Advertisement

Effect of hydraulic loading on bioremediation of municipal wastewater using constructed wetland planted with vetiver grass, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

  • Kenatu AngassaEmail author
  • Seyoum Leta
  • Worku Mulat
  • Helmut Kloos
  • Erik Meers
Original Paper
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Gravel-based pilot horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland planted with vetiver grass (Vitiveria zinaniodes) and unplanted operated at two hydraulic loading rates: 0.025 m/d and 0.05 m/d was carried out over a 3-year period. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of plant and hydraulic loading rate on the organic and nutrient removal performance of the constructed wetland system planted with vetiver grass (Vitiveria zinaniodes) in the removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) from municipal wastewater. The removal efficiencies of COD, TN, and TP in the planted cell decreased from 95 to 90.8%, 95.2 to 86.8% and 95.2 to 88.5%, respectively, with an increase in HLR from 0.025 to 0.05 m/d. The estimated above-ground biomass of dry weights of vetiver harvested ranged from 10.1 to 10.3 kg DW/m2, the nutrients uptake increased with plant age from 2.4 to 14.6 g N/kg DW and 0.8 to 8.5 g P/kg DW and above-ground biomass nutrient standing stock ranged from 147.5 to 150.4 g N/m2 and 85.5 to 87.5 g P/m2 in 16 months. The higher removal efficiency of COD, TN, and TP was achieved in HSSFCW planted with vetiver grass as compared to unplanted at both hydraulic loading rate operations. The results concluded that both applications of HLR are capable of removing organic matter and nutrients efficiently and vetiver grass can be used for remediation of pollutants in municipal wastewater in Addis Ababa.

Keywords

Bioremediation Constructed wetland Hydraulic loading rate Municipal wastewater Vetiver grass 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ethiopian Institute of Water Resources, Addis Ababa University (AAU) who supervised the financial support provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Research Fund for International Young Scientists (Grant Agreement No: W/5799-1). The authors are also thankful to the Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority for allowing developing the pilot-scale constructed wetland system in the premises of wastewater treatment plant and the laboratory facilities. The authors also acknowledge the University of Connecticut for the facility of access to electronic library and Ann Byers for editing the manuscript at short notice.

