A

DISSERTATION REPORT
ON

EFFICIENCY OF WETLAND IN DOMESTIC

SWAGE TREATMENT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the award of Degree of

MASTERS OF TECHNOLOGY
IN

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
By

SHIVANI MAHAR
2017PCE5258

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Malaviya National Institute of Technology
JLN Marg, Jaipur-302017
(June 2019)
 MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JAIPUR
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
JAIPUR – 302017 (RAJASTHAN) INDIA
CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the seminar entitled “EFFICIENCY OF WETLAND IN DOMESTIC

SWAGE TREATMENT ” in the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of Masters of Technology in Environmental Engineering and submitted at Civil
Department of Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur is an authentic record of
my own work under the supervision of Dr. Urmila Brighu, Professor, MNIT.

SHIVANI MAHAR
2017PCE5258

This seminar report is hereby approved for submission.

Dr. Urmila Brighu

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express deep regards and gratitude to my mentor Dr. Urmila Brighu for her
valuable guidance and inspiration and support for the completion of this seminar report
successfully.

My sincere gratitude to Dr. Mahesh Kumar Jat, H.O.D., Civil Engineering Department,
MNIT Jaipur, for giving me the opportunity to complete this dissertation.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the PhD Scholar Miss. Kanika Saxena of Civil
Engineering Department, MNIT Jaipur and Mr. Sadique Ansari Yasin (Lab Technician,
PHE Lab) for their cordial nature and guidance during the course of my work.

Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to my friends and family for their all-time
availability and useful suggestions during the course of this work.

Shivani Mahar
Environmental Engineering
2017PCE5258
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 8
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 NEED FOR THE STUDY ....................................................................................................... 8
1.2 NEED FOR THE CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEM .................................................. 8
1.3 AIM OF THE STUDY............................................................................................................. 9
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 10
LITERTURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 HISTORY OF WETLAND ................................................................................................... 11
2.3 CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS .................................................... 12
2.4 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS WITH SURFACE FLOW ................................................. 13
2.5 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS WITH SUBSURFACE FLOW ......................................... 14
2.5.1 HORIZONTAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS-................. 14
2.5.2 VERTICAL FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS- ................................................. 16
2.5.3 HYBRID CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS ................................................................... 17
2.6 REMOVAL MECHANISM OF VARIOUS WASTE WATER PARAMETER................... 19
2.6.1 BOD ............................................................................................................................... 20
2.6.2 NITROGEN ................................................................................................................... 21
2.6.3 AMMONIFICATION .................................................................................................... 22
2.6.4 NITRIFICATION .......................................................................................................... 22
2.6.5 PHOSPHORUS.............................................................................................................. 22
3.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 24
3.2 STUDY SITE ......................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 LOCATION AND TIMING .................................................................................................. 26
3.4 LABORATORY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 26
3.4.1 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND........................................................................ 26
3.4.2 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND .............................................................................. 26
3.4.3 AMMONIACAL NITROGEN: ..................................................................................... 26
3.4.4 PHOSPHORUS: ............................................................................................................ 26
3.4.5 pH................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.6 NITRATE ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.5 INSTRUMENTS USED ........................................................................................................ 26
Intellical™ ISENO3181 Nitrate......................................................................................................... 27
Khera Instruments pvt. ltd.................................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 31
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 31
4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 31
4.2 PHOSPHATES ...................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 AMMONIACAL NITROGEN .............................................................................................. 32
4.4 NITRATES ............................................................................................................................ 34
4.5 pH........................................................................................................................................... 35
4.6 COD ....................................................................................................................................... 35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Classification of constructed wetlands (Vymazal and Kröpfelová, 2008) .......................... 13
Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the experiment setup ........................................................................ 24
Figure 3 Microwave ........................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4 Cod Digester Unit ................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 5 Nitrate Electrode .................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 6 Phosphate Concentration In Raw ,Inlet And Outet ............................................................. 32
Figure 7 Reduction In Phosphate ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 8 Ammoniacal Nitrogen Concentration .................................................................................. 33
Figure 9 % Reduction In Ammoniacal Nitrogen ............................................................................... 33
Figure 10 pH ...................................................................................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLE
Table 1 Instruments used in the laboratory ........................................................................................ 27
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 NEED FOR THE STUDY
Rapidly urbanizing centers around the world face multiple challenges in their water and
wastewater management. In many developing country cities, water supply has not been able
to keep up with a rapidly increasing demand principally because a majority of the readily
available sources have already been exploited (Padowski and Gorelick, 2014, McDonald et
al., 2014). Further, many also lack adequate wastewater treatment infrastructure and
consequently discharge a large portion of their wastewater directly into surface water-
bodies impacting the health of downstream users and the environment (Ujang and Buckley,
2002; Corcoran, 2010). Water use continues to grow in a city as population increases,
thereby increasing the generation of wastewater. Partially treated as well as untreated
wastewater is picked up by the nearby rivers and lakes from the surrounding areas. A
substantial amount of this water is used downstream for agriculture, domestic purposes and
industries. The use of polluted river water for irrigation not only increases the health risks
for farmers and consumers of food crops, but also for the environment. Increasing water
shortages and wastewater discharge have exacerbated the problem, as has water pollution
caused by rapid urbanization, leading to further shortages of accessible drinking water
(Shao et al. 2006).In this context, waste water treatment and its reuse within the city is an
attractive solution that can simultaneously address both the above problems (Garcia and
Pargament, 2014; Jamwal et al., 2014).

