE 2
28
Channel inlet
(Cooper et al., 1996)
PLATE 3
Channel inlet
– close up view
PLATE 4
Gabion inlet
PLATE 5
29
Submerged pipe
inlet – riser pipes
with V-notches
PLATE 6
b) VF wetland
In VF wetlands, it is essential to get an even distribution over the whole bed area. Inlet
structures for VF wetland comprises of an intermittent feeding tank with distribution network.
Plate 7 and 8 shows the functioning of a hydromechanical siphon used for intermittent feeding.
In this system feeding of water into the beds is maintained by the water level. When the water
level reaches certain height in the tank, a stopper stops the bucket to move up. Water level
rises and fills the bucket. The bucket gets heavier and sinks down then the water flushes into
the bed from the feeding tank. When certain amount of water is flushed into the bed, water
stops flowing into the bed. Water inside the bucket also will sucked out due to a pressure build
up by siphon then it will float again inside the tank till water refills again.
Some wetlands have used a network of pipes with downward pointing holes. The pipe ends
should be raised so that air can pass through during flushing as well as to achieve equal
distribution of the wastewater. Others have used troughs or gutters with overflow from
each side. The examples of VF inlet designs are shown in Plates 9 to 11.
Feeding tank
and mechanism
- Optimum water
level in the tank,
just going to fill in
the bucket
(Shrestha, R.R., 1999)
PLATE 7
30
Feeding tank and

mechanism - Bucket
sinks down and
water flushes into
the bed
(Shrestha R.R., 1999)
PLATE 8
Pipe network
inlet with main
pipe in the centre
PLATE 9
Pipe network
inlet with main
pipe in the edge
PLATE 10
31
Channel distributor
PLATE 11
5.9.2 Outlet
Outlet structures help to control uniform flow through the wetland as well as the operating
depth. The design of subsurface flow wetlands should allow controlled flooding to 15 cm to
foster desirable plant growth and to control weeds. The use of an adjustable outlet, which is
recommended to maintain an adequate hydraulic gradient in the bed, can also have significant
benefits in operating and maintaining the wetland. A perforated subsurface manifold connected
to an adjustable outlet offers the maximum flexibility and reliability as the outlet devices for
subsurface flow wetlands. This can be an adjustable weir or gate, a series of stop logs, or a swiveling
elbow. Figure 16 and Plates 12 to 14 show various types of outlets.
Adjustable
Adjustable Weir
Weir
Debris Debris
Screen Screen
Outlet
Outlet
PLAN a) Adjustable weir ELEVATION
Wire Mesh gabion (optional)
Wire Mesh gabion (optional)
Water Water
level level
Liner Slotted Pipe Collector Interchargeable Section of Slotted Pipe Collector "O" Ring Joint
Pipes fits "O" Ring Shocket ELEVATION
ELEVATION
b) Interchangeable secvtion c) 900 Elbow attangement
Outlet devices (U.S. EPA, 2000) FIGURE 16
32
Elbow outlet
PLATE 12
Swivelling elbow
outlet
PLATE 13
Flexible pipe outlet

PLATE 14
In HF systems, most systems have a perforated drain pipe enclosed in a 0.5 m wide drainage
zone filled with large graded stones. This leads to a sump where the water level is controlled
by either a swiveling elbow or a socketed pipe. For small systems, a cheaper alternative is
the use of flexible plastic pipe which can be held in position by a chain or rope.
In VF systems, the collection system may consist of a network of drainage pipes surrounded
by large stones. The drainage pipe will lead to a collection sump which will allow the vertical 33
bed to completely drain.
5.10 Vegetation
Vegetation and its litter are necessary for successful performance of constructed wetlands
and contribute aesthetically to the appearance. The vegetation to be planted in constructed
wetlands should fulfill the following criteria:
• application of locally dominating macrophyte species;
• deep root penetration, strong rhizomes and massive fibrous root;
• considerable biomass or stem densities to achieve maximum translocation of water and
assimilation of nutrients;
• maximum surface area for microbial populations;
• efficient oxygen transport into root zone to facilitate oxidation of reduced toxic metals
and support a large rhizosphere.
Plates 15 and 16 show two species, Phragmites sp. and Typha sp., widely used vegetation in
constructed wetlands. Phragmites karka and P. australis (Common Reed) is one of the most
productive, wide spread and variable wetland species in the world. Due to its climatic
tolerance and rapid growth, it is the predominant species used in constructed wetlands.
Phragmites karka
(common reed)
PLATE 15
34
Cattail - typha
angustifolia
(Wetlands International,
2003)
PLATE 16
chapter
SIX
construction of
constructed wetland
CONSTRUCTION of constructed wetland primarily involves basin construction (common
earth moving, excavating, leveling, compacting and construction of berms/walls), lining of the
basin, filling the basin with substrates, constructing inlet and outlet structures and planting
vegetation. The establishment of vegetation is unique to other construction activities. It is the
intent of this section to provide guidance on these special and unique aspects of wetland
construction.
6.1 Basin construction

Standard procedures and techniques used in civil engineering are applied for the basin
construction, which include earthwork in excavation, leveling and compaction. It is desirable
to balance the cut and fill on the site to avoid the need for remote borrow pits or soil disposal.
If agronomic-quality topsoil exists on the site, it should be stripped and stockpiled. Uniform
compaction of the subgrade is important to protect the liner integrity from subsequent
construction activity (i.e., liner placement, gravel placement etc.) and from stress when the
wetland is filled. Most wetlands are graded level from side to side and either level or with a slight
slope (about 1%) in the direction of flow. Berms (walls) should be constructed in conformance
with standard geotechnical considerations. An adequate amount of freeboard should be provided
to contain a given storm rainfall amount. Plates 17 to 21 show construction of basin.
35
6.2 Lining of the basin
Lining of the basin is required if the permeability of the soil is greater than 10-6 m/s. Liner
should be selected based on its availability and cost. Proper care should be taken to prevent
liner punctures during placement and subsequent construction activity. If the subgrade
contains sharp stones, a layer of sand should be placed beneath the liner and levelled. Plate
22 shows plastic lining of the basin.
Small scale in-situ (field) method for the determination of
permeability
The method fall into two groups: those that are used to determine the permeability above
the water table and those that are below the water table.
Above the water table, the soil is not saturated. To measure the saturated hydraulic
conductivity, one must therefore apply sufficient water to obtain near saturated conditions.
These methods are called ‘infiltration methods’. Below the water table, the soil is saturated
by definition. It then suffices to remove water from the soil, creating a sink, and to observe
the flow rate of water into the sink together with the hydraulic head induced. These
methods are called ‘extraction methods’.
standard reference level
Extraction method tape
A hole is bored into the soil to a certain depth soil surface with
below the water table. When the water in the hole float
Ht Ho D1
reaches equilibrium with the ground water, part water table
of it is removed. The ground water thus begins to
H' D'
seep into the hole and the rate at which it rises is Ht
measured. The hydraulic conductivity of the soil
D2
is computed with the following formula:
K = C x (H0 – Ht)/t 2r
D
Where,
• K = hydraulic conductivity of the saturated impermeable layer
soil (m/d)
• C = a factor depending on the depth of an impermeable layer below the bottom of the
hole and average depth of the water level in the hole below the water table
• t = time elapsed since the first measurement of the level of the rising water in the
hole
• Ht = depth of water level in the hole below reference level at time t (cm)
• H0 = Ht when t = 0
When D > ½ D2, then

• C = (4000 x r/h’)/((20 + D2/r) x (2 – h’/D2)
36
When D = 0, then
• C = (3600 x r/h’)/((10 + D2/r) x (2 – h’/D2)
Infiltration method
A hole is bored into the soil to the required depth, the hole is filled with water, which is left
to drain away freely. The hole is refilled with water several times until the soil around is
saturated over a considerable distance and infiltration
standard reference level
(rate) has attained a more or less constant value.
After the last refilling of the hole, the rate of drop of tape
the water level in the hole is measured. The data (h soil surface with
float
+ ½r and t) are then plotted on semi-log paper. The Ho
graph should yield a straight line. If the line is curved, Ht
continue to wet the soil until the graph shows the
straight line. Now, with any two pairs of values of h D'
+ ½r and t, the K value can be calculated according
to the following equation: ho
K = 1.15r ((log(h0 + ½r) – log(ht + ½r)/(t – t0) ht
Where,
2r
• t = time since the start of measuring (s)
• ht = the height of water column in the hole at time t (cm)
• h0 = ht at time t = 0
6.3 Substrate filling

Once liner has been placed in the basin, filling with substrates shall be commenced in
conjunction with inlet/outlet arrangements. The substrate should be washed to eliminate
soil and other fines that could block the void spaces, which contribute to substrate clogging.
Rounded river substrate is recommended over sharp-edged crushed substrate because of
the looser packing that the rounded substrate provides.
6.3.1 HF wetland
Before filling substrates, the partitioning of inlet/outlet zones must be done. Outlet
arrangements should be addressed properly while filling the substrates. The substrate should
be sieved and washed before filling the designed substrate sizes in the inlet/outlet zones
and treatment zone. Plate 23 shows the filling of substrates in a HF wetland.
37
6.3.2 VF wetland
Before filling substrates in a VF wetland, the layers of different size of substrate to be filled
should be properly marked inside the basin. The substrates should be properly washed to
eliminate the undesired particles. Collection network at the base of the basin should be laid
in accordance with the design prior to the filling of the substrates. Filling shall commence
once the above mentioned activities have been completed. Since sand is the substrate for
the main treatment zone, the properties of sand should be analyzed in an accredited
laboratory. Grain size analysis and determination of hydraulic conductivity should be
performed. A typical grain size distribution of sand suitable for VF CWs is shown in Figure
17. In the absence of an accredited laboratory, the suitability of sand can be determined
sand suitability test.
Schlammkorn Siebkorn
Feinstes Schluffkron Sandkorn Kieskorn Stein
fein mittel grob fein mittel grob fein mittel grob
100
90
Massenan teileader Korner >d in G%
80 d10 > 0,2mm
70 d60
d10 < 5
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.63 2.0 6.3 20 63 100
Korndurchmesser d in mm
Typical grain size distribution (German guidelines ATV – graph by AKUT) FIGURE 17
Sand suitability test

A 300 mm long length of 110 mm diameter 500ml water
PVC pipe is placed on a bed of pea gravel
and filled with 200 mm of the sand to be 100mm PVC pipe
tested as shown in Figure 18. The sand Nylon scouring pad
should be damp but not saturated. A small
square of pan scourer or similar is placed Sand under test
on the sand surface to reduce disturbance
by the water. Next 500 ml of tap water is
38 poured into the tube quickly, but without
disturbing the sand surface too much, and
the time for it to drain completely is Pea gravel, free draining

measured. As soon as it has passed
through another 500 ml of water is added
and again timed. This is repeated until the
time taken levels off. The time can now be
plotted as shown in Figure 19. Sand suitability test (Cooper et al., 1996) FIGURE 18
Sand
test
300 a Failure <1 week
b River sand - test good
Time to drain (seconds)
250
c Filter sand
200
Limit d Concreting sand, Hereford
150 e Sandy soil, Aberdeen
100 f Coarse washed sharp sand, Aberdeen
g Oaklands Park systen II - course washed sharp sand
50
h Coarse sand, Devon
0
Dose number
Results of sand suitability test (Cooper et al., 1996) FIGURE 19
The graph shows results for some sands used by Grant and Moodie (1996) and gives an
idea of the range of suitable sands. Sample a and d are clearly unsuitable. Sample e is close
to limit and hence may be a risk. The sample c is clearly the best but samples b, g and h are
satisfactory. Sands that drain in 50 – 150 seconds for 500 ml (once saturated) are
satisfactory.
Plates 25 to 27 show the filling of substrates in a VF wetland.
6.4 Inlet and outlet structures

