Guidelines for constructed wetland systems

for treatment of sewage in India

sponsor:

National Mission for Clean Ganga

Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India

By

Department of Hydro and Renewable Energy

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
Roorkee, Uttarakhand – 247667

August 2023
Guidelines for constructed wetland systems for treatment of sewage in India

sponsor: National Mission for Clean Ganga, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India

Contact:
Department of Hydro and Renewable Energy, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee, Uttarakhand – 247667, Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Tel. +91-1332284913/285821

Citation:
Prajapati, SK, Kumar, A, Chand, N, Kumar, M, and Sharma, MP (2023), “Guidelines for
constructed wetland systems for treatment of sewage in India” Dept. of Hydro and Renewable
Energy, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Aug 2023.
ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG), the Ministry of Jal Shakti,
Government of India has our sincere gratitude for entrusting the Department of Hydro and
Renewable Energy with the development of the " Guidelines for Constructed Wetland Systems
for Treatment of Sewage in India." The given assignment reflects their commitment to
addressing the critical issue of sewage treatment and promoting sustainable solutions for water
resource management. Which would serve as a guideline to be used by State and Central line
agencies, NGOs, Industries & Consultants to prepare constructed wetlands.

Survey of existing constructed wetland-based sewage treatment facility was one of the
crucial parts of this project. We are sincerely thankful to different organizations which allowed
us to visit their facility and provided the relevant data.

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all the experts from different sectors, including
National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD), National Mission for Clean Ganga
(NMCG), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Central
Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) who actively
participated in the various discussions and shared their valuable insights, expertise,
requirements, challenges and experiences. The discussions with them played a pivotal role in
shaping the guidelines. Suggestions on the contents coverage and presentation from
Mr G Ashok Kumar, DG NMCG, Mr Brijesh Sikka, Senior Consultant, NMCG and Mr
Ashwini Dubey, Urban Planner, NMCG, Mr VK Chaurasia CPHEEO, Mr SK Srivastava, Dr
Sabita M Singh from NRCD and Dr RK Singh CPCB are sincerely appreciated. The guidelines
have been prepared to ensure practicality, implementability effectiveness and relevance to the
Indian context.

Our heartfelt thanks also extend to Prof. Nadeem Khalil, Aligarh Muslim University,
Prof. Akhilendra Bhushan Gupta, and Mr. Abhishek Soti at MNIT, Jaipur, Prof. Pradip Kalbar,
IIT Bombay and Scientists from National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee for sharing their
valuable knowledge and insight.

We sincerely express our heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Ganges Reddy, BlueDrop Enviro
Private Limited, and Ms. Sayali Joshi, Shrishti Eco-Research Institute for extending their field
experience that helped us in considering the most practical scenarios.

At the end we would like to thank all those people who have helped us directly or
indirectly towards completion of this Guidelines. There is no doubt that we gained so many
insights, ideas, suggestions, as well as comments from our colleagues, participants and staff
for which we will always remain indebted to them.

(Sanjeev Kumar Prajapati) (Arun Kumar)

Department of Hydro and Renewable Energy
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

iii
iv
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose of Guidelines ................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Constructed Wetland Technology ............................................................................... 3
1.4 Constructed Wetlands Versus Conventional Technology ........................................... 5
2 PLANNING AND SELECTION OF CWS FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT ................................... 7

2.1 Need and Selection ...................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Planning....................................................................................................................... 8
3 STAGES OF TREATMENT ................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Preliminary treatment and Primary treatment ........................................................... 11

3.1.1 Characterization of raw sewage wastewater ..................................................................... 11

3.2 Scenario based selection of preliminary and primary treatment ............................... 12

3.3 Selection based on end use of treated water .............................................................. 14
3.3.1 Preliminary treatment .................................................................................................. 14

3.3.2 Primary treatment ....................................................................................................... 16

3.3.3 Design and Selection of Constructed Wetlands for sewage treatment .................................... 19

3.4 Design criteria for CWs............................................................................................. 19

3.4.1 Horizontal Flow CWs Design ....................................................................................... 20
3.4.1.5 Inlet and Outlet Design ............................................................................................ 22

3.4.2 Vertical Flow CWs ..................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Suggested approach for reducing land footprints of CWs based STPs ..................... 24
3.5.1 Selection of the KA value in the P-K-C*/Kikuth approach ................................................... 25

3.5.2 Design based on Artificial Intelligence applications to the CW data ...................................... 27

3.5.3 Depth of the filter media in CWs ................................................................................... 28

3.6 Hybrid Constructed wetlands .................................................................................... 29

3.7 Aerated constructed wetlands.................................................................................... 30
3.8 Selecting constructed wetland for optimal wastewater treatment ............................. 31
3.9 Construction of CWs ................................................................................................. 32
3.9.1 Filter media selection strategies ..................................................................................... 33

3.9.2 Inlet and Outlet Design ................................................................................................ 36

3.9.3 Liners ....................................................................................................................... 36

3.10 Plant selection strategies ........................................................................................... 38

3.10.1 Type of Plants ........................................................................................................ 39

v
 3.10.2 Climate-based Plant Selection ................................................................................... 39

3.10.3 Selection of plants based as per Indian conditions ......................................................... 39

3.10.4 How to Plant .......................................................................................................... 41

3.10.5 Recommendations for Maintaining Vegetation ............................................................. 42

4 CW FOR UP-GRADATION OF EXISTING STPs ................................................................... 43

5 COST ................................................................................................................................. 44

5.1 Land Cost .................................................................................................................. 45

5.2 Cost Distribution ....................................................................................................... 45
5.2.1 Substrate Cost ............................................................................................................ 45

5.2.2 Plants and Planting Cost............................................................................................... 46

5.3 Possible cost reduction .............................................................................................. 46

6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................... 47

6.1.1 First-Year Maintenance Operations ................................................................................ 48

6.1.2 Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................................... 48

6.1.3 Substrate Management................................................................................................. 49

6.1.4 Management of harvested plants .................................................................................... 50

7 POSSIBLE REUSE OF TREATED WATER .......................................................................... 53

7.1 Motivational Factors for Recycling/Reuse ................................................................ 53

7.2 Quality Issues of Wastewater Reuse/Recycling ........................................................ 54
7.3 Designated reuse of treated sewage .......................................................................... 54
8 ESSENTIAL FOR DETECTING CHANGES AND MITIGATING RISKS ................................ 55

8.1 Evaluation of Performance ........................................................................................ 55

8.2 Quality Assurance, Quality Control, and Quality Assessment Measures ................. 55
8.3 Steps to Quality Control ............................................................................................ 57
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 59

9.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 59

9.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 59
10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix – I: Case Studies ........................................................................................................... 63

Appendix –II: Data Collection for Constructed Wetlands Designing .................................................. 77

Appendix – III: List of CW service provider companies and agencies ................................................ 79

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: General classification of Constructed wetlands ................................................................. 4
Figure 2: Basic design configuration of vertical flow constructed wetlands ....................................... 4
Figure 3: Basic design configuration of horizontal flow constructed wetlands ................................... 4
Figure 4: Basic design configuration of free surface water constructed wetlands ............................... 5
Figure 5: Basic design configuration of hybrid constructed wetlands ................................................ 5
Figure 6: Planning and selection of CWs for sewage treatment ........................................................ 7
Figure 7: Basic strategy for selection of constructed wetlands .......................................................... 8
Figure 8: Steps for Planning of Constructed wetlands...................................................................... 9
Figure 9: Process flow of CWs based STPs .................................................................................. 11
Figure 10: General factors for selecting treatment facility ............................................................. 13
Figure 11: Integrated treatment set up with CWs........................................................................... 13
Figure 12: Comparison of oxygen transfer rates in CWs ................................................................ 31
Figure 13: Indicative steps for substrate selection for constructed wetlands .................................... 33
Figure 14: General view of media arrangement in HFCWs ............................................................ 35
Figure 15: General view of media arrangement in VFCWs ............................................................ 35
Figure 16: Factors to be considered for selection of plants for constructed wetlands ........................ 38
Figure 17: Technique for planting rhizome cuttings ...................................................................... 41
Figure 18: Basic quality assurance measures ................................................................................ 57

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Suggested water quality parameters for raw sewage ......................................................... 12

Table 2: Selection of primary treatment stages based on TSS load ................................................. 13
Table 3: Designated-best-use of treated water ............................................................................... 14
Table 4: Required area for screen open area ................................................................................. 15
Table 5: Design calculations of a septic tank ................................................................................ 16
Table 6: Design calculations of ABR ........................................................................................... 18
Table 7: Basic design criteria for an anaerobic baffle reactor ......................................................... 19
Table 8: Recommendation on design for SSF CWs ....................................................................... 20
Table 9: Rule of thumb design criteria for horizontal subsurface flow constructed treatment wetlands
.................................................................................................................................................. 21
Table 10: First-order areal removal rate coefficient (K20) (Mean ± STD) for HFCWs, in m/day,
considering the ideal plug flow condition. .................................................................................... 25
Table 11: First-order areal removal rate coefficient (K20) (Mean ± STD) for VFCWs, in m/day,
considering the ideal plug flow condition ..................................................................................... 26
Table 12: Regression equation developed by the machine learning approach for sizing of HFCWs .. 27
Table 13: Selection of effective depth of filter media of HFCWs using the regression equation ........ 28
Table 14: Selection of effective depth of filter media of VFCWs using the regression equation ........ 29
Table 15: Proposed hybrid system approach ................................................................................. 29
Table 16: Recommendation on filter media (Gravel, sand etc.) and depth for CWs.......................... 34
Table 17: Some common plants for CWs in different regions of India ............................................ 40
Table 18: Installation of CWs based on excess load ...................................................................... 43
Table 19: Installation of CWs based on Peak flow ........................................................................ 44
Table 20: Details of cost considerations for the development of constructed wetlands ..................... 44
Table 21: Evaluating the cost-benefit analysis .............................................................................. 45
Table 22: Consideration for cost reduction ................................................................................... 46
Table 23: Key aspects of operation maintenance cost consideration ............................................... 47
Table 24: Inspection during the initial phase after the establishment ............................................... 48
Table 25: Specification for compost quality .................................................................................. 51
Table 26: Details on quality assurance of the CWs ....................................................................... 56

viii
 ABBREVIATIONS

ABR Anaerobic Baffle Reactor

ASP Activated Sludge Process
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board
CPHEEO Central Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organization
CW Constructed Wetland
DBT Department of Biotechnology
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DWWTs Decentralized Wastewater Treatment system
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ET Evapotranspiration
HF CW Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetland
HLR Hydraulic Loading Rate
HRT Hydraulic Retention/ Residence Time
MLD Millions of Liter Per Day
MoEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NLCP National Lake Conservation Plan
NMCG National Mission for Clean Ganga
NPCA National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Eco-system
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWCP National Wetlands Conservation Programme
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OLR Organic Loading Rate
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
SBR Sequential Batch Reactor
SS Suspended Solids
SSF Subsurface Flow
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
TDS Total Dissolve Solids

ix
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN Total Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorous
TSS Total Suspended Solids
VF CWs Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland System
VSSFCWs Vertical Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands
WW Wastewater
WWT Wastewater Treatment
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

x
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Constructed wetlands (CWs) are artificially created man-made systems for wastewater
treatment by utilizing natural processes, involving filter media, vegetation, and microbial
communities. CWs are becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of wastewater. Several
configuration and operation conditions have been explored for treatment of various types of
wastewaters including sewage and industrial effluent. CWs provide an eco-friendly approach
for wastewater treatment and are easy to maintain. The wastewater gets treated by filtration,
adsorption, precipitation, ion exchange, plant uptake, and microbial degradation (both aerobic
and anaerobic). CWs have been noticed to require low capital and operational cost compared
to conventional treatment systems and are easy to maintain. Therefore, being eco-friendly and
affordable in nature these CWs have a strong potential for application in developing countries
like India.

To date, several programs have been undertaken for the treatment of wastewater using
CWs at the International and National level:

• In 1991, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (then the Soil
Conservation Service) developed technical guidelines for the design of CWs used to
treat wastewater from livestock facilities (USDA 1991). The design criteria in that
document were based on state-of-the-art information at that time.
• In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Gulf of Mexico Program
(GMP) sponsored the publication of a literature review, database, and research
synthesis on animal waste CWs throughout the United States and Canada (CH2M-Hill
and Payne Engineering 1997). The Livestock Wastewater Wetland database presents
information from more than 70 sites, including pilot and full-scale facilities.
• In 2019, the manual on CWs as an Alternative Technology for Sewage Management in
India by DBT and CPCB provided a comprehensive idea about the wetlands, the type
of wetlands, and applications and challenges to the treatment of sewage, along with the
plethora of new technological developments. Subsequently, the manual depicts in
details how engineered wetlands can be constructed, with the intent to guide the design,
the construction, operation, and maintenance.
• Under the National Water Mission of the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water
Resources, RD and GR (strategy 1.4), two Programme (i) Developing Inventory of
Wetland and (ii) National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Eco-system (NPCA) has
been launched to create an inventory of wetlands including Ramsar Wetlands and to
identify 115 wetlands in 24 states and 2 UT for conservation and management
respectively.

Several configurations of CWs are available for the treatment of sewage based on the
water flow patterns, configuration, type, and composition. However, selection of a suitable CW
system depends on various parameters, such as characteristics of sewage, desired treatment
ranges, geographical and climatic conditions. Considering the sewage characteristics and
various geospatial conditions across the nation throughout the year, the present guidelines aim
to provide a holistic instruction, recommendations, and checkpoints to opt the CW technology
for sewage treatment with a greater transparency. Principally from construction to operation

1
and maintenance of CWs, it will support effective development and efficient management of
CWs.

1.2 Purpose of Guidelines

The sewage treatment infrastructure cope with the increasing sewage generation. Due
to the wide gap between sewage generation and available treatment facilities, a high fraction
of untreated or partially treated sewage released into water bodies, causing water pollution, and
posing a threat to aquatic life and public health. The presence of untreated sewage in water
sources is also responsible for spreading waterborne diseases and detrimentally impacting the
overall ecosystem. Therefore, to address sewage problems, authorities need to invest in
expanding and upgrading existing STPs or developing new technologies to meet the growing
demands of sewage treatment. Subsequently as a nature-based technology CWs could be one
of the options to handle the sewage treatment in India. Under the flagship program of the
NMCG on effective abatement of pollution, conservation, and rejuvenation of National River
Ganga, several initiatives have been taken for proper treatment of sewage. Further, along with
the conventional STP, based on the biological treatment such as activated sludge process (ASP)
and sequential batch reactor (SBR) CW technology has been adopted for sewage treatment.

In India, the use of CWs for sewage treatment is limited due to several factors such as
(a) Lack of awareness and knowledge, (b) Social acceptance, (c) Regulation and policy
frameworks, and d) Unavailability of proper guidelines for selection, construction as well as
operation and maintenance of CW based STPs. Promoting the adoption of CWs for sewage
treatment in India demands collective actions to raise awareness, involve local communities,
create supportive policies, and offer detailed guidelines. By implementing these efforts, India
can effectively utilize CW technology for sustainable sewage treatment solutions. Hence, there
is a dire need for standardization of CW systems for efficient utilization of their potential in
sewage treatment under the ongoing efforts of NMCG.

The purpose of CWs guidelines is to provide guidance and information to engineers,

planners, designers, scientists, non-government organizations, local urban bodies, and
stakeholders on the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of CWs. The
guidelines aim to ensure that CWs are appropriately designed and implemented to effectively
treat wastewater, storm water, and other types of water while minimizing environmental impact
and maximizing cost-effectiveness.

The selection and design guidelines will help in designing and building new CWs
systems in India:

• Sustainable development and enhanced water quality through the design acceptance
process for sewage wastewater treatment in India
• It will provide cost-effective management via design, construction, operation, and
maintenance.
• It will provide the baseline for the selection of treatment facilities based on land
availability, wastewater type, and climatic condition.
• Will ease up the selection process by having clarity and consistency in decision making.

The guidelines cover various aspects of CWs, including site selection, design
considerations, construction techniques, substrate and plant selection, operation and

2
maintenance, and performance monitoring. It provides a framework for designing and
implementing CWs that are tailored to specific needs and local conditions and meet regulatory
and environmental requirements.

India recognizes the importance of CWs and their role and function in wastewater
treatment. Hence to emphasize the contaminant removal using nature-based methods CWs
design principles are outlined in this guide. Subsequently, it will assist the organizations in
delivering the best CWs designs. The presented guidelines will help in achieving the shared
objectives of sustainable development and improved water quality. Overall, it could maximize
the number of successful systems in Indian conditions.

CWs are significant in addressing India's water and wastewater management

challenges, conserving the environment, adapting to climate change, promoting sustainable
agriculture, improving rural sanitation, and engaging local communities. Since India faces
significant challenges in wastewater management due to rapid urbanization, industrial growth,
and inadequate sanitation infrastructure. CWs offer a sustainable and cost-effective solution
for treating wastewater.

CWs provide multiple environmental benefits. As they act as natural filters, help to
restore and protect water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and ponds from pollution. Wetlands
promote biodiversity by creating habitats for various plant and animal species, including
migratory birds. They also help in groundwater recharge and mitigate the impacts of flooding
and erosion. Additionally, in rural areas of India, where access to conventional sanitation
infrastructure is limited, CWs can provide decentralized and low-cost wastewater treatment
solutions. They can be used for treating household wastewater and improving sanitation
conditions, thereby reducing waterborne diseases and improving public health.

The ultimate purpose is to provide greater transparency for the construction of CWs
systems for sewage treatment in India. Principally from construction to operation and
maintenance of CWs, it will support effective and efficient management of CWs.