1.2 NEED FOR THE CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEM

Due to the immense cost associated with the deployment of traditional treatment methods,
the CW approach with its low construction and operation costs and high treatment
efficiency has become an accepted technology (Haberl et al. 1995; Kivaisi 2001). They
require lower investment and operation costs while providing higher treatment efficiency
and more ecosystem services than conventional wastewater treatment methods CTW
systems are the most beneficial of these, due to their superior wastewater treatment
capabilities (Cooper and Green 1995; Sundaravadivel and Vigneswaran 2001). CWs are less
expensive and have low maintenance cost than traditional wastewater treatment systems.
Additionally these systems have more aesthetic appearance than traditional wastewater
treatment systems (Kadlec et al., 2000; Haberl et al., 2003; Langergraber, 2008). By this
CTW if waste water is treated by community level it will reduce load on centralized waste
water treatment system.

1.3 AIM OF THE STUDY

To analyze the performance of constructed wetland system in waste water after primary
sedimentation and it’s feasibility in apartment buildings.

Assess their suitability for semi- arid zone.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To study the removal efficiency of constructed wetland with reference to
i. BOD
ii. COD
iii. NITRATE
iv. AMMONIACAL NITROGEN
v. PHOSPHATE
vi. PH
2. To analyze the functioning of constructed wetland.
CHAPTER 2
LITERTURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
This chapter discusses the detailed literature that has been done in the field of constructed
wetland. Primarily it gives details of wetland and its classification. Further details about the
removal mechanism of physio chemical parameters. The removal mechanism of all
contaminants is also explained in the later part of the section of this literature review
chapter.

Constructed wetlands are treatment systems that use natural processes involving wetland
vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to improve water quality.

Constructed wetlands are comparatively less costly to construct and operate with ease of
maintenance as well as more effective in treatment of waste water. Wetlands are found to be
easygoing for different loading rates.

Wetland was firstly introduced in 1950’s by Seidel who named it “hydro-botanical system”.
This system was used for the removal of pollutants from wastewater. It was further
improved by following the hybrid system of vertical and horizontal filtration beds (Seidel,
1992).

The ecosystem of wetland systems has the specific characteristics which makes them
suitable for wastewater purification:

(1) The semi-aquatic system with partial oxic and partial anoxic environment.

(2) Provides basis to support the tall and highly productive plantation for taking up the
nutrients.

(3) And enhance the growth of the microbial film supported on media
(Verhoeven,Meuleman, 1999).

Wetland receives, hold and recycle nutrients and support vegetation at microscopic as well
as macroscopic level (Crites and Techobanoglous 1998; Hammer 1989).
The constructed wetlands are also known as reed beds which describe sub-surface flow
constructed wetland. In 1970s and 1980s, these systems were introduced as a result of
concern for treatment of municipal or domestic wastewater. Since 1990s, it has been used
for almost all types of wastewater such as landfill leachate, runoff, food processing,
industrial, agriculture farms, main drainage or sludge dewatering (Farooqi et al., 2008).
Kadlec and Knight (1996) define that the constructed wetland systems are designed to
utilize natural process for wastewater quality improvement. The constructed wetland
systems are engineered systems to facilitate the purification process by removing
contaminants in wastewater via a combination of physical (filtration, sedimentation)
chemical (precipitation, adsorption) and biological (microbial activity, vegetation
accumulation, plant uptake) processes for different type of wastewater.

Constructed wetlands are found to be promising for removal of TS, TDS, TSS, COD, BOD,
TKN and total phosphorus as well as microbial contaminants (Gersberg et al.,1994;
Green,1994; Kadlec, 1989; Knight, 1987).

2.2HISTORY OF WETLAND
Wetlands occur in a wide range of landscapes and may support permanent shallow
(generally <2 m) or temporary standing water. They have soils, substrates, and biota
adapted to flooding and/or water logging and associated conditions of restricted aeration.

Wetlands are far more important in the biosphere than their 5-8% of the landscape suggests
(Mitsch, Gosselink, Anderson, & Zhang, 2009) Wetlands are extremely diverse not only for
their physical characteristics and geographical distribution but also within particular
landscape units such as floodplains, mires, or marshes (Maltby, E., Ed. Functional
Assessment of Wetlands, 2009)

Wetlands provide many important ecological services to human society. Ecosystem services
represent the benefits that living organisms obtain directly or indirectly from the ecosystem
(Costanza, et al., 1997) Natural wetlands have been used for wastewater treatment for
centuries as convenient wastewater discharge sites for as long as sewage has been collected,
i.e., at least 100 years in some locations. In many cases, however, the reasoning behind this
use was disposal, rather than treatment, and the wetland simply served as a convenient
recipient that was closer than the nearest river waterway. (Wentz, W. A,1987).Uncontrolled
discharge of wastewater, though, led in many cases to an irreversible degradation of many
wetland areas.