Inlet and outlet structures as mentioned in chapter 5.9 should be placed in accordance with
the design. Inlet and outlet pipes of HF wetland should be laid perpendicular to the flow in
the wetland. Figure 20 shows the layout of inlet and outlet arrangements for a HF constructed
wetland. The distribution holes (orifices) in the network of inlet arrangement for VF wetlands
should be so placed to assure equal distribution of wastewater through out the entire area
of the wetland. Similarly, the network of outlet arrangement should be so placed to assure
that no short-circuiting takes place inside the wetland. Plate 24, 25 and 29 show the
construction of inlet and outlet structures.
Outlet
Wetland
plants
39
Inlet
a) BAD: b) POOR: Large c) GOOD: Header pipe d) BETTER: Multiple

Preferential flow dead zones in with multiple outlets inlets and flow
channel from inlet corners not in flow and footer pipe in rock control dikes
to outlet path filled trench with single
outlet pipe
The effect of wetland layout configuration on effective flow distribution (U.S.D.A., 2002) FIGURE 20
6.5 Planting vegetation
Establishing vegetation is probably the least familiar aspect of wetland construction.
Vegetation can be introduced to a wetland by transplanting roots, rhizomes, tubers,
seedlings, or mature plants; by broadcasting seeds obtained commercially or from other
sites; by importing substrate and its seed bank from nearby wetlands; or by relying completely
on the seed bank of the original site. Many of the wetlands are planted with clumps or
sections of rhizomes dug from natural wetlands. Propagation from seed and planting of the
established plantlets is gaining popularity.
Two main techniques for planting rhizomes are:

• Planting clumps
• Planting cuttings
Clumps of rhizome mat can be excavated from an existing stand of reeds whilst minimizing
damage to the existing wetland and the rhizomes clump obtained. For the small scale
wetland, it can be dug out with a spade but for large-scale projects the use of an excavator
is required. When transporting or storing, clumps should not be stacked. In this way the
aerial stems are not damaged. The spacing of planting depends on the size of the clumps
obtained. Planting 1 m2 clumps, at 10 m spacing or smaller clumps 1 or 2 m2 should achieve
full cover within one year depending upon mortality (Cooper et. al., 1996).
Rhizome cuttings can be collected from the existing wetlands or from commercial nurseries.
Sections of undamaged rhizome approximately 100 mm long with at least one internode,
bearing either a lateral or terminal bud, should be used for planting. Rhizomes should be
planted with one end about a half below the surface of the medium and other end exposed
to the atmosphere at spacing of about 4 rhizomes per m2.
Plates 24 and 29 show the newly planted wetland, whereas plates 30 and 31 show the wetland
after vegetation growth.
Undamaged
internode
40 Lateral
Nodesbud
a) Dig up rhizomes with a b) Select rhizomes with one c) Plant in approximately d) Shallow flood (2-5cm)
spade or collect from spoil undamaged internode and two horizontal - 450 angle so that ensuring cut and remains above
heaps in early spring node with lateral buds. Trip off at least one node is about 4cm surface water. Shoots should
damaged surplus. Rizomes with a buried. Plant in early Spring at appear in early Summer.
terminal bud may also be used about 4 cuttings/m2
Technique for planting rhizome cuttings (Hawke and Jose, 1996) FIGURE 21
6.6 Water level management for the growth of
vegetation
It is recommended to allow plantings to develop well before wastewater is introduced into
the system; the plants need an opportunity to overcome planting stress before other stresses
are introduced. Gradual increase in the concentration of waste applied may also be necessary.
To have deep rooting water level should not be too high from the beginning.
Too much water creates more problems for wetland plants during the first growing season
than too little water because the plants do not receive adequate oxygen at their roots.
Wetland emergent species should be planted in a wet substrate (but not flooded) and allowed
to grow enough to generate a stem with leaves. The photographs in the next pages illustrate
the construction of constructed wetland at Sunga, Thimi Municipality, Nepal.
A view of the site for

CW, which was being
used as solid waste
dumping site
PLATE 17
41
Site clearance,
earthwork in
excavation in
progress
PLATE 18
Compaction of the
subgrade works
PLATE 19
Construction of
walls of the basin
PLATE 20
42
Basin ready for

lining and filling of
substrate
PLATE 21
Plastic liners placed
in the basin
PLATE 22
Filling substrate in
horizontal flow CW
(please note the inlet
and outlet zones)
PLATE 23
43
Horizontal flow CW
after completion
and plantation of
vegetation
PLATE 24
Installation of
collection network
and filling of
substrate (drainage
layer) in vertical
flow CW
PLATE 25
Filling of substrate
(main layer) in
vertical flow CW
PLATE 26
44
(protection layer) in
vertical flow CW
PLATE 27
completed in vertical
flow CW
PLATE 28
Vertical flow CW
after laying of inlet
distribution network
and plantation of
vegetation
PLATE 29
45
Horizontal flow CW
in operation after
vegetation growth
PLATE 30
Vertical flow CW in
operation and after
vegetation growth
PLATE 31
A view of the
constructed wetland
after completion
PLATE 32
The construction of sludge drying beds is similar to the construction of vertical flow
constructed wetlands except in the distribution arrangement of the sludge. Usually the
sludge is fed into the sludge drying beds in one edge of the bed, which will slowly spread
over the entire area of the sludge drying bed by gravity.
46
chapter
SEVEN
operation and
maintenance
OPERATION and maintenance can be classified in terms of start-up, routine and long-
term. There are important distinctions between these; start-up requirements will show more
site-to-site variability, routine operations may be more affected by design details and long-
term operations reflect loading. In addition, thorough check ups should be done at least
twice a year for the effective operation of the wetland. Operation and maintenance of primary
treatment is of high importance for the effective functioning of the wetland.
7.1 Start-up
Start-up periods for wetlands are necessary to establish the vegetation associated with the
treatment processes. The start-up period will vary in length depending on the type of design,
the characteristics of the influent wastewater, and the season of year. Although the start-up
period for subsurface flow constructed wetlands is less critical since its performance is less
dependent on vegetation, the vegetation adds up to the aesthetic values to the wetland.
During the start-up period, the operator is primarily responsible for adjusting the water
level in the wetland. Typically, the wetlands will have to be filled with water to the surface
of the substrate at the end of planting. As the plants begin to root, the water level can be
gradually lowered to the design operating level.
47
7.2 Routine operation

Since constructed wetlands are “natural” systems, routine operation is mostly passive and
requires little operator intervention. The operator must be observant, take appropriate
actions when problems develop, and conduct required operational monitoring as necessary.
The most critical items in which operator intervention is necessary are:
• Adjustment of water levels
• Maintenance of flow uniformity (inlet and outlet structures)
• Management of vegetation
• Odor control
• Maintenance of berms (walls)
7.2.1 Adjustment of water levels

Water level and flow control are usually the only operational variables that have a significant
impact on a well designed constructed wetland’s performance. Changes in water levels affect
the hydraulic residence time, atmospheric oxygen diffusion into the water phase, and plant
cover. Significant changes in water levels should be investigated immediately, as they may
be due to leaks, clogged outlets, breached berms, storm water drainage, or other causes.
7.2.2 Maintenance of flow uniformity

Maintaining uniform flow across the wetland through inlet and outlet adjustments is
extremely important to achieve the expected treatment performance. The inlet and outlet
manifolds should be inspected routinely and regularly adjusted and cleaned of debris that
may clog the inlets and outlets. Debris removal and removal of bacterial slimes from weir
and screen surfaces will be necessary. Submerged inlet and outlet manifolds should be
flushed periodically. Additional cleaning with a high-pressure water spray or by mechanical
means also may become necessary. Influent suspended solids will accumulate near the inlets
to the wetland. These accumulations can decrease hydraulic detention times. Over time,
accumulation of these solids will require removal.
7.2.3 Vegetation management

Wetland plant communities are self-maintaining and will grow, die, and regrow each year.
The primary objective in vegetation management is to maintain the desired plant communities
within the wetland. This is achieved through changes in the water levels and harvesting
undesired plants (like weeds) when and where necessary. Where plant cover is deficient,
48 management activities to improve cover may include water level adjustment, reduced
loadings, pesticide application, and replanting. Harvesting and litter removal may be
necessary depending on the design of the wetland. A well-designed and well-operated
subsurface flow wetland should not require routine harvesting.
A view of clogging
of perforations due
to sludge drift from
primary treatment
Plate 33
Sludge drift from

primary treatment
unit
Plate 34
49
Undesirable weeds
in the wetland
Plate 35
Manual removal
of noxious and
undesirable weeds
PLATE 36
Harvesting wetland
vegetation
PLATE 37
7.2.4 Odor control

Odors are seldom a nuisance problem in properly loaded wetlands. Odorous compounds
are typically associated with anaerobic conditions, which can be created by excessive BOD
and ammonia loadings. Odor occurs if water is flooded in the surface of the bed therefore
50 uniform distribution of water into the bed will prevent from odor. If primary treatment size
if too big then wastewater may undergo anaerobic condition which may create odor when
such wastewater feed into CW. However, such odor is insignificant since wastewater
percolates into the bed quickly if there is no clogging.
7.2.5 Maintenance of berms (Walls)
Berms (walls) should be properly maintained. Any earthen berm erosion or crack in the
walls should be repaired as soon as it is noted. Leaks around berms (walls) should also be
repaired by plugging, sealing, etc. as soon as noted.
7.3 Long-term operations

Routine operations are essential in managing a wetland. In addition to regulatory
requirements, inflow and outflow rates, wastewater quality, water levels should be regularly
monitored and evaluated. Over time, these data help the operator to predict potential
problems and select appropriate corrective actions.
Solids from preceding treatment units and litter from decaying vegetation will gradually
reduce the pore space in the wetlands. Most of the solids will accumulate at the inlet end
of the HF beds where the pore space may be reduced substantially in a couple of years. This
may cause surface flow. The solids accumulation should be removed time to time. The rate
of solids accumulation depends on loading.
The performance of the wetland should be assessed time to time. Samples should be collected
and analyzed to ascertain the treatment efficiencies. Not the least but the following
parameters need to be analyzed:
• Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
• Ammonia
• Nitrate
• Phosphorus
• Fecal Coliforms
The operation and maintenance requirements can be summarized as listed in Tables 5 to 7:
TABLE 5 Fortnightly O & M action list