1.3 Constructed Wetland Technology

CWs are a basin, i.e., excavated and filled with commonly used substrate material: rock,
sand, pebbles, gravel, and soil. Apart from that, the CWs system also consists of vegetation
tolerant to saturated conditions. The design and operation of CWs are based on natural wetland
principles to treat wastewater from various anthropogenic sources like urban sewage water,
industrial effluents, agriculture, urban runoff water, and landfill leachates. These systems
involve complex chemical, physical, and biological steps to reduce the various pollutants from
wastewater. CWs wetlands are mainly two segments of surface flow and subsurface flow CWs
as classified in Figure 1. Different types of CWs have been used for the treatment of wastewater
as follows:

3
 Constructed
Wetlands

Subsurface Surface flow Hybrid

flow CWs CWs

Vertical flow Vertical flow CWs +

CWs Horizontal Flow CWs

Horizontal
Flow CWs
Figure 1: General classification of Constructed wetlands

a) Subsurface flow constructed wetlands are basically of two types, namely vertical
flow and horizontal flow CWs (Figure 2 & 3). The systems are designed to keep the
water level below the top of the rock or gravel media, thus minimizing human and
ecological exposure.

Figure 2: Basic design configuration of vertical flow constructed wetlands

Figure 3: Basic design configuration of horizontal flow constructed wetlands

b) Surface flow constructed wetlands the configuration of surface flow CWs is designed
so that water flows above ground (Figure 4). The systems are designed to keep the water
level above the top of the rock or gravel media and require much more land area than
then subsurface flow CWs.

4
 Figure 4: Basic design configuration of free surface water constructed wetlands

c) Hybrid Constructed wetlands: These systems are combined to treat wastewater, for
example, HFCW followed by the VFCW (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Basic design configuration of hybrid constructed wetlands

d) Other Constructed Wetlands Designs:

Various designs of CWs exist, however, certain limitations and specific conditions can
render some designs impractical. For instance, Tidal flow CWs might not be feasible due to
minimal tidal fluctuations and potential adverse effect on environmental (Wang et al., 2018).
Similarly, Upflow vertical CWs, reliant on external energy, could face hindrance in India due
to frequent power outages or electricity scarcity, making their widespread use less viable.
Likewise, Free water surface CWs utilize shallow basins where wastewater flows over the
surface, necessitating a large land area. However, this design can lead to unpleasant odors,
potential waterborne diseases, and aesthetic concerns. Due to these challenges and limitations
associated with open water surface treatment, including hygiene issues and reduced treatment
efficiency, it is advisable to avoid using free water surface CWs for sewage wastewater
treatment. Instead, the focus in sewage treatment within India predominantly centers around
VFCWs, HFCWs, hybrid systems, and aerated CWs. These options have undergone extensive
research and practical application due to their proven effectiveness, manageable maintenance,
and adaptability to diverse wastewater treatment scenarios. The survey conducted, for
preparation of these guidelines also confirmed this trend, as only VFCWs, HFCWs, hybrid
systems, and aerated CWs were observed across all visited Indian sites. This underscores the
prevalence of these designs, which align with local constraints and offer optimal sewage
treatment solutions.

1.4 Constructed Wetlands Versus Conventional Technology

Comparing treatment technologies, CWs emerge as a cost-effective option when

compared with alternatives such as the Activated Sludge Process (ASP), Moving Bed Biofilm
Reactor (MBBR), Trickling Filter, and Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR). Though CWs may
require more land area, unlike ASP, MBBR, Trickling Filter, and SBR. However, this apparent

5
drawback is counterbalanced by the significantly by low operational and maintenance expenses
associated with CWs, amounting to a mere 1%–2% of the capital cost. For a comprehensive
comparison, considering an example: when contrasting a CWs system with an SBR
configuration, energy utilization and labor costs come into focus. The energy demand for a
CWs stands at 2,60,000 KW/year, a stark contrast to the 75,00,000 KW/year demanded by an
SBR. Similarly, labor costs are significantly reduced, with CWs requiring a mere 0.75 Full-
Time Equivalent (FTE)/year, whereas SBR necessitates 12 FTE/year. Even the environmental
implications, too, diverge between these two systems. Taking into account global warming
potential, the emission associated with a 1cubic meter of treated water from SBR design is
estimated at 3.7 kg CO2-eq. In contrast, a CWs contributes only 1.5 kg CO2-eq per cubic meter,
showcasing its low impact on global warming. Furthermore, examining their impact on ozone
depletion, SBR has been found impact about 3.3×10−7 kg CFC — eq. Conversely, the influence
of CWs on ozone depletion is notably lower, registering at 6.6×10−9 kg CFC — eq. This
discrepancy underscores the more favorable environmental footprint of CWs (Parde et al.,
2021).

6
2 PLANNING AND SELECTION OF CWS FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT

The Construction of CWs based STP technology for new sites should be based on the
need for wastewater treatment for many people, institutes, small housing societies, villages,
etc. As a developing nation, India faces various issues related to water and sanitation.
Subsequently, the greatest challenge in the water and sanitation sector over a few decades will
be implementing low-cost sewage treatment. However, selection of CWs as a treatment facility,
for sewage wastewater, rigorous assessment of the treatment processes, such as preliminary
treatment (e.g., screening), primary sedimentation, septic tank, anaerobic baffled reactor, and
tertiary treatment methods (e.g., filtration, UV disinfection), to form a comprehensive and
efficient wastewater treatment system has to be done (Figure 6).

Preliminary treatment
Planning and selection of CWs for sewage
treatment

Primary treatment

Stages of treatment
Secondary Treatment (Constructed
wetlands)
Cost

Tertiary treatment

Operation and maintenance

Designated use of treated water

Essential for detecting changes and

mitigating risks

Conclusions

Figure 6: Planning and selection of CWs for sewage treatment

2.1 Need and Selection

Constructed wetlands technology holds great promise for wastewater treatment in India
due to its suitability for addressing the country's pressing water pollution and scarcity
challenges. With rapidly growing urbanization and industrialization, India faces significant
issues related to inadequate sewage treatment and the discharge of untreated wastewater into
rivers and water bodies. This has led to severe contamination of water sources, posing risks to
both human health and the environment. Constructed wetlands offer an environmentally

7
friendly and cost-effective solution to this problem. By harnessing natural processes involving
wetland vegetation and microorganisms, these systems can effectively remove pollutants from
wastewater, including nutrients and organic matter. Additionally, constructed wetlands can be
tailored to local conditions and integrated with traditional treatment methods to provide a
sustainable approach to wastewater management. Given India's diverse geography and water
pollution challenges, the adoption of constructed wetlands technology could play a crucial role
improving the overall quality of water available for various uses.

The selection of a treatment facility for domestic wastewater depends on various

factors, including the wastewater characteristics, treatment objectives, regulatory requirements,
available space, and budget. Some critical considerations for selecting a treatment facility for
domestic wastewater are illustrated in Figure 7.

Preliminary
Site Selection Feasibility Study Design Parameters Treatment Design
Assessment

Flow Pollutant
Purpose Suitability Viability
rate/volume removal
identification analysis assessment
determination capacity

Compatibility Environmental
Wastewater Wetland cell
Site conditions with impact
characteristics design
surroundings analysis

Regulatory
requirements

Figure 7: Basic strategy for selection of constructed wetlands

2.2 Planning

Planning is quite important for establishing CWs based STPs. Basically, it starts with
walk-over survey serves as an essential preliminary step in conducting a feasibility assessment
for CWs projects. Through careful on-site observation and evaluation, this survey aims to get
insights into the project's viability and potential challenges. During the survey, the surveyor
examines the physical characteristics of the site, including topography, existing structures, and
natural features. Environmental factors are assessed, considering nearby water bodies, habitats,
and regulatory concerns. Infrastructure accessibility and the availability of utilities are also
considered, providing an understanding of the practical feasibility of the project's
implementation. The surveyor notes potential risks, market dynamics, and even estimates
preliminary costs, all of which contribute to a comprehensive assessment. By documenting
findings and insights, the surveyor prepares a feasibility report that informs stakeholders about
the project's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This invaluable groundwork aids
decision-makers in determining whether to proceed, modify, or reconsider the project, shaping
the path forward for sound and well-informed CWs project planning. Further details are
outlined in Figure 8.

8
 • Conduct an initial site visit to observe the landscape, soil conditions, hydrology,
Walk-Over Survey vegetation, population, and small industries around.

• Evaluate project goals and determine if a CWs is feasible.

Feasibility Assessment • Consider regulatory requirements, environmental impact, and technical feasibility.

Wastewater • Collect and analyze influent wastewater samples for pollutants, nutrients, organic
Characterization matter, and other suspected parameters.
• Understand the quality and quantity of wastewater entering the wetland.

• Define criteria for site selection, such as proximity to pollution sources, local hydrology,
Site Selection Criteria
land availability, and community impact.

• Evaluate potential sites for construction.

Site Selection Process • Rank sites based on factors like site characteristics, environmental impact, and
treatment potential.

• Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the shortlisted sites.

Detailed Site Analysis
• Consider factors like soil permeability, water table depth, and existing vegetation.

• Evaluate the site's hydrological characteristics, including water flow patterns and
Hydrological Assessment retention potential.
• Determine the suitability of the site for different wetland types (e.g., HFCWs, VFCWs).

• Develop preliminary designs for wetland cells based on the site's hydrology and
Preliminary Design available space.
• Estimate treatment area requirements based on wastewater characteristics.

• Compare the feasibility and effectiveness of wetland designs for each site.
Final Site Selection
• Choose the site with the most suitable conditions for achieving treatment goals.

Figure 8: Steps for Planning of Constructed wetlands

9
10
3 STAGES OF TREATMENT

CWs are engineered systems that use natural processes to treat wastewater. The design
requirements for CWs depend on several factors, including the system's size, the wastewater's
characteristics, and the desired level of treatment. The CWs treatment technology may involve
a series of networks of pipes, pumping stations, and primary treatment, secondary and tertiary
treatment depending upon the end use. Process flow of CWs based STPs is given in Figure 9.

Constructed Wetland
Treatment based STP

Primary Secondary Tertiary

Preliminary
Treatment Treatment Treatment

Constructed
Screening Septic tanks Chlorination
wetlands

UV
ABR
disinfection

Other suitable
methods

Figure 9: Process flow of CWs based STPs

3.1 Preliminary treatment and Primary treatment

The CPHEEO 2013 manual offers comprehensive guidance on the design and
construction of screening chambers and septic tanks, crucial components in the early stages of
wastewater treatment. These structures are essential for effectively removing larger debris and
solid materials from incoming sewage flows, preventing their entry into deeper treatment
processes. The manual delves deeply into various facets of screening chamber design,
encompassing aspects like sizing, layout considerations, and recommended construction
materials. Furthermore, the manual extends its coverage to septic tanks, emphasizing their role
in wastewater treatment. It delves into design considerations such as size determination, inlet
and outlet configurations, and provisions for sludge accumulation and removal.

3.1.1 Characterization of raw sewage wastewater

Domestic wastewater, also known as sewage or sanitary wastewater, is generated from

households and typically contains a mixture of organic matter, nutrients, pathogens, and other
contaminants. The strength of domestic wastewater can vary depending on factors such as
water usage patterns, population density, and the presence of industrial or commercial
activities.

11
 The first step in designing a treatment facility is identifying the wastewater’s strength.
Identifying the strength of wastewater involves determining the concentration of pollutants
present in the wastewater. The strength of wastewater is typically measured in terms of various
parameters such as BOD, COD, TSS, TN, TP, pH, and other specific contaminants of concern.

Determining water quality of the sewage is crucial for designing and operating effective
treatment systems, as it helps to determine the appropriate treatment processes and technologies
required to achieve desired effluent quality and regulatory compliance (Table 1). Monitoring
of wastewater quality should be conducted for a year, as it will provide valuable information
about the composition and variations/fluctuations in the wastewater throughout different
seasons. The data collected will help in accurately sizing and designing the treatment system,
selecting appropriate preliminary, primary secondary and tertiary set ups, and optimizing the
overall performance of the CWs.

Table 1: Suggested water quality parameters for raw sewage

Parameters Monitoring
Month 1 Month 2 Month3 Month……..
pH
Temperature (ºC)
Colour
Odour
Alkalinity (mg/l)
TSS (mg/l)
BOD (mg/l)
COD (mg/l)
Total Nitrogen (mg/l)
Sulphate (mg/l)
TDS (mg/l)
Total Coliform
Phosphorus (Ortho-P) (mg/l)
Nitrate (mg/l)
Ammonia (mg/l)
Note: Analysis of other parameters e.g., Heavy metals etc. be taken up when suspected to be
in wastewater

3.2 Scenario based selection of preliminary and primary treatment

The selection of preliminary and primary treatment facilities for domestic wastewater
is essential in the overall wastewater treatment process. Preliminary treatment focuses on the
removal of large solids and debris, while primary treatment involves the removal of settleable
organic and inorganic solids. Some scenario-based selection of treatment system is illustrated
in Table 2.

12
 Table 2: Selection of primary treatment stages based on TSS load

TSS Load (mg/L) Preliminary/Primary Secondary Treatment

Treatment
TSS Concentration: 0-200 Screen chamber + Septic
Tank
TSS Concentration: 200-500 Screen chamber + Septic
Tank (or Anaerobic Baffled Constructed wetland
Reactor) configurations be selected as
TSS Concentration: 500- Screen chamber + Anaerobic per land available and
1000 Baffled Reactor (or ABR + desired output.
Septic tank)
TSS Concentration: >1000 Screen chamber + Septic
tank + Anaerobic Baffled
Reactor
Note*: All these considerations are suggested but not mandatory and they can be changed and
adjusted as per requirement.

These are some general factors to be considered when selecting the primary treatment facility
are given in Figure 10.

Wastewater End Use of Space and Operation and

Characteristics Treated Water Infrastructure Maintenance

Cost
Considerations

Figure 10: General factors for selecting treatment facility

Integrated treatment set up with CWs is shown in Figure 11.

Septic Chlorination
Tank (UV)
Yes

Raw Screening Constructed

Sewage Tertiary
Chamber wetlands treatment
Water
Treated
No Water Reuse
Anaerobic
Baffled
Reactors

Figure 11: Integrated treatment set up with CWs

13
3.3 Selection based on end use of treated water

When selecting a treatment facility for domestic wastewater based on the end use of
water, it’s important to consider the specific water quality requirements for that particular use.
It is important to consider water quality standards and the specific characteristics of the
receiving water bodies when selecting the treatment processes for irrigation, toilet flushing,
potable, no-potable use, river discharge, or groundwater recharge (CGWB, 2007 manual on
ground water recharge). Hence the selection of CWs treatment facility will depend on the
effluent quality received after primary treatment and the desired treatment goals to be achieved
with respect to the designated best use of water as recommended by CPCB (Table 3).

Table 3: Designated-best-use of treated water

Designated-Best-Use Class of water Water Quality Parameters
Drinking Water Source A • Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml
without conventional shall be 50 or less
treatment but after • pH between 6.5 and 8.5
disinfection • Dissolved Oxygen 6mg/l or more
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days
200C 2mg/l or less
Outdoor bathing B • Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml
(Organized) shall be 500 or less pH between 6.5 and
8.5 Dissolved Oxygen 5mg/l or more
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days
200C 3mg/l or less
Drinking water source C • Total Coliforms Organism MPN/100ml
after conventional shall be 5000 or less pH between 6 to 9
treatment and Dissolved Oxygen 4mg/l or more
disinfection • Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days
200C 3mg/l or less
Propagation of Wild life D • pH between 6.5 to 8.5 Dissolved Oxygen
and Fisheries 4mg/l or more
• Free Ammonia (as N) 1.2 mg/l or less
Irrigation, Industrial E • pH between 6.0 to 8.5
Cooling, Controlled • Electrical Conductivity at 250C micro
Waste disposal mhos/cm Max.2250
• Sodium absorption Ratio Max. 26
• Boron Max. 2mg/l
(Source: CPCB, https://cpcb.nic.in/water-quality-criteria/ )

3.3.1 Preliminary treatment

3.3.1.1 Screening Chamber
A screening chamber is an essential component of a wastewater treatment system that
is designed to remove large solids and debris from the incoming wastewater. The primary
purpose of a screening chamber is to protect downstream equipment and processes from
damage and clogging caused by large objects that could enter the CWs system.
Moreover, following are some general design criteria that have been provided for the
development of screening chamber:

14
 1. Screen Type: The screen type and opening size will depend on the type and size of the
solids that need to be removed. Several types of screens are available, such as bar
screens, fine screens, and drum screens.
2. Channel Design: The channel design should be such that it allows for an even flow of
wastewater through the screen. The channel should be wide enough to accommodate
the screen and allow for maintenance and cleaning.
3. Screen Angle and Speed: The angle and speed of the screen should be designed to
optimize the removal of solids while minimizing the loss of wastewater. The angle
should be such that the solids can slide off the screen easily, and the speed should be
sufficient to keep the solids moving but not too fast that they get carried away with the
wastewater.
4. Screen Cleaning Mechanism: The screen should be equipped with a cleaning
mechanism that can remove the collected solids from the screen. Various types of
cleaning mechanisms are available, such as rake systems, brushes, and air scouring.
5. Screen Size: The screen size should be based on the expected flow rate and the size of
the solids that need to be removed. The screen should be sized such that it can handle
peak flow rates without causing excessive head loss or bypassing of solids.
6. Access and Maintenance: The screening chamber should be designed with easy access
for maintenance and cleaning. The screen and cleaning mechanism should be easily
removable for cleaning and repair.

There are several important design factors to consider in designing a screening chamber
for wastewater treatment, and each of these factors may require different formulas or
calculations.

a) Screen Open Area: The screen open area is the percentage of the screen surface that
is open to the wastewater flow. It is important to ensure that the screen open area is
sufficient to allow for the expected flow rate and the size of the solids that need to be
removed Table 4.

Table 4: Required area for screen open area

Parameters Formula for Calculation

Screen open area (Screen Slot Width × Screen Length ×Number of Slots) /
(Screen Width ×Screen Length) ×100
Number of Slots Number of screen slots per unit length of the screen
Screen Velocity Screen Velocity = Flow Rate / Screen Open Area
Flow Rate Wastewater flow rate (m3/hr)
Head Loss (K x Screen Velocity2) / (2 x g)
Note: Screen slot width, Screen Length, and Screen Width all are taken in mm; K = Screen loss coefficient; g =
Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
b) Screen Velocity: The screen velocity is the velocity of the wastewater through the
screen, and it should be sufficient to keep the solids moving without allowing them to
pass through the screen.
c) Head Loss: Head loss is the pressure drop across the screen, and it should be minimized
to ensure the efficient operation of the screening chamber.

15
 It is important to note that these formulas are just basic guidelines, and there may be
additional factors to consider in the design of a screening chamber, such as screen angle and
speed, channel design, and screen cleaning mechanism.

3.3.2 Primary treatment

3.3.2.1 Septic tank

A septic tank stands as a prevalent approach to wastewater treatment, particularly in

residential settings. These systems hold the capability to be integrated into CWs systems,
enriching the overall treatment process.

In general, the basic design for screening chamber as follows:

• Determine the population: The size of the septic tank is usually based on the
population size, as this is a good indicator of the amount of wastewater that will be
generated.
• Calculation of total volume of wastewater generated per day: This is typically based
on the population size and their average water usage.
• Determine the retention time required for treatment. It is the amount of time that
wastewater must stay in the septic tank for the solids to settle and for the bacteria to
break down the organic matter.
• Calculation of minimum size required: This is based on the retention time required
and the total volume of wastewater generated per day.
• Selection of septic tank on a site basis: There are various types of septic tanks,
including single-chamber tanks, dual-chamber tanks, and aerobic treatment units. The
type of tank chosen will depend on the site conditions and size of the tank required.
• Design the inlet and outlet pipes: The inlet pipe should be located near the top of the
tank, while the outlet pipe should be near the bottom. The pipes should be sized
appropriately to ensure that the tank can handle the maximum flow rate.

The design of a septic tank involves several calculations to determine the appropriate
size and dimensions of the tank Table 5.

Table 5: Design calculations of a septic tank

Parameters Formula for Calculation

3
Sewage flow (m /d) Population × Volume per person per day × Kz
𝑄=
Average Volume of wastewater (Q) 1000
Hydraulic Retention Time 1.5 days (or as per requirement)
Volume required for Septic Tank Volume Required = Q×HRT
Length Minimum septic tank volume / (Width x Depth)
Depth 2 to 3 feet (or as per requirement)
Width 2 to 2.5 times the depth (or as per requirement)
Pipe sizing Q max = 2 x Q avg
Outlet pipe Q outlet = Q max / 4
Note: Q max is the maximum flow rate, and Qavg is the average daily flow rate; Kz= Peaking
factor

16
 These dimensions may vary depending on the specific site conditions. Further, the
septic tank should have a maintenance hole or access port to allow for inspection, maintenance,
and cleaning. It is essential to have a professional engineer or designer with experience in septic
tank design review and approve the design before installation.

Example: Sample calculations for sizing of a two-chambered septic tank for a population of
400 with specific c wastewater flow of 80 litres per person per day (UN-HABITAT, 2008).

Average volume of wastewater (Q) = 400 x 80 / 1000 = 32 m3/d

Hydraulic Retention time (HRT) = 1.5 day = 36 hours (assumed)
Required volume of septic tank = Q x HRT = 32 x 1.5 = 48 m3
Volume of 1st compartment = 2/3 of required volume = 2/3 x 48 = 32 m3
Volume of 2nd compartment = 1/3 of required volume = 1/3 x 48 = 16 m3
Depth of septic tank = 2 m (assumed)
Width of septic tank = 4 m (assumed)
Then,
• Length of 1st compartment = Volume/(Depth x Width) = 32/(1.7* x 4) = 4.7 m
• Length of 2nd compartment = Volume/(Depth x Width) = 16/(1.7* x 4) = 2.35 m
* Please note that the depth of septic tank is taken as 1.7 m after deducting a free board of
0.3 m)

Check the HRT after sludge accumulation:

Sludge accumulation rate = 70 litres/person/year

Desludging interval = 1 year
Sludge volume = sludge accumulation rate x number of users
x desludging interval = (70 x 400 x 1)/1000
= 28 m3
Available volume for wastewater in septic = Total volume – sludge volume = 48 – 28 =
tank 20 m3
HRT after sludge accumulation = Available volume for wastewater in septic tank/Average
volume of wastewater = 20/32 = 0.625 days = 15 hours (Since HRT > 12 hours, the design
is OK)

3.3.2.2 Anaerobic baffle reactor

An Anaerobic Baffle Reactor (ABR) design involves several considerations to ensure

the system can efficiently treat organic wastewater. Here are some basic steps in designing an
ABR:
• Determine the wastewater characteristics: Collect samples of the wastewater to be
treated and have them analyzed for parameters such as pH, TSS, COD, and BOD. This
will help determine the size and number of compartments required.
• Determine the required retention time: The retention time is the amount of time the
wastewater must remain in the reactor for the anaerobic digestion process.
• Determine the number of compartments: The ABR typically consists of three to six
compartments, each providing additional digestion time. The number of compartments
needed will depend on the wastewater characteristics and the required retention time.

17
 • Determine the reactor’s size: The reactor’s size is based on the required retention time
and the flow rate of the wastewater. The minimum size of each compartment should be
at least twice the width and length of the inlet and outlet pipes.
• Design the baffle system: The baffle system is the key element of the ABR, and it is
used to promote the settling of solids and the retention of wastewater in each
compartment. The dimensions and spacing of the baffles will depend on the wastewater
characteristics and the desired hydraulic retention time.
• Provide for biogas collection and management: Biogas generated during anaerobic
digestion can be collected and used as a renewable energy source. The design of the
biogas collection system will depend on the size of the reactor and the expected biogas
production.
• Provide for effluent treatment and disposal: The effluent from the ABR are fed to the
CWs before it can be discharged into the environment.

An ABR design involves several calculations and considerations to ensure that the
system can efficiently treat organic wastewater. Some basic formulas that are used in an ABR
design are given in Table 6 and Table 7 given insights on basic design criteria.

Table 6: Design calculations of ABR

Parameters Formula for Calculation

Hydraulic Retention Time Reactor Volume / Flow Rate
Reactor Volume Total Number of Compartments x Volume of each
compartment
Flow Rate Wastewater flow rate (m3/day)
Organic Loading Rate (Influent COD Concentration x Flow Rate)/ Reactor
(OLR) Volume
OLR is the amount of organic matter that can be added to the reactor per unit volume per
unit time

Example: Sample calculation for sizing of a 4-chambered Anaerobic Baffle Reactor

Average volume of wastewater (Q) = 32 m3/d

Required volume of ABR (m3) = length (m) × width (m) × depth (m) × number of
chambers
Length (assumed) =1m
Width (assumed) =2 m
Depth (assumed) =2.4m
number of chambers =4
volume of ABR (m3) =19.2
sludge volume (m3) = 5% × actual volume of ABR (m3 )=0.96
water volume (m3) = actual volume of ABR (m3 ) − sludge volume (m3)
=18.24
HRT (h) = water volume of ABR (m3 )/ wastewater flow
(m3/d)=0.57= 13.68 hours
(Source: National Institute of Urban Affairs; https://scbp.niua.org/sites/all/themes/c4ksubtheme/pdf/CoEP_4.pdf )

18
 Table 7: Basic design criteria for an anaerobic baffle reactor

Hydraulic retention time > 24 hours at maximum sludge depth and

scum accumulation
Sludge accumulation rate Depending on 70 – 100 litres/person/year
TSS removal rate and wastewater flow
Sludge and scum accumulation volume Sludge accumulation rate multiplied by sludge
accumulation rate
Desludging interval > 1 year
Number of up-flow chambers >2
Maximum up-flow velocity 1.4 – 2 m/h
(Source: UN-HABITAT 2008)

3.3.3 Design and Selection of Constructed Wetlands for sewage treatment

Designing and selecting CWs for sewage treatment involves a thorough understanding
of the site conditions, treatment goals, and the specific requirements of the sewage being
treated. CWs are a nature-based approach to wastewater treatment, mimicking the processes
that occur in natural wetlands to remove pollutants. Some of the commonly used CW designs
are as follows:

1. HFCWs: are typically better suited for larger, flatter sites with lower elevations, where
space is not limited. They are also better suited for treating organics in wastewater, as
the horizontal flow allows for longer hydraulic retention times (site-specific) and
greater contact between the wastewater and the treatment media. HFCWs can be
designed with multiple cells or compartments to increase treatment efficiency, and they
are generally easier to construct and maintain.
2. VFCWs: on the other hand, are better suited for sites with limited space and higher
elevations. They can be built in a smaller footprint than HFCWs and can be designed
to treat a wide range of pollutants. VFCWs have shorter hydraulic retention times than
HFCWs, but they offer greater treatment efficiency due to the vertical flow of
wastewater through the media, which allows for greater aeration and biological activity.
3. Hybrid CWs: are better suited to achieve higher removal efficiency where space is not
a constraint.
4. Aerated CWs: Aerated CWs can potentially reduce the area requirement compared to
traditional non-aerated CWs for certain wastewater treatment scenarios. This reduction
in area requirement is primarily due to the enhanced treatment efficiency achieved
through the introduction of aeration

The choice between HFCWs, VFCWs, Aerated and Hybrid CWs will generally depend
on the specific treatment goals, site conditions, and available resources for construction and
maintenance.

3.4 Design criteria for CWs

The existing design approach is predominantly based on hydraulic considerations or to

some extent organics removal, which makes it highly empirical and conservative. This is
described in detail in the next few sections for HFCWs and VFCWs. Basic recommendation
on design for SSF CWs is given in Table 8.

19
 Table 8: Recommendation on design for SSF CWs

Parameter Design criteria

Bed size (m2) <2500
Length-to-width ratio <3:1
Water depth (m) 0.4–1.6
Hydraulic slope (%) 0.5–1
Hydraulic loading rate (m/day) <0.5
Hydraulic retention time (day) 2–5
Media Natural media such as coarse sand and gravels
preferred, porosity 0.3–0.5, particle size <20 mm
(50–200 mm for the inflow and outflow)
Vegetation Native species preferred, plant density 5-6 plants sq.
meter

3.4.1 Horizontal Flow CWs Design

As a secondary treatment process, HF systems can remove BOD and TSS effectively,
but the performance greatly depends on the pollutant concentration in the influent and HLRs.
Existing design guidelines for HF wetlands vary greatly, generally giving high weightage to
hydraulic considerations. They can be sized using simple, specific surface area requirements
(m2/PE), maximum areal loading rates (for example, g BOD5/m2. d), or more sophisticated
methods such as loading charts or the P-k-C* approach. Further, the design of CW treatment
systems depends on the treatment target in terms of organics and nutrients and the flow rate
and quality of the influent.

Length-to-width ratios for secondary HF wetlands generally fall between 2:1 and 4:1,
whereas for tertiary systems, the width is typically more significant than the length to maximize
the cross-sectional area and reduce clogging potential with the higher hydraulic rates applied.
According to many design guidelines, the maximum loading rate should be specified on the
basis of the wetland plan area as it is easy to construct HF beds provided with a standard depth
of 0.6 m media, and this value is assumed as the maximum root depth penetration. Using a
maximum cross-sectional area loading, i.e., the load applied at the inlet width and depth, moves
away from this assumption and provides an opportunity to modify bed length and depth to
allow sustainable wastewater treatment. The design of a horizontal flow constructed wetland
involves several calculations and considerations. Here are some of the critical calculations that
may be used in the design process:

3.4.1.1 Sizing of the HFCWs by Rule-of-Thumb

Rule-of-thumb is the most commonly adopted and existing design for constructing a
CW system. The major design criteria of the Rule of thumb include land requirement per
equivalent (m2/PE). The other parameters used in designing an HF CW are; HRT, BOD loading
rate, HIR, and areal requirements and design are summarized in Table 9.

20
 Table 9: Rule of thumb design criteria for horizontal subsurface flow constructed treatment
wetlands

S.N. Description Value Range

Wood (1995) Kadlec and Knight (1996)
1. Hydraulic retention time (days) 2-7 2-4
2. Max. BOD loading rate (kg BOD 75 -
ha day-1)
3. Hydraulic loading rate (cm day-1) 0.2-3.0 8-30
4. Areal Requirement (ha m3 day) 0.001-0.007 -
(Source: Rousseau et al., 2004)

Benefits:

It is very simple to use and does not account for different water usage practices, pre-
treatment technologies, or non-ideal flow.

Limitations:

1. Different methods of using water, pre-treatment technologies, and influent wastewater

concentrations are not taken into consideration.
2. Non-ideal flow is not taken into consideration.
3. It does not consider the geometry of wetland cells or design approaches to reduce the
risk of clogging.

3.4.1.2 Sizing of the HFCWs based on the Kikuth approach

The size of the wetland is based on the expected flow rate and the required hydraulic
retention time (HRT). Calculation of wetland surface area (A) is calculated using eq. 1.

𝑄∗ (𝐼𝑛𝐶𝑖 −𝐼𝑛𝐶𝑒 )
𝐴 = (1)
𝐾𝐴 𝐻𝛼
Where, A is the Area of the constructed wetlands (m2), Ci and Ce are the influent and
effluent concentration of the concerned pollutants (mg/L), and KA is the areal removal rate
coefficient (m/day), H is Depth (m) and 𝛼 is Porosity of CW.

Example: Sample calculations for sizing of HFCWs

Average volume of wastewater (Q) = 32 m3/d

Required Area (m2) 𝑄∗ (𝐼𝑛𝐶𝑖 −𝐼𝑛𝐶𝑒 )
𝐴 =
𝐾𝐴 𝐻𝛼
Porosity𝛼 (assumed) 0.75
H is Depth (m) (assumed) 0.50 m
KA 0.86
𝐶𝑖 200
𝐶𝑒 20
Area Required (m2) =(32 * (5.2983 - 2.9957)) / (0.86 * 0.50 *
0.75) = 231.14 m²

21
 The major drawback of this approach for sizing the constructed wetland is choosing the
areal removal rate coefficient (KA value) since there is no guidance on which KA value to
choose, especially when a range of reaction rate coefficients is reported. According to the study
by Kadlec and Knight in 1996, the KA value for BOD ranges from 0.085 to 1.0 m/day, while
for TN, it ranges from 0.007 to 0.1 m/day. A study by Singh et al. (2022) calculated the KA
values by assessing the secondary dataset of 74 VFCWs and revealed a large variation (0.006–
0.40 m/day) in the KA value.

3.4.1.3 Hydraulic Retention Time

The hydraulic design of the wetland involves determining the flow path and ensuring
that the wastewater is evenly distributed across the wetland. The hydraulic retention time
(HRT) can be calculated using the eq. 2.

𝐻𝑅𝑇 = 𝑉𝑒𝑓𝑓 / 𝑄 (2)

Where; Veff is the effective volume of the wetland (m3) = ф*V, Ф is the porosity of the
filter media, V is the total volume of the wetland, and Q is the design flow rate (m3/day).

where porosity (ф) for horizontal flow CWs could be considered approximately 40% or as per
design requirement.

3.4.1.4 Media Design

The media in a horizontal flow-constructed wetland serves as a substrate for microbial

activity and physical filtration. The media depth is typically based on treatment requirements,
and the media void space (porosity) should be at least 40%. The media surface area (A) can be
calculated using the eq. 3.

A=V/d (3)

Where; V is the wetland volume (m3), and d is the media depth (m).

3.4.1.5 Inlet and Outlet Design

The inlet and outlet structures should ensure that the wastewater is evenly distributed
across the wetland and that there is adequate overflow capacity to handle peak flows. The inlet
and outlet structures should be designed based on the design flow rate and the wetland surface
area.

It is important to note that these calculations are general guidelines, and the specific
design requirements will depend on the site-specific conditions and the regulatory requirements
in the area.

3.4.2 Vertical Flow CWs

VFCWs offer a significant advantage over HFCWs with their higher oxygen transfer
capacity due to the nearly instantaneous flooding of the bed surface. Additionally, they require
smaller area demands (up to 1.2-5.0 m² per population equivalent) compared to HSFCWs
(usually 3-10 m² per population equivalent), leading to lower construction costs. The typical

22
design of VFCWs involves a flat bed of substrate (coarse, sand, or gravel) with increasing
gradation with depth, planted with macrophytes. A slight slope (0.5-1%) is provided at the
bottom of the bed for efficient treated water collection and drainage. The bottom is covered by
a geo-membrane or made of reinforced concrete to prevent uncontrolled seepage into the
groundwater.

The key mechanism in VFCW design is to create a bed matrix that allows the wastewater
to pass through before the next dose arrives, providing sufficient contact time with the bacteria
growing on the media for treatment. The adequate surface area allows for oxygen transfer,
creating favourable aerobic conditions for ammonia nitrogen oxidation (nitrification) and
organic matter decomposition compared to HSFCWs (Kadlec and Wallace, 2009).

Here are some design considerations for a VFCWs:

3.4.2.1 Sizing of the VFCWs

The sizing of the vertical flow constructed wetland based on the following approach
should be selected with a certain level of flexibility and be willing to make adjustments if the
actual performance deviates from the design expectations. While these approaches may result
in slightly larger wetland areas or higher initial costs, it enhances the wetland's resilience and
minimizes the risk of underperforming or failing to meet treatment objectives.

3.4.2.2 Sizing of the VFCWs based on the Rule-of-Thumb

Rule-of-thumb is a prescriptive and existing design approach based on a particular

wetland application in a specific climatic or geographical region.

a) Design is based on the area requirement per person equivalent (m2 /PE), but the loading
rate (g BOD5/m2×d or g COD/m2× d) can also be used. This approach is a practical way
of designing and can be effective when there is adequate knowledge of the application
of the technology in the region under consideration.
b) Based on Specific Area Requirements per population equivalent
For Vertical Flow (VF) constructed wetland systems, the surface area of the bed
required depends on the organic load and is typically expressed as unit area per population
equivalent (m²/PE). The recommended range for the bed surface area is about 1.2 to 5.0 m²/PE
for normal VFCWs (Hoffmann et al., 2011). However, for French VFCWs in temperate
climates, the recommended surface area is slightly lower, ranging from 2.0 to 2.5 m²/PE (Molle
et al., 2005)

3.4.2.3 Sizing of the VFCWs based on the Conventional formula (Kikuth approach)

The Kikuth approach is a widely used method for estimating the required surface area
of a constructed wetland to achieve specific pollutant removal targets.

The Kikuth approach equation for sizing VFCWs typically is seen as eq. 4.
𝑄∗ (𝐼𝑛𝐶𝑖 −𝐼𝑛𝐶𝑒 )
𝐴 = (4)
𝐾𝐴

23
 Where, A is the Area of the constructed wetlands (m2), Ci and Ce are the influent and
effluent concentration of the concerned pollutants (mg/L), and KA is the areal removal rate
coefficient (m/day).

By using this equation, you can determine the surface area required for the VFCW to
achieve the desired pollutant removal efficiency based on the given influent and effluent
concentrations and the flow rate of the wastewater being treated. It's important to select the
appropriate KT value to ensure accurate sizing and effective pollutant removal performance of
the constructed wetland.

3.4.2.4 Hydraulic Design

The hydraulic design of the wetland is based on the expected flow rate, the wetland
configuration, and the characteristics of the wastewater. The design should ensure that the
wastewater is evenly distributed across the wetland and that the hydraulic retention time is
sufficient for treatment. The length-to-width ratio refers to the proportion between the length
and width dimensions of the wetland bed. An ideal length-to-width ratio helps ensure the even
distribution and flow of wastewater across the entire surface of the bed, maximizing pollutant
contact with the filter media. For typical VFCWs, a length-to-width ratio of around 3:1 or 4:1
is often recommended. This ratio provides good hydraulic flow patterns and efficient pollutant
removal. A higher length-to-width ratio (e.g., 5:1 or more) may enhance flow uniformity but
may not always be practical due to space constraints. Conversely, a lower length-to-width ratio
(e.g., 2:1 or less) may cause uneven flow distribution and reduced treatment efficiency.

Example: Sample Calculation for sizing of a constructed wetland for a population of 400 with
specific wastewater flow of 80 litres per person per day

Average volume of wastewater (Q) = 400 x 80 / 1000 = 32 m3/d

BOD5 contribution = 40 g BOD5/pe.d
BOD5 concentration = 40 x 1000/80 = 500 mg/l
Let us assume that 30% BOD5 is removed by the primary treatment unit, then the influent
BOD5 concentration to the wetland
(Ci) = 350 mg/l
Effluent BOD5 concentration (Ce) = 30 mg/l
KBOD = 0.15 m/d for HF wetland and 0.2 m/d for
VF wetland
A = Q (ln Ci – ln Ce) Substituting the values in the equation
KBOD
Area for HF wetland = 524.10 m2
Specific area per PE for HF wetland = 1.31 m2
Area for VF wetland = 393.08 m2
Specific area per PE for VF wetland = 0.98 m2

Note: The local circumstances and standards need to be considered by the designer (UN-
HABITAT, 2008).

3.5 Suggested approach for reducing land footprints of CWs based STPs

As indicated above, the existing design approach is highly empirical and hence leads to
over-designing of the systems resulting in a general belief that CWs can have predominantly

24
only rural applications due to their constraints of extensive area requirements. However, the
recent compilation and assessment of the performance of about 200 field wetlands done by Soti
et al. (2022) and Singh et al. (2022) showed a vast variation in their organics and nutrient
removal. A systematic statistical approach was adopted to filter out the data to bring down the
surface area requirements substantially which provides a customized design of CWs based on
the desired standards.

3.5.1 Selection of the KA value in the P-K-C*/Kikuth approach

Since there is no specific guidance on selecting a single KA value in the P-K-C*/Kikuth

approach for sizing the constructed wetlands, the choice may depend on various factors,
including the specific characteristics of the pollutants in the influent, i.e., High organic loading
system/low organic loading system, the design objectives of the constructed wetland, i.e.,
depth, and the local ambient environment condition, i.e., Temperature. Here are a few
considerations in the next section to help make an informed decision:

The studies by Singh et al. (2022) and Soti et al., (2022) observed that the majority of
the wetland systems, both horizontal flow and vertical flow, exhibited signs of being under
loaded and overdesigned. In response, these studies conducted comprehensive mathematical
analyses to systematically eliminate outliers from the 74 datasets of HFCWs and 82 datasets
of VFCWs. This meticulous process led to the narrowing down in standard deviations, resulting
in the identification of stable KA values. These KA values have been recommended for design
approaches in the P-K-C* /Kikuth approach under various influent loading conditions., and
they are presented in detail in Table 10 and Table 11. The influent loading in volumetric terms
(g/m3 d-1) which can be computed based on the Influent wastewater characteristic in mg/L,
using eq. 5 assuming the area suggested by the Rule of thumb and using the most commonly
adopted depth (0.6 to 0.8 m) when sizing the constructed wetland for municipal wastewater
treatment (Table 10 and 11).
𝐶×𝐹
𝑉𝐿 = ( ) (5)
𝐴 𝑋 𝑑 𝑋 1000
where, VL is Volumetric loading (g/m3 d-1, C is concentration of pollutant (mg/L), F is flow rate
of influent (L/d), A is wetland area (m2) and d is depth (m) of the wetland.

Table 10: First-order areal removal rate coefficient (K20) (Mean ± STD) for HFCWs, in
m/day, considering the ideal plug flow condition.

Classification based on organic loading

Classification (K20) BOD (K20) NH4-N (K20) TN (K20) TP
3 -1
<5 g/m d 0.192 0.126 0.102 0.021
3 -1
5-30 g/m d 0.178 0.117 0.107 0.097
3 -1
30-100 g/m d 0.174 0.114 0.096 0.095
3 -1
>100 g/m d 0.102 0.064 0.044 0.054
Classification based on the effective depth of filter media
< 0.2 m 0.094 0.051 0.032 0.047
0.2-0.5 m 0.122 0.071 0.061 0.062
> 0.5 m 0.131 0.082 0.097 0.071
(Source: Personal Communication Prof. A.B. Gupta, Abhishek Soti, MNIT Jaipur dated-
August 11, 2023)

25
 Table 11: First-order areal removal rate coefficient (K20) (Mean ± STD) for VFCWs, in
m/day, considering the ideal plug flow condition

Classification based on organic loading

Classification (K20) BOD (K20) NH4-N (K20) TN (K20) TP
<5 g/m3d-1 Not given 0.128 0.067 0.036
5-30 g/m3d-1 0.392 0.113 0.082 0.036
30-100 g/m3d-1 0.347 0.194 0.097 0.107
3 -1
>100 g/m d 0.363 0.093 Not given 0.222
Classification based on the effective depth of filter media
< 0.2 m Not given 0.142 0.008 Not given
0.2-0.5 m 0.348 0.135 0.026 0.255
0.5 m-0.85m 0.343 0.079 0.075 0.088
(Source: Personal Communication Prof. A.B. Gupta, Abhishek Soti, MNIT Jaipur dated
August 11, 2023)

Once the appropriate K20 value is chosen from these reference studies, it can be
converted to KT using the eq. 6.

𝐾𝑇 = 𝐾20 ∗ (𝜃)(𝑇−20) (6)

where, KT = Removal rate coefficient at T°C (m/day), K20 = Removal rate coefficient at 20°C
(m/day), T= Temperature, 𝜃 = constant, which is taken 1.06 in the case of BOD, 1.048 in the
case of NH4-N, and 1.15 in the case of TN.

By applying the temperature correction coefficient to the K20 value, the appropriate KT
value for the specific environmental temperature at the project site can be obtained. This
adjusted KT value will be further used in the design and sizing of the constructed wetland to
achieve the desired pollutant removal efficiency based on the prevailing temperature
conditions. Therefore, the sizing of VFCWs and HFCWs can be accomplished by incorporating
the above-calculated KT value (areal removal rate coefficient), influent and effluent
concentrations of the targeted pollutant, and discharge flow rate into the P-K-C*/Kikuth
approach equation.

It is often safer to choose a KA value on the conservative side from these tables. While
these approaches may result in slightly larger wetland areas or higher initial costs, it enhances
the wetland's resilience and minimizes the risk of underperforming or failing to meet treatment
objectives. Still, the area requirements would be far lesser than adopted in the existing
empirical approach. If possible, the constructed wetland should be designed with the flexibility
to adjust or fine-tune the KA value to incorporate future scenarios. The selection of KA value is
not an exact science, and there may be some uncertainties in the process. Therefore, it is
essential to approach the design with a certain level of flexibility and accordingly make
adjustments if the actual performance deviates from the design expectations. Moreover, the
above-mentioned table can help choose a realistic range of KA values for different pollutants
or influent characteristics, providing a valuable reference for making an initial selection.
However, it is crucial to consider other relevant factors specific to site conditions before
finalizing the KA value.

26
 Table 12: Regression equation developed by the machine learning approach for sizing of HFCWs

S. Parameter Regression Equations R2 Range

N.
1. BOD (BOD)effluent = − 0.039 ∗X1 + 0.040 ∗ X2 + 0.008 ∗ X3–0.234 ∗ X4 0.6 40<BOD<543
− 0.197 ∗ X5 + 0.471 ∗ X6 − 0.283 ∗ X7 + 0.125 ∗ X8 − 0.166 ∗ X9 75<COD<960
− 0.091 ∗ X10 − 0.07 2.2<TN<222
1<TKN<98
0.48<TP<25
2. COD (COD)effluent = − 0.029 ∗ X1 + 0.315 ∗ X2–0.012 ∗ X3–0.884 ∗ X4 − 0.5 (All concentrations
0.137 ∗ X5 + 0.174 ∗ X6 − 0.219 ∗ X7 + 0.093 ∗ X8 − 0.449 ∗ X9 − are in mg/L)
0.088 ∗ X10 − 4.737 0.2m2<A<624 m2
0.004 m3/d <Q<100
3. NH4-N (NH4+− N) effluent = 0.069 ∗ X1–0.008 ∗ X2 + 0.020 ∗ X3 − 0.124 ∗ 0.8 m3/d
X4 + 0.058 ∗ X5 + 0.002 ∗ X6 − 0.218 ∗ X7–0.038 ∗ X8 + 0.239 ∗ 1d<HRT<10d
X9 − 0.056 ∗ X10 − 0.142 5°C<T<34°C
0.2m<D<2.51m
4. TN (TN)effluent = − 1.040 ∗ X1 + 1.976 ∗ X2 + 0.330 ∗ X3 − 0.324 ∗ X4 0.9
+ 0.081 ∗ X5 + 0.003 ∗ X6 − 0.124 ∗ X7–0.017 ∗ X8 + 0.2459 ∗ X9
− 0.034 ∗ X10 − 0.448
concentration as per the local regulations and standards (Table 12).

5. TP (TP)effluent = 0.014 ∗ X1–0.006 ∗ X2 + 0.007 ∗ X3 − 0.131 ∗ X4 + 0.7

0.046 ∗ X5 − 0.046 ∗ X6 − 0.025 ∗ X7–0.286 ∗ X8 + 0.020 ∗ X9 −
3.5.2 Design based on Artificial Intelligence applications to the CW data

0.025 ∗ X10 + 0.114

Note; X1 = HRT (days), X2 = Temperature (◦C), X3 = Design Flow Q (m3 /day), X4 = Depth of media (m), X5 = Wetland
area (m2), X6 = BOD Influent (g/m3 -d), X7 = NH4+-N Influent (g/m3 -d), X8 = TN Influent (g/m3 -d), X9 = COD Influent
(g/m3 -d), X10 = TP Influent (g/m3 - d). (Singh et al., 2022)
regression equation developed by the machine learning approach by putting the effluent
The sizing of the Horizontal flow constructed wetlands can also be calculated using the

27
3.5.3 Depth of the filter media in CWs

The depth may reduce the contact time and, subsequently, the pollutant removal
efficiency. On the other hand, a deeper bed can accommodate a higher organic load and provide
better treatment as it provides the anaerobic/anoxic stretch at the bottom zone of the VFCWs
that is beneficial for nitrogen and phosphorus removal, but it also requires more space and may
increase construction costs.

A study by Singh et al., 2023 suggested that the depth of the filter media in the HFCWs
can also be calculated using the regression equations that incorporate the removal rate
coefficient of the concerned pollutant in the CW system (Table 13). According to this study,
optimized depths for targeted pollutant removal, such as BOD, TKN, TN, TP, and combined
pollutants in VFCWs, are suggested to be approximately 1.48 m, 1.71 m, 1.90 m, 2.09 m, and
2.14 m, respectively.

Table 13: Selection of effective depth of filter media of HFCWs using the regression
equation

S.N. Parameter Regression Equation R2

1. BOD (Depth)BOD = 0.203(K20)4BOD + 0.114(K20)3BOD − 0.72

0.095(K20)2BOD + 0.101 (K20) BOD + 0.073

2. TKN (Depth)TKN = − 0.042(K20)4TKN + 0.195(K20)3TKN + 0.68

0.297(K20)2TKN + 0.156(K20) TKN − 0.018
3. TN (Depth)TN = 0.081(K20)4TN + 0.354(K20)3TN − 0.041(K20)2TN + 0.55
0.193(K20) TN − 0.022
4. TP (Depth)TP = 0.013(K20)4TP + 0.038(K20)3TP − 0.108(K20)2TP + 0.41
0.159(K20) TP + 0.088
5. Combined Depth = − 0.8216(K20) BOD + 6.170 (K20) TN− 2.011(K20) TKN 0.85
+ 0.927(K20) TP + 0.952

Note: K values are in the m/day and depth is in the m. (Singh et al., 2023)

After selecting the K20 value from the reference studies, it will be converted to KT by the eq. 7.

𝐾𝑇 = 𝐾20 ∗ (𝜃)(𝑇−20) (7)

where, KT = Removal rate coefficient at T°C (m/day), K20 = Removal rate coefficient
at 20°C (m/day), T= Temperature, 𝜃 = constant, which is taken 1.06 in the case of BOD, 1.048
in the case of NH4-N, and 1.15 in the case of TN.

By putting this KT value in the above regression equations, the depth of the filter media
can be suggested for the concerned pollutant removal or combined organic and nutrient
removal. Similarly, the study by Soti et al., (2023) suggested the depth of the filter media for
the removal of nutrients (N&P) in the VFCWs, which can also be calculated using the
regression model given in the Table by putting the value of effluent based on the local standards
and guidelines (Table 14).

28
 Table 14: Selection of effective depth of filter media of VFCWs using the regression
equation

S.N. Parameter Regression Equation R2 Range

1. NH4-N NH4 − Neffluent (g/m3- d) = − 0.688*Depth 0.89

(m)− 0.195*HLR (m/d) −
0.119*Temperature (°C) + 0.512*NH4 −
Ninlet (g/m3- d) + 0.089*TNinlet (g/m3- d) −
0.288*TPinlet (g/m3- d) + 1.99
0.07<Depth<0.85,
2. TN TNeffluent (g/m3- d) = 1.41*Depth 0.90
0.004<HLR<0.36,
(m)+0.025*HLR (m/d)
6<Temperature<30,
+0.382*Temperature (°C) +0.601*NH4 −
0<NH4 − Ninlet <43,
Ninlet (g/m3- d) + 0.007*TNinlet (g/m3- d)
0<TNinlet<50,
+0.074*TPinlet (g/m3- d) - 6.97
0<TPinlet<3.15,
3. TP TPeffluent (g/m3- d) = − 0.029*Depth (m) − 0.87
0.246*HLR (m/d) − 0.0261*Temperature
(°C) − 0.023*NH4 − Ninlet (g/m3- d) +
0.029*TNinlet (g/m3- d) + 0.141*TPinlet
(g/m3- d) + 0.505

Some primary studies on full-scale field wetlands have been carried out to validate both
the statistical and AI approaches, which have shown a close prediction of their performances
for organics and nutrient removals, however more such work is needed before adopting them
as standard design approaches.

3.6 Hybrid Constructed wetlands

Hybrid CWs combine two or more types of wetland systems to achieve better treatment
performance. They can be designed in various configurations, including vertical-horizontal
flow, aerated-un-aerated, free water surface-subsurface flow. The construction of hybrid CWs
follows similar principles as conventional CWs but with additional design considerations as
per requirement.

Kalbar, (2021) has introduced a new paradigm of Hybrid Treatment Systems (HTS)
that couples mechanized treatment system (MTS) and natural treatment systems (NTS)
(specifically CWs) (Table 15). Earlier studies have used the terminology of hybrid treatment
systems to combine different mechanized treatment technologies; horizontal and vertical flow
CWs; on-site and off-site technologies etc. However, the coupling of mechanized and natural
treatment systems through hybrid treatment systems approach is suggested as a full-fledged
strategy to achieve sustainable water management and meet the emerging stringent norms at a
low cost.

Table 15: Proposed hybrid system approach

APPROACH HTS-1 HTS-2

BOD removal Treatment Land O&M Treatment Land O&M
system requirement costs system requirement costs
(m2/ MLD) (INR/ (m2/ MLD) (INR/
m3 ) m3 )

29
 APPROACH HTS-1 HTS-2
Up to 30 mg/L MTS 1100 6 MTS 1100 6
Up to 10 mg/L MTS + 3166 7 MTS + 2029 7
shallow bed deep bed
CWs CWs
Up to 5 mg/L MTS + 4469 7 MTS + 2616 7
shallow bed deep bed
CWs CWs
Usefulness in Rural and peri-urban setting (both in Peri-urban and urban settings (both
different centralized and decentralized centralized and decentralized
settings manner) where land is available; manner) in case of land constraint
suitable if STPs are located in main
city or outskirts of city
(Source: Personal Communication Prof. Pradip Kalbar, IIT Bombay, dated- July 18, 2023)

3.7 Aerated constructed wetlands

Aerated constructed wetlands (ACWs) are designed to enhance the treatment efficiency
of traditional constructed wetlands by introducing aeration to support aerobic microbial
processes. This can significantly improve the removal of pollutants and nutrients from
wastewater. In addition to the regular components of constructed wetlands, ACWs require some
additional elements to ensure proper functioning. Here are some factors to consider apart from
the normal construction aspects:

1. Aeration System: The most crucial addition to ACWs is the aeration system. This
includes diffusers or aerators that introduce oxygen into the wetland substrate. The
aeration helps maintain aerobic conditions throughout the system, which promotes
the growth of beneficial aerobic microorganisms that contribute to pollutant
degradation.
2. Air Distribution Network: To effectively distribute air throughout the wetland
substrate, a well-designed air distribution network is necessary. This may involve
pipes, manifolds, and diffuser systems to evenly distribute air across the wetland
area.
3. Monitoring and Control Systems: ACWs require monitoring and control systems to
regulate the aeration process. Sensors for dissolved oxygen levels, water
temperature, and other relevant parameters are essential for ensuring optimal
treatment conditions.
4. Aeration Power Source: As ACWs require continuous aeration, a reliable power
source is vital. This could be in the form of electricity, solar power, or other
renewable energy sources, depending on the site's availability and constraints.

Standard types of CWs rely on the diffusion of oxygen from the air into the water
column, which is a very slow process. This lack of oxygen transfer slows the removal of organic
compounds and limits the removal of ammonia from wastewaters. Also, the larger footprint
made the systems unviable in terms cost and space requirements. Further, their effective life
was also limited and the systems were somewhat static with no controls available for the
operator. However aerated Treatment Wetland systems rely on the ability to inject small
quantities of air in a very uniform pattern throughout the wetland bed. This allows operator
control over the entire oxidation process during wastewater treatment while only using a small

30
fraction of the energy required by conventional STPs. Intermittent operation of the aeration
system can be fined-tuned to optimize treatment goals such as total nitrogen removal.

Aerated wetlands are 3 to 5 times smaller than conventional passive wetlands. The
reduced area saves construction costs and means that wetlands can be used in limited land
areas. The systems do not produce excess sludge like conventional mechanical treatment plants
and only use about 10% of the energy required for a comparable activated sludge process.

Treatment of high-strength wastes is also popular, with numerous systems operating for
aircraft de-icing, oil & gas, chemical manufacturing, food & beverage, mining and landfill
leachate applications.

The chart below provides a comparison of oxygen transfer rates seen in passive
wetlands and aerated systems using Aerated Wetlands System (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Comparison of oxygen transfer rates in CWs

(Source: Personal communication Sh. Ganges Reddy, dated- August 22, 2023)

Overall, the construction of an aerated constructed wetland involves careful planning

and execution to ensure that the system is effective and long-lasting.

3.8 Selecting constructed wetland for optimal wastewater treatment

Selecting CWs based on area involves several steps to ensure an appropriate design that
meets the treatment requirements and fits within the available space. Steps for selecting CWs
based on area are listed below:

1. Determine treatment objectives: Define the specific treatment goals can be used to
check the desired use and permissible water limit. This includes identifying the targeted
pollutants, such as organic matter, nutrients, or pathogens, that need to be removed from
the influent water.

31
 2. Assess site conditions: Evaluate the available space and site characteristics where the
CWs will be implemented.
3. Calculate treatment capacity: Estimate the required treatment capacity based on the
anticipated influent flow rate and pollutant load. This involves determining the
hydraulic loading rate (flow rate per unit area) and the pollutant loading rate (pollutant
mass per unit area) that the wetland needs to handle.
4. Determine area requirements: Calculate the area required for the CWs based on the
treatment capacity determined in the previous step. This calculation takes into account
factors such as the desired HRT, treatment efficiency, and specific design
considerations.
5. Evaluate different wetland types: Consider different types of CWs, such as horizontal
flow, vertical flow, or hybrid systems, and their respective area requirements. Assess
the advantages, disadvantages, and treatment efficiencies of each type to determine
which is most suitable for the available space.
6. Perform feasibility analysis: Assess the feasibility of implementing the CWs design
within the available area. Consider any potential constraints, such as land availability,
regulatory requirements, construction costs, and maintenance requirements.
7. Design optimization: Fine-tune the design parameters, such as the layout, shape, and
arrangement of cells or basins, to optimize the available area while meeting treatment
objectives. This may involve adjusting the wetland system’s dimensions, depths, and
flow patterns.

3.9 Construction of CWs

Excavation is an important aspect of constructing CWs. The excavation process

involves digging out the area where the CW will be located and shaping the bottom and sides
of the basin to the desired dimensions and slopes.

Here are some general considerations for the excavation of a CW:

• Site preparation: Before excavation begins, the site should be cleared of any
vegetation or debris. If the site is not level, it may need to be graded to create a level
surface for the excavation.
• Excavation depth: The depth of the excavation will depend on the design of the CW.
The excavation depth should be deep enough to accommodate the substrate layers and
plants and to provide adequate storage capacity for the wastewater. The depth may also
need to be adjusted to achieve the desired hydraulic retention time.
• Excavation width: The width of the excavation will depend on the design of the CW
and should be wide enough to accommodate the desired flow rate and HLR. The width
may also be adjusted to achieve the desired hydraulic retention time.
• Excavation length: The excavation length will depend on the design flow rate and the
desired hydraulic retention time. The length may also be adjusted to achieve the desired
surface area.
• Slope: The sides and bottom of the excavation should be sloped to prevent erosion and
ensure proper drainage.

32
 • Soil stabilization: The soil in the excavation should be stabilized to prevent erosion
and ensure the long-term stability of the CW. This may involve lining the excavation
with geotextile fabric or a liner.

The excavation process should be done carefully and accurately to ensure the CW
functions appropriately. The excavated area should be inspected for any rocks, roots, or other
debris that may interfere with installing the substrate layers or the growth of plants before
proceeding with the construction of the CW.

3.9.1 Filter media selection strategies

Substrate selection can be a critical design consideration for certain types of CWs, such
as sub-surface flow systems. For simple surface flow systems, substrate selection is not critical.
Gravel is generally considered optimal and is often encountered when CWs are excavated, as
they are typically located on the routes of historic water courses, but clay, sand, and silt are
also acceptable. Substrates with varying particle sizes form a spatial network, which endows
the filtration function for CWs. The larger particles and pollutants are removed initially by
physical filtration and interception. Then, the smaller particles and colloidal substances can be
removed by other processes. Further, factors that must be evaluated before the substrate
selection are illustrated in Figure 13.

List all locally Evaluate Compatibility

Filter Media
available Substrate with
Selection
substrate Characteristics Wastewater

Layering and Longevity and Final selection

Cost Analysis
Arrangement Maintenance of substrate

Figure 13: Indicative steps for substrate selection for constructed wetlands

Significance of substrate in CWs:

• They support many of the living organisms in wetlands

• Substrate permeability affects the movement of water through the wetland
• Many chemical and biological (especially microbial) transformations take place within
the substrates
• Substrates provide storage for many contaminants

Choice of potential substrate for CWs is based on various criteria:

• Wastewater characteristics: The type and quality of wastewater to be treated will

determine the choice of substrate. For example, for wastewater with high organic and
nutrient content, a substrate with high porosity and surface area, such as gravel or
expanded clay, may be preferred.

33
 • Site conditions: The site’s soil type, topography, and hydrology will also influence
substrate selection. For example, a substrate with good drainage properties may be
preferred if the site has a high-water table.
• Plant species: The plant species selected for the constructed wetland will also influence
the choice of substrate. Different plant species have different requirements for substrate
texture, nutrient availability, and pH levels.
• Maintenance requirements: The substrate should be easy to maintain and replace if
necessary. Some substrates, such as coconut coir, may need to be replaced more
frequently than others.
• Cost: The cost of the substrate should also be considered in the selection process. Some
substrates, such as gravel, are relatively inexpensive, while others, such as expanded
clay, may be more expensive.
• Sustainability: The sustainability of the substrate should also be considered, such as
the environmental impact of sourcing and producing the material. Renewable and
environmentally friendly substrates may be preferred over non-renewable options.

It is important to select a substrate that meets the specific requirements of the

constructed wetland and is compatible with the plant species chosen for the project. The general
consideration for filter media selection and depth are given in Table 16. Further it is reported
that the diameter size of media used in HF wetlands varies from 0.2 mm to 30 mm (U.S. EPA,
2000).

Table 16: Recommendation on filter media (Gravel, sand etc.) and depth for CWs

CWs Type Recommended size Recommended Range Range Slope

at Inlet and Outlet of Filter Media size at Depth (cm)
Zones (mm) Treatment zone (mm)
HF-CW 40-80 5- 20 30-60 0.5 -1%
VF-CW - 5-40 50-100

The depth requirements can vary depending on factors such as hydraulic and organic
loading rates and the desired treatment efficiency. Additionally, local regulations and site-
specific conditions may influence the design and depth of CWs. Example for HF and VF media
arrangement is given in Figure 14 and 15 (UN-HABITAT, 2008) further, proper wetland design
it is essential to determine the appropriate depth for your specific project based objective,
treatment goals and site characteristics.

34
 Inlet Pipe

Gravel
40-80mm

0.4m

Gravel Outlet pipe

40-80 mm
min Plastic Liner Gravel
0.075m 5-20mm

Figure 14: General view of media arrangement in HFCWs

5cm
Gravel 5-10mm

45cm
Sand 1-4mm
70cm
Gravel 5-10mm 5cm

15cm
Gravel 20-40mm

Figure 15: General view of media arrangement in VFCW

35
3.9.2 Inlet and Outlet Design

Inlet and outlet design in constructed wetlands is a critical aspect of the overall system
design. Proper design of these components ensures efficient hydraulic flow, even distribution
of wastewater, and optimal pollutant removal performance. Here are some considerations for
inlet and outlet design in constructed wetlands:

1. Distribution Structure: An inlet distribution structure is used to evenly distribute the

influent wastewater across the wetland surface. This can be achieved through various
distribution methods, such as weirs, perforated pipes, or flow splitters.
2. Influent Depth: The depth of the influent flow should be carefully considered to avoid
disturbance to the wetland bed. The influent depth is typically kept shallow (usually
less than 30 cm) to prevent erosion and promote uniform flow distribution.
3. Pre-Sedimentation: In some cases, it may be beneficial to include a pre-sedimentation
basin or settling chamber before the influent enters the wetland. This helps to remove
larger solids and settleable particles, reducing potential clogging and enhancing overall
treatment efficiency.
4. Flow Regulation: Flow regulators, such as adjustable weirs or gates, can be installed
to control and adjust the flow rate entering the wetland. This helps maintain optimal
hydraulic loading and prevents overloading the wetland during peak flow periods.
5. Outlet Structure: The outlet structure is used to collect and discharge treated effluent
from the constructed wetland. It can consist of weirs, sluice gates, or submerged outlet
pipes, depending on the design requirements.
6. Effluent Depth: Similar to the influent, the depth of the effluent flow should be
considered to minimize turbulence and avoid erosion. Effluent depths are typically kept
shallow to prevent scouring of the bed and maintain treatment efficiency.
7. Flow Control at the outlet: Flow control devices may be incorporated in the outlet
structure to manage the discharge flow rate. This ensures that the hydraulic flow
through the wetland is balanced and within the system's design capacity.
8. Monitoring and Sampling: Provision for monitoring and sampling points should be
included in the outlet structure to assess the performance of the wetland regularly and
ensure compliance with water quality standards.
9. Vegetation Buffers: In some cases, vegetation buffers may be established downstream
of the wetland outlet to provide additional treatment and enhance the overall ecological
benefits.

3.9.3 Liners

Liners may be required in CWs to prevent the seepage of wastewater into the
surrounding soil and groundwater. The need for a liner will depend on various factors, including
the type of soil, the depth of the water table, and the proximity of drinking water wells or other
sensitive areas.

36
 Here are some general considerations for the use of liners in CWs:

a) Soil permeability: If the soil at the site is highly permeable, a liner may be required to
prevent wastewater seepage. A soil permeability test can be conducted to determine the
need for a liner.
b) Water table depth: If the water table is shallow, a liner may be required to prevent
groundwater contamination.
c) Sensitive areas: A liner may be required to prevent contamination if the CW is located
near drinking water wells or other sensitive areas.
d) Regulatory requirements: The use of liners should be in accordance to local or state
regulations.

On-site soils can be used if compacted to a permeability of <108 ft/sec (<10-6 cm/sec).
Soils that contain more than 15% clay are generally suitable. Bentonite, as well as other clays,
provide adsorption/reaction sites and contribute to alkalinity. Synthetic liners include asphalt,
synthetic butyl rubber, and plastic membranes (0.5 to 10.0 mil high-density polyethylene). The
liner must be strong, thick, and smooth to prevent root attachment or penetration. The liner
should be covered with 3 — 4 inches of soil to prevent the roots of the vegetation from
penetrating the liner.

If a liner is required, several types of liners can be used including:

• Clay liner: A layer of clay can be used as a liner. The clay should be compacted to
prevent seepage.
• Geotextile fabric: A layer of geotextile fabric can be used as a liner. The fabric should
be placed over a layer of sand or gravel to prevent punctures.
• Synthetic liner: A synthetic liner, such as HDPE and LDPE, can be used as a liner. The
liner should be placed over a layer of sand or gravel to prevent punctures.

The choice of liner for a CW will depend on various factors, such as the site conditions,
the type of wastewater being treated, and the regulatory requirements. Here are some
considerations for choosing liners:

1. Permeability: The liner should have a low permeability to prevent wastewater seepage
into the surrounding soil and groundwater. The permeability of the liner will depend on
the material used and the thickness of the liner.
2. Durability: The liner should be durable and resistant to degradation, abrasion, and
punctures. The liner should be able to withstand the weight of the substrate and plants
without tearing or cracking.
3. Chemical resistance: If the treated wastewater contains chemicals or other
contaminants, the liner should resist these substances to prevent degradation and failure.
4. Regulatory requirements: It is important to consult these regulations and ensure that
the liner meets the requirements.
5. Cost: The cost of the liner will also be a factor in choosing a liner. Some materials may
be more expensive than others but may provide better performance or longer life.
Ultimately, the choice of the liner will depend on the specific requirements and

37
 conditions of the CW project. It is important to follow regulatory requirements when
selecting a liner. When choosing a liner for CWs, one of the most important factors to
consider is the permeability of the liner material. The liner should have a low
permeability to prevent the seepage of wastewater into the surrounding soil and
groundwater. The permeability of the liner will depend on the material used and the
thickness of the liner.

As a general guide, the following interpretations may be placed on values obtained for
the in-situ coefficient of permeability:

k>10-6 m/s the soil is too permeable, and the wetlands must be lined
k>10-7 m/s some seepage may occur but not sufficiently to prevent the wetlands
from having submerged condition
k<10-8 m/s the wetlands will seal naturally
k<10-9 m/s there is no risk of groundwater contamination (if k>10-9 m/s and the
groundwater is used for potable supplies).

3.10 Plant selection strategies

Wetland plants should be selected with water quality, people, and wildlife. Some plants
thrive better than others in polluted water, and some prefer cleaner water. It often seems to be
the case that the more colourful, flowering plants (such as Purple Loosestrife and Flowering-
Rush) are less tolerant of pollution. In contrast, the hardier species (such as Common Reed and
Sedge) tend to be less visually diverse. Non-native species should be avoided, with a focus
placed on using suitable regionally or locally native plants. Hence, various plants have been
used according to the Indian climatic conditions. Plants play a significant role in the removal
of pollutants and in providing habitat to microorganisms. Hence selection of plants becomes
crucial in the CWs system. Figure 16 illustrates the selection criteria to get the best available
option.

Based on
Wetland
Type

Flourishing Based on
Roots Climate

Selection of
Plants

Tolerant to Pollutant
Pollution Removal

Local
Availability

Figure 16: Factors to be considered for selection of plants for constructed wetlands

38
3.10.1 Type of Plants

The plants that thrive and flower in soil that is saturated for long periods can be
considered wetland plants (Sainty and Beharrel, 1998).
The selection of plants for CWs is an important aspect of the design process, as they
play a critical role in wastewater treatment. The following are some of the criteria to consider
when selecting plants for CWs:

1. Tolerance to wet conditions: Wetland plants must tolerate waterlogged conditions

without drowning or rotting. Plants that are adapted to growing in marshes or swamps
are typically good candidates.
2. Tolerance to pollution: The plants should be able to tolerate the specific pollutants
found in the wastewater being treated. For example, plants can tolerate high levels of
nutrient load commonly present in wastewater.
3. Root structure: The plants’ root structures are important as they provide surface area
for the growth of microorganisms that help break down pollutants in the water. Plants
with deep and fibrous roots are preferred, as they provide more surface area for
microbial growth.
4. Growth rate: Fast-growing plants are typically preferred for CWs as they help to remove
pollutants more quickly.
5. Aesthetic value: The aesthetic value of the plants should also be considered, especially
if the constructed wetland is located in a public area.
6. Availability: The plants selected should be readily available and easy to propagate.

3.10.2 Climate-based Plant Selection

Generally, Macrophytes are used in CW treatments, including emergent, submerged,

floating leaved, and free-floating plants. Although more than 150 macrophyte species have
been used in CWs globally, only a limited number of these plant species are optimally planted
in CWs in reality. CWs in cold climates can face challenges when they are fully covered with
snow, which can impact their functioning and effectiveness. The presence of snow can reduce
oxygen exchange, limit sunlight penetration, and cause freezing of wetland components. To
address these challenges, various measures can be taken in cold climates. These include
implementing snow management strategies to prevent excessive accumulation and ensure
proper water flow, incorporating insulation and heating elements into the design to prevent
freezing, selecting cold-tolerant plant species, conducting regular monitoring and maintenance
even during winter months.

3.10.3 Selection of plants based as per Indian conditions

When selecting plants for CWs in India, it is important to consider the climate and
environmental conditions specific to the region. However, it’s important to note that the
specific plant selection should be based on the local climate, water quality parameters, and the
objectives of the CWs project. Additionally, it’s crucial to ensure that the selected plant species
are native or non-invasive to the local ecosystem to avoid potential negative impacts on
biodiversity.

39
 Here are some plant species suitable for CWs in different regions of India based on their
respective climates Table 17.

Table 17: Some common plants for CWs in different regions of India

North India South India East India West India North East
India
Canna Indica Canna Indica Canna Indica Canna Indica Canna Indica
(Indian shot) (Indian shot) (Indian shot) (Indian shot) (Indian shot)
Typha Typha angustifolia Typha Typha Typha
angustifolia (Narrow Leaf angustifolia angustifolia angustifolia
(Narrow Leaf Cattail) (Narrow Leaf (Narrow Leaf (Narrow Leaf
Cattail) Cattail) Cattail) Cattail)
Phragmites karka Typha latifolia Phragmites Typhalatifolia Phragmites
(Indian Reed) (Broad Leaf karka (Indian (Broad Leaf karka (Indian
Cattail) Reed) Cattail) Reed)
Scirpus spp. Phragmites karka Cyperus Phragmites Cyperus
(Bulrush) (Indian Reed) papyrus karka (Indian papyrus
(Papyrus) Reed) (Papyrus)

These plant species are generally well-adapted to the climate conditions in their
respective regions of India. However, it’s important to consider the specific local conditions,
such as temperature, rainfall, and soil experts or authorities, to ensure that the chosen plant
species are suitable for the specific site and are not invasive or harmful to the local ecosystem
composition when making plant selections for CWs.

Horizontal Flow CWs:

1. Typha angustifolia (Narrow Leaf Cattail): It has a moderate root length, making it
suitable for horizontal flow systems. It provides good pollutant removal, includes space
for microbes, and a habitat for wildlife.
2. Phragmites australis (Common Reed): This plant has extensive root systems that can
enhance pollutant removal in HFCWs.
3. Scirpus spp. (Bulrush): Bulrushes have fibrous root systems that are effective in nutrient
uptake and pollutant removal.
4. Acorus calamus (Sweet Flag): Sweet Flag has a shallow but dense root system, making
it suitable for nutrient uptake in HFCW.

Vertical Flow CWs:

1. Phragmites australis (Common Reed): The extensive root system of Common Reed
enhances pollutant removal in VFCWs.
2. Typha latifolia (Broadleaf Cattail): Broadleaf Cattail has long and dense roots,
providing excellent nutrient uptake and pollutant removal in vertical flow systems.
3. Iris pseudacorus (Yellow Flag Iris): Yellow Flag Iris has long, fibrous roots that can
effectively take up nutrients in VFCWs.

40
 4. Juncus spp. (Rushes): Rushes have deep, dense root systems contributing to efficient
pollutant removal in VFCWs.

Including a mix of plants with different root, lengths can create a diverse root zone,
leading to improved filtration, sediment retention, and stabilization of the wetland substrate.
However, it’s important to consider the specific requirements of the CWs, such as water depth
and nutrient levels, when selecting plants based on root length. Additionally, consider the
compatibility of the chosen plant species with the local climate and ecosystem to ensure their
successful establishment and long-term benefits.

3.10.4 How to Plant

Planting is usually done manually by hand. Some general method for planting in
wetland has been given in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Technique for planting rhizome cuttings

(Source: Hawke and Jose, 1996)

• Most SSF wetlands are planted manually. Using individual root/rhizome material with
growing shoots at least 8 inches (0.2 m) long is recommended.
There are various planting options, including:
• Seeds – cheap but will take longest to establish
• Plug plants – cannot usually be planted directly into deep water
• Pot plants – suitable for marginal planting around the wetland edges
• Coir mats – semi-mature (typically 18-month-old) plants grown on coir matting can be
relatively expensive, but they are very easy to install and, if planted near the start of the
growing season, can establish a mature wetland within a few months.

The successful run of the CWs wetland depends on the plants, so it is mandatory to look
after the plants. Here are a few things that have been observed during the survey that should be
checked while designing CWs:

• Plant protection may be required in locations with existing wildfowl, o stray animal
populations

41
 • Fencing is often used to protect plants but can be hazardous to birds and other wildlife
if not installed properly.
• Avoid the use of pesticides or chemicals around your wetlands.
• Plants should be periodically skimmed off, and remove decaying plant debris that may
have accumulated.
• Full sun is recommended.

3.10.5 Recommendations for Maintaining Vegetation

For maintaining vegetation following is recommended:

• In SF wetlands, the water level is the most critical aspect of plant survival during the
first year after planting. Water levels can be raised as the plants become well-
established (2 — 3 months). Mechanical protection may be needed to prevent animals
from damaging newly established plants.
• Plantings should be allowed to become well-established before the wastewater is
introduced into the system since the plants need an opportunity to overcome the stress
of planting before other stresses are introduced. The water must supply enough nutrients
to support plant growth.
• The satisfactory establishment may take from several months to one or two full growing
seasons.
• Water level management is key to maintaining wetland vegetation.
• Water quality also affects the health and survival of wetland plants. High nutrient loads,
high or low pH, high dissolved solids concentrations, and buildup of heavy metals and
other toxins can affect wetland vegetation.
• Harvesting or winter burning of above-ground. Biomass is sometimes used as a means
of removing nitrogen and carbon and maintaining the wetland vegetation in a log
(growth) phase of high physiological activity to enhance removal but may disrupt the
wetland and the maturation of the plant community.

42
4 CW FOR UP-GRADATION OF EXISTING STPs

Integrating existing sewage treatment plants with CWs is an innovative approach

combining conventional wastewater treatment methods with the natural purification
capabilities of wetland ecosystems. This hybrid system can provide effective and sustainable
wastewater treatment while offering additional benefits such as habitat creation, aesthetic
improvement, and water conservation.

Many sewage treatment plants (STPs) in India are facing challenges due to receiving
higher loads than their designed capacity. Rapid urbanization, population growth, and
inadequate infrastructure planning have contributed to this issue. Integrating CWs with existing
STPs can be a viable solution to address the increased load. Where CWs can serve as a
supplementary treatment system to alleviate the load and improve treatment efficiency Table
18.

Table 18: Installation of CWs based on excess load

Name of Capacity of Average Excess load Desired CWs

STP existing STP Flow Water Capacity
Quality Required

Steps for consideration for Integration of STPs and CWs

1. Assessment of load and treatment requirements: Conduct a comprehensive

assessment of the increased load on the STP and determine the treatment requirements
to achieve the desired effluent quality.
2. Identify suitable locations for CWs: Identify appropriate locations near the STP
where CWs can be established. Factors such as available land, topography, soil
conditions, and proximity to the existing infrastructure should be considered.
3. Design and construction of CWs: Develop a design plan for the CWs, considering
parameters such as hydraulic retention time, dimensions, substrate composition, and
appropriate wetland vegetation. Construction should follow engineering standards and
environmental guidelines.
4. Diversion of wastewater: Modify the existing infrastructure to divert a portion of the
wastewater flow from the overloaded STP to the CWs. This can be achieved through
diversion structures, pumps, or gravity flow systems.
5. Monitoring and optimization: Regularly monitor the performance of the integrated
system, including the STP and the CWs. Adjustments may be necessary to optimize the
flow distribution, hydraulic conditions, and vegetation management for efficient
treatment.
6. Tertiary treatment and disinfection: After passing through the CWs, the effluent is
directed back to the STP for further treatment processes, including tertiary treatment
and disinfection, to meet the required effluent quality standards.
Integrating CWs with overloaded STPs can help relieve the excess load, enhance
treatment capacity, and improve the overall performance of the wastewater treatment
system. Ensuring proper planning, design, and monitoring is important to achieve
optimal results. Even peak flow should be considered while designing Table 19.

43
 Table 19: Installation of CWs based on Peak flow
Name of Capacity Average Peak Non- Duration CWs
STP of STP Flow Flow peak of Peak Capacity
(MLD) (MLD) Flow Flow Required
to Handle
Peak Flow

5 COST

The money and resources required to establish the CWs treatment system should be
rigorously assessed. This includes equipment, people, and materials. An overview of the cost
consideration is given in Table 20.

Table 20: Details of cost considerations for the development of constructed wetlands

Cost Considerations Details

The initial design and engineering costs include site assessments,
feasibility studies, hydrological analysis, and the development of
Design and Engineering
detailed construction plans. These costs can vary based on the
complexity and size of the CWs project
Acquiring suitable land for constructing the wetland can incur
Land Acquisition
costs depending on the location and market prices
The cost of construction materials such as gravel, sand, soil, and
vegetation can contribute to the overall cost. The quantity and
Construction Materials
quality of materials needed depend on the project size and design
specifications
The labor costs associated with the construction of the wetland,
including excavation, installation of liners (if necessary), shaping
Labor and Construction
the basins or channels, planting vegetation, and installing
distribution systems, should be considered
Depending on the project requirements, additional infrastructure
such as inlet and outlet structures, distribution pipes, monitoring
Ancillary Infrastructure
equipment, and access roads may be necessary. These can
contribute to the overall cost
CWs require ongoing maintenance and monitoring to ensure
Maintenance and proper functioning. Costs can include vegetation management,
Monitoring sediment removal, periodic monitoring of water quality
parameters, and repairs if needed
Operational costs can include energy consumption for pumping
systems, periodic testing and sampling, laboratory analysis, and
Operational Costs
administrative expenses related to compliance monitoring and
reporting
Consideration should be given to the long-term costs associated
Long-Term Costs with the lifespan of the CWs, including potential replacement or
rehabilitation expenses in the future

44
5.1 Land Cost

The capital costs of CWs are highly dependent on the costs of land. Financial decisions
on treatment processes should not primarily be made on capital costs but also on net present
value basis annual costs of operation and maintenance, interest and return on equity.

5.2 Cost Distribution

Costs typically include those for civil works, mechanical works, engineering designs
and on-site supervision, start-up costs, and the cost of borrowings to provide for the working
capital. In addition to these, there will usually be a number of local factors that increase the
construction costs. The exception to this would be the substrate cost incurred in SSF wetlands.
In the latter case, a 30–60 cm depth of gravel (porous substrate) typically fills the bed, whereas
the medium for the FWS wetland usually consists of a 15 cm layer of top soil as growth media
for the plants. Aside from the cost differentials caused by the substrate, the configuration of
the wetland and the number of cells therein do affect the construction costs. For example, each
cell would require its set of hydraulic control structures and liners (which extend up the dikes);
obviously, additional sets of these will add to the cost. Basic cost considerations for the
selection of CWs are given in the Table 21.

Table 21: Evaluating the cost-benefit analysis

Selection of CWs based on Cost

Cost
Considerations Preliminary/Primary HFCWs VFCWs Hybrid Others
treatment setup
Design and
Engineering
Land Acquisition
Construction
Materials
Labor and
Construction
Ancillary
Infrastructure
Maintenance and
Monitoring
Operational Costs
Long-Term Costs

5.2.1 Substrate Cost

The unit cost of these materials depends on the quality of the material, the volume
needed, and the distance from the source to the wetland site. SSF wetlands require specific
types of bed substrates. SSF bed substrates are the most expensive item in the construction of
SSF wetland and may vary depending on site-specific conditions.

45
5.2.2 Plants and Planting Cost

There are many variables in calculating the total costs associated with the vegetation
establishment phase of a wetland construction project. However, the following generalizations
can be made:
• Large projects have a lower unit cost (cost/plant or cost/m2) than small ones because of
discounted materials costs and reduced mobilization costs.
• Projects having multiple goals (e.g., recreation and planting of commercial plant
species) are generally more costly.
• Mechanized planting costs typically much less than planting by hand, particularly on
large sites.
• Direct seeding is less expensive than transplanting from nurseries.

5.3 Possible cost reduction

Cost is an important factor while constructing CWs treatment facilities. But for the cost
reduction, there should be valid consideration, and it should not compromise the overall
effectiveness and long-term sustainability of the CWs. Following strategies could be taken into
account to reduce the cost Table 22.

Table 22: Consideration for cost reduction

Strategies to reduce Details

cost
Site selection Site with favorable characteristics may be selected that minimize
the need for extensive earthwork or modifications.
Design optimization Proper designing to optimize should be done for cost efficiency.
Utilize natural processes Emphasize the use of natural ecological processes within the
CWs, which could led to reliance on expensive engineered
components.
Phased construction Construction in phases may be undertaken to distribute costs
over time and allow for better financial planning.
Selection of native plant Native plant species selection could lead to being affordable,
readily available, and well-adapted to local conditions.
Substrate selection On-site soil or substrate could be used to reduce the need for
purchasing new materials
Bulk purchasing If required, purchase plants and substrates in bulk to take
advantage of cost savings.
Involvement of volunteer Engage volunteers or community groups to assist with planting
and substrate preparation, reducing labor costs.
Proper management Implement effective project management, reduce delays, and
minimize labor costs.

46
6 Operation and Maintenance

Operation and maintenance can be classified in terms of start-up, routine, and long-
term. There are important distinctions between these; start-up requirements will show more
site-to-site variability, routine operations may be more affected by design details, and long-
term operations reflect loading. In addition, thorough checkups should be done at least twice a
year to effectively operate the wetland Table 23. The cost of entire O & M could depend on
the frequency of monitoring and man power required.

Table 23: Key aspects of operation maintenance cost consideration

Daily Weekly Quarterly Monthly Half Remarks

yearly
Primary components
Septic tank √ For primary treatment
Sludge More sludge height tends
height √ to the high TSS in
wetland influent
Inlet pipe √
Inlet valve √
Effluent in √
flow rate
Pumping √
Water √ Sampling duration
sampling depends upon economics.
It could be done on daily
bases too
Wetland components
Vegetation √ To see if any issue with
plants health
Weeds √ To ensure unhindered
vegetative growth of
wetland plants
Dead √
vegetation/bi
omass
Removal
Substrate √ To know the clogging
status
Nutrient √ If required to supply to
level ensure wetland plants
growth
Hydrology √ Flow rate, hydraulic
loading rate etc.
Structures √ Berm/walls to check if
any erosion or damage
occurred to take
immediate action

47
 Daily Weekly Quarterly Monthly Half Remarks
yearly
Insects and √ Presence of Burrowing
animals animals and insects
Odor √ To check if any anaerobic
zone is created
Algae √
Soil √ Texture, profile,
nutritional composition,
porosity etc.
Indicators √ For the rapid, efficient
and low-cost monitoring
Microbiolog √ Micro-flora management
y and study
Water √ √ Depends upon the
sampling hydraulic and
contaminant loading rate
Efficiency and control components
Alarm √
systems
Plant √
efficiency
Plant √
coverage
Plant √ Note: Plant trimming is a
trimming visually guided practice, as
different plants exhibit
varying growth rates.

6.1.1 First-Year Maintenance Operations

Inspection and sampling of treated water during the initial phase after the establishing
CWs I recommended as per Table 24.

Table 24: Inspection during the initial phase after the establishment

Steps Time Frame Remarks

In 6 months and after every rainfall and storm for the
Inspections
initial two years
Sampling Weekly
Watering Initially, for one month
Planting Plants that are not grown should be replanted

6.1.2 Maintenance Requirements

Maintenance requirements for constructed wetlands are essential to ensure their

continued effectiveness and long-term performance. Regular maintenance is crucial for
preventing clogging, maintaining proper hydraulic flow, and maximizing pollutant removal

48
efficiency. The specific maintenance tasks will vary depending on the type of constructed
wetland and its design, but here are some common maintenance activities for the CWs:

1. Vegetation Management: Regularly monitor and maintain the vegetation in the

wetland to ensure it remains healthy and functional. This may involve pruning or
trimming overgrown plants, removing dead vegetation, and replanting if necessary.
2. Debris Removal: Remove any debris or litter that accumulates in the wetland, as it can
lead to clogging and hinder proper water flow.
3. Inspection and Monitoring: Regularly inspect the wetland to identify any signs of
malfunction or issues. Monitor water levels, flow rates, and water quality parameters to
assess the system's performance.
4. Weed Control: Control the growth of undesirable invasive plant species that can
outcompete native wetland plants. Proper weed management helps maintain the
wetland's ecological balance.
5. Sediment Removal: Periodically remove accumulated sediment from the bottom of
the wetland to prevent clogging and maintain adequate water depth.
6. Inlet and Outlet Maintenance: Keep the inlet and outlet structures clear of
obstructions to ensure proper flow distribution and discharge.
7. Controlled Burning: In some wetlands, controlled burning of dry vegetation may be
necessary to maintain a healthy ecosystem and prevent excessive thatch buildup.
8. Ponding Area Maintenance: If the constructed wetland includes a ponding area,
regularly inspect and maintain the pond liner or clay lining to prevent leakage.
9. Water Level Management: Adjust water levels as needed to optimize treatment
performance and account for seasonal variations.
10. Sampling and Analysis: Periodically collect water samples for analysis to evaluate the
wetland's pollutant removal efficiency and compliance with water quality standards.
11. Infrastructure Inspection: Check the condition of infrastructure components such as
pipes, pumps, and valves to ensure proper functioning.
12. Invasive Species Control: Take measures to control and prevent the spread of invasive
species that may disrupt the wetland ecosystem.

The frequency and extent of maintenance tasks may vary based on factors such as the
size of the wetland, the influent characteristics, and the climate. Developing a well-documented
maintenance plan is essential for efficient wetland management and to avoid potential issues
that may arise due to neglect. Regular maintenance by trained personnel is vital to the sustained
success of constructed wetlands as an eco-friendly and cost-effective wastewater treatment
solution.

6.1.3 Substrate Management

Cleaning and reusing the substrate in CWs can be a beneficial approach to prolong its
lifespan and ensure its continued efficiency. By following proper procedures, the substrate can
be restored for reuse without the need for replacement.

49
 • Assessment of substrate: Evaluate the condition of the substrate to determine if it is
suitable for cleaning and reuse. Consider factors such as clogging, compaction,
sediment accumulation, and overall treatment performance. In fact not all the substrate
are suitable for the reuse and even for severely degraded or damaged, replacement may
be necessary instead of cleaning.
• Sediment Removal: The accumulated sediments or organic matter from the substrate
surface can be achieved manually through raking or by using equipment such as
vacuum pumps or suction dredges.
• Surface agitation: Use of high-pressure water jets or mechanical agitation to dislodge
and remove any remaining debris, biofilms, or clogging on the substrate surface. Ensure
effective cleaning while avoiding excessive force that may harm the substrate.
• Backwashing: Reverse the flow of clean water through the substrate to flush out any
particulate matter or clogging. Backwashing assists in removing finer materials that
surface agitation may not dislodge easily.

6.1.4 Management of harvested plants

Managing harvested plants involves effectively handling and utilizing the plant material
to maximize its value while minimizing waste. The harvested biomass can be used for soil
amendment or fertilization or as livestock feed, offering a complementary approach to aquatic
remediation, which could provide several ecosystem benefits. As aquatic plants are a reservoir
of both energy and nutrients, after harvesting, they can be suitable candidates for application
as feedstock in biogas plants, for production of both electric and thermal energy, as solid and
liquid digestate.

• Soil Amendment and Composting: Harvested biomass can be used as a soil amendment
to improve soil structure, water retention, and nutrient content. It adds organic matter,
enhancing soil fertility and promoting beneficial microbial activity. The biomass can
be composted or incorporated directly into the soil to release nutrients gradually over
time.
• Livestock Feed: Depending on the composition and suitability of the harvested
biomass, it can be used as feed for livestock. CWs plants can provide a source of
nutrition for animals, serving as a supplement or primary feed source. However, it is
important to ensure that the harvested biomass is safe and appropriate for the specific
type of livestock being fed.
• Biogas Production: CWs biomass can be utilized as feedstock in biogas plants, where
it undergoes anaerobic digestion to produce biogas. Biogas, primarily composed of
methane, can be used as a renewable energy source for electricity generation or as a
fuel for heating and cooking. The byproducts of anaerobic digestion, known as
digestate, include solid and liquid forms, which can be used as organic fertilizers.

In order to ensure safe application of compost, the following specification for compost
quality is given Table 25 of waste should meet the following criteria of MSW compost
(MoEFCC, 1999)

50
 Table 25: Specification for compost quality

Parameters Maximum allowable value

Arsenic 10.00
Cadmium 5.00
Chromium 50.00
Copper 300.00
Lead 100.00
Mercury 0.15
Nickel 50.00
Zinc 1000.00
C/N Ratio 20-40
pH 5.5-8.5
Note* Concentration should not exceed (mg/kg dry basis, expect for pH value and C/N ratio)

51
52
7 POSSIBLE REUSE OF TREATED WATER

The NMCG 2022 National Framework on Safe Reuse of Treated Water and Ministry
of Jal Shakti NATIONAL WATER POLICY (2012) provides comprehensive and detailed
guidance on harnessing treated wastewater, a critical aspect of sustainable sewage treatment.
This focuses on the effective utilization of treated water generated from sewage treatment
processes, thereby contributing to water conservation and environmental protection. The
framework National Water Policy covers various facets of treated water utilization,
emphasizing responsible and safe practices for more details refer National Water Policy (2012)
and National Framework on Safe Reuse of Treated Water (2022).

Using treated wastewater as an alternative water source has many benefits, but it's
important to consider a few key things for it to work well. One of them is how much wastewater
is available and how dependable its supply is. We need to make sure that the water, after being
treated, is safe for both people and the environment. This is especially important if we plan to
use it over a long period. We want to avoid any risks to health and the natural surroundings. In
short, reusing wastewater is a great idea, but to make it work, we need to pay attention to how
much wastewater we have and how safe the treated water is. This focus on quantity and quality
will help us make the most of this alternative water resource while keeping everyone and
everything protected.

7.1 Motivational Factors for Recycling/Reuse

The motivations for recycling and reusing water are diverse and compelling. As global
water scarcity becomes increasingly pronounced, the imperative to maximize available water
resources gains prominence. Recycling and reusing water emerge as pivotal strategies to
address this challenge, allowing us to extract more value from every drop. By opting for these
practices, we actively contribute to the conservation of vital natural water sources, such as
rivers and groundwater, thereby promoting a sustainable approach to water management.
Additionally, the environmental benefits of recycling water are evident in its potential to curtail
the discharge of treated wastewater into delicate aquatic ecosystems, preserving their health
and integrity.

The process of treating and transporting water demands energy, making the recycling
of water an energy-conscious alternative that not only conserves resources but also contributes
to a reduction in energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. From an
economic standpoint, recycling and reusing water hold the promise of cost savings. For
businesses and communities, these practices streamline water supply and treatment expenses,
engendering more efficient operations.

In regions with stringent water scarcity or environmental regulations, water recycling

becomes a pragmatic means of not only adhering to legal requirements but also embracing
responsible resource utilization. As technology continues to advance, the feasibility and safety
of water recycling are further bolstered by innovative water treatment methods, which pave the
way for wider adoption and implementation.

53
7.2 Quality Issues of Wastewater Reuse/Recycling

Wastewater reuse/recycling introduces several critical quality issues that demand

thorough consideration to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
Contaminant presence is a primary concern, encompassing a wide array of potential hazards
such as pathogens, chemicals, heavy metals, and pharmaceutical residues. Effective treatment
procedures are imperative to mitigate these risks and bring contaminants to safe levels for
reuse.

Microbial pathogens, including bacteria and viruses, pose notable health threats if not
adequately removed through disinfection processes. Additionally, the presence of chemical
residues, like pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds, mandates advanced treatment
methods to prevent their persistence in recycled water. Nutrient content, particularly elevated
levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, can disrupt ecosystems through eutrophication,
underscoring the importance of proper nutrient removal. Addressing high salinity and total
dissolved solids (TDS) is crucial to prevent adverse effects on soil and vegetation in scenarios
involving agricultural irrigation. Striking a balance between meeting regulatory standards and
public acceptance requires transparent communication and robust treatment infrastructure.

Ultimately, effective management of these quality concerns is pivotal in realizing the full
potential of wastewater reuse/recycling while upholding safety and environmental stewardship.

7.3 Designated reuse of treated sewage

The specific water quality standards are often what determine the designated use of
treated water from artificial wetlands. Following are some typical applications for treated
water:
• Non-potable reuse: Reusing treated water for non-potable purposes such as irrigation,
industrial processes, firefighting, dust control, or toilet flushing some of the option.
These applications do not require treated water to meet drinking water standards but
still require certain quality criteria to safeguard human health and the environment.
• Environmental discharge: The treated water may be released into receiving bodies of
water, such as rivers, lakes, or coastal areas, if it satisfies certain water quality
standards. This designated use helps to support aquatic life, preserve the ecological
balance, and maintain ecosystem health.
• Groundwater recharge: To replenish aquifers in areas where groundwater resources
are crucial, treated water can be injected beneath the surface. To protect the
groundwater and guarantee its appropriateness for future extraction, water must meet a
water quality standard to prevent contamination.
• Agricultural reuse: Treated water may be used for agricultural purposes, including
irrigation of crops, horticulture, or aquaculture. To safeguard soil quality, crop health,
and food safety during this specified usage, strict water quality regulations must be
maintained.
• Industrial reuse: Industries that need non-potable water, including cooling towers,
production operations, or industrial cleaning, may use treated water. In order to be
suitable for the particular industrial application, the water must meet certain water
quality standards.
• Recreational uses: Treated water may be used for recreational purposes like lake or
pond filling, creating opportunities for activities like boating, fishing, or swimming

54
8 ESSENTIAL FOR DETECTING CHANGES AND MITIGATING RISKS

The wetland should be checked periodically to observe general site conditions and to
detect major adverse changes, such as erosion or growth of undesirable vegetation. Vegetation
should be regularly monitored to assess its health and abundance. More frequent monitoring is
also required during the first five years after the wetland is installed. Species composition and
plant density are easily determined by inspecting quadrats (square plots, usually 3 ft x 3 ft)
within the wetland at selected locations. A lightweight, open frame of wood or PVC pipe is
laid on the wetland, and the number of stems of each species present within the frame is
counted. Changes of concern include an increase in the number of aggressive nuisance species,
a decrease in the density of the vegetative cover, or signs of disease. Some species may have a
tendency to die out and be replaced by others.

8.1 Evaluation of Performance

The effectiveness of contaminant removal can be determined from the difference

between influent loads (inflow volume x contaminant concentration) and effluent loads
(discharge volume x contaminant concentration). The parameters of concern may include:
• Domestic wastewater: BOD, nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids, heavy
metals, bacteria (total or fecal coliform).
• Agricultural wastewater: BOD, nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspended solids,
pesticides, bacteria (total or fecal coliform).
• Mine drainage: pH, iron, manganese, aluminum, total suspended solids, sulfate.
• Storm-water: total suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, vehicle
emission residues

Surface water sampling stations should be located at accessible points at the inlet and
outlet and, depending on the size and complexity of the system, at points along the flow path
within the wetland. Surface water quality stations should be permanently marked. The effluent
should be sampled during high storms, and spring runoff flows to ensure that sediments are
retained in the wetland. Groundwater should also be monitored once or twice a year to ensure
that the wetland is not contaminating groundwater.

The wetland is usually measured by determining:

• Hydraulic loading rates

• Inflow and outflow volumes
• Water quality changes between inflow and outflow
• Excursions from normal operating conditions.

8.2 Quality Assurance, Quality Control, and Quality Assessment Measures

Quality assurance/quality control measures are essential to meet the desired objectives
and performance criteria of the CWs system Table 26. It provides precision (how much the
treatment results are reproducible). Quality Assurance generally refers to a broad plan for
maintaining quality in all aspects of a CWs treatment facility. This plan should describe how
you will undertake your monitoring effort Figure.18.

55
 Table 26: Details on quality assurance of the CWs

Quality Assurance Steps

Define the objectives and goals of the CWs project
Conduct a site assessment to determine the feasibility and suitability
Pre-construction
of the site
planning
Develop design criteria and performance standards based on the
project goals and regulatory requirements
Prepare detailed engineering designs, including hydrological,
hydraulic, and structural consideration
Design phase Conduct a comprehensive review of the design to ensure compliance
with the established criteria and standards
Obtain necessary permits and approvals from regulatory authorities
Implement a quality control plan to monitor the construction
activities
Ensure that construction materials meet the required specifications
Construction phase Conduct regular inspections to verify that construction is progressing
according to the design plans and specifications
Address any issues or deviations promptly and document corrective
actions taken.
Perform functional testing of key components, such as inlet and outlet
structures, distribution systems, and media or substrate layers
Commissioning and Conduct hydraulic and water quality tests to verify that the wetland
testing functions as intended
Monitor the wetland performance during the establishment period to
identify any operational issues or design deficiencies
Develop an operation and maintenance plan to ensure the ongoing
performance and longevity of the CWs
Implement regular monitoring protocols for water quality, vegetation
Operation and health, and hydraulic performance
maintenance Conduct routine maintenance activities, such as vegetation
management, sediment removal, and infrastructure inspections
Keep detailed records of maintenance activities and any
modifications or repairs made to the wetland
Periodically assess the wetland’s performance against the established
objectives and performance criteria
Performance Analyze monitoring data to identify any trends or deviations from
evaluation expected outcomes
Implement corrective actions or modifications as needed to optimize
performance
Ensure compliance with relevant regulatory requirements and permit
conditions
Compliance and Prepare periodic reports documenting the wetland’s performance,
reporting monitoring results, and any remedial actions taken
Communicate the findings and outcomes to stakeholders, regulatory
agencies, and the public as necessary

56
 Spreading
Awareness

Training of
Analysis
staff

Quality
Assurance
Measures

Data Regular
management Checks

Figure 18: Basic quality assurance measures

After you’ve run the analyses, quality assessment is your assessment of the overall
precision and accuracy of your data.

8.3 Steps to Quality Control

Following steps are recommended for quality control

1. Consult technical committee and/or advisor to help determine quality

assurance/quality control measures to meet desired water quality requirements
2. Locate a quality control lab—an independent lab or tie-up with an external
Institution.
3. Determine which quality checks one has the resources and capabilities to carry
out.

57
58
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Conclusions

One of the most common applications of CWs has been the treatment of primary or
secondary domestic sewage effluent. A large number of wetlands have been constructed to treat
drainage has been active across all across India. CWs are not commonly recommended for in-
situ treatment of water. Their primary purpose is to mimic the natural wetland processes, and
they are generally implemented in controlled settings rather than directly within contaminated
water sites. For instance, in wastewater treatment, the wastewater is first collected at a
centralized location and then channeled to the preliminary, primary, and secondary treatment
stages, where CWs are integrated as part of the overall treatment process. This allows for more
effective and controlled water purification while ensuring optimal performance of the CWs.

According to the survey, the design and operational circumstances are suitable for
wastewater treatment. The focus is on maximization of efficiency, cost minimization,
ecological sanitation, and water reuse. Key features of the survey report are listed below:
1) The treatment facility at AMU has been functioning very well from primary to tertiary
treatment, providing water for multiple uses.
2) The time frame of the established wetlands and their monitoring is approximately 2 to
5 years, which gives an idea that wetlands are good enough to treat wastewater in the
long run. However, still, it will be too early to conclude anything.
3) The major advantage of the wetlands is that they could even be established in a small
space example, Sati Nagar wetland.
4) The wastewater must be treated sufficiently high for public health standards. A filtration
and disinfection process will usually be required before the water for multiple uses of
water.
5) Advancements in technologies is still required to address the problems such as foam
formation, pathogens removal, etc.
6) The total area required for wastewater treatment depends on distinct parameters such
as the unit’s capacity, primary treatment, secondary treatment process, total wetlands
units, tertiary treatment, and storage area.
7) The structure recognized with minimum requirements should incorporate a minimum
of three general compartments. The first zone is screening and sedimentation. Second
zone, secondary treatment process as required, and space CWs could be constructed.
Third storage and discharge unit.

9.2 Recommendations

Maintenance of CWs, based on the condition and performance of the wetland, is

followed as;

• Inspect and remove rubbish and debris from inlets

• Check the area around the inlet, especially energy dissipation (rip rap) structures, for
erosion and cracking, and if present, repair.
• Assuring that flows reach all parts of the wetland.

59
• Inspect and clear all litter, including leaves, rubbish, branches, and any other material
that would block flows.
• Check racks for corrosion and replace if necessary.
• Maintaining a healthy environment for microbes
• Check the forebay for accumulated sediment. The forebay should be generally dredged
if sediment fills over 50% of the design volume.
• Maintaining a vigorous growth of vegetation.
• Control structures could be overgrown with vegetation.
• A wastewater application schedule should be selected that is both convenient and
relatively continuous. Short, high-flow discharges to a wetland are more likely to erode
or damage established vegetation than lower velocity, more continuous flows.
• Inspect control structures, weirs, orifices, and outfall pipes for leaks and blockages. The
blockage could be sediment build up, floating debris, or rubbish.
• Clear and remove all blockages to avoid local flooding. Areas around the control
structure need to be clear of vegetation and rubbish to maintain storm water flow. A
boat may be required to access the outlet.
• Remove any blockages to ensure the emergency overflow path remains clear of debris
and blockages. Check flow path for erosion and repair as necessary. Structural repairs
must be repaired immediately to avoid catastrophic failure.
• Scheduling discharges to or from the wetland, recycling/redirecting flows, or rotating
between cells, if such, are part of the design.

60
10.0 REFERENCES

1. CGWB, (2007) cgwb.gov.in/documents/artificialrecharge-guide.pdf

2. CPCB, (2019) https://cpcb.nic.in/wqm/Designated_Best_Use_Water_Quality_Criteria.
3. CPHEEO, (2013). Manual on sewerage and sewage treatment systems.
4. DBT Manual on constructed wetland as an alternative technology for sewage
management in India (2019) Department of Bio Technology (DBT), New Delhi.
5. Hawke, C. and José, P., (1996). Reedbed management for commercial and wildlife
interests. Royal Society for the protection of Birds.
6. Hill, C., (1997). Payne Engineering: “Constructed wetlands for livestock wastewater
management. Literature review, database and research synthesis”. Gulf of Mexico
Program, Nutrient Enrichment Committee.
7. Hoffmann H., Platzer C., Winker M., von Muench E. (2011) Technology review of
Hydraulic Engineering, 116(5), 691-706.
8. Kadlec, R. H., & Knight, R. L. (1996). Treatment wetlands. CRC. Baca Raton, FL.
9. Kadlec, R.H., (2009). Comparison of free water and horizontal subsurface treatment
wetlands. Ecological engineering, 35(2), pp.159-174.
10. Kalbar, P. P. (2021). Hybrid treatment systems: a paradigm shift to achieve sustainable
wastewater treatment and recycling in India. Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy. 23(4), 1365–1373.
11. Ministry of Jal Shakti (2012) National Water Policy.
12. MoEFCC, (1999). Municipal Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1999.
13. Molle, P., Liénard, A., Boutin, C., Merlin, G., & Iwema, A. (2005). How to treat raw
sewage with constructed wetlands: an overview of the French systems. Water Science
and Technology, 51(9), 11-21.
14. NMCG (2022). National Framework on Safe Reuse of Treated Water.
15. Parde, D., Patwa, A., Shukla, A., Vijay, R., Killedar, D. J., & Kumar, R. (2021). A
review of constructed wetland on type, treatment and technology of wastewater.
Environmental Technology & Innovation, 21, 101261.
16. Personal Communication, (Gupta, A.B., and Soti, Abhishek., August 2023).
17. Personal communication, (Kalbar, Pradip., July 2023).
18. Personal communication, (Reddy, Ganges., August 2023).
19. Rousseau, D. P., Vanrolleghem, P. A., & De Pauw, N. (2004). Model-based design of
horizontal subsurface flow constructed treatment wetlands: a review. Water research,
38(6), 1484-1493.
20. Sainty, G. and Beharrel, M., (1998). Wetland plants. Chapter, 9, pp.122-137.
21. Singh, S., Soti, A., Kulshreshtha, N. M., Brighu, U., & Gupta, A. B. (2022). Customized
design of horizontal flow constructed wetlands employing secondary datasets.
Bioresource Technology Reports, 18, 101037.
22. Singh, S., Soti, A., Kulshreshtha, N. M., Kumar, N., Brighu, U., Gupta, A. B., &
Bezbaruah, A. N. (2023). Optimization of depth of filler media in horizontal flow

61
 constructed wetlands for maximizing removal rate coefficients of targeted pollutant (s).
Bioresource Technology, 376, 128898.
23. Soti, A., Singh, S., Verma, V., Kulshreshtha, N. M., Brighu, U., Kalbar, P., & Gupta,
A. B. (2022). Designing the vertical flow constructed wetland based on targeted
limiting pollutant. Bioresource Technology, 351, 127068.
24. Soti, A., Singh, S., Verma, V., Kulshreshtha, N. M., Brighu, U., Kalbar, P., & Gupta,
A. B. (2023). Assessment of removal rate coefficient in vertical flow constructed
wetland employing machine learning for low organic loaded systems. Bioresource
Technology, 376, 128909.
25. Wood, A. (1995). Constructed wetlands in water pollution control: fundamentals to
their understanding. Water Science and Technology, 32(3), 21-29.
26. US EPA (2000) Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA
625/R-99/010, U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
27. USDA, (1991) Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC, United
States.
28. UN-HABITAT, 2008. Constructed Wetlands Manual. UN-HABITAT Water for Asian
29. Wang, T., Liu, R., O’Meara, K., Mullan, E., & Zhao, Y. (2018). Assessment of a field
tidal flow constructed wetland in treatment of swine wastewater: life cycle
approach. Water, 10(5), 573.