Cooper & Boon, 1987, pointed out that the use of natural wetlands for treatment of
wastewater has been practiced in the United Kingdom for more than a century. Examples of
old wetland sites used to treat wastewater in North America include the Great Meadows
natural wetland near the Concord River in Lexington, Massachusetts beginning in 1912, the
Cootes Paradise natural wetland near Hamilton, Ontario(1919), the Brillion Marsh in
Wisconsin (1923), and a natural cypress swamp near the city of Waldo, Florida (1939).
(Kadlec, R. H.; Knight, R. L,1996 )

The growing knowledge about wetland functions and values have caused a radical change
of attitude toward wetlands since the 1950s and the use of natural wetlands for wastewater
disposal decreased in some parts of the world. Unfortunately, in some parts of the world the
deterioration of wetlands with wastewater still occurs. Natural wetlands are still used for
wastewater treatment under controlled conditions (Mander & Jenssen, 2002)(Kadlec, 2009)

2.3CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

The different types of Constructed Wetlands mainly depend upon the flow regime i.e. free
water surface flow CW and sub-surface flow CW. These categories can be further classified
on both the type of macrophytic growth and on the water flow direction
 Contructed
wetlands

Emergent plants
Surface flow Submerged plants Sub-surface flow
Free floating plants
Floating-leaved plants Horizontal Vertical

Downflow
Upflow
TIdal

Hybrid system

Figure 1 Classification of constructed wetlands (Vymazal and Kröpfelová, 2008)

2.4 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS WITH SURFACE FLOW
Constructed wetlands with surface flow, known as free water surface constructed wetlands
(FWS CWs), contain areas of open water and floating, submerged, and emergent plants.
The shallow water depth, low flow velocity, and presence of the plant stalks and litter
regulate water flow and, especially in long, narrow channels, ensure plug flow condition As
the water flows through the wetland, it is treated by physical (sedimentation, filtration, UV
exposure), chemical (precipitation, adsorption, volatilization), and biological (microbial
degradation, microbial nutrient transformations, uptake from water column and root zone,
microbial competition, and bacterial die-off) processes(Vymazal 2011).
The FWS CWs are very effective in removal of organics through microbial degradation and
removal of suspended solids through filtration and sedimentation
(Kadlec, Knight, Vymazal, Brix, & Cooper, 2000)

Removal of nitrogen is variable and the magnitude of reduction depends on many factors
including inflow concentration, chemical form of nitrogen, water temperature, season,
organic carbon availability, and dissolved oxygen concentration. Ammonia is most
effectively removed through nitrification in aerobic zones of the water column followed by
denitrification of nitrate in anaerobic zones in the litter layer at the bottom

FWS CWs provide sustainable removal of phosphorus but at relatively slow rates.
Phosphorus removal occurs from adsorption and precipitation but in the FWS system it is
limited by little contact between water column and the soil (Vymazal 2011).

Design methods are based on either volume or area. Volume-based methods use hydraulic
retention time to optimize pollutant removal whereas area-based methods assess pollutant
reduction using the overall wetland area(Economopoulou & Tshrintzis, 2004)

The most common application for FWS wetlands is for tertiary treatment of municipal
wastewater and also for stormwater runoff and mine drainage waters.

They provide greater storm/surge capacity and thus, less chance for hydraulic failureFWS
wetlands are suitable in all climates, including the far north. However, ice formation can
reduce the rates of some removal processes, especially nitrogen conversion and removal
(Vymazal 2011).

