Side-by-side comparison of 15 pilot-scale conventional and intensified subsurface flow wetlands for treatment of domestic wastewater

Nivala, Jaime; Boog, Johannes; Headley, Tom R; Aubron, Thomas; Wallace, Scott; Brix, Hans; Mothes, Sibylle; Afferden, Manfred van; Müller, Roland

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.165

Cited by 59 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The removal of TP has been reported to be higher in aerated wetlands than in non-aerated wetlands in a number of studies, with Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) cited as an important factor [70]. The removal of E. coli in aerated wetlands has been reported a few times in the literature, but only for short-term datasets on the order of one year [71,72]. HF aerated wetlands are capable of approximately four log unit removal of E. coli whereas VF aerated wetlands are capable of approximately only two log unit removal.…”

Section: Research Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Advances in the Application, Design, and Operations & Maintenance of Aerated Treatment Wetlands

Nivala

Murphy²,

Freeman³

2020

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper outlines recent advances in the design, application, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of aerated treatment wetland systems as well as current research trends. We provide the first-ever comprehensive estimate of the number and geographical distribution of aerated treatment wetlands worldwide and review new developments in aerated wetland design and application. This paper also presents and discusses first-hand experiences and challenges with the O&M of full-scale aerated treatment wetland systems, which is an important aspect that is currently not well reported in the literature. Knowledge gaps and suggestions for future research on aerated treatment wetlands are provided.

show abstract

Section: Research Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Advances in the Application, Design, and Operations & Maintenance of Aerated Treatment Wetlands

Nivala

Murphy²,

Freeman³

2020

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, nutrient removal is one of the main research areas CWs have been investigated for (Li, Li, Li, Li, & Wu, 2019; Lin‐Lan, Ting, Jian, & Xiangzheng, 2019). Wang, Lin, et al (2019) utilized an electrochemically assisted VFCW to remove high concentrations of phosphates and nitrates in the effluent of wastewater treatment plants while Nivala, Boog, et al (2019) modified two VFCWs, one with recirculating VF and the other one was a single‐pass two‐stage VF. Both demonstrated that a simple operational modification could be effective in removing nutrients.…”

Section: Wetlands For Nutrients Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The selection of appropriate and highly efficient macrophytes candidates also plays a vital role in the removal of pathogens and ARGs in CWs. 15 pilot‐scale subsurface flow CWs planted with phragmites were studied to treat domestic wastewater and reported that the 1.5 log units of E. coli removal was achieved in HFCWs whereas about 3.0–3.8 log unit removal was achieved in VFCWs (Nivala, Boog, et al, 2019). VFCWs planted with Tifton 85 grass was connected in series to HFCWs cultivated with Taboa and two pathogens: total coliform and thermotolerant coliform (ThC) removal efficiency was evaluated while treating swine wastewater.…”

Section: Wetlands For Pathogens and Virus Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wetlands for environmental protection

Martinez‐Guerra

Ghimire

Nandimandalam

et al. 2020

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an update on the research and practical demonstration of wetland-based treatment technologies for protecting water resources and environment covering papers published in 2019. Wetland applications in wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and removal of nutrients, metals, and emerging pollutants including pathogens are highlighted. A summary of studies focusing on the effects of vegetation, wetland design and operation strategies, and process configurations and modeling, for efficient treatment of various municipal and industrial wastewaters, is included. In addition, hybrid and innovative processes with wetlands as a platform treatment technology are presented.

show abstract

“…Fonder and Headley [4] define intensification of treatment wetlands as physicochemical amendments (sorptive media and chemical dosing), additional operational effort or complexity (frequent plant harvesting, cyclical resting, recirculation of flow) and/or increased power consumption (for aeration and pumping). One of the benefits intensified wetland technologies offer is that they have a small area requirement compared to conventional treatment wetland designs [5], as well a higher treatment efficacy for many macro-pollutants such as nitrogen, carbon and bacterial contaminants such as Escherichia coli (E. coli) [6]. More recently, intensified wetlands have also been shown to be effective for removal of micropollutants [7,8] and biological effects [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience of Micropollutant and Biological Effect Removal in an Aerated Horizontal Flow Treatment Wetland

Sossalla

Nivala

Escher

et al. 2020

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of an aerated horizontal subsurface flow treatment wetland was investigated before, during and after a simulated aeration failure. Conventional wastewater parameters (e.g., carbonaceous biological oxygen demand, total nitrogen, and Escherichia coli) as well as selected micropollutants (caffeine, ibuprofen, naproxen, benzotriazole, diclofenac, acesulfame, and carbamazepine) were investigated. Furthermore, the removal of biological effects was investigated using in vitro bioassays. The six bioassays selected covered environmentally relevant endpoints (indicative of activation of aryl hydrocarbon receptor, AhR; binding to the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma, PPARγ; activation of estrogen receptor alpha, ERα; activation of glucocorticoid receptor, GR; oxidative stress response, AREc32; combined algae test, CAT). During the aeration interruption phase, the water quality deteriorated to a degree comparable to that of a conventional (non-aerated) horizontal subsurface flow wetland. After the end of the aeration interruption, the analytical and biological parameters investigated recovered at different time periods until their initial treatment performance. Treatment efficacy for conventional parameters was recovered within a few days, but no complete recovery of treatment efficacy could be observed for bioassays AhR, AREc32 and CAT in the 21 days following re-start of the aeration system. Furthermore, the removal efficacy along the flow path for most of the chemicals and bioassays recovered as it was observed in the baseline phase. Only for the activation of AhR and AREc32 there was a shift of the internal treatment profile from 12.5% to 25% (AhR) and 50% (AREc32) of the fractional length.

show abstract

Side-by-side comparison of 15 pilot-scale conventional and intensified subsurface flow wetlands for treatment of domestic wastewater

Cited by 59 publications

References 47 publications

Recent Advances in the Application, Design, and Operations & Maintenance of Aerated Treatment Wetlands

Recent Advances in the Application, Design, and Operations & Maintenance of Aerated Treatment Wetlands

Wetlands for environmental protection

Resilience of Micropollutant and Biological Effect Removal in an Aerated Horizontal Flow Treatment Wetland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About