Author’s contributions

KA conducted experiments in the field and wrote up the manuscript. SL, WM, HK, EM supervised the experimental site and structured, read, edited, and approved the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Research Fund for International Young Scientists (Grant Agreement No: W/5799-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Amenu D (2014) Characterisation of wastewater and evaluation of the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment system in slaughterhouses. Res J Chem Environ Sci 2(6):20–27Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avila C, Bayona J, Martinc S, Salas J, Garcia J (2015) Emerging organic contaminant removal in a full scale hybrid constructed wetland system for wastewater treatment and reuse. Ecol Eng 80:108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chavan B, Dhulap V (2012) Sewage treatment with constructed wetland using panicum maximum forage grass. J Environ Sci Water Res 1:223–230Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sani A, Dareini F (2014) Treatment of hospital wastewater by vetiver and typical reed plants at wetland. Indian J Fundam Appl Life Sci 4:890–897Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tadesse A, Eshetu L, Andualem M, Seyoum L (2016) Performance of pilot scale anaerobic-SBR system integrated with constructed wetlands for the treatment of tannery wastewater. Environ Process.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-016-0171-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vymazal J (2005) Horizontal subsurface flow and hybrid constructed wetland systems for wastewater treatment. Ecol Eng 25:478–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vymazal J (2014) Constructed wetland for treatment of industrial wastewater: a review. Ecol Eng 73:724–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baskar G, Deepth V, Annadurai R (2014) Comparison of treatment performance between constructed wetlands with different plants. IJRET 3(4):210–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li Y, Zhu J, Zhai Z, Zhang Q (2010) Endophytic bacterial diversity in roots of Phragmites australis in constructed Beijing Cuihu Wetland (China). FEMS Microbiol Lett 309(1):84–93Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sehar S, Sumera Naeem S, Perveen I, Ali N, Ahmad S (2015) A comparative study of macrophytes influence on wastewater treatment through subsurface flow hybrid constructed wetland. Ecol Eng 81:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tuncsiper B, Drizo A, Twohig E (2015) Constructed wetlands as a potential management practice for cold climate dairy effluent treatment in the USA. Catena 135:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choudhary AK, Kumar S, Sharma C (2011) Constructed wetlands: an approach for wastewater treatment. Elixir Pollut 37:3666–3672Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cakir R, Gidirislioglu A, Cebi U (2015) A study on effects of different hydraulic loading rate (HLR) on pollutant removal efficiency of subsurface horizontal flow constructed wetland used for treatment of domestic wastewaters. J Environ Manag 164:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bodin H (2013) Wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands: effects of vegetation, hydraulics and data analysis methods. Dissertation, Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu S, Austin D, Liu L, Dong R (2011) Performance of integrated household constructed wetland for domestic wastewater in rural areas. Ecol Eng 37:948–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    USEPA (2000) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Constructed Wetland Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OhioGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Angassa K, Leta S, Mulat W, Kloos H, Meers E (2018) Organic matter and nutrient removal performance of horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands planted with Phragmites karka and Vetiveria zizanioide for treating municipal wastewater. Environ Process 5(1):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Astuti JT, Sriwuryandari L, Sembiring T (2018) Application of vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides) on phytoremediation of carwash wastewater. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sci 41:1463–1477Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henze M, Comeau Y (2008) Wastewater characterization. In: Henze M, van Loosdrecht MCM, Ekama GA, Brdjanovic D (eds) Biological wastewater treatment: principles, modelling and design. IWA Publishing, London, pp 33–52Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Konnerupa D, Koottatep T, Brix H (2009) Treatment of domestic wastewater in tropical subsurface constructed wetlands planted with canna and heliconia. Ecol Eng 35:248–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brisson J, Chazarenc F (2009) Maximizing pollutant removal in constructed wetlands: should we pay more attention to macrophyte species selection? Sci Total Environ 407:3923–3930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vergeles Y, Vystavna Y, Ishchenko A et al (2015) Assessment of treatment efficiency of constructed wetlands in east Ukraine. Ecol Eng 83:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ghosh D, Gopal B (2010) Effect of hydraulic retention time on the treatment of secondary effluent in a sub-surface flow constructed wetland. Ecol Eng 36(8):1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kadlec RH, Wallace SD (2009) Treatment wetlands, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ewemoje OE, Sangodoyin AY, Adegoke A (2015) On the effect of hydraulic retention time and loading rates on pollutant removal in a pilot scale wetland. Dev Sustain ISSN Stud Eng Environ 8:342–355Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saeed T, Sun G (2012) A review on nitrogen and organics removal mechanisms in subsurface flow constructed wetlands: dependency on environmental parameters, operating conditions and supporting media. J Environ Manag 112:429–448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shuib N, Baskaran K (2015) Effects of different substrates and hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the removal of total nitrogen and organic matter in a sub-surface horizontal flow constructed wetland. Int J Environ Cult Econ Soc Sustain 7:227–241.  https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-2077/CGP/v07i05/55000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paing J, Guilbert A, Gagnon V, Chazarenc F (2015) Effect of climate, wastewater composition, loading rates, system age and design on the performance of French vertical flow constructed wetlands: a survey based on 169 full scale systems. Ecol Eng 80:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vymazal J (2010) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Water 2:530–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ong SA, Ho LN, Wong YS et al (2011) Semi-batch operated constructed wetlands planted with Phragmites australis for treatment of dyeing wastewater. J Eng Sci Technol 6:623–631.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2006.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vymazal J, Kropfelova L (2008) Wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow, vol 14. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Austine O (2017) Evaluating the effectives of constructed wetland in polishing wastewater from gusii plant in Kisii Town. University of Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mburu N, Tebitendwa SM, Rousseau DPL et al (2013) Performance evaluation of horizontal subsurface flow—constructed wetlands for the treatment of domestic wastewater in the tropics. J Environ Eng 139:358–367.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee CG, Fletcher TD, Sun G (2009) Nitrogen removal in constructed wetland systems. Eng Life Sci 9:11–22.  https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.200800049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nivala J, Wallace S, Headley T et al (2012) Oxygen transfer and consumption in subsurface flow treatment wetlands. Ecol Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.09.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Akratos CS, Tsihrintzis VA (2007) Effect of temperature, HRT, vegetation and porous media on removal efficiency of pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 29:173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boonsong K, Chansiri M (2008) Efficiency of vetiver grass cultivated with floating platform technique in domestic wastewater treatment. AU J Technol 12(2):73–80Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vymazal J (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 380:48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lishenga IW, Nyaanga DM, Owino JO, Wambua RM (2015) Efficacy of hydroponic and soil-based vetiver systems in the treatment of domestic wastewater. Int J Pure Appl Sci Technol 26(2):53–63Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Albalawneh A, Chang TK, Chou CS, Naoum S (2016) Efficiency of a horizontal sub-surface flow constructed wetland treatment system in an arid area. Water (Switzerland) 8:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w8020051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Truong P, Danh LT (2015) The Vetiver system for improving water quality: prevention and treatment of contaminated water and land, 2nd edn. The Vetiver Network InternationalGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seroja R, Effendi H, Hariyadi S (2018) Tofu wastewater treatment using vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides) and zeliac. Appl Water Sci 8:2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0640-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gottschall N, Boutin C, Crolla A et al (2017) The role of plants in the removal of nutrients at a constructed wetland treating agricultural (dairy) wastewater, Ontario, Canada. Ecol Eng 29:154–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Button M, Nivala J, Weber KP, Aubron T, Muller RA (2015) Microbial community metabolic function in subsurface flow constructed wetlands of different designs. Ecol Eng 80:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenatu Angassa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seyoum Leta
    • 2
  • Worku Mulat
    • 3
  • Helmut Kloos
    • 4
  • Erik Meers
    • 5
  1. 1.Ethiopian Institute of Water ResourcesAddis Ababa UniversityAddis AbabaEthiopia
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Science, College of Natural ScienceAddis Ababa UniversityAddis AbabaEthiopia
  3. 3.Department of Environmental HealthWollo UniversityDessieEthiopia
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.Department of Green Chemistry and TechnologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations