Nicole Masurat 1

The effects of constructed wetlands on water quality parameters: an

investigative study

Introduction

As urban development progresses, the need to manage storm water runoff becomes

more critical. Where rain once fell onto soil, it now falls onto hard pavement or building tops.

Water is forced to flow over these hard surfaces and enter streams abruptly rather than soak

into the ground and slowly percolating out to streams. Wetlands play a critical role in the slow

release of water, but as the demand for more development increases, wetland are often

removed from the landscape. The interaction of water, soil, and vegetation that wetlands

harbor provide essential ecological services. They help mitigate floodwaters, stabilize stream

banks, and provide homes for a diversity of wildlife (Kandasamy, 2009). They also filter and

improve water quality by retaining sediment and allowing plants to uptake nutrients. Without

wetlands these services are not provided and degradation to stream and estuary quality is

inevitable (Keddy, 2009).

The consequences of wetland removal have encouraged people to design ways to

mitigate these issues. One technique is simply constructing artificial wetlands. These are

typically installed to treat run-off and storm water from areas dominated by agriculture,

industry, and domestic landcovers (Jones et al, 2013). Constructed wetlands are designed to

retain water and slowly release it downstream so that sediment and pollutants can be dropped

from the flow, much like a natural wetland. They are constructed out of natural materials

including rock, gravel, soil, and plants and typically feature a pond and a marsh region with
 Nicole Masurat 2

wetland vegetation. In this way constructed wetlands are designed to mimic natural wetlands

in the hope that similar ecological services can be provided (Kandasamy, 2009).

The effectiveness of constructed wetlands depends on many biogeochemical factors.

These can be evaluated as their ability to reduce flow velocity, retain excess nutrients in plants

and soil, proliferation of micro-organisms that degrade pollutants, and particulate filtration by

vegetation (Kandasamy, 2009). This study evaluates one constructed wetland’s impact to

several indicative water quality parameters. The South Campus Wetland is located in the city of

Bellingham, Washington and was designed to treat run-off water from a large region of

impermeable surface before it enters a nearby stream (Figure 1). The University of Western

Washington constructed the wetland after several expansions of their facilities compromised

the land’s ability to absorb rainfall (Associated Project Construction Inc, 2012). The constructed

wetland is made of a series of bioswale and Rock/Plant Filters (Figure 2). Water enters the

Watershed

Constructed
Wetland

Figure 1. Map showing the watershed that feeds the constructed wetland
which includes the southern region of the University of Washington. A high
percentage of the watershed is made up of pavement and other impermeable
surfaces. Map image snipped from Google Maps on 11/9/2017.
 Nicole Masurat 3

bioswales from an inlet cistern. The bioswales are open-air retention pools that release water

into the Rock/Plant Filters which then feed water into the outflowing creek.

Inlet

Outlet

Figure 2. Construction designs for the South Campus Wetlands. The areas marked by Inlet and
Outlet indicate where water samples were taken (Associated Project Construction Inc, 2012).
 Nicole Masurat 4

Farther downstream the creek flows into Connelly Creek then Padden Creek and eventually

enters Bellingham Bay near the town of Fairhaven.

The water quality parameters that were investigated were water temperature, pH,

alkalinity, conductivity, levels of dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nitrate concentrations, and heavy

metals concentrations. Temperature is a major factor that dictates the biota that lives in a

waterbody. Alkalinity is the ability of water to neutralize acids whereas pH measures the

concentration of available hydrogen ions. Both have implication for biological and chemical

processes. Conductivity measures the concentration of dissolved solids and can help evaluate

the amount of dissolved pollutants. The level of dissolved oxygen (DO) is important for wildlife

habitat and it can also represent the activity of biota in a system. Turbidity measures the

amount of suspended solids in water. Turbidity impacts water temperature, photosynthesis

activity, and wildlife habitat suitability. Nitrates can influence the levels of DO in an aquatic

system if concentrations are too high. Nitrates are a source of nitrogen for aquatic plants. Often

nitrogen is a limiting nutrient for plant growth, so the addition of nitrate can allow for

continued growth. When these plants die, and cellular respiration occurs during decomposition

oxygen is consumed. DO may be depleted from the water system if plant growth was excessive.

Heavy metals are toxic pollutants that can negatively impact biotic functions if in high enough

concentrations. (Peter, 2017).

Methods

Water samples were taken two times a week during the lab time of the Environmental

Science class Water Quality - ESCI 361. Samples were collected from the inlet and outlet of the
 Nicole Masurat 5

wetland so that effects of the wetland could be evaluated. Inlet samples were taken by

lowering a collection jar into the inlet cistern. Water was then poured into the sample slowly so

air did not mix with the sample. The outlet samples were filled directly from the outlet drain

pipe. Flow rate was measured by timing how long it took to fill a 15-liter basin at the outlet. Air

temperature, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and oxygen percent saturation were

measured in situ with a calibrated YSI probe at both the inlet and outlet. Water samples were

taken back to the lab for analysis (Homann, 2017). The lab procedures were followed as outline

in Peter Homann’s text Water Quality: Basic Principles and Experimental Methods.

Turbidity was measured with a calibrated 2100P turbidimeter. Two readings were taken

from the inlet and outlet samples. The average of the two was recorded as the measurement

for each sample site (Homann, 2017).

Conductivity was measured with an Orion Model 130 conductivity meter. The

instrument was calibrated with a standard and the cell constant was recorded to check for

accuracy while measuring the samples. Both the inlet and outlet samples were measured two

times and the average was taken. Total dissolved solids (TDS) was calculated from conductivity

by multiplying the readings by 0.62 (Homann, 2017).

pH was measured with a calibrated Accument Basic AB15 pH meter. Calibration was

done with three standardized solutions of pH 4.0, pH 7.0, and pH 10.0. After calibration each

sample reading was taken, two readings from each the inlet and outlet samples. The probe was

rinsed with deionized water between each reading (Homann, 2017).

Alkalinity was measured by titration with standardized solution of sulfuric acid.

Standardization was done by titration with a reference solution of 0.0500 N sodium carbonate.
 Nicole Masurat 6

The sulfuric acid was standardized to 0.019 N. Sample titration was performed with color

change indicator dyes. Phenolphthalen indicator was used to detect any carbonate alkalinity in

the sample and the V8.3 value. Bromoceosol green-methyl red indicator was used to detect

addition pH beyond V8.3 (V-additional). For our samples carbonate alkalinity was not present

making V8.3 = 0. Total alkalinity was calculated by adding V8.3 and V-additional (Homann,

2017).

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) was measure by the Winkler Method. Typically, Winkler readings

are made in the field but for this study samples were brought back to the lab for evaluation.

Samples were collected with care to minimize the amount of mixing with the air. Within 20

minutes of collection samples were fixed with Winkler Reactants manganous sulfate and alkali-

iodide-azide and concentrated sulfuric acid. The fixed samples were titrated with standardized

Thiosulfate Solution (standardized with 0.025 N bi-iodate). DO levels in the samples were

calculated from the amount of Thiosulfate Solution used to reach a color change in the Winkler

Reagents (Homann, 2017).

Nitrate concentration was analyzed by colorimetery in the lab. Samples were collected

and analyzed twice over two days (Tuesday 11/14/17 and Wednesday 11/15/17). All glass and

plastic ware was washed with a dilute HCl solution prior to use. A quality control standard

solution was created to have 100 mg nitrate-nitrogen/L. A nitrate working solution was created

for the stock solution by diluting 10mL with deionized-distilled water to 100mL. From this

solution six standards solutions were prepared with the following concentrations: 0.0 mg N/L,

0.1 mg N/L, 0.2 mg N/L, 0.4 mg N/L, 0.6 mg N/L, and 1.0 mg N/L. Two 30 ml samples were

analyzed along with a quality control (QC) solution and the standards. Samples with
 Nicole Masurat 7

concentrations greater than standard range were diluted by a factor of 2. NitraVer6, a

cadmium containing powder, was used to reduce nitrate to nitrites in all samples, QC solutions,

and standards. NitriVer3 powder was added to each to produce a pink color in relation to the

nitrites concentration. Lighter pink indicated less nitrite while richer pink indicated more. A

Milton Roy Sectronic 20D Spectrophotometer was used for qualitative analysis of color

absorbance. A QC chart was produced form past (Homann, 2017).

Metal concentrations were analyzed by atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy. Samples

were collected in acid washed plastic bottles. In the lab the sample was acidified with a 1% by

volume concentrated HNO₃/L solution and poured into two AA tubes. A 4.0 ppm QC sample was

also poured into an AA tube for analysis. Plain DD water blanks were also acidified and

measured in the same way as the samples. These are used to account for residual metals in the

glassware or in the spectrometry. Samples were taken to Western Washington University’s

Scientific Technical Services for AA measurements with an Agilent 500ce Inductively Coupled

Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (Homann, 2017).

Results

The outlet flowrate varied wider than ambient air temperature and precipitation (Table

1). The highest flow rate was 15.0 L/sec while the lowest was 0.45 L/sec. Precipitation’s smaller

variation had a high record of 0.45 inches over six hours before sampling and a low of 0 inches

over six hours. The differences between the inlet’s and outlet’s water quality parameters of

temperature, DO concentration, DO % saturation (%sat), alkalinity, pH, turbidity, conductivity,

nitrate, and metal concentrations were evaluated by a two-tailed t-test in Microsoft Excel with
 Nicole Masurat 8

an alpha (α) value of 0.05. Resulting p-values less than the α indicate significant difference

between inlet and outlet. Water temperature, DO %sat, and DO concentration showed a

significant difference between inlet and outlet samples (Table2). On Tuesday (10/24/17) the DO

%sat and DO concentration had a positive relationship with the inlet having higher values for

both. The next day, Wednesday (10/25/17) the relationship was negative with the outlet having

higher DO %sat and lower DO concentration than the inlet (Figure 3).

Table 1. Weather and flowrate data for the South Campus Wetland (n=6). Precipitation (precip) 1 is
rainfall measured 1 hour before samples collection. Precip. 6 is rainfall measured 6 hours before. Std. is
the standard deviation from the mean.
Flowrate (L/sec) Ambient T (C) Precip 1 (in/m) Precip 6 (in)
Mean 6.74 12.6 0.01 0.09
Std. 5.57 1.8 0.01 0.14

Table 2. Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen measurements of the South Campus Wetland inlet
and outlet (n=9). * P-values that are lower than the α value of 0.05
Water T DO DO
(°C) (mg/L) (%sat)
Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet
Mean 13.0 11.6 9.68 8.13 91.8 74.4
Std. 1.6 1.2 1.02 1.57 7.4 14.5
P-value 0.04* 0.02* 0.01*

Figure 3. Comparisons of DO %sat and DO concentration relationships between the inlet and outlet on
two consecutive days.
 Nicole Masurat 9

Alkalinity and turbidity also showed significant difference between inlet and outlet samples, but

pH and conductivity did not (Table 3). Graphing the turbidity levels of the inlet and outlet with

the flowrate of that day revealed a possible correlation between turbidity and flowrate. Also, a

pattern is more visible between the inlet and outlet turbidity measurements. Turbidity rises

when flowrates are higher and falls when flowrate decreases, though the magnitude of this

trend varies day to day. The exception to this is happened on 10/25/17 and 11/15/17 when

flowrates were at their highest, but turbidity was relatively low (Figure 4).

