Abstract

Over the last 30 years, constructed wetlands (CWs) have been used as an alternative, cost-efficient way of treating wastewater, often in combination with conventional wastewater technologies. When CWs are attached at the end of conventional wastewater treatment plants, they treat the effluent and thus provide a polishing step. However, recent studies have shown that when CWs are used as the main wastewater treatment method for the agricultural reuse of effluents, they perform poorly on meeting the accepted limit of microbial contamination. Moreover, CWs are increasingly used within the scope of the circular economy and water reuse applications. Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive exploration of the performance of CWs on pathogen removal. This paper explores relevant case studies regarding pathogen removal from constructed wetlands to create a comprehensive dataset that provides a complete overview of CWs performance under various conditions. After a systematic literature review, a total of 48 case studies were qualified for both qualitative and quantitative analyses. From the dataset, the general performance, optimal conditions, and knowledge gaps were identified. The review confirmed that constructed wetlands (as a standalone treatment) cannot meet the accepted limits of pathogen removal. However, they can be a credible choice for wastewater polishing when they are combined with conventional wastewater treatment systems. Regarding the most common indicators that were recorded, the removal of Escherichia coli ranged between 0.01–5.6 log; the removal of total and fecal coliforms was 0.2–5.32 log and 0.07–6.08 log, respectively; while the removal of fecal streptococci was 0.2–5.2 log. The great variability of pathogen removal indicates that the complexity of CWs makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions regarding their removal efficiency. Potential correlations were identified between influent and effluent concentrations, as well as between log removal and hydraulic characteristics. Additionally, no correlations between pathogen removal and temperature/climatic zones were found since average pathogen removal per country showed high variation throughout the various climatic zones. The dataset can be used as a benchmark of CWs’ performance as a barrier against the spreading of pathogens in the environment. The knowledge gaps identified in this review can provide direction for further research. Finally, a potential meta-analysis of the dataset using statistical analysis can pave the way for a better understanding of the design and operational parameters of CWs in order to fine-tune and quantify the factors that influence the performance of these systems.

Highlights

  • Constructed wetlands (CWs) are alternative, operated, and cost-efficient systems that can be applied to wastewater (WW) purification, municipal sewage [1], or the polishing of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent [2]

  • This paper aims to explore relevant studies regarding pathogen removal from constructed wetlands and their respective characteristics

  • The majority of the papers in the systematic literature review used SSHFCW for the removal of pathogens, whereas all types seem to have a potential of pathogen removal to a certain level

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Constructed wetlands (CWs) are alternative, operated, and cost-efficient systems that can be applied to wastewater (WW) purification, municipal sewage [1], or the polishing of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent [2]. CWs can have disadvantages like low nutrient removal efficiency [1] as well as limitations regarding microbiological degradation processes with several factors affecting the process like temperature (T) and seasonal variations [4]. While conventional engineered wastewater treatment has already proven to be efficient in the removal of the majority of pollutants, this comes with the disadvantage of environmental degradation and high energy consumption, amongst others [5]. Constructed wetlands can be classified into three main categories depending on their water flow regime

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.