Berm/Wall • Visual inspection for weeds, erosion and damage 51
Inlet • Visual inspection for adequate and uniform inflow and identification of blockages and damage
• Maintain and adjust as required

Outlet • Visual inspection for blockages and damage, and visual check of water level and outflow quality and quantity
Vegetation • Visual inspection for any weed, plant health or pest problems. Take remedial action as necessary
TABLE 6 Two-monthly O & M action list
Berm/Wall • Visual inspection for weeds, erosion and damage. Take remedial action as necessary
Outlet • Check functioning of discharge system and apparent health of receiving water
• Where appropriate, mow or graze (sheep only) grass on outer embankments and wetland surrounds
Vegetation • Control weeds in wetland by handweeding, herbicide application, and/or temporary water level increase
Primary treatment • Visual inspection of upstream primary treatment for structural integrity, quantity and quality of effluent
TABLE 7 Yearly O & M action list

Substrate • Check clogging of the substrate, remove the substrate, clean it and replace if necessary
Inlet • Remove end caps from inlet pipe and distribution network and flush out and clean thoroughly to remove
slimes and blockages
Outlet • Clean and remove plants around outlet pipe to provide access and guard against blockages.
Vegetation • Harvest vegetation and replant if necessary
Primary treatment • Check sludge levels in primary treatment and desludge as necessary to maintain treatment performance and
avoid sludge drift into wetland
52
chapter
EIGHT
constructed wetland
for sludge drying
THE BASIS of using constructed wetlands for sludge drying is the long-term sludge
volume reduction taking in wetlands, due to dewatering (draining, evapotranspiration) and
mineralization of the organic solids in the sludge (Nielsen, 2003). Constructed wetlands for
sludge drying is gaining popularity over conventional sludge drying beds due to the following
advantages:
• Simple in operation and low operation and maintenance cost.
• Lower frequency of dewatered sludge removal from the bed, allowing for several years
of sludge accumulation prior to bed emptying.
• Increased dewaterability due to evapotranspiration from vegetation and increased
stability of sludge due to additional oxygen provided by rhizomes.
• The percolating liquid is subjected to microbial reactions within the wetlands, enabling
nitrification and higher removal efficiencies within the liquid.
The basic design criteria for sludge drying beds are the Sludge Loading Rate (SLR), and the
frequency of sludge application. The SLR values adopted by various researches and literatures
ranges from 20 – 250 kg TS/m2.year (Lienard et al., 1995, Cooper et al., 1996, Koottatep et
al., 2001, Nielsen, 2005). It is to be noted that the SLR are lower for low temperatures and
higher for high temperatures. It is recommended to use a SLR of 200 kg TS/m2.year in
Nepal. The frequency for sludge application is generally once a week and the depth of sludge
application should not be more than 30 cm.
53
The substrate profile used in sludge drying beds is similar to the vertical flow constructed
wetland. Substrate depths ranging from 0.4 m to 0.8 m have been widely used (Cooper et
al., 1996, Shrestha, R.R., 1999, Nielsen, 2005). The recommended substrate profile (from
bottom to top) for sludge drying beds is shown in Figure 22.
• 20 cm coarse gravel (20-40 mm grain size)
• 10 cm medium gravel (5-10 mm grain size)
• 10 cm fine sand (1-4 mm grain size)
10cm 10cm
1-4mm sand
5-10mm gravel
40cm
20cm
20-40mm gravel
Substrate profile for sludge drying bed FIGURE 22
54
chapter
NINE
case studies
This section provides case studies of the following six constructed wetlands in Nepal.
• Hospital wastewater treatment (Dhulikhel Hospital)
• Combined laboratory and domestic wastewater treatment (ENPHO)
• Institutional wastewater treatment (Kathmandu University)
• Municipal wastewater treatment (Sunga, Thimi)
• Grey water treatment (Private residence)
• Septage and landfill leachate treatment (Pokhara)
The case study comprises a technical description of the wetlands used, performance, their
operation and maintenance requirements and cost considerations.
9.1 Hospital wastewater treatment

(Dhulikhel Hospital)
9.1.1 Technical description
The constructed wetland at Dhulikhel Hospital was constructed in the year 1997. The
wastewater treatment plant comprises of a 3 chambered settling tank (16.5 m3) and a hybrid
constructed wetland – Horizontal Flow (HF) followed by Vertical Flow (VF). The total area
of the constructed wetland is 261 m2 (HF – 140 m2 and VF – 121 m2). The wetlands are
earthen basin sealed with p
plastic liner.
55
In
Feeding
Primary treatment tank Horizontal Flow
(Setting tank) Feeding
tank Out
Vertical Flow Collection Chamber
Schematic representation of constructed wetland at Dhulikhel Hospital FIGURE 23
The HF wetland (0.65 – 0.7 m) was filled with 1 – 4 mm crushed gravel in the treatment
zone, whereas 10 – 20 mm gravel was filled in the inlet/outlet zones. The inlet arrangement
comprised of 100 mm diameter PVC pipe with 20 mm diameter holes at a distance of 2 m
connected to a feeding tank (0.9 m3 per feed). The outlet arrangement comprised of 100
mm diameter perforated pipe with 6 mm diameter perforations.
The VF wetland (from top to bottom – 0.75 m sand, 0.10 m 5 – 8 mm gravel, 0.15 m 10 – 20
mm gravel and 0.05 m sand – total 1.05 m) was filled with sand as main layer. The d10 and
d60/d10 of sand was 0.40 mm and 1.5 respectively. The inlet arrangement comprised of 100
mm diameter pipe in the centre as main pipe with 6 branches of 50 mm diameter pipe
connected to a feeding tank (1.5 m3 per feed). 8 mm and 6 mm holes were made in the
branch pipes at a distance of 1 m. The outlet arrangement comprised of 3 numbers of 100
mm diameter perforated pipe with 6 mm diameter perforations.
TABLE 8 Technical description of Dhulikhel Hospital Constructed Wetland

Location Dhulikhel, Kavre district
Year of operation 1997
CW Type Sub surface flow
CW configuration Horizontal Flow (HF) followed by Vertical Flow Bed (VF)
CW substrate Sand, gravel
Type of wastewater Hospital wastewater
Wastewater flow per day 10 m3 in 1997 | 75 m3 in 2006
Pre-treatment Settlement tank – 16.5 m3
Type of feeding Intermittent
Population Equivalent (PE) 51 in 1997 | 386 in 2006
Total surface area of the CW 261 m2 (HFB – 140 m2 and VFB – 121 m2)
Surface area per PE 5.1 m2 in 1997 | 0.7 m2 in 2006
Surface area per m3 volume of wastewater 26.1 m2 in 1997 | 3.5 m2 in 2006
Plant species Phragmites Karka
The beds are planted with Phragmites karka and are operated with intermittent loading.
The intermittent loading system is maintained hydro-mechanically. When the water level
reaches certain height in the tank, a stopper stops the bucket to move up. Water level rises
56
and fills the bucket. The bucket gets heavier and sinks down then the water flushes into the
bed from the feeding tank (Refer Plate 7 and 8).
The wetland is being rehabilitated to treat about 90 m3/day of wastewater.

Horizontal Flow Bed
Collection tank Feeding Tank
Constructed wetland Vertical Flow Bed

at Dhulikhel Hospital
in 1997 just after the
construction
(Shrestha R.R., 1999)
Plate 38
9.1.2 Performance
The performance of the wetland is shown in Figure 24. The removal efficiencies of BOD5,
COD and TSS are good till the increase of wastewater flow from 10 m3/day to 35 m3/day
but have decreased when the wastewater flow is 75 m3/day, however, the effluent quality is
still within the tolerance limits for the wastewater to be discharged into inland surface
waters from combined wastewater treatment plant as given under Generic Standard – Part
III by the Ministry of Population and Environment, Nepal.
TSS BOD COD

100 80
70
80
Wastewater flow (m3/day)
60
Removal efficiency (%)
60 50
40
40 30
57
20
20
10
0 0
1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2007
Year
Performance of constructed wetland at Dhulikhel Hospital from 1997 to 2006 FIGURE 24
9.1.3 Operation and maintenance
A care taker is assigned to devote about 20% of the time for the operation and maintenance
of the constructed wetland in addition to other duties of the hospital.
Regular maintenance works at the wetland comprised of removal of unwanted vegetation

from the beds and cleaning of the inlet/outlet systems. The removal of unwanted vegetation
is carried out about 2 – 3 times a year along with the general cleaning works. Vegetation is
harvested once a year. The sludge from the settling tank is desludged at an interval of 3 – 6
months in the beginning whereas the sludge is being desludged in about 1 – 2 months at
present time. This is due to the huge increase in wastewater flow to the wetland.
The substrate in the bed has been cleaned at surface once in the last ten years in case of
vertical bed. The major problem encountered during the O & M of the wetland is the theft
of parts of the wetland like manhole covers, pipes etc. since the wetland is relatively far from
the hospital premises.
9.1.4 Costs
The total construction cost of the wetland amounted to NRs. 1,100,000 – US $ 16,000 (i.e.
NRs. 4,200 – US $ 60 per m2 of the wetland). The average O & M cost of the wetland is
about NRs. 10,000 – US $ 150 annually. About NRs. 30,000 – US $ 430 has been spent for
the replacement of pipes and manhole covers in the last 10 years.
9.2 Combined laboratory and domestic

wastewater treatment and reuse (ENPHO)
The constructed wetland at Environment and Public Health Organization (ENPHO) was
constructed in the year 2002. The constructed wetland comprises of a settling tank (0.5 m3)
and a vertical flow constructed wetland (15 m2).
58
The basin is constructed with brick masonry and the bed is sealed with plastic liner. The
bed is filled with sand as main layer (from top to bottom – 0.60 m sand, 0.10 m 5 – 8 mm
gravel and 0.10 m 10 – 20 mm gravel – total 0.80 m). The inlet arrangement comprised of
50 mm diameter pipe in the centre as main pipe with 2 branches of 50 mm diameter pipe
connected to the settling tank with an intermittent feeding mechanism of 0.2 m3 per feed.
6 mm holes were made in the branch pipes at a distance of 1 m. The outlet arrangement
comprised of 75 mm diameter perforated pipe with 6 mm diameter perforations.
In
Primary treatment
(Setting tank) Vertical Flow Out
Collection Chamber
Schematic representation of constructed wetland at ENPHO FIGURE 25
The beds are planted with Phragmites karka and are operated with intermittent loading
system, which is maintained hydro-mechanically as described previously.
TABLE 9 Technical description of ENPHO constructed wetland

Location Kathmandu Metropolitan City
Year of operation 2002
CW configuration Vertical Flow (VF)
CW substrate Coarse Sand
Type of wastewater Combined laboratory and domestic wastewater
Wastewater flow per day 0.7 m3
Population Equivalent (PE) 6.8
Total surface area of the CW 15 m2
Surface area per PE 2.2 m2
9.2.2 Performance
59
The performance of the wetland is shown in Figure 26. As seen from the figure, the removal
efficiencies of the organic pollutants are good.

from the beds and cleaning of the inlet system. The removal of unwanted vegetation is
100 TSS BOD COD
80
60
40
20
0
2002 2003 2006
Year
Performance of constructed wetland at ENPHO from 2002 to 2006 FIGURE 26
60
Constructed wetland
at ENPHO
PLATE 39
carried out monthly along with the general cleaning works. Vegetation is harvested twice
a year. The sludge from the settling tank is desludged at an interval of 6 months but
sometimes sludge is desludged a little earlier.
Due to clogging on the surface of the bed, the top layer of the bed was removed and filled
with coarse sand in 2005.
9.2.4 Costs
The total construction cost of the wetland amounted to NRs. 40,000 – US $ 570 (i.e. NRs.
2,700 – US $ 40 per m2 of the wetland). The operation and maintenance costs are reported
to be negligible. In addition, the reuse of treated wastewater resulted in saving of water
expenses of ENPHO.
The treated wastewater at ENPHO is recycled for non potable purposes like flushing, cleaning vehicles, gardening etc. Apart from
the recycling of wastewater, ENPHO has installed rainwater harvesting in its building, which is about 170 m2 roof catchment.
Rainwater is collected in an underground tank with a capacity of 10 m3. Excess rainwater, especially in the monsoon, is diverted to
the dugwell for groundwater recharge. Recycling of wastewater and rainwater harvesting saves around NRs. 4,000 (US $
60) per month otherwise spent in buying water.
9.3 Institutional wastewater treatment

(Kathmandu University)
The constructed wetland at Kathmandu University was constructed in the year 2001. The
wastewater treatment plant comprises of a settling tank (40 m3) and a hybrid constructed
wetland – Horizontal Flow (HF) bed followed by two Vertical Flow (VF) beds. The total
area of the constructed wetland is 628 m2 (HF – 290 m2 and VF – 338 m2).
In
Primary treatment Horizontal Flow Diversion

61
(Setting tank) Chamber Feeding Out

tank Vertical Flow Collection Chamber
Feeding Out
tank Vertical Flow Collection Chamber
Schematic representation of constructed wetland at Kathmandu University FIGURE 27
The walls of the wetlands are constructed in brick masonry sealed with plastic liner on top
of clay lining (100 mm thick compacted black cotton soil).
TABLE 10 Technical description of Kathmandu University constructed wetland

Location Dhulikhel
Date of operation 2001
CW configuration Horizontal Flow (HF) followed by Vertical Flow (VF)
Type of wastewater Institutional wastewater
Wastewater flow per day 30 m3
Pre-treatment Settlement tank – 40 m3
Population Equivalent (PE) 193
Total surface area of the CW 628 m2 (HFB – 290 m2 and VFB – 338 m2)
Surface area per PE 3.3 m2 (The area of the bed was estimated at the time of operation. The ara will be reduced
with the increase of wastewater flow as this wetland was designed for more than 50m3/day
of wastetater.)
The HF wetland (0.6 – 0.7 m) was filled with 5 mm round gravel in the treatment zone, whereas
> 5 mm gravel was filled in the inlet/outlet zones. The inlet arrangement comprised of 100
mm diameter PVC pipe with 20 mm diameter perforations at a distance of 0.6 m centre to
centre. The inlet pipe is placed 20 to 30 cm higher than the substrate and rested on concrete
blocks. The outlet arrangement comprised of 100 mm diameter perforated pipe.
The VFB was filled with sand as main layer of porosity 37%. The d10 and d60/d10 of sand was
0.40 mm and 1.5 respectively. The inlet arrangement comprised of 110 mm diameter pipe
in the centre as main pipe with 6 branches of 50 mm diameter pipe connected to a feeding
tank (2.5 m3 per feed).
The beds are planted with Phragmites karka. HFB is loaded continuously whereas the VFBs
are operated with intermittent loading system, which is maintained hydro-mechanically as
62 described previously.
9.3.2 Performance
The performance of the wetland is shown in Figure 28.
Feeding tanks
Vertical Flow Beds
Horizontal Flow Bed
Constructed
wetland at
Kathmandu
University Settling Tank
(Shrestha R.R.)
PLATE 40
100
80
60
40
63
20
0
2001 2002 2003 2005 2006
Year
TSS BOD COD Ammonia-Nitrogen
Performance of constructed wetland at Kathmandu University from 2001 to 2006 FIGURE 28
from the beds and harvesting of the vegetation. The removal of unwanted vegetation is
carried out four times a year while the harvesting of vegetation is carried out twice a year.
The sludge from the settling tank is desludged once in the year 2006.
The substrate in the bed has not been changed yet, but the substrate is partially clogged and
needs to be washed. The major problem encountered during the O & M of the wetland is
the leakage from the tanks and inlet/outlet arrangement systems. The other problem
encountered during the O & M of the wetland is the theft of parts of the wetland like manhole
covers, pipes etc. The problems in the maintenance of the intermittent feeding system
through hydro mechanical siphon has also been reported.
9.3.4 Costs
NRs. 2,900 – US $ 40 per m2 of the wetland). The average O & M cost of the wetland is
about NRs. 20,000 – US $ 290 annually.
9.4 Municipal wastewater treatment (Sunga)

The constructed wetland at Sunga, Thimi Municipality was constructed in the year 2005.
The wastewater treatment plant comprises of a coarse screen and a grit chamber as
preliminary treatment, an anerobic baffle reactor (42 m3) as primary treatment, hybrid
constructed wetland – Horizontal Flow (HF) followed by Vertical Flow (VF) as secondary
treatment and Sludge Drying Bed (SDB) as sludge treatment. The total area of the constructed
wetland is 375 m2 (HF – 150 m2, VF – 150 m2 and SDB – 70 m2).
Coarse Gift Anaerobic Distribution

Out
64 Screen Chaimber Baffle reactor Tank
HFCW
VFCW
Out
SDB
HFCW VFCW
Schematic representation of constructed wetland at Sunga FIGURE 29

The walls of the beds are constructed in brick masonry sealed with plastic liner laid above
compacted earth.
TABLE 11 Technical description of Sunga Constructed Wetland

Location Sunga, Thimi Municiplaity
Date of operation October 2005
CW configuration Horizontal Flow (HF) followed by Vertical Flow (VF)
Type of wastewater Municpal wastewater
Wastewater flow per day 10 m3
Pre-treatment Anaerobic Baffle Reactor – 42 m3
Type of feeding Continuous in HFB
Intermittent in VFB
Population Equivalent (PE) 285.7
Total surface area of the CW 300 m2 (HFB – 150 m2 and VFB – 150 m2 )
Surface area per PE 1.05
The HF bed (0.4 – 0.5 m) was filled with 10 – 20 mm gravel in the treatment zone, whereas
20 – 40 mm gravel was filled in the inlet/outlet zones. The inlet arrangement comprised of
150 mm diameter PVC pipe with 20 mm diameter perforations at a distance of 0.3 m centre
to centre in one HF and in the other 150 mm PVC pipe with 0.3 m slots. The inlet pipe is
placed just above the substrate. The outlet arrangement comprised of 150 mm diameter
perforated pipe with 6 mm perforations.
The VF bed (from top to bottom – 0.05 m 5 – 10 mm gravel, 0.30 m coarse sand, 0.05 m 5 – 10
mm gravel and 0.15 m 10 – 20 mm gravel as drainage layer – total 0.55 m) was filled with
coarse sand as main layer. The d10 and d60/d10 of sand was 0.35 mm and 3.3 respectively. The
inlet arrangement comprised of a network of 100 mm diameter pipe connected to a feeding
tank (1.5 m3 per feed). 6 mm holes were made in the pipes at a distance of 1 m. The outlet
arrangement comprised of a 100 mm diameter perforated pipe with 6 mm diameter perforations
in the centre with 4 lateral connections of same 100 mm diameter perforated pipes.
65
The SDB is filled with substrate arranged as below (from top to bottom):
• 30 cm coarse sand
• 5 cm medium gravel (5 – 10 mm grain size)
• 15 cm coarse gravel (20 – 40 mm grain size)
One HF bed is planted with Phragmites karka and the other with Canna latifolia. VF beds
are planted with Phragmites karka. HFBs are loaded continuously whereas the VFBs are
operated with intermittent loading system, which is maintained hydro-mechanically as
described previously.
d
etlan
ructed W
nst and
VF Co Wetl
cted
nstru
HF Co
ABR
Constructed
wetland at Sunga
PLATE 37
9.4.2 Performance
The overall performance of the wetland is shown in Figure 30. Treatment efficiency of this
wetland is highly dependent on the timely desludging of the ABR. Table 12 shows the
concentration of pollutants in August 2006.
TSS BOD COD

100
80
60
40
66 20
0
08/24/06 12/03/06 04/27/07 07/05/07 08/29/07
Date
Performance of constructed wetland at Sunga from August 2006 to August 2007 FIGURE 30
TABLE 12 Concentrations of pollutants at Sunga (August 2006)
PARAMETERS UNITS RAW ABR HFCW VFCW
TSS mg/l 7 96 204 28 16
BOD5 mg/l 950 450 165 30
COD mg/l 1,438 1,188 213 50
Ammonia mg/l 145.5 408.9 214.1 21.0
Nitrate mg/l 4.1 36.8 32.6 566.2
Total Phosphorus mg/l 26.4 44.3 20.4 24.3
Fecal Coliform CFU/1ml 1.3E+5 1.3E+6 1.1E+6 8.1E+3

A care taker is assigned for the operation and maintenance of the constructed wetland.
Regular maintenance works at the wetland comprised of weekly removal of unwanted
vegetation from the beds and monthly cleaning of the inlet/outlet systems. The harvesting
of the vegetation is carried out twice a year. The sludge from the anaerobic baffle reactor
has been desludged once.
9.4.4 Costs
NRs. 5,850 – US $ 85 per m2 of the wetland). The operation and maintenance cost of the
wetland is about NRs. 36,000 – US $ 520 per annum.
9.5 Grey water treatment (Private residence)

The constructed wetland at a private residence was constructed in the year 1998. The
constructed wetland comprises of a settling tank (0.5 m3) and a vertical flow constructed
wetland (6 m2).
67
In
Collection Chamber
Primary Treatment
(Setting tank) Vertical flow Out
Schematic representation of constructed wetland at private residence FIGURE 31

TABLE 13 Technical description of Constructed Wetland at Private Residence
Location Ward No. 15, KMC
Date of operation April 1998
CW configuration Vertical Flow (VF)
Type of wastewater Grey water
Design flow per day 0.5 m3
Population Equivalent (PE) 8
Total surface area of the CW 6 m2
Surface area per PE 0.7 m2
Plant species Phragmites Karka and Canna latifolia
The basin is constructed with brick masonry and the bed is sealed with plastic liner. The bed
is filled with 0.8 m coarse sand as main layer above 0.2 m 20 – 40 mm gravel as drainage layer.
The inlet arrangement comprised of 25 mm diameter pipe in the centre connected to the
settling tank with an intermittent feeding mechanism of 0.2 m3 per feed. 6 mm holes were
made in the pipe at a distance of 1 m. The outlet arrangement comprised of 75 mm diameter
perforated pipe with 6 mm diameter perforations in the centre leading to a collection tank.
The bed is planted with Phragmites karka and Canna latifolia and is operated with
intermittent loading system, which is maintained hydro-mechanically as described
previously.
68
Vertical flow
constructed Vertical flow
wetland in constructed
construction wetland in use
(Shrestha R.R., 1999) (Shrestha R.R., 1999)
PLATE 37 PLATE 37
9.5.2 Performance
The performance of the wetland is shown in Figure 32.
100
80
60
40
20
0
05/05/98 11/06/98 17/07/98 02/08/98 15/02/99 11/04/00 10/05/00
TSS BOD COD Date
Performance of constructed wetland at private residence from May 1998 to May 2000 FIGURE 32