2.5CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS WITH SUBSURFACE FLOW

2.5.1 HORIZONTAL SUBSURFACE FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS-
In horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands (HF CWs), the wastewater is fed in at
the inlet and flows slowly through the porous medium under the surface of the bed planted
with emergent vegetation to the outlet where it is collected before leaving via a water level
control structure. During passage the wastewater comes into contact with a network of
aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic zones. Most of the bed is anoxic/ anaerobic due to permanent
saturation of the beds. The aerobic zones occur around roots and rhizomes that leak oxygen
into the substrate (Brix, 1987)HFCWsare commonly sealed with a linear to prevent seepage
and to ensure the controllable outflow (Vymazal & Kro¨pfelova´, Wastewater Treatment in
Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow, 2008)Macrophytes planted in HF
CWs have several properties that make them an essential component of the design. The
most important properties are filtration bed insulation during the winter, substrate for
growth of attached bacteria, oxygen release to the rhizosphere, nutrient uptake and storage,
and root exudates with antimicrobial properties (Brix, Do macrophytes play a role in
constructed treatment wetlands?, 1997)
In Europe,HFCWsarecommonlycalled “Reed Beds”, in the United Kingdom they are also
called “Reed Bed Treatment System” (RBTS) because Common reed (Phragmitesaustralis)
is frequently planted. HF CWs are commonly used for secondary treatment of municipal
wastewater butmanyother applications have been reported in the literature (Vymazal &
Kro¨pfelova´, Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Sub-Surface
Flow, 2008)
HF CWs are very effective in removal of organics, suspended solids, microbial pollution,
and heavy metals. Organic compounds are degraded by bacteria under aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. It has been shown that the oxygen transport capacity in these systems
is insufficient to ensure aerobic decomposition and that anaerobic processes play an
important role in HF CWs
(Brix, Gas exchange through the soil atmosphere interface and through dead culms of
Phragmites australis in a constructed wetland receiving domestic sewage., 1990)
Suspended solids settle into micropockets in the filtration bed or are filtered out (Kadlec,
Knight, Vymazal, Brix, & Cooper, 2000)Removal of ammonia-N is limited by the lack of
oxygen and, hence nitrification, in the filtration media. HF CWs, however, provide suitable
conditions for denitrification (Vymazal & Kro¨pfelova´, Wastewater Treatment in
Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow, 2008)Removal of phosphorus is
low unless special media with high sorption capacity are used. It has been shown that
selection of the filtration material is also very important for the longevity of the system
because media too fine will clog and surface runoff will occur
(Cooper, Griffin, & Cooper, 2005)
HF CWs having the ability to insulate the surface of the bed are capable of operation under
colder conditions than FWS systems. HF CWs have been designed using many models
fromsimple “rules of thumb” (Wood, 1995)to complex dynamic, compartmental models
(Langergraber, et al., 2009)
(Rousseau, Vanrolleghem, & De Pauw, 2004)
(Langergraber, Modeling of processes in subsurface flow constructed wetlands - A review,
2008)
Between these two extremes, plug-flow first order modelsand Monod-type equations have
been used
(Mitchell & McNevin, 2001)
However, no matter which design modelis used, for municipal sewage, the area of HF CWs
is usuallyabout 5 m2 PE-1 (PE ) population equivalent ) 60 g BOD5d-1) (Vymazal &
Kro¨pfelova´, Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Sub-Surface
Flow, 2008)
Besides their low operation and maintenance costs (HFCWs mostly do not use electric
power and the flow is supported only by gravity) the major advantage of HF CWscomes
from the fact that they can treat diluted wastewatersfrom combinedsewer systems, i.e.,
wastewaters which cannotbe treated by conventional treatment technologies such
asactivated sludge. On the other hand, HF CWs are notappropriate systems when only
ammonia or phosphorus arethe target pollutants (Vymazal & Kro¨pfelova´, Wastewater
Treatment in Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow, 2008)
From a technology point of view, the major problem with HF CWs is clogging and
subsequent surface flow. This can be eliminated by efficient removal of suspended solids in
pretreatment units and by selection of coarse filtration materials(Vymazal 2011).In the early
2000s, aeration of HF CWs was introduced inNorth America to enhance oxygen transport
capacity(Wallace & Kadlec, 2005)
Mechanical blowers and diffuser tubing were designed toboost treatment performance,
mostly for ammonia. However,the decision to aerate HF CWs comes at significant costs
through increased operation and maintenance. From the economic viewpoint, aeration is
only justified when the lifecycle cost of aeration is sufficiently offset by the reduction in
capital costs as the net savings of reduced wetland size less the cost of aeration equipment
Wallace et al. …. compared aerated and nonaerated HF CWs and concluded that aeration
improvedremoval of BOD5, TSS, and to a lesser extent total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) while
there was no effect on total P and fecalcoliform removal .
2.5.2 VERTICAL FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS-
Vertical flow constructed wetlands (VF CWs) comprise a flat bed of graded gravel topped
with sand planted with macrophytes. Contrary to HF CWS, VF CWs are fed intermittently
with large batches, thus flooding the surface. Wastewater then percolates down through the
bed and is collected by a drainage network at the bottom. The bed drains completely which
allows air to refill the bed. Thus, VF CWs provide greater oxygen transfer into the bed, thus
producing a nitrified (high NO3-) effluent (Mander & Jenssen, 2002)On the
otherhand,VFCWsdo not provide suitable conditions for denitrification to complete
conversion to gaseous nitrogen forms which escape to the atmosphere. Removal of organics
and suspended solids is high(Vymazal & Kro¨pfelova´, Wastewater Treatment in
Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow, 2008)As compared to HF CWs,
verticalflow systems require less land, usually 1-3 m2 PE-1.The early VF systems were
composed of several stages with 2-4 beds in the first stage which were fed with wastewater
in rotation. Such VF systems are now called first generation VF systems (Cooper P. F., The
performance of vertical flow constructed wetland systems with special reference to the
significance of oxygen transfer and hydraulic loading rates., 2005)
Recently, VF CWs with only one bed have been used. These systems are called second
generation VF constructed wetlands or compact vertical flow beds (Weedon, 2003)VF CWs
are commonly used to treat on-site domestic wastewaters or sewage from small
communities, though other uses such as industrial wastewaters or storm water runoff have
been reported (Vymazal & Kro¨pfelova´, Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands
with Horizontal Sub-Surface Flow, 2008)
In up flow vertical CWs the wastewater is fed to the bottom of the wetland
The water percolates upward and then it is collected either near the surface or on the surface
of the wetland bed. Recently, “fill and drain” or “tidal” CWs have been developed. In tidal
flow systems the wastewater is fed to the bottom of the bed into the aeration pipes. It then
percolates upward until the surface is flooded. When the surface is completely flooded, the
pump is then shut off and the wastewater is held in the bed in contact with the
microorganisms growing on the media. A set time later the wastewater is drained
downward, air diffuses into the voids in the bed, and after the water has drained from the
bed the treatment cycle is complete (Cooper, Griffin, & Cooper, 2005)
One of the major problems with efficient performance of VF CWs is clogging of the
filtration substrate. Therefore, it is necessary to select the filtration material carefully,
distribute the wastewater evenly across the wetland surface, and also select the optimum
hydraulic loading rate.
2.5.3 HYBRID CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Various types of constructed wetlands may be combined to achieve higher removal
efficiency, especially for nitrogen. Many of these systems are derived from original
hybrid systems developed by Seidel at the Max Planck Institute in Krefeld, Germany
(Vymazal 2011).
The design consists of two stages, several parallel VF beds followed by 2 or 3 HF beds in
series. The VF wetland is intended to remove organics and suspended solids and to provide
nitrification, while in the HF wetland denitrification and further removal of organics and
suspended solids occurs. Another configuration is the HF-VF system.The large HF bed is
placed first to remove organics and suspended solids and to provide
denitrification.Anintermittently loaded small VF bed is used for additional removal of
organics and suspended solids and to nitrify ammonia to nitrate. To maximize removal of
total nitrogen, however, the nitrified effluent from the VF bed must be recycled to the
sedimentation tank.The VF-HF and HF-VF constructed wetlands are the most common
hybrid systems, but in general, any kind of constructed wetlands could be combined to
achieve higher treatment effect (Vymazal, Horizontal sub-surface flow and hybrid
constructed for wastewater treatment, 2005)
The first documented use of wetland within a deliberately engineered treatment vessel
appears to belong to Cleophas Monjeau.In 1953, Dr. Ka¨the Seidel first described
vegetation-based designs for improvement of inland waterways which suffered from
overfertilization, pollution from sewage, and siltation. However, at that time, views on
wastewater treatment among experts were limited to physical, chemical, and biological
(bacterial) methods and the deliberate use of macrophytes for water purification was not
considered. Between 1952 and 1956, Seidel carried out numerous experiments on the use of
wetland plants for treatment of various types of wastewater, including phenol wastewaters,
dairy wastewaters, and livestock wastewater. In the early 1960s, Seidel grew macrophytes
in wastewater and sludge of different origin. She also worked to improve the performance
of rural and decentralized wastewater treatment which was either inefficient septic tanks or
pond systems. She improved her system by using sandy soils with high hydraulic
conductivity in sealed module-type basins planted with various macrophyte species. To
overcome the anaerobic septic tank effluents she integrated a stage of primary sludge
filtration in vertically percolated sandy soils planted with P.australisIn the mid-1960s,
Seidel began to collaborate with Reinhold Kickuth from Go¨ttingen Univeristy. Kickuth
developed HF CWs commonly known as Root Zone Method which were built with a heavy
soil media with a specific area of only 2 m2 PE-1 and planted with Common reed . The first
HF CW was not put into operation until 1974 in Liebenburg-Othfresen, Germany where it
was used for treatment of municipal sewage.Despite intensive research on the subsurface
flow constructed wetlands in Europe, the first European constructed wetland was a FWS
system built by the IJssel Lake Polder Authority in Flevoland, The Netherlands in 1967.The
system exhibited good treatment efficiency, and in early 1970s about 20 FWS of this ditch
type, called planted sewage farm (or Lelystad process) were in operation in The
Netherlands……………Soon after that, in 1968, FWS CW was also created in Hungary
near Keszthely to preserve the water quality of Lake Balaton and to treat wastewater of the
town……..The free water surface (FWS) wetland technology started in North America
with the ecological engineering of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment. Between 1967
and 1972, Odum studied the use of coastal lagoons for recycling and reuse of municipal
wastewaters in North Carolina. During the period 1974-1977, the use of natural cypress
wetlandsfor municipal wastewater recycling was studied in Florida…………………At
about the same time, Robert Kadlec and co-workersat the University of Michigan began the
Houghton Lakeproject, the first in-depth study using engineered wetlandsfor wastewater
treatment in a cold climate region………………………………….Industrial stormwaters
and process waterswere also applied to a constructed wetland/pond system in1975 at
Amoco Oil Company’s Mandan Refinery in NorthDakota……………………………..In the
early 1970s, subsurface flow wetlands were also introduced to North America. In 1972, the
first pilot-scale constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow were built in
Seymour, Wisconsin to treat municipal wastewater(Fetter, Sloey, & Spangler, 1976)In
Australia, the potential use of aquatic and wetland macrophytes for wastewater treatment
was evaluated by Mitchell during the mid 1970s(Mitchell D. S., 1976)
2.6REMOVAL MECHANISM OF VARIOUS WASTE WATER
PARAMETER
Table 1 Main mechanisms for pollutant removal in treatment wetlands.

Parameter Main Removal Mechanisms

Suspended solids
Sedimentation, filtration

Sedimentation and filtration for the removal of

Organic matter particulate organic matter, biological degradation
(aerobic and/or anaerobic) for the removal of
dissolved organic matter

Ammonification and subsequent nitrification and

Nitrogen denitrification, plant uptake and export through
biomass harvesting
 Adsorption-precipitation reactions driven by filter
Phosphorus media properties, plant uptake and export through
biomass harvesting

2.6.1 BOD
Organic compounds are degraded in constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow
(HSF CWs) both aerobically and anaerobically and it is difficult to quantify the ratio
between aerobic and anaerobic degradation. Ottova et al. (1997) found that the numbers of
aerobic heterotrophic bacteria in wastewater entering vegetated beds of HSF CWs are
higher than anaerobic ones but anaerobic bacteria prevail in the out flowing water. This
indicates that aerobic bacteria naturally die-off as a result of unfavorable anerobic or anoxic
conditions during the passage through the filtration medium of vegetated beds.
Aerobic degradation of soluble organic matter is governed by the aerobic heterotrophic
bacteria according to the following reaction:

(CH2 O) + O2 → CO2 + H2 O
Cooper et al. (1996) pointed out that both groups consume organics but the faster metabolic rate of
the heterotrophs means that they are mainly responsible for the reduction in the BODs of the system.
Insufficient supply of oxygen to this group will greatly reduce the performance of aerobic biological
oxidation, however, if the oxygen supply is not limited, aerobic degradation will be governed by the
amount of active organic matter available to the organisms. In most systems designed for the
treatment of domestic or municipal sewage the supply of dissolved organic matter is sufficient and
aerobic degradation is limited by dissolved oxygen concentration.

Anaerobic degradation is a multi-step process that occurs within constructed wetlands in the absence
of dissolved oxygen (Cooper et aI., 1996). The process can be carried out by either facultative or
obligate anaerobic heterotrophic bacteria. In the first step the primary end-products of fermentation
are fatty acids such as acetic (Eq. 2), butyric, and lactic (Eq, 3) acids, alcohols (Eq. 4) and the gases
C02 and H2 (Vymazal 1995, Vymazal et al., 1998):

C6 H12 O6 → 3CH3 COOH + H2

C6 H12 O6 → 2CH3 CHOHCOOH (lactic acid)

C6 H12 O6 → 2 CO2 + 2CH3 CH2 OH (ethanol)

 Polymers
(e.g., polysachharides, proteins)

Monomers
(e.g., monosachharides, amino acids)

Primary fermentation

CO2 + H2 Other organic acids

and alcholol

2nd Fermentation
Acetogenesis acetogenesis

Acetate

CH4+CO2

CH4

2.6.2 NITROGEN
Nitrogen exists in many forms and various interrelated processes convert it from one form
to another in a complex system called the nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen enters most primary and
secondary treatment wetlands as organic N and ammonium (NH4-N), with tertiary systems
receiving a mixture of nitrogen species including nitrate. In most wetlands, some level of
nitrogen transformation is expected and/or mandated before discharge of the final effluent
to a water body. In many cases the expectation is conversion to nitrate, a less toxic form of
nitrogen, but increasingly more jurisdictions expect total nitrogen (TN) removal from
wastewater. Virtually all pathways of the nitrogen cycle are active in treatment wetlands,
including mineralization (ammonification), ammonia volatilization, nitrification,
denitrification, plant and microbial uptake, nitrogen fixation, nitrate reduction, anaerobic
ammonia oxidation, adsorption, desorption, burial, and leaching (Vymazal, 2007).
However, it is believed that only some of these pathways

contribute significantly to the nitrogen transformations and removal mechanisms important

in wastewater treatment. It is widely accepted that microbially-induced transformations of
nitrogen common to other wastewater treatment systems dominate in treatment wetlands,
with sorption and plant uptake also present to a limited extent. The contribution of each
pathway is affected by the treatment wetland type, applied loading rate, hydraulic residence
time (HRT), temperature, vegetation type and the properties of the medium (Kuschk et al.,
2003; Akratos and Tsihrintzis, 2007). The most critical processes are highlighted in this
section.

2.6.3 AMMONIFICATION
Ammonification consists of the conversion of organic N to ammonium through extracellular
activity from enzymes excreted by microorganisms (Vymazal, 2007). Ammonification is
considered a necessary first step to nitrogen conversion to nitrate and/or removal, but is
seldom a limiting step for subsequent TN removal.

2.6.4 NITRIFICATION
Nitrification is the oxidation of ammonium to nitrate facilitated by a consortium of
autotrophic microbes with nitrite as a major intermediate product. For the process to take
place, the microorganisms, oxygen, alkalinity and micronutrients must be present in the
wastewater. Autotrophic nitrifiers are typically slower growing microorganisms than
aerobic heterotrophs and can thus be outcompeted in the presence of readily biodegradable
organic matter. A major advantage of VF wetlands is their high oxygenation capacity and
thus their ability to nitrify. Some nitrification can occur in HF systems, especially when
lightly loaded with organic matter, but nitrification is often a limiting step to nitrogen
removal in HF systems. Nitrification alone is a conversion process and does not result in
nitrogen removal, unless it is adequately coupled to denitrification.

2.6.5 PHOSPHORUS
Phosphorus enters most treatment wetlands primarily as organic phosphorus and
orthophosphate, but most organic phosphorus is converted to orthophosphate as part of
organic matter degradation. Mechanisms that play a part in phosphorus removal in
treatment wetlands include chemical precipitation, sedimentation, sorption and plant and
microbial uptake. Unfortunately, most of these processes are slow or not active unless
special media are used to enhance abiotic processes. As with nitrogen, plants incorporate
phosphorus into their biomass but this can be a removal mechanism only if plants are
harvested and is thus subject to the same limitations as nitrogen plant uptake as a removal
mechanism. The effectiveness of treatment wetlands for phosphorous removal is determined
by the applied loading rate. In very lightly loaded FWS systems, such as for effluent
polishing, phosphorus removal can be excellent and due primarily to soil accretion
(sedimentation and co-precipitation with other minerals). For treatment of typical secondary
wastewater using VF and HF systems, removal is generally quite modest once the sorptive
capacity of the media is saturated. Considerable research has been conducted to find media
with high phosphorus sorptive capacities with some success. These filter media are referred
to as reactive media (see Section 6.2). As all media, reactive media have a finite capacity,
however, it is possible to delay saturation to a period of years, which may be suitable in
certain situations. Another option is to use an additional unplanted filter bed in which the
reactive media can be periodically replaced without losing the removal capacity for other
constituents in upstream cells. This sacrificial filter is generally left unplanted to facilitate
removal of the material once it reaches its sorption capacity. A common approach is to dose
chemical salts (iron or aluminium based) to react with phosphorus upstream of the treatment
wetland and use the system to retain any residual precipitated solids (Brixand Arias, 2005;
Lauschmann et al., 2013; Dotro et al., 2015).
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1GENERAL
This chapter discusses the description of setup involving type of constructed wetland, its
dimensions, vegetation and media type and configuration, site description, sample
collection, operation and laboratory analysis of the raw, inlet and treated water.
3.2STUDY SITE
Experimental setup is prestablished at orient residency ,muhana mundi road , Jaipur ,
Rajasthan, India. Where constructed wetland was used to improve the quality of
domestic wastewater. The domestic waste water is fed into the constructed wetland
after primary sedimentation. The waste water from orient residency which houses
250 people has the average daily rate of flow of 0.27 liter per seconds. Domestic
waste water is the water which is disposed from houses, It comes from kitchen,
toilets, sinks, showers, washing machines. The strength and composition of
the domestic waste water changes on hourly, daily and seasonal basis, with the
average strength dependent on per capita water usage, habits, diet, living standard
and life style. From houses the domestic waste comes directly to the primary
sedimentation tank, which is consisted of two large underground tanks of sizes 10 ×
10 × 12 feet. First tank is a primary sedimentation tank and second is a storage tank.
A pump is connected to the second tank so that the water from that tank can fed into
the inlet of the wetland.

Effluent Constructed wetland

Pump

Primary
Domestic Storage
sedimentation
waste water tank
tank

Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the experiment setup

Constructed wetland consisted of four pots with an average depth of 52cm and their
lengths are 675cm, 198cm, 670cm and 750cm respectively. Subsurface horizontal
type of flow is maintained there as with this type of flow there is no direct contact
with environment and it leads to fewer problems of bad odor and insect proliferation
For vegetation Canna indica plant species is planted because it is found to be
compatible for Indian conditions.
3.3LOCATION AND TIMING
The sample was collected from orient residency, Muhana mandi road, Jaipur. It was
collected in the morning hours between 10-11 a.m. The sample was collected in plastic
bottle of 1 L capacity and was brought to the Public Health and Environment Lab in the
Civil Engineering department, MNIT, under 30 minutes of collection. The sample was
stored under a temperature 3⁰ C in case of delay.

3.4LABORATORY ANALYSIS
The waste water from sedimentation tank , inlet water to wetland and outlet water from
wetland was analyzed for BOD ,COD, ammonical nitrogen, phosphorous, nitrates and pH .

3.4.1 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND

5 day BOD test conducted for measurement of biological oxygen demand as per (APHA,
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 1999) (5210-B)

3.4.2 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND

Closed reflux method was used for chemical oxygen demand measurement as per (APHA,
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 1999) (5220 C)

3.4.3 AMMONIACAL NITROGEN:

Phenate method was used for ammonia measurement as per (APHA, Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater 1999) (4500-NH3 F)

3.4.4 PHOSPHORUS:
Stannous Chloride Method was used as per (APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater 1999) (4500-P D. Stannous Chloride Method)

3.4.5 pH
pH of the treated wastewater sample was measured using pH meter available in the PHE
laboratory, MNIT, Jaipur.

3.4.6 NITRATE
The nitrates were determined using electrode method

3.5 INSTRUMENTS USED

The various instruments used for the laboratory analysis are given in
 Table 1 Instruments used in the laboratory

S.N. Instrument Company Model

1. Burette

2. BOD Incubator SEW INDIA

3. Microwave Samsung

4. Weighing balance CAS CAUW220D

5. Distilled water unit

Heating block ( dry Chino scientific
6.
bath) instruments MFG.
7. UV Spectrophotometer Shimadzu UV-1800

Intellical™ ISENO3181
8. Nitrate electrode Nitrate

Khera Instruments pvt.

9. Soxhlet unit ltd.

10. Digital pH Meter Labtronics LT-11

Photos of the instruments presented in the table number --- is given below.
Figure 3 Microwave
Figure 4 COD DIGESTER UNIT
Figure 5 NITRATE ELECTRODE
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1GENERAL
This chapter discusses with all the results and discussion related to efficiency of wetland.
These results are on the basis of experiments which were conducted in the MNIT PHE lab,
Jaipur.
The BOD, COD, phosphates, pH, ammonical nitrogen and nitrates showed compatibility
with the data reported in the literature. The pH of the raw water, inlet water and outlet water
was slight alkaline ranging from 7.27 to 7.95. The maximum pH was reported to be 7.95.
The raw pH was already in the limits prescribed for reuse.. The major contributors of
phosphates are detergents where the phosphate containing detergents are still being used. A
low concentration of phosphates indicates high per capita use of water. Concentrations
between 6 and 23 mg Tot-P/l can be found in traditional wastewaters in areas where
phosphorus detergents are used. However, in regions were non-phosphorus detergents are
used the concentrations range between 4 and 14 mg/l. In bathroom grey wastewater the total
phosphorus and phosphate concentrations were 0.1–57 and 0.1–2 mg/l, respectively (Eva
Eriksson, 2002). The (Washington state department of health, 2009) reported mean of total
P to be 2.8 mg/l in the greywater including kitchen waste water and laundry waste water.
The total P concentrations of 1.37 mg/l in greywater were reported (B. Jefferson, 2004).
Although the mean concentration of nitrates was 8.11 mg/l which is just below