62
Appendix – I: Case Studies

Case Study 1: Sewage & Wastewater at the Heartfulness World HQ, Kanha Village for
SMSF & SKGL:

A mega integrated township with residences, kitchens, canteens, training halls, huge
congregation facilities, mega toilet blocks etc with a challenging scenario of hosting 50,000+
at times and scaling down to 20,000 or 10,000 or just residents who are in fewer thousands.
The system receives varying volumes of wastewater ranging from 200 KLD to 2,400 KLD.

BlueDrop has demonstrated phenomenal success in setting up the Aerated Wetlands in

a span of 60 calendar days to meet a huge worldwide congregation deadline. The Aerated
Wetland System performed the work like a breeze delivering absolute clear water meeting the
PCB norms. System was commissioned on January 27, 2020.

Design Capacity: 2.40 MLD

Type of water: Domestic (Apartments, Kitchen, Canteen, Group Toilet blocks)
Address: SMSF/SKGL, 13-110 Kanha Village, Ranga Reddy dist, Telangana - 509325

Treatment units:

• Manual Bar Screen chamber (10mm & 6 mm screens)

• Wet-well (400 KLD)
• Holding tank 1 (1600 KLD Newly built)
• Holding tank 2 (600 KLD pre-existing tank, repurposed)
• Aerated Wetland Cells: 2 Nos;1000 SQM Each
• Treated water collection sump

PARAMETERS BOD COD TSS Sulphate Chloride TDS pH

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Inlet 187.70 232.50 133.00 165 185 1248 6.30
Treated <5.00 21.25 10.00 83.5 171.48 906.00 7.76

Table CS3-1: Sewage & Wastewater at the Heartfulness World HQ, Kanha Village for
SMSF & SKGL:

Information CWs Description

Location of CW Kanha Santhi Vanam Kanha Village, Hyderabad
Geographical Coordinates 17°10'46.19"N 78°13'39.31"E
Source of Wastewater Apartments, Kitchen, Canteen, Group Toilet blocks
Type of Wastewater Domestic wastewater
Primary Treatment Holding tank
Type of Constructed Wetland Aerated Constructed Wetland
Tertiary Treatment No
Vegetation Type Canna indica
Substrate Used Coarse gravel media
Year of Operation Started 2020
Area 2 Nos;1000 SQM Each

63
Capacity 2.40 MLD
Capital cost Rs. 25,000,000
Uses of Harvested Plants Biomass No
Uses of Treated Water Treated water collection sump
Designed and Constructed By BlueDrop Pvt. Ltd.

Figure: Actual pictures of the established CWs

64
 Raw Primary Holding Secondary
Sewage Stage Tank 1 & 2 Treatment

Aerated Treated
Constructe water
d wetlands Collection
Sump

Figure: Process flow diagram

65
Case Study – 2: NCD Vivanta Central Court (150 KLD): Commissioned December 2021

A luxury apartment community at Mokilla. The Developer having seen the complex
and struggle some conventional systems in various residential apartment communities have
come to a conclusion to adopt a better and environment friendly technology. BlueDrop Enviro
Pvt Ltd has utilized part of their garden areas to create the Aerated Wetlands and have
commissioned the system in late 2021. System has been working steadily with low
maintenance and high aesthetics with zero odour. Residents enjoy being around this people
friendly STP.

Design Capacity: 150 KLD

Type of water: Domestic Wastewater
Designed and constructed by: BlueDrop Enviro Pvt. Ltd.
Address: Mokila near Sankarapally

Treatment units:
• Manual Bar Screen chamber (10mm screen)
• 3 chamber Holding tank (150 KLD)
• Wetland cells 2 each 75 SQM
• Treated Water Collection Sump (2 partitions)
• Tertiary treatment (Ozonator)

PARAMETERS BOD COD TSS Sulphate Chloride O&G pH

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Inlet 178 273 125 85 156 12 6.5
Treated <10 <10 <10 <15 130 <5 7.5

Table CS3-1: NCD Vivanta Central Court (150 KLD)

Information CWs Description

Location of CW NCD Vivanta Central Court
Geographical Coordinates 17°43’13.00"N 78°19’64.52"E
Source of Wastewater Communities Wastewater
Type of Wastewater Domestic Wastewater
Primary Treatment Holding tank
Type of Constructed Wetland Aerated Constructed Wetlands
Tertiary Treatment Ozonator
Vegetation Type Canna indica
Substrate Used Coarse gravel media
Year of Operation Started 2021
Area Wetland cells 2 each 75 SQM
Capacity 150 KLD
Capital cost Rs. 3,000,000
Uses of Harvested Plants Biomass No
Uses of Treated Water Treated Water Collection Sump
Designed and Constructed By BlueDrop Enviro Pvt. Ltd.

66
 Figure: Actual Picture of Constructed Wetlands

Primary 3 Chamber Secondary

Raw Sewage Holding
Stage Treatment
Tank

Aerated Treated
Constructed water
wetlands Collection
Sump

Figure: Process flow diagram

67
68
Case Study – 3: Sewage Wastewater at Hyderabad for NISA, Hakimpet:

An institutional residential set up which has a defunct Sewage Treatment Plant wanted
to set up a new system. The treated water is the only source they have to water their lush green
lawns of their Golf Course. BlueDrop proposed extremely optimized solution utilizing their
existing tanks etc. and just adding two Aerated Wetlands.

BlueDrop demonstrated a great success with the setting up all new Aerated Wetlands
system within 60 working days and has taken care of the golf course needs through the hot
summer. System was commissioned on March 15, 2020.

Treatment units:

• Manual Bar Screen chamber (10mm & 6 mm screens)

• Wet-well (30 KLD)
• Holding tanks -2 No each (150 KLD pre-existing tanks, repurposed)
• Aerated Wetlands Cells: 2 Nos each 100 SQM
• Treated water collection sump

PARAMETERS BOD COD TSS Sulphate Chloride O&G pH

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Inlet 186 281 48 75 147 8 7.12
Treated 8 47 12 53 126 <5 7.34

Table CS3-1: Sewage Wastewater at Hyderabad for NISA, Hakimpet

Information CWs Description

Location of CW NISA, Hakimpet
Geographical Coordinates 17°32'36.51"N 78°32'28.22"E
Source of Wastewater Institutional residential
Type of Wastewater Domestic Wastewater
Primary Treatment Holding tanks
Type of Constructed Wetland Aerated Wetlands
Tertiary Treatment No
Vegetation Type Canna indica
Substrate Used Coarse gravel media
Year of Operation Started 2020
Area 2 Nos each 100 SQM
Capacity 150 KLD
Capital cost Rs. 5,600,000
Uses of Harvested Plants Biomass No
Uses of Treated Water Treated water collection sump
Designed and Constructed By BlueDrop Enviro Pvt. Ltd.

69
 Primary 2-Holding Secondary
Raw Sewage
Stage Tank Treatment

Aerated Treated
Constructed water
wetlands Collection
Sump

Figure: Process flow diagram

Figure: Actual Picture of Constructed Wetlands

70
Case Study – 4: NIH Colony, Roorkee, Uttarakhand:

The NIH Roorkee CW project serves as a promising model for sewage treatment in
residential areas. Its cost-effective capital investment of Rs. 20 lakhs for a 0.04 MLD capacity
and an area of 300m2 highlights the feasibility and affordability of such treatment systems. The
project's positive environmental impact and efficient pollutant removal demonstrate the
potential of CWs as a sustainable and ecologically friendly solution for sewage treatment. The
CW at NIH Colony, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, has demonstrated remarkable success in treating
residential sewage using horizontal flow CWs with Canna indica vegetation and graded gravel
media as substrate. Since its operation began in 2021, the CW has consistently shown effective
pollutant removal. The treatment efficiency is evident from the significant reduction in various
water quality parameters, such as COD (91.66%), Ammonia (94.31%), BOD (90.90%), and
TSS (74.80%). Moreover, the CW has effectively improved the pH and DO levels of the treated
water. The success of this site is further enhanced by the use of the harvested plant biomass,
which is utilized for composting purpose. Additionally, the treated water is employed for
irrigation in green areas, contributing to sustainable water reuse and environmental
conservation.

Treatment units:

• Septic Tank
• Horizontal Flow CWs
• Treated water collection

BOD COD TSS Sulphate Chloride O&G

PARAMETERS pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Inlet 110 360 36.12 NA NA NA 7.49
Treated 10 30 9.1 NA NA NA 7.68

Table CS4-1: Details of the CW based STP at NIH colony Roorkee, Uttarakhand
Information CWs Description
Location of CW Barampur village, NIH Colony Roorkee,
Uttarakhand
Geographical Coordinates 29°53'08.9"N 77°55'38.2"E
Source of Wastewater Residential
Type of Wastewater Sewage
Primary Treatment Septic Tank
Type of Constructed Wetland Horizontal Flow CWs
Vegetation Type Canna indica
Substrate Used Graded Gravel Media
Year of Operation Started 2021
Area 300m2
Capacity 0.04 MLD
Capital cost Rs. 20 lakhs
Uses of Harvested Plants Biomass Composting
Uses of Treated Water Green area irrigation
Designed and Constructed By NIH Roorkee

71
 Secondary
Raw Sewage Primary Stage Septic Tank
Treatment

Horizontal
flow Effluent
constructed
wetland

Figure: Actual view of the CWs at NIH Roorkee

72
Case Study – 5: Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)

The CWs at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Uttar Pradesh, stand as a shining
example of effective and sustainable sewage treatment. The CW system, designed and
constructed by AMU in 2017, utilizes a hybrid approach with Vertical Flow CW and Horizontal
Flow CW, along with Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket for primary treatment and Solar
Driven UV Disinfection for tertiary treatment. This integrated approach ensures efficient
pollutant removal and water purification. AMU's CW system effectively removes various water
quality parameters, with remarkable removal rates of 93.58% for TSS, 99.31% for BOD,
85.77% for COD, and complete removal of ammonia. The CWs have significantly improved
the pH and DO levels of the treated water, meeting high-quality standards. Furthermore, the
treated water finds valuable application in green area irrigation, enhancing the campus
environment and conserving water resources. AMU's CW project serves as a model for other
institutions and municipalities, demonstrating the potential for sustainable sewage treatment
solutions. The integration of natural treatment processes with advanced technologies like UV
disinfection showcases the versatility and adaptability of CWs.

Primary Sedimentati Anaerobic

Raw Sewage
Stage on Tank System

Secondary Hybrid Tertiary Solar Driven

treatment constructed Treatment Disinfection
wetlands System

Effluent

PARAMETERS BOD COD TSS Sulphate Chloride O&G pH

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Inlet 98 487 326 NA NA NA 7.19

Treated 0.00 2 7 NA NA NA 7.11

Table CS5-1: Details of the CW based STP at AMU Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh

Information CWs Description

Location of CW AMU Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
Geographical Coordinates 27.921463, 78.065309
Source of Wastewater Institutional

73
Type of Wastewater Sewage
Primary Treatment Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
Type of Constructed Wetland Hybrid CWs (VF CW and HF CW)
Tertiary Treatment Solar Driven UV Disinfection
Vegetation Type Phargmites australis and Canna indica
Substrate Used Graded Gravel Media
Year of Operation Started 2017
Area -
Capacity 1 MLD
Capital cost Rs. -
Uses of Harvested Plants Biomass -
Uses of Treated Water Green area irrigation
Designed and Constructed By AMU

Figure: Actual view of the CWs at AMU

74
Case Study -6: CW at Dharamsala Near bus stand, Himachal Pradesh

The Hybrid CW near the bus stand in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, is a testament to
effective community sewage treatment with a sustainable approach. Designed and constructed
by Rebound Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd in 2018, this CW system utilizes a combination of natural
and Multi Baffle Anaerobic Reactor.The CWs with an area of 500m2 and with a capacity of
0.2 MLD, the CW efficiently treats sewage sourced from the community. The capital cost of
Rs. 80 Lakh showcases the economic feasibility of implementing nature-based treatment
solutions.

The CW employs Canna indica vegetation and graded gravel media as substrates,
enabling the effective removal of pollutants. The system has proven highly efficient in treating
wastewater, achieving remarkable removal rates of 96.66% for TSS, 96% for BOD, 88.88%
for COD, and 95.96% for ammonia. Moreover, it successfully maintains the pH and DO levels
within acceptable ranges, ensuring water quality compliance.

The harvested plant biomass finds a valuable purpose in composting, contributing to

waste reduction and resource recovery. Furthermore, the treated water is safely discharged into
water bodies, minimizing environmental impact and preserving local ecosystems.

Dharamsala's CW project serves as a sustainable sewage treatment model for

communities, inspiring other regions to adopt similar environmentally friendly solutions.

PARAMETERS BOD COD TSS Sulphate Chloride O&G pH

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Inlet 140 490 491 NA NA NA 7.59
Treated 14 44 17 NA NA NA 7.41

Table CS6-1: Details of the CW based STP at Dharamsala Near bus stand, Himachal
Pradesh

Information CWs Description

Location of CW Dharamsala Near bus stand, Himachal Pradesh
Geographical Coordinates 32°13'05.6"N 76°19'02.3"E
Source of Wastewater Community
Type of Wastewater Sewage
Primary Treatment Multi Baffle Anaerobic Reactor
Type of Constructed Wetland Hybrid CWs
Vegetation Type Canna indica
Substrate Used Graded Gravel Media
Year of Operation Started 2018
Area 500m2
Capacity 0.2MLD
Capital cost Rs. 80 Lakh
Uses of Harvested Plants Biomass Compositing
Uses of Treated Water Discharge into water bodies

75
 Multi Baffled
Secondary
Raw Sewage Primary Stage Anaerobic
Treatment
Reactor

Constructed Tertiary
Chlorination Effluent
wetland Treatment

Figure: Actual view of the CWs at Dharamsala Near bus stand, Himachal Pradesh

76
Appendix –II: Data Collection for Constructed Wetlands Designing
General
1. Location for the proposed CW-STP:
2. Geographical Coordinates (Latitude/Longitude/Altitude):
3. Regulatory Requirements:
4. Details of Location (Demography, name nearest town, District & State):
5. Site Characteristics:
a. Topography
b. Soil type
c. Hydrology
d. Climatic conditions
6. Wastewater Source:
a. Average Daily Flow Rate (if known):
b. Peak Flow Rate (if known):
c. Water Quality of the influent

Parameters Influent
pH
DO (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Electrical Conductivity
(mS/cm)
Ammonia (mg/L)
Nitrite (mg/L)
Nitrate (mg/L)
T. Nitrogen (mg/L)
T. Phosphate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
COD (mg/L)
BOD (mg/L)
Coliforms
Oil and Greases
Heavy Metals

7. Treatment Specifications:
a. Required Capacity for Treatment:
b. Total Land Area Available:
c. Treatment Goals:
d. Removal Efficiency for Pollutants
e. Specific Water Quality Targets (e.g. washing, irrigation): As per the standard
recommendations

77
 8. Design of Primary and Preliminary Treatment:
9. Design Parameters CWs:
a. Wetland Type:
b. Surface Area of the Wetland:
c. Depth of Wetland Bed:
d. Flow Path Length:
e. Hydraulic Retention Time:
f. Inlet and Outlet Structure Design:

Length (m)= Breadth (m)= Height (m)=

Total depth of substrate layer height of each substrate
Hydraulic Loading Rate =
= layer=
Hydraulic Retention Time = Flow Rate= Water depth=
Treatment capacity = Actual Treatment Area= Population equivalent (PE) =
Total land area (m2) = Land area per PE (m2/PE) = Cost per PE (Rs/ PE) =

10. Vegetation and Plant Species:

a. Source of Plant Material:
b. List of Plant Species Locally available:
c. Quantity of Each Plant Species Available:
11. Construction Materials and Specifications:
a. Gravel Type and Size:
b. Liners Specifications:
c. Piping Materials and Size:
d. Other Construction Materials:
12. Operations and Maintenance:
a. Regular Maintenance Plan:
b. Monitoring Frequency:
c. Parameters to be Monitored:
d. Record-Keeping System:
e. Total Cost of O& M
13. Budget and Resources:
a. Estimated Budget:
b. Resources Available:

78
Appendix – III: List of CW service provider companies and agencies

List of some of agencies involved in the construction, operation and maintenance of

constructed wetlands-based wastewater treatment facilities in India is provided for information
only. The authors don’t take any responsibility of their work and should not be construed as
approved by any agency.

S. No. Address of Contact Person/ Agency

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
1. Patancheru 502324 Telangana, Hyderabad
Email: icrisat@cgiar org
Blue Drop Enviro Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad
Sri Krishna Homes, Plot 13/A, Masjid Banda,
2.
Kondapur, Telangana 500084,
Email: [email protected]
E3BIOCLEANTECH Private Ltd.
Dr. Mohit Singh Rana
3. TIDES Business Incubator, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee
Uttarakhand- 247 667
Email: [email protected]
Tejas Kotak
Sankalan (Managing director)
A centre for alternative learning
4.
13-16, Mahadev Nagar, B/H Valdas Nagar,
Mirzapar Highway, Bhuj-Kutch-Gujarat.
E mail : [email protected]
Consortium of DEWATS Dissemination (CDD)
Society 621, 5th Main Road, OMBR Layout,
5.
Banaswadi Post, Bengaluru -560043
Email:[email protected]; [email protected]
Shrishti Eco-Research Institute
6. Name: Sayali Joshi
Country/Town: Pune, Email: [email protected]
Centre for Science and Environment
7. 41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area New Delhi-110062
[email protected]
Technogreen Environmental Solution, Pune
Sagar Society, Building No. 26,
8. Scheme No. 10, Sector Number 21,
Wakadewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune, Maharashtra 411003.
Email: [email protected]
Ayala Natural Biological Systems Private
Ms. Sindhu Cherian
9. #33 Promenade Road, Frazer Town,
Bengaluru 560 005 Karnataka,
Email: [email protected]

79