Table 3. Alkalinity, pH, turbidity, and conductivity measurements of the South Campus Wetland inlet and
outlet (Alkalinity n = 2. All other parameters n= 9). * P-values that are lower than the α value of 0.05
Alkalinity pH Turbidity (NTU) Conductivity – K25
(meq/L) (us/cm)
Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet
Mean 0.83 1.10 7.33 7.25 25.7 8.5 243.5 222.8
Std. -0.05 0.27 0.12 0.09 22.2 6.7 139.7 104.6
P-value 0.02* 0.12 0.04* 0.73

Figure 4. Comparisons between inlet and outlet turbidity and flowrate at the South Campus Wetland

There is general correlation between temperature and DO concentration (r² = 0.65) at the inlet

sites with DO concentrations rising as temperature drops (Figure 2). The outlet on the other

hand shows has a weaker correlation (r² = 0.01) between temperature and DO concentration,
 Nicole Masurat 10

but temperature is overall lower than the inlet and lower DO concentrations come from the

outlet Figure 5).

Figure 5. South Campus Wetland inlet and outlet temperature and DO concentration data.

Nitrate data was analyzed after a QC check using a QC chart. The chart revealed that

one set of data was outside the acceptable limit defined as three standard deviations from the

QC value (Figure 6). The data associated with this point was excluded from analysis. The two

days that the nitrate data was collected (11/14/17 and 11/15/17) both have significant

differences between the inlet and outlet (Table 4). Both days have lower nitrate concentrations

in the outlet and Wednesday has lower values than Tuesday for both the inlet and outlet

(Figure 7). When the average of inlet and outlet data is taken from both days a significant

difference is still seen between the inlet and outlet nitrate concentration.
 Nicole Masurat 11

Figure 6. QC chart for the nitrate concentration data. Criteria for exclusion include extending beyond the
3s line, two points within three runs of each other beyond the 2s line, seven points in a row that are
either increasing or decreasing, and seven points in a row above or below the QC value line.

Table 4. Nitrate concentration data over the two days it was collected. (n=4) * P-values that are lower
than the α value of 0.05
Tuesday Wednesday
11/14/17 11/15/17
Inlet average N (mg/L) 1.09 0.54
Inlet std. 0.39 0.11
Outlet average N (mg/L) 0.63 0.25
Outlet std. 0.09 0.05
p-value 0.009* 2.96e-06*

(11/14) (11/15)

Figure 7. Comparison of inlet and outlet nitrate concentrations on both collection days (11/14 and
11/15)
 Nicole Masurat 12

Table 5. Combined average nitrate concentrations from both sampling days. (n=4) * P-values that are
lower than the α value of 0.05
Inlet average N (mg/L) 0.84
Inlet std. 0.38
Outlet average N (mg/L) 0.41
Outlet std. 0.20
p-value 2.22e-04*

The Copper (Cu) and Zine (Zn) concentrations from the inlet and outlet also have

significant differences. The standard deviation for Zn is high for both the inlet and outlet while

it is low for Cu. The acid blanks reveal that there was some contamination in the sampling

equipment (Table 6). The concentrations of Cu and Zn are both higher than the Washington

State acute exposure maximum contaminate limit (MCL) for freshwater aquatic life and well

beyond the chronic exposure MCL for freshwater aquatic life (Table 7).

Table 6. Averaged concentrations of heavy metals Cu and Zn between the inlet and outlet. (n=2) * P-
values that are lower than the α value of 0.05
63 Cu [1] 66 Zn [1]
Inlet average (ppb) 5.56 41.93
Inlet std. 0.66 17.02
Outlet average (ppb) 3.65 19.14
Outlet std. 0.29 6.05
p-value 7.59e-05* 0.01*
Acid blank average 2.95 1.70

Table 7. Maximum contaminate limits (MCL) for Cu and Zn. Values were calculated from equations listed
in Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Standards for Surface Water of the State of Washington. In
order of a freshwater source to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s human health criteria Cu
and Zn must be lower than the values show in the table.
Cu MCL (ug/L) Zn MCL (ug/L)
Acute 5.47 41.26
Chronic 4.06 37.68
 Nicole Masurat 13