The following operation and maintenance was performed to ensure proper functioning of
the wetland:
• Regular inspection of feeding tank (combined with settling tank) to ensure proper
operation of the siphon and intermittent feeding to the vertical flow bed.
• Regular removal of unwanted vegetation in the bed.
• Annual harvesting of the vegetation.
• Annual desludging of the settling tank.
9.5.4 Costs
The total construction cost of the wetland amounted to NRs. 36,000 – US $ 520 (i.e. NRs.
6,000 – US $ 85 per m2 of the wetland). The operation and maintenance costs are reported 69
to be negligible. In addition, the reuse of grey water resulted in saving of water expenses of
the residence.
9.6 Septage and landfill leachate treatment
(Pokhara)
The septage and landfill leachate treatment plant at Pokhara under the Pokhara Environmental
Improvement Project was constructed in the year 2003. The treatment plant was designed
to treat 35 m3/day of septage and 40 m3/day of landfill leachate. The treatment plant
comprises of the following units:
• 7 compartmental sludge drying beds – SDB (1,645 m2);
• 2 compartmental horizontal flow constructed wetland – HF (1,180 m2); and
• 4 compartmental vertical flow constructed wetland – VF (1,500 m2).
The 1.5 to 1.9 m deep SDB is filled with substrate arranged as below (from bottom to top):
• 20 cm coarse gravel (20 – 40 mm grain size)
• 10 cm medium gravel (5 – 10 mm grain size)
• 10 cm fine sand (0.1 – 1 mm grain size)
Surface water drain
LANDFILL AREA
Surface water
Leachate collection manhole
Leachate
collection basin
Intermittent tank
Sludge drying bed
Leachate Manhole
Collection
Horizontal reed bed Vertical reed bed To Kulo Manhole
Schematic representation of septage and landfill leachate treatment plant FIGURE 33
70 The HF wetland (0.5 – 0.7 m) was filled with coarse sand (3 – 6 mm grain size) in the
treatment zone, whereas 10 – 20 mm gravel was filled in the inlet/outlet zones. The inlet
arrangement comprised of 100 mm diameter PVC pipe with 20 mm diameter holes at a
distance of 2 m connected to a feeding tank (0.9 m3 per feed). The outlet arrangement
comprised of 100 mm diameter perforated pipe with 6 mm diameter perforations.
The 0.9 m deep VF wetland is filled with substrate arranged as below (from bottom to
top):
• 20 cm coarse gravel (20 – 40 mm grain size) – drainage layer including the drainage
pipes
• 10 cm medium gravel (5 – 10 mm grain size) – transition layer
• 60 cm medium sand (1 – 4 mm grain size) – main layer
The inlet arrangement comprised of 100 mm diameter pipe in the centre as main pipe with
several branches of 50 mm diameter pipe connected to a feeding tank (11.25 m3 per feed).
The beds are planted with Phragmites karka and are operated with intermittent loading.
9.6.2 Costs
NRs. 1,400 – US $ 20 per m2 of the wetland).
71
Sludge drying bed
(Shrestha R.R.)
PLATE 44
Horizontal flow
constructed wetland
(Shrestha R.R.)
PLATE 45
72
Vertical flow
constructed wetland
(Shrestha R.R.)
PLATE 46
references
Brix, H. (1997). Do Macrophytes play a Role in Constructed Wetlands? Water Science and
Technology, Vol: 35(5), pg. 11-17.
Brix, H. (2004). Danish guidelines for small-scale constructed wetland systems for onsite
treatment of domestic sewage. In Proc. 9th International conference on wetland systems
for water pollution control, Avignon, France.
Cooper P.F., Job G.D., Green M.B. and Shutes R.B.E. (1996). Reed Beds and Constructed
Wetland for Wastewater Treatment. WRc Swindon, UK.
Cooper, P.F. (1990). European Design and Operation Guidelines for Reed Bed Treatment
Systems, Report No UI 17, Water Research Center, Swindon , UK.
Crites, R. and Tchobanoglous, G. (1998). Small and decentralized wastewater management

systems. Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 1. WCB/McGraw-Hill,
Boston.
Foxon, K.M., Pillay, S., Lalbahadur, T., Rodda, N., Holder, F. and Buckley, C.A. (2004).
The anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR): An appropriate technology for on-site sanitation. In
Proceedings: 2004 Water Institute of South Africa (WISA) Biennial Conference, Cape Town,
South Africa.
Garcia J., Morator J., Bayona J.M. and Aguirre P. (2004). Performance of horizontal
surface flow constructed wetlands with different depths. Proceedings – 9th International
Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, 26 – 30 September 2004,
73
Avignon, France, pp. 269 – 276.
Gearheart, R.A. (1992). Use of constructed wetlands to treat domestic wastewater, City
of Arcata, California. Water Science Technology 26, 1625-1637.
Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Abwassertechnik d.V. (GFA) (1998). Arbeitsblatt ATV
– A 262 Grundsätze für Bemessung, Bau und Betrieb von Pflanzenbeetwn für kommunales
Abwaser bei Ausbaugrößen bis 1000 Einwohnerwerte, St. Augustin, Germany.
Haberl R. (1999). Constructed Wetlands: A Chance to Solve Wastewater Problems in
Developing Countries. Water Science and Technology, Vol: 40(3).
Hawke, C. J. and Jose, P. V. (1996). Reed Bed Management for Commercial and Wildlife
Interests. Royal Society for Protection of Birds. Ref: 24/571/95, UK.
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control (2000).

Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control - Processes, Performance, Design and
Operation, Scientific and Technical Report No:8. Kadlec R.H., Knight R.L., Vzmayal J,.Brix
H., Cooper P. and Haberl R. (eds), International Water Association, London.
Kickuth, R. (1984). The Root Zone Method. Gesamthochschule Kassel-Uni des Landes,
Hessen.
Koottatep, T., Polprasert, C., Oanh, N.T.K, Heinss, U., Montangero A. and Strauss M.
(2001). Septage dewatering in vertical-flow constructed wetlands located in the tropics, Wat.
Sci. Tech., Vol. 44 No. 2-3 pp181-188.
Korkusuz E. A., (2005). Manual of practice on constructed wetlands for wastewater

treatment and reuse in Mediterranean countries. Added Value Knowledge Report (AVKR
5) – Mediterranean Network on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse (MED-REUNET) II.
Lienard, A., Boutin C. and Esser, D. (1990). Domestic Wastewater Treatment with
Emergent Helophyte Beds in France. In: Cooper and B. C. Findlater (Eds). Constructed
Wetlands in Water Pollution Control. Pergamon Press, Oxford U.K. pp 183 - 192.
Lienard, A., Duchene. Ph. and Gorini, D. (1995). A study of activated sludge dewatering
in experimental reed planted or unplanted sludge drying beds. Wat. Sci. Tech., 32(3), 251-
261
Loudon, T., Bounds, T., Converse, J., Konsler, T. and Rock, J. (2005). Septic Tanks.
Model Decentralized Wastewater Practitioner Curriculum, National Decentralized Water
Resources Capacity Development Project. CIDWT, Raleigh, NC.
Mara, D. (1996). Low-Cost Urban Sanitation, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex,
England.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (2003). Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse, Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, India.
74
Molle P., Liénard A., Boutin C., Merlin G. and Iwema A. (2004). How to treat raw sewage
with constructed wetlands: An overview of the French systems. In Proceedings – 9th

International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Avignon,
France.
Morel A. and Diener S. (2006). Greywater Management in Low and Middle-Income

Countries, Review of different treatment systems for households or neighbourhoods. Swiss
Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag). Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Nielson, S. (2003). Sludge drying reed beds. Wat. Sci. Tech., Vol 48 No. 5 pp 101-109.
Nielson, S. (2005). Sludge reed bed facilities: operation and problems. Wat. Sci. Tech., Vol
51 No. 9 pp 99-107
ÖNORM B 2505 (1997). Bepflanzte Bodenfilter (Pflanzenkläranlagen) – Anwendung,

Bemessung, Bau und Betrieb (Subsurface flow constructed wetlands – Application,
Dimensioning, Installation and Operation), Österreichisches Normungsinstitut: Vienna,
Austria.
Philippi L.S., Sezerino P.H., Bento A.P. and Magri M.E. (2004). Vertical flow constructed
wetlands for nitrification of anaerobic pond effluent in southern Brazil under different
loading rates. Proceedings – 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water
Pollution Control, 631 – 639.
Platzer C. (1998). Design recommendation for subsurface flow constructed wetlands for
nitrification and denitrification. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Sao Paulo State, Brazil.
Platzer C. (2000). Development of Reed Bed systems-A European Perspective”. In:

Proceedings of the IWA 7th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water
Pollution Control, Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
Reed S.C. et al. (1990). Natural systems for wastewater treatment – Manual of practice
FD16. Water Pollution Control Federation, 601 Wyhe Street Alexandria, Virginia. Cited by
Grant, N. and Griggs J. (2001). Reed beds for the treatment of domestic wastewater, BRE.
Reed S.C., Crites R. and Middlebrooks E.J. (1995). Natural Systems for Waste Management
and Treatment. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, United States.
Reed, S.C.; Middlebrooks, E.J. and Crites, R.W. (1988). Natural Systems for Waste
Management. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Ritzema, H.P. (Editor-in-Chief) (1994). Drainage principles and applications. International

Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Sasse, L. (1998). Decentralised wastewater treatment in developing countries. BORDA,

Bremen.
Shrestha, R. R. (1999). Application of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment 75

in Nepal. Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution
Control. University of Agricultural Sciences Vienna, Austria.
Steiner G.R. and Watson J.T. (1993). General design, construction and operation guidelines:
Constructed wetlands wastewater treatment systems for small users including individual
residences; 2nd Edition, TVA/WM-93/10, Tennessee Valley Authority Resource Group
Water Management: Chattanooga, TN, United States.
United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.), (2002). Part 637 Environmental
Engineering National Engineering Handbook – Chapter 3 Constructed Wetlands. 210-VI-
NEH, U.S.D.A., Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC, United States.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (1988). Design manual:
Constructed wetlands and aquatic plant systems for municipal wastewater treatment, EPA
625/1-88/022, U.S. EPA Office of Water: Cincinnati, OH, United States.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (1993). Guidance for design
and construction of subsurface flow constructed wetland, U.S. EPA Region 6 Water
Management Division Municipal Facilities Branch Technical Section.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2000). Constructed

wetlands treatment of municipal wastewater treatment. EPA 625/R-99/010, U.S. EPA Office
of Research and Development: Washington, D.C., United States.
Vymazal J. (1997). The use of subsurface flow constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment in the Czech Republic. Ecological Engineering 7 1-14.
Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper, P.F., Green, M.B. and Haberl, R. (Eds.) (1998). Constructed
Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Europe. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
Walker, A. (2006). Predicting the clogging of saturated substrates used in the construction
of vertical flow systems by suspended solids. M.Sc. Thesis, Cranfield University, Silsoe, UK.
Wallace, S.D. and Knight, R.L. (2006). Small scale constructed wetland treatment systems
– feasibility, design criteria and O&M requirements. Report 01-CTS-5, Water Environment
Research Foundation (WERF), Alexandria.
Wanasen, S.A. (2003). Upgrading conventional septic tanks by integrating in-tank baffles.
M.Sc. Thesis, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of
Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Watson, J.T., Reed, S.C., Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L. and Whitehouse, A.E. (1989).
Performance Expectations and Loading Rates for Constructed Wetlands. In: Hammer, D.
A. (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Watewater Treatment, Michigan.
Wetlands International (2003). The use of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment.
Wetlands International – Malaysia Office, Selangor, Malaysia.
76
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (2004).
Meeting the MDG drinking water and sanitation target: a mid-term assessment of progress.
<http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jm04.pdf>
annex
A
How to treat raw sewage with constructed
wetlands: An overview of the French systems
P. Molle*, A. Lienard*, C. Boutin*, G. Merlin**, A. Iwema***
* Cemagref, Research unit: Water quality and pollution prevention, 3bis, quai
Chauveau - CP 220, 69336 Lyon Cedex 09 - France (E-mail: pascal.molle@cemagref.
fr; a;[email protected])
** Laboratoire OCIE, Equipe Biotechnologies et Genie des Procedes pour

l’Environnement -ES1GEC Universite de Savoie 73376 Le Bourget du Lac France (E-
mail: [email protected])
*** Agence de l’Eau Rhone Mediterranee Corse, 2-4 allee de Lodz, 69363 Lyon Cedex
07 -France (E-mail: [email protected])
Abstract
The development of Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands treating raw wastewater in
France has proved to be very successful over the last 20 years. In view of this a survey was
carried out on more than 80 plants in order to study their performance and correct design
if necessary. This study shows that such systems perform well in terms of respecting the
goals of both low level outlet COD and SS and nitrification. Pollutant removal
performance in relation to the loads handled and the specific characteristics of the plants
were investigated. Nitrification is shown to be the most sensitive process in such systems
and performance in relation to sizing is discussed. Such systems, if well designed, can
77
achieve an outlet level of 60 mg.L-1 in COD, 15 mg.L-1 in SS and 8 mg.L-1 in TKN with an
area of 2 to 2.5m2.PE-1. The sludge deposit on the first stage must be removed after about
10-15 years.
Keywords
Vertical flow constructed wetlands; raw sewage; data collection; design; performance.
Introduction
Among the different constructed wetlands systems treating domestic wastewater the two
stage Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland (VFCW) is the most common design found in
France. The particularity of this system is that it accepts raw sewage directly onto the first
stage allowing for easier sludge management in comparison to dealing with primary sludge
from an Imhoff settling/digesting tank. The use of this system, developed by Cemagref more
than 20 years ago (Lienard et al., 1987), really took off when applied by the SINT company
during the 1990’s. With the passing of time this system has gained a good reputation for
small community wastewater treatment. Now it is well developed and several companies
offer this process. The sizing of such a system is rather empirical, based on the knowledge
gained by Cemagref over years of laboratory studies and full-scale experiments on attached
growth culture. General guidelines were proposed (Boutin et al., 1997; Lienard et al., 1998)
to avoid bad conceptual design which could have damaged development of the system. The
sizing of the reed bed filters is based on an acceptable organic load expressed as a filter
surface unity per Person Equivalent (PE). Current recommendations are 2 stages of filters,
the first of which is divided into 3 filters and the second into 2 filters. Filter configuration
and media profile can be seen in figures 1 and 2.
Each primary stage unit receives the full organic load during the feeding phase, which often
lasts 3 to 4 days, before being rested for twice this amount of time. These alternating phases
of feed and rest are fundamental in controlling the growth of the attached biomass on the
filter media, to maintain aerobic conditions within the filter bed and to mineralise the
organic deposits resulting from the SS, contained in the raw sewage which are retained on
the surface of the primary stage filters (Lienard et al., 1990b). Then effluent is sent to the
second stage to complete treatment and, in particular, nitrification. The surface recommended
per stage, which could be adapted according to the climate, the level of pollutant removal
required by water authorities and the hydraulic load (HL) due to for example, the amount
of clean water intrusion into the sewerage network (even though VFCWs have mostly been
recommended for separate networks until now), can be expressed as: a total area of 1.2 m2
per PE, divided over 3 identical alternately fed units on the first stage (i.e. an organic load
of ≈ 300 g COD m-2.d-1, - 150 g SS m-2.d-1, and ≈ 25-30 g TKN m-2.d-1 and a (HL) of 0.37
m.d-1 on the filter in operation), and 0.8 m2 per PE divided over 2 identical alternately fed
units for the second stage. This design is based on a ratio of 120 g COD.PE-1, 60 g SS.PE-1,
10-12 g of TKN.PE-1 and 150 L.PE-1 as most often observed for small communities in
78 France.
Wastewater is supplied to the filters in hydraulic batches (by a storage and high capacity
feeding system) to ensure an optimum distribution of wastewater and SS over the whole
available infiltration area and improve oxygen renewal. When the difference in height
between the inlet and outlet of the plant is sufficient, the plant operates without an energy
source thanks to self-priming siphons. This configuration is known to allow significant
removal of COD, TSS and almost complete nitrification (Boutin et al., 1997). In view of the
Raw WW Inlet First Stage Second Stage
First layer
> 30 cm fine gravel > 30 cm of sand
Second layer (2-8mm) (0.25mm<d10
<0.40mm)
Transition layer: 10 to Transition layer: 10 to
80cm 20cm of adapted 20cm of adapted
particle size particle size
(5-20mm) (3-10mm)
Drainage layer: 10 to Drainage layer: 10 to
Air Connection Drainage pipe Drainage layer Outlet 20cm of 20-40mm 20cm of 20-40mm
A typical first stage RBF FIGURE 1 Partical size profiles FIGURE 2
popular success of VFCWs for small communities, and knowing that design recommendations
have not yet been fixed, the recently created French Macrophytes Group initiated an
investigation to give an overview of the number of plants, their design, their efficiency and
the problems which could occur. The aim was to correct design deviations that might have
occurred. This paper relates the overview given by the survey and the design lessons that
can be drawn from it.
Materials and methods

Data collection in relation to the national situation was carried out by sending questionnaires
to the local technical services for wastewater treatment plants (SATESE), in order to
ascertain the different conception characteristics and behaviour of VFCW plants in
operation in France. Using data, a sample of 72 plants was chosen to assess pollutant removal
efficiency and increase the database on wetland efficiency. The sample chosen is representative
of the national situation. 60% of the plants are 4 to 6 years old, 60% treat only domestic
wastewater and the average plant capacity is 410 PE (median 325 PE). We took care to
evaluate the situation at different altitudes (between 0 and 1000 m).
The efficiency study was done by a 24-hour flow composite sampling at different time of
the year (summer and winter). As far as possible each stage of treatment plant was evaluated
for COD, BOD, SS, TKN, N-NH4, TP and P-P04 according to French standard methods.
Flow was measured by venturi ditches or by measuring the functioning time of pumps if
present. Knowing that the percentage ofN in the SS of raw sewage is about 3 to 5% and
about 0.7% in the sludge deposit (Molle, 2003), the TKN removal observed is assumed to
79
be due to nitrification only. Such an approximate calculation is considered more reliable

than those based on nitrate concentration because of the difficulty of assessing nitrogen
balance due to nitrate leachate during the rest period. All removal efficiencies are calculated
as kg of pollutant removed. Statistical analysis of the data is necessary for comparison of
efficiency in relation to design characteristics as a number of sources of uncertainty can
affect the quantitative measurement (different operators and methods in some cases).
Analyses of variances and mean comparison were performed at p = 0.05 by the Fisher F-test
and the Student t-test, taking the samples two at a time. The confidence interval (95% of
SD
the values) is determined by ± 2 , where N is the number of values and SD the standard
N
deviation.
Results and discussion

VFCW situation
Over 200 plants are actually in operation and more than 60 plants were built in the year
2003 (figure 3). The results are not complete because only 61 out of 95 departments answered
the questionnaire. Nevertheless, it indicates that VFCWs have become popular for small
communities. The survey revealed 213 plants in France treating wastewater with VFCW
(65% < 300 PE) with a design close to the one recommended by Cemagref with some
deviations (min - max on the 1st stage: 0.1 - 4.7m2. PE-1; 2nd stage: 0.1 - 3.6m2 . PE-1).
Differences in surface sizing result from adaptation to influent characteristics (presence of
clear water for example). About 70% of these plants treat wastewater from separate network
systems, 10% wastewater from separate networks with clear water intrusion and 20%
wastewater from combined network systems. Feeding systems mainly use gravity (60% by
siphon on the first stage and 75% on the second stage) and thus avoid the necessity of an
electrical source to the plant.
Plant built per year Total number of plant

70 250
60
Number of plants built per year
200
50
Total number of plants
40 150
30
100
20
50
10
0 0
5 0 2 5 7 9 1 3
198 199 199 199 199 199 200 200
Development of vertical flow CW over time FIGURE 3
80 Removal efficiency was studied by 233 assessments on 81 plants (Table 1). We focused our
analysis on the vertical + vertical design fed with raw wastewater. This meant that all the
first stage vertical filters fed with raw sewage were taken into account in order to focus our
analysis on the performance of this first stage whatever the following stages. The performances
of second stage vertical flow systems are examined separately.
TABLE 1 Types of evaluated plants
TYPE OF PLANT NUMBER OF PLANT ASSESSMENT NUMBER PLANT AGE (Y) AT THE ASSESSMENT
V+V 53 134 0 - 7.0
V+H 2 33 1.2-8.0
V+SF 7 11 0.4-2.0
V 5 5 0.6-4.6
V+P 3 12 0.2-2.5
V+V+H 1 9 Start up
V+H+P 1 6 11.6-15.0
V+H+H 2 3 0.6-2.3
V+H+P 2 3 1.2
V+P+V 1 2 1.6-8.5
V+H+V 1 1 2.6
P+V 1 9 0-1.0
P+V+V 1 3 ?
H+V+H 1 2 3.5-4.0
Global efficiency
For the typical design of two stages of vertical flow filter fed with unsettled wastewater, large
variations were observed on the filter in operation at the first stage in hydraulic load
(MeanHL = 0.37 m.d-1; SD = 0.38; min-max = 0.03-3.9 m.d-1) and organic load
(MeanCOD= 223 g.m-2.d-1; SD = 260; min-max = 17-1680 g.m-2.d-1). Consequently, and also
because of differences in design, age of the plant etc., removal efficiency varied. If cases of
abnormally high hydraulic load resulting in very diluted influent are excluded, the potential
of the filters for good pollutant removal can be observed. Table 2 shows the removal efficiency
and outlet concentration for plants with hydraulic loads lower than 0.75 m.d-1 on the filter in
operation on the first stage (2 times the dry weather HL). Globally systems are able to achieve
good effluent quality for all but phosphorus removal and denitrification (denitrification is not
present due to the enhanced aerobic conditions, and mean P removal is about 40%).
TABLE 2 Removal and outlet pollutant concentration

of two stage VFCW's for Hydraulic Loads <0.75 m.d-1
COD SS TKN 81
PLANT AGE (y) Outlet Outlet Outlet
% Removal Concentration mg.L-1 % Removal Concentration mg.L-1 % Removal Concentration mg.L-1

Mean (N) 91 ± 3 (48) 66 ± 13 (49) 95± 2 (49) 14 ± 5 (49) 85 ± 5 (49) 13 ± 5 (49)
2-6
SD 10.2 45.5 5 17.5 17.1 17.5
Mean (N) 90 ± 2 (43) 65 ± 15 (51) 94± 4 (43) 15 ± 6 (51) 85 ± 6 (43) 12 ± 5 (49)
<2
SD 7.1 51 12.2 19.7 18.4 15.7
Very often improvement in treatment is mentioned by operators with sludge deposit
evolution on the first stage over the first years of operation. This effect is not observed over
the two stages of treatment where no significant differences are observed between newer
and older plants. The second stage of filters ensures treatment efficiency. Some limitations
can be observed for nitrification due to its sensitivity to oxygen presence and competition
with COD removal. Several parameters such as flow distribution, batch frequency, type and
depth of media etc. can influence oxygen renewal. This probably explains the nitrification
variation performance observed. These variations in our samples can be correlated to the
surfaces used but not to hydraulic or COD load. For comparable HL (0.20 m.d-1) and inlet
concentrations (TKNinlet= 80 ± 15 mg.L-1), TKN outlet concentrations differ significantly
according to surface per PE. Outlet concentrations clearly show the limitation in using
global surfaces of below 2 m2.PE-1 (See table 3). It does not seem necessary to design plants
with an area greater than 2.5 m2.p.e-1 for better nitrification but 2 m2.PE-1 is a prerequisite
in order to achieve 8 mg TKN.L-1 (6 mg N-NH4.L-1).
TABLE 3 Outlet TKN concentration of two stage VFCWs according to the size
Total surface area 1.5 - 2 m2.p.e-1 2 - 2.5 m2.p.e-1 2.5 - 3 m2.p.e-1
TKN outlet (mg.L-1) (N) 16 ± 8 (28) 6 ± 2 (20) 5.6 ± 3 (10)
First stage of treatment

46 assessments were used to evaluate the performance of first stage treatment. As plant design,
hydraulic and organic load vary, it is not easy to estimate the precise impact of design on
removal performances. Nevertheless it can be observed that the first stage of treatment
concerns mainly SS and COD removal, though TKN removal is not negligible (see table 4).
High SS removal performance is obtained on the first stage due mainly to the deposit on
the filter surface. This deposit layer is of great importance in limiting the infiltration rate
and thereby the hydraulic flow that can pass through the filter. The effect of this restricting
factor, which influences the hydraulic load which can be accepted whilst allowing enough
surface aeration time, is reduced by reed growth over the year (Molle, 2003). Nevertheless
no significant differences in pollutant removal were observed over the year even with
hydraulic loads of up to two times the dry weather flow.
Figures 4 and 5 present the removal performances in relation to the organic load (100%
82 removal represented by the dotted line). Even for organic loads greater than those allowed
for in the design, COD an SS removal are acceptable. For low hydraulic loads, a greater
variation in COD removal is observed (80 ± 6%; N = 15). This can be related to the fact that
during poor loading water distribution, and therefore the sludge deposit, is not homogeneous.
Heterogeneity in distribution can lead to some deficiencies in COD removal due to flow
short-circuiting. COD removal is sensitive to infiltration rate (Molle, 2003). SS removal
appears relatively stable and efficient. This is not the case for nitrification (see figure 5).
Nitrification for nominal TKN loads (25-30 g.m-2.d-1) can be expected to be about 50%.
Variations in nitrification efficiency can not be correlated with plant design, plant age or
media depth, for global oxygen demand (GOD = DCO + 4.57*TKN) of between 40 and 1
10% of the nominal load, and hydraulic loads of between 40 and 160% of the nominal load.
In fact we observed a tendency to improve TKN removal over the year. The winter period,
with lower mineralisation of sludge deposit and low temperature, is the worst for biological
activity. Nitrification is probably the first to be affected by these limiting conditions.
Moreover, the period from January to April is affected by a longer period of accumulation
of sludge (from November) which remains wet leading to poor mineralisation. This
contributes to a limitation in infiltration rate and oxygen renewal.

of the first of VFCW for hydraulic loads <0.6 m.d-1
COD SS TKN
% Removal Outlet concentration % Removal Outlet concentration % Removal Outlet concentration
mg.L-1 mg.L-1 mg.L-1
Mean (N) 79 ± 3 (54) 131 ± 20 (54) 86 ± 3 (54) 33 ± 6 (54) 58 ± 5 (54) 13 ± 5 (54)
2-6
SD 10 71 12 19 17 17
Mean (N) 82 ± 3 (34) 145 ± 24 (34) 89 ± 3 (34) 33 ± 7 (34) 60 ± 6 (34) 35 ± 7 (34)
<2
SD 7 70 7 19 16 18
350 SS:y=0.9219x
COD:y=0.8175x
R2=0.9968
300 R2=0.976
250
Treated load (g.m2.d-1)
200
150
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 83
COD and SS load (g.m2.d-1)
Treated COD and SS for COD concentrations between 520-1400mg.L-1; 0.15<HL<0.6m.d-1 FIGURE 4
40
130<GOD<350 g.m-2.d.-1
35 GOD> 350 g.m-2.d.-1
30 y=7.4211Ln(x) - 10.32
Treated TKN (g.m2.d-1)
R2=0.4381
25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
TKN load (g.m2.d-1)
Treated TKNfor plants>1year, 0.15<HL<0.6m.d-1 FIGURE 5
Second stage of treatment

As shown in table 5, the second stage of treatment has a mainly nitrification contribution.
Because of low inlet concentrations in COD and SS (about 140 and 40 mg.L-1 respectively),
this second stage has only a polishing effect on these parameters.
No correlation was observed between removal rate and size of the filter. For COD removal
high hydraulic loads seem to decrease efficiency (figure 6). This was shown by Molle (2003)
in laboratory column experiments. COD removal is sensitive to the hydraulic retention time.
There was no correlation between outlet COD concentration and hydraulic load. Hydraulic
overload decreases COD removal but is compensated for by the dilution effect. Therefore
outlet concentration remained low. More information would be necessary in order to analyse
in what way design characteristics contribute to changes in removal efficiency. In our study
media depth and characteristics were not always noted or not precise enough to allow
observations of media influence on removal levels. The overall flow distribution on the filter
surface is of great importance. This information (flow of feeding systems) would have been
invaluable in order to define quality of distribution over the surface. Nevertheless we can
observe that globally nitrification has the same rate of efficiency as that the observed by Molle
(2003) in a study performed under better controlled conditions (Figure8). Some assessments
84 (9 out of 53) carried out by SATESE deviate from this correlation for low TKN loads (Figure
8). No clear nor general reason could be established because of the numerous different
conditions that could have affected nitrification rates (low inlet concentration due to diluted
effluent, presence of industry, use of natural soil as a medium etc).
Most importantly, it would seem that good feeding flow conditions are essential. More
precise studies need to be done to evaluate in what way distribution and batch frequency
can modify nitrification rate.
of the second stage of VFCW for Hydraulic loads <0.6 m.d-1
COD SS TKN
% Removal Outlet Concentration % Removal Outlet Concentration % Removal Outlet Concentration
mg.L-1 mg.L-1 mg.L-1
All Mean (N) 56 ± 12 (44) 51 ± 7 (44)) 65 ± 10 (44) 11 ± 3 (44) 71 ± 7 (44) 7 ± 2 (44)
assessments SD 38 23 34 9 23 6
80<COD<280 Mean (N) 60 ± 8 (28) 55 ± 8 (29) 72 ± 7 (28) 11 ± 4 (29) 78 ± 7 (28) 6 ± 2 (29)
(mean 140)
SD 21 21 19 9 18 5
mg.L-1
Nevertheless we found that nitrification met the treatment objectives for loads below 15
g.m-2 .d-1 of TKN on the second stage filter in operation. For loads above this level, a decrease
in nitrification rate was observed. This is of no importance in respect to outlet levels if the
high load is due to a high hydraulic load of diluted influent because outlet concentration
will meet quality objectives. However if it is due to the small surface area of the unit it could
be difficult to achieve 90% of nitrification over the whole plant.
Sludge accumulation and handling

Up to now, sludge removal has only been carried out on one plant designed for 1600 p.e.
and composed of 8 VFCWs prior to 3 WSPs (dimensioned at 5 m2/p.e.). The plant was put
in operation in 1987. Sludge removal was required in 1996, not because of deterioration in
effluent quality, but because there was an unequal height of sludge causing distribution
problems and little remaining availability of freeboard with risk of spillover in winter. The
poor distribution was due to an insufficient flow rate of the pumping station a long way
away from the plant and an unsuitable distribution gully. The average sludge height was
estimated to be 13 cm (minimum 6 cm, maximum 27 cm). In 1999, after this sludge removal
from 6 filters, the pump and distribution system were changed to give a better distribution
ofSS over the surface area.
In March 2001 the accumulated sludge on the 2 filters which had not been removed since the
beginning of operation (June 1987) had reached approximately 25 cm over the entire surface
of each filter and the freeboard was not sufficient to guarantee treatment of daily hydraulic
peaks. From these measurements, it can be confirmed that in this plant sludge height increases
at about 15 mm per year. Several samples of the different layers of sludge were analysed in 85
order to determine their degree of mineralisation (Table 6). Because of hydraulic experiments
and wet weather, just before sludge removal, drying conditions were not optimal. Nevertheless,
the dry matter content was always greater than 20%, except at the top where the deposits were
most recent. Mineralisation which occurs over time induces DM and OM gradients over the
sludge height. Analyses confirm a relatively high DM content in relation to the wet conditions
prevailing at the time. Probably the mineralisation provided a structure to the sludge which
allowed rapid percolation of water and prevented it from staying too wet.
70 HL>0.4m.d-1
60 HL<0.4m.d-1
y=0.7667x
50 R2=0.9077
Treated TKN (g.m2.d-1)
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TKN load (g.m2.d-1)
Treated COD and SS for COD concentrations between 520-1400mg.L-1; 0.15<HL<0.6m.d-1 FIGURE 6
30
HL>0.4m.d-1
HL<0.4m.d-1
Treated SS (g.m2.d-1)
20
10
y=0.8123x
R2=0.9012
0
0 10 20 30
SS load (g.m2.d-1)
Treated SS on 2nd stage FIGURE 7
40
30
Treated TKN (g.m-2d-1)
86 20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
TKN load (g.m-2.d-1)
Treated TKN on 2nd stage (0.05 <hl<2.2 m.d-1) FIGURE 8
TABLE 1 Quality of the sludge on the two filters at Gensac la Pallue in 2001
DRY MATTER (G.KG-1) ORGANIC MATTER (% OF DM)
Top Layer 181.0 61.2
205.0 54.9
Filter 7
Middle Layer 214.5 Mean = 261,8 51.5 Mean = 42,96