4.2 PHOSPHATES
The concentration of phosphates was found to be already very low, maximum being 1.982
mg/l as P4 O−
3 in raw waste-water and 0.794 mg/l in inlet of the wetland. and 0.295 mg/l at

outlet of wetland, which is way below the reuse standards

The figure no. 8 shows the concentration of phosphates in raw, inlet and outlet water. The
concentration of phosphates in raw water was reported maximum to be 1.982 mg/l which is
is ranging from 1.657 mg/l to 1.982 mg/l. In inlet it is ranging from 0.637mg/l to 0.794 mg/l
and in outlet it is ranging from 0.143 mg/l to 0.315 mg/l.
 2.5

1.5

RAW

1 INLET
OUTLET

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Figure 6 Phosphate Concentration In Raw ,Inlet And Outet

Figure no. 9 shows the removal efficiency of phosphates from constructed wetland , it was
found that the maximum removal that occurred was 81.09% and on an average removal
efficiency was 72.83%.

90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Figure 7 Reduction In Phosphate

4.3 AMMONIACAL NITROGEN

The figure no. 8 shows the concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen in raw, inlet and outlet
water. The concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen in raw water was reported maximum to be
0.756 mg/l and it is ranging from 0.555 mg/l to 0.756 mg/l. In inlet it is ranging from
0.127 mg/l to 0.538 mg/l and in outlet it is ranging from 0.061 mg/l to 0.322 mg/l.

0.8

0.7
AMMONIACAL NITROGEN (mg\l)

0.6

0.5
RAW
0.4
INLET
0.3 OUTLET

0.2

0.1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Figure 8 Ammoniacal Nitrogen Concentration In Raw ,Inlet And Outet

Figure no. 9 shows the removal efficiency of ammoniacal nitrogen from constructed
wetland , it was found that the maximum removal that occurred was 75.30 % and on an
average removal efficiency was 48.39 %.

80.00
% REDUCTION IN AMMONIACAL NITROGEN

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Figure 9 Reduction In Ammoniacal Nitrogen

4.4 NITRATES
The figure no. 8 shows the concentration of nitrates in raw, inlet and outlet water. The
concentration of nitrates in raw water was reported maximum to be 4.97 mg/l and it is
ranging from 2.62 mg/l to 4.97 mg/l. In inlet it is ranging from 2.05 mg/l to 2.84 mg/l
and in outlet it is ranging from 1.26 mg/l to 2.68 mg/l.

RAW
3
INLET
OUTLET
2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Figure 10 Nitrate Concentration In Raw ,Inlet And Outet

Figure no. 9 shows the removal efficiency of nitrates from constructed wetland , it was
found that the maximum removal that occurred was 47.98 % and on an average removal
efficiency was 30.2 % .

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Figure 11 Reduction In Nitrate

4.5 pH
The figure no. 8 shows the pH of raw, inlet and outlet water. The pH of the raw water, inlet
water and outlet water was slight alkaline. pH of raw water ranging from 7.01 to 7.45. The
pH of inlet water ranging from 7.1 to 7.95 and pH of outlet water ranging from 7 to 7.9.

8.2

7.8

7.6

7.4 Series1

7.2 Series2

7 Series3

6.8

6.6

6.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Figure 12 pH of Raw ,Inlet And Outet

4.6 COD
The figure no. 8 shows the COD of raw, inlet and outlet water. The COD in raw water was
reported maximum to be 840 mg/l and it is ranging from 735 mg/l to 840 mg/l . In inlet
it is ranging from mg/l to mg/l and in outlet it is ranging from 1.26 mg/l to 2.68 mg/l.
900

800

700

600

500 RAW

400 INLET
OUTLET
300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Figure 13 COD Concentration In Raw ,Inlet And Outet

Figure no. 9 shows the removal efficiency of nitrates from constructed wetland , it was
found that the maximum removal that occurred was 47.98 % and on an average removal
efficiency was 30.2 % .
45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Figure 14 Percentage Reduction In Nitrate

4.7 BOD
The figure no. 8 shows the BOD of raw, inlet and outlet water. The BOD in raw water was
reported maximum to be 540.5 mg/l and it is ranging from 301.30 mg/l to 540.5 mg/l. In
inlet itis ranging from 130 mg/l to 185.64 mg/l and in outlet it is ranging from 105 mg/l to
150 mg/l.
600.00

500.00

400.00

RAW
300.00
INLET
200.00 OUTLET

100.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 15 BOD Concentration In Raw ,Inlet And Outet

Figure no. 9 shows the removal efficiency of BOD from constructed wetland, it was found
that the maximum removal that occurred was 27.82 % and on an average removal efficiency
was 20.85 %.
30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 16 Percentage Reduction In BOD