Discussion

The South Campus Wetland’s inlet and outlet water samples did not show significant

differences in pH, or conductivity though they did differ with respect to water temperature, DO

concentration, turbidity, DO % saturation, and alkalinity. These changes indicate that the

constructed wetland made some improvement in water quality from the inlet to the outlet. The

decrease in water temperature, turbidity, nitrate, and heavy metals and the increase in

alkalinity are recognized as improvements in water quality. Another study looking at the

effectiveness of constructed wetlands on run-off water quality in Spain saw improvements to

nitrate concentrations and phosphorus concentrations (Martinez, 2006). A different study in

the state of Illinois saw improvements to surface water in regard to turbidity, total suspended

solids, total nitrogen, and bacterial contamination after passing through a constructed wetland

(Almela, 2017). The findings in this report and those conducted elsewhere in the world suggest

that constructed wetlands may be an effective way to improve water contaminated by

anthropomorphic pollutants and modifications to the water cycle. More research is needed on

long term effects and implications of constructed wetlands.

Several patterns seem in the data can be attributed to the variance in rainfall over the

course of the study. The reversal of relationship trends in respect to DO concentrations and DO

% sat. between the inlet and outlet is one possible example of this. Between the DO sampling

days a large rain storm traveled over the study area (Table 8). Prior to the rain event DO was

being consumed in the wetland. The increased flowrate the next day could be the source of the

additional DO as air is mixed into the waterflow.

 Nicole Masurat 14

Table 8. Precipitation and flowrates of the dates of the DO concentration and DO % sat data collection.
Precipitation data was sourced from Weather Underground for the conditions at the Bellingham
International Airport.
Date Precipitation (in) Ambient Air Temp (C) Flowrate (L/s)

10/24/17 0.00 15.80 1.75

10/25/17 0.17 14.40 15.00

One of the short-fallings in this report stems from the number of scientists involved in

the analysis. Inconsistencies in lab procedures and sampling techniques could lead to slight

inconsistencies in data. The quality control measures taken during the analysis should have

reduced this variance. Another source of possibly misleading data comes from the small

window of time that the research was conducted. The results from this study could be

improved upon by extending the data collecting period to at least one year so that seasonal

variations could be accounted for. The timing of rain events and dry spells likely have a large

impact on the water parameters that were investigated in this study. In Washington state the

month of October brings a return of heavy rain after a summer of long droughts. Before the

study began little rain had fallen in the study site’s watershed. Partway through the study heavy

rain events occurred. The run-off from earlier storms likely contains different concentration of

dissolved and suspended solids, pH levels, alkalinity, and possibly DO concentrations than

storms later. Run-off flowing in the month of March are likely very different that that in the fall.

A follow-up study should extend the collection time to a year and reduce the number of data

analyzers.
 Nicole Masurat 15

Citations

Associated Project Construction Inc. (2012). Western Washington University Stormwater Detention
Facility Restoration Project. PW656.

Homann P., (2017). Water Quality: Basic Princiles and Experimental Methods. Huxley College of the
Environment. Bellingham, Washington.

Jones G. D., Wadzuk B. M. (2013). Predicting Performance for Constructed Storm-Water Wetlands.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 139(11). pp. 1158-1164

Keddy P. A., Fraser L.H., Solomeshch, A., Junk W.J., Campell D.R., Arroyo M. T. K., Alho C. J. R. (2009).
Wet and Wonderful: The World’s Largest Wetlands Are Conservation Priorities. BioScience. Vol. 59(1).
pp. 39-51

Johnston C.A., Detenbeck N.E., Niemi G.J. (1990) The Cumulative Effect of Wetlands on Stream Water
Quality and Quantity. A Landscape Approach. Biogeochemistry. Vol 10. pp. 105-141

Kandasamy J. and Vigneswaran S. (Eds.) (2009). Constructed Wetlands. Nova Science Publishers. New
York, NY.

Kovacic D.A., Twait R.M., Wallace M.P., Bowling J.M. (2006) Use of created wetlands to improve water
quality in the Midwest – lake Bloomington case study. University of Illinois, Department of Land and
Agriculture. Champaign, IL, USA.

Martinez A.P., Martinez G.N., Medina Q.J., Almela L. (2017) Domestic wastewaters reuse reclaimed by
an improved horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetland: A case study in the southeast of Spain.
Bioresource Technology. Vol 233. pp. 236-246