365.9* 22.5
Lower Layer 291.6 39.8
Removed sludge** 284.0 34.3
Top Layer 154.0 54
Middle Layer 213.2 48.3
Filter 6
218.1 Mean = 264,3 45.3 Mean = 41,5

Lower Layer
310.5 37.8
Removed sludge** 217.8 49.2
Sludge stored since the first withdrawal in 1996 583.0 10.4
* this large amount can be explained by the location of this sample, at the end of the filter, very little fed before
1999, because of distribution device failure as mentioned previously.
** made up of several mixed sludge samples taken out during the withdrawal from one filter.
Based on a daily SS load of 16.3 kg and a SS removal rate of 90%, the mass balance of SS
input on these 2 filters over 14 years can be calculated to be 75000 kg SS. The evacuated
mass (mean height 22.5 cm, DM content 25% and surface area of the 2 filters 520 m2) is
estimated to be 29000 kg SS, which represents almost 39% of the SS introduced with the
wastewater. Thus, the mineralisation rate attained was 61% and is similar to a previous
estimation of 65% Boutin et al. (1997). This aerobic mineralisation, as evidenced by the
presence of many Lumbricus earthworms, can also be explained by the fact that, once
roughly dewatered (i.e. 15% SS content), the SS retained on the deposit surface represents
a height not exceeding 1.5 mm per week before any mineralisation process has occurred.
Such a thin layer is in direct contact with the atmosphere most of the time. Bacteria in the
sludge layer, which are in optimum hygrometry and protected from UV by the shade of the
reeds, can easily start their aerobic activity.
This deposit layer becomes part of the biologically efficient media and tends to increase the
removal rates of COD, TSS and TKN. Increase in deposit layer does not drastically affect
the hydraulic capacity of the filter. In fact, due to the mechanical role of reeds (Molle 2003),
it is only the thin layer of newer deposits which is hydraulically limiting. The sludge
withdrawal did no affect the regrowth of the reeds from the rhizomes. Metal analysis of 87
sludge (Molle 2003) showed that its use for agricultural purposes is possible as long as no
agro-industries have been connected to the sewerage network (for example copper from
vineyards treatment).
Conclusion
This study gives an overview of the performance of the many various design and functioning
characteristics ofVFCW in France. Globally, this system is very appropriate for small
communities because treatment is extremely efficient (>90% for COD, 95% for SS and 85%
for nitrification) despite variations in organic and hydraulic loads (15% of the assessments
showed organic loads higher than the nominal COD load and 25% hydraulic loads higher
than the nominal load). The first stage of treatment operates an COD and SS removal while
nitrification is variable and about 50% of inlet TKN. The second stage of treatment secures
carbon removal (COD and SS) and completes the nitrification. The effect of design on
pollutant removal rate (size, material characteristics etc.) can not be proved statistically.
Nevertheless, as it is more sensitive to oxygenation and functioning conditions, nitrification
is a suitable parameter for observation of the appropriateness of the plant design and/or
functioning in pollutant removal performance. In this study, design data were either not
obtained or not precise enough in terms of material depth, material size distribution, siphon
volume, pump flow etc. to determine how nitrification could be improved by design or
optimal management. Nevertheless we can state that 2 m2.PE-1 is a prerequisite in order to
attain sufficient nitrification. Sizes greater than 2.5 m2.PE-1 do not appear to improve
nitrification. Performance of each stage in relation to organic, and in some cases hydraulic,
loads allow the potential of the system to be more clearly defined. For nominal loads we
can state that 1.2 m2PE-1 on the first stage and 0.8 m2.PE-1 on the second stage allow outlet
concentrations of 60 mg.L-1 in COD, 15 mg.L-1 in SS and 8 mg.L-1 in TKN to be reached.
Hydraulic overloads can affect COD removal (observed on the second stage of treatment)
but outlet concentration is maintained due to the dilution effect. In relation to removal rate
observed for each stage, nitrification could be improved by increasing the first stage sizing
to 1.5 m2.PE-1 to obtain an outlet concentration of about 6 mg.L-1. However this would lead
to more wastewater distribution problems. In fact, flow feeding of the first stage is of great
importance to assure an overall distribution of water onto the filter to use the whole reactor.
More studies need to be done to accurately determine the optimal conditions for feeding
(flow, volume, frequency) in order to improve nitrification, but in our experience, it seems
that a feeding flow of 0.6 m3.m-2.h-1 is the minimum. This flow would ensure a satisfactory
distribution for the first feeding after a rest period, when infiltration rates can be greater
than 1.4 10-4m.s-1 (Molle, 2003). Such a feeding flow would ensure a good sludge and water
distribution on the filter. The deposit layer on the first stage limits the infiltration rate and
improves water distribution. It also supplements the biologically active layer. Mineralisation
88 (60%) leads to an increase in sludge of about 1.5 cm per year which must to be removed
once it attains a maximum of 20 cm i.e. about every 10-15 years. Sludge can be used for
agricultural purposes as long as no industries are connected to the sewerage network.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the “Rhone Mediterranee Corse” water authorities for their
financial support, SATESE for their contribution to data provided and H. Zowal and H.
Burnett for help provided.
References
Boutin, C., Lienard, A. and Esser, D. (1997). Development of a new generation of reed-bed
filters in France : First results. Wat. Sci. Tech., 35 (5), pp 315-322.
Liénard, A. (1987). Domestic wastewater treatment in tanks with Emergent Hydrophytes :

latest results of a recent plant in France, Wat. Sci. Tech., 19, (12), pp 373-375.
Liénard, A., Boutin, C. and Esser, D. (1990a). Domestic wastewater treatment with emergent
hydrophyte beds in France. In : Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control (Adv. Wat.
Pollut. Control n°11). Ed. Cooper P.F. and Findlater B.C. Pergamon Press, UNITED KINGDOM,
pp 183-192.
Liénard, A., Esser, D., Deguin, A. and Virloget, F. (1990b). Sludge dewatering and drying
in reed beds : an interesting solution ? General investigation and first trials in France. In :
Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control (Adv. Wat. Pollut. Control n°11). Ed. Cooper
P.F. and Findlater B.C. Pergamon Press, UNITED KINGDOM, pp 257-267.
Liénard, A., Boutin, C. and Esser, D. (1998). France. In : “Constructed wetlands for wastewater
treatment in Europe.”, Ed. Vymazal J., Brix H., Cooper P.F., Green M.B., Haberi R., 1998,
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, NETHERLANDS, pp.153-168.
Molle P., (2003). Subsurface flow constructed wetlands: Phosphorus retention and hydraulic
limit of vertical subsurface flow CWs. (In French) PhD Thesis, engineering processes speciality.
University of Montpellier, 267 p.
89
90
Andre Dzikus
Chief, Water and Sanitation Section II
Water, Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch
UN-HABITAT
P.O.Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel +254-20-7623060, 7625082
Fax +254-20-7623588
Email [email protected]
Web www.unhabitat.org | www.unwac.org
Kulwant Singh
Chief Technical Advisor
Water for Asian Cities Programme, Regional Office
EP 16/17, Chandragupta Marg, Chanakyapuri
New Delhi - 110 021, India
Tel +91-11-4222 5000
Fax +91-11-2410-4961
Roshan Raj Shrestha

Chief Technical Advisor
UN-HABITAT Water for Asian Cities Programme Nepal
UN House, Pulchowk, Lalitpur
P.O. Box 107, Kathmandu, Nepal
Tel +977-1-5542816
Fax +977-1-5539877
9 789211 319637
[email protected]

Constructed Wetlands Manual - UN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructed Wetlands Manual - UN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constructed Wetlands Manual - UN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS MANUAL CONSTRUCTED

United Nations Human Settlements

Smaller, decentralized, wastewater management and treatment systems such as constructed

Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

1 chapter ONE introduction

3 chapter TWO what is a constructed wetland?

7 chapter THREE configurations of constructed wetland

11 chapter FOUR how does a constructed wetland function

15 chapter FIVE design of constructed wetland

5.2.1 Septic Tank 16

35 chapter SIX construction of constructed wetland

47 chapter SEVEN operation and maintenance

7.2.4 Odor Control 50

53 chapter EIGHT constructed wetland for sludge drying

Figure 28 Performance of constructed wetland at Kathmandu University from 2001 to 2006 63

Constructed Wetlands (CWs) are a natural, low-cost, eco-technological biological wastewater

Chapter 2 presents an introduction of the constructed wetlands and its development.

A constructed wetland comprises of the following ﬁve major components:

Components of a constructed wetland FIGURE 2

TABLE 1 Major international conferences

2.2 Limitations of constructed wetlands

3.1 Horizontal flow (HF) 7

Inlet Pipe Treatment

Distribution Collection Zone Adjustable

3.2 Vertical flow (VF)

Depending on the purpose, hybrid wetlands could be either HF wetland followed by VF

how does a constructed

Filtration & Adsorption Sedimentation,

Pollutant removal mechanism (modified from Wetlands International, 2003) FIGURE 5 11

The pollutant removal mechanisms in constructed wetland are presented in Table 2.

Settleable and suspended solids that are not removed

Attached and suspended microbial growth is

rhizosphere, however, the oxygen transfer from the

The process of metal removal in wetlands include sedimentation, ﬁltration, adsorption,

Volatilisation Matrix absorption Biomass uptake

5.1 Preliminary treatment

5.2.1 Septic Tank

16 Table 3 Basic design criteria for two-compartment septic tank

Check the HRT after sludge accumulation:

5.2.2 Anaerobic Baffle Reactor (Improved septic tank)

Table 4 Basic design criteria for an anaerobic baffle reactor

5.3 Sizing of the wetland

KBOD is determined from the expression KTdn, where,

b) KBOD for VF wetland

• Average volume of wastewater (Q) = 400 x 80 / 1000 = 32 m3/d

• Area for HF wetland = 524.10 m2

with an average water depth of 50 cm. (Garcia et al., 2004).

It is recommended to use an average depth of 40 cm taking into considerations of the

5.5 Bed cross section area (only for HF wetland)

The equation is:

• Ac = Cross sectional area of the bed (m2)

5.6 Media selection

40-80mm outlet pipe

5.7 Bed slope

1-4mm thk. sand

Substrate arrangement in a VF wetland FIGURE 14

5.8 Sealing of the bed