1. Specialist Group on
Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control
Newsletter No. 40
July 2012
Edited by: Dr Suwasa Kantawanichkul
Department of Environmental Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Chiang Mai University
Chiang Mai 50200
Thailand
Email: suwasa@eng.cmu.ac.th
Group organisation
Chair: Dr Jan Vymazal (vymazal@yahoo.com)
Secretary: Dr Suwasa Kantawanichkul (suwasa@eng.cmu.ac.th)
Regional Coordinators
ASIA: Dr Zhai Jun (zhaijun99@126.com; zhaijun@cqu.edu.cn)
Dr Suwasa Kantwanichkul (suwasa@eng.cmu.ac.th)
AUSTRALIA: Dr Margaret Greenway (m.greenway@mailbox.gu.edu.au)
NEW ZEALAND: Dr Chris C Tanner (c.tanner@niwa.co.nz)
EUROPE: Dr Jan Vymazal (vymazal@yahoo.com)
Professor Reimund Harberl (raimund.haberl@boku.ac.at)
Dr Guenter Langergraber (guenter.langergraber@boku.ac.at)
Professor Brian Shutes (b.shutes@mdx.ac.uk)
Dr Fabio Masi (masi@iridra.com)
Mr Heibert Rustige (rustige@akut-umwelt.de)
MIDDLE EAST: Professor Michal Green (agmgreen@tx.technion.ac.il)
Dr Tom Headley tom.headley@bauerenvironment.com
NORTH AMERICA: Dr Otto Stein (ottos@ce.montana.edu)
SOUTH AMERICA: Dr Gabriela Dotro (gdotro@gmail.com)
AFRICA Professor Jamidu H.Y.Katima (jkatima@udsm.ac.tz)
Dr Akintunde Babatunde (akintunde.babatunde@ucd.ie)
Disclaimer: This is not a journal, but a Newsletter issued by the IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water
Pollution Control. Statements made in this Newsletter do not necessarily represent the views of the Specialist Group or those
of the IWA. The use of information supplied in the Newsletter is at the sole risk of the user, as the Specialist Group and the
IWA do not accept any responsibility or liability.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 1
2. CONTENTS
Message from the Chair…………………………..............…………………………………………3
Interviewing Hans Brix
Frank van Dien……………………………………………….....………………………………………4
Balancing wetland clogging management and whole-life costs at a UK water utility
G. Dotro, M. Jones, E. Butterworth and B. Jefferson……………………………………………..8
New cooperation between BOKU and Ecole de Mines de Nantes on modelling of integrated
sludge and wastewater treatment wetlands
Guenter Langergraber and Florent Chazarenc…………………………………………………..12
Constructed wetlands and land reclamation in Palestine
Fabio Masi…………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
National urban wetland parks of China
Jun Zhai and Xi Lu……………………………………………………………………………………17
Subsurface flow constructed wetlands as wildlife habitat: a case study in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania
Anne H. Outwater…………………….………………………………………………………………20
Announcement: Sustainable Sanitation Practice journal…………………………………………25
Updates on IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition, Busan, Korea,
16–21 September 2012……………………………………….……………………………………… 26
10th IWA Leading Edge Conference on Water and Waste Water Technologies, Bordeaux,
France, 3–6 June, 2013……………………………………….……………………………………… 27
The IWA Water Wiki!……………………………………….……………………………………… 28
New from IWA Publishing………………………………………………………………………… 30
___________________________________________________________________________
2 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
3. Message from the Chair
Dear Group members,
I would like to draw your attention to the election of Group Chair and Secretary. As
you may know during the conference in India in 2008 we agreed that these two positions
should be elected for four years. Therefore, the current officers Jan and Suwasa will finish
their term during the conference in Perth in November 2012. The time is passing by and it is
time to proceed with the election. The election procedure is described below and we would
greatly appreciate if you can participate in the election. Please do not rely on other people and
cast your vote.
Election of officers
At this point we would like to call for candidates for both positions. The procedure is
as follows:
1. Each member of the Specialist Group (current active IWA membership mandatory) can
propose a candidate for both positions. The proposal should include up to one page
Curriculum Vitae of the candidate and this proposal should be supported by another two
members of the Group (active IWA membership mandatory). The proposal should include a
written statement of the nominee that he/she agrees with the nomination.
2. Deadline for proposals: August 31, 2012.
3. Proposals should be sent to both Jan (vymazal@yahoo.com) and Suwasa
(suwasa@eng.cmu.ac.th)
3. The Chair and Secretary will prepare ballots for both positions and the ballots will be sent
out to all members by September 15, 2012. The ballots should be returned to Jan and Suwasa.
4. Deadline for voting: November 15, 2012.
5. The results will be announced during the Group meeting at the conference in Perth and the
results will be sent to all Group members after the conference.
Call for the Group conference in 2014
So far we have not received any proposals for the 2014 conference. The agreed policy
is that Institutions (countries) which are willing to host the conference should send the
preliminary proposal to the Chair and Secretary by the end of June. Therefore, I would greatly
appreciate if the interested parties may send the proposals for the first evaluation as soon as
possible.
Have a great summer and see you in Perth
Jan
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 3
4. Interviewing Hans Brix
Frank van Dien
ECOFYT, The Natherlands
Probably most people know you as one of the leading people
in the Constructed Wetland world. You've been keynote
speaker on many conferences on wetlands so surely: many
people have seen your face. And you were involved in the
PhD's of several people I know so surely: many people have
worked with you... But maybe it's time for even more people
to find out a little more about you. For starters, I wonder:
Where in your life did things definitely turn in the
direction that resulted in your role in the constructed
wetlands?
During my PhD in the beginning of the eighties, I studied
internal gas transport and gas-emission in the common reed –
Phragmites australis. My supervisor – Prof. Hans-Henrik
Schierup – had worked with primary production in
Phragmites wetlands, and so we were probably the scientists in Denmark knowing most about
Phragmites wetlands. Therefore, we were also consulted in the early eighties, when a new
natural technology called the ‘Root Zone Technique’ was
marketed in Denmark by a small Danish company (Dansk 1955: born in Jerslev, Denmark
Rodzoneteknik) that was associated to Prof. Kickuth in 1981: Master degree in Biology
1987: First paper on constructed
Germany. The marketing was targeted at municipalities and wetlands published
counties that, because of new legislation, had to establish 1988: Establishment of IWA
effective wastewater treatment in all small villages in rural Specialist Group on the Use of
areas. The Root Zone Method was marketed as a Macrophytes in Water Pollution
decentralised solution capable of removing everything, Control
1989: PhD in Biology
including nitrogen and phosphorus, with efficiencies better 2006: Promoted to full professor
than 90%. Furthermore, it was claimed that the costs of at Aarhus University
establishment were less than half, and the operating costs less
than 10%, of that of more conventional treatment options.
Hence, the Root Zone Method was a very attractive treatment option for local municipalities.
Decision makers and engineers from the municipalities were invited by Prof. Kickuth and his
Danish representative to visit a Phragmites wetland in Othfresen, Germany, that had received
untreated domestic wastewater since 1974. Several tourist coaches were filled with local
politicians and people from the technical offices of the municipalities to visit Germany, where
they enjoyed wine and music in the Harzen area, and most importantly, watched Prof. Kickuth
drink from the effluent of the Othfresen wetland system. Once back in Denmark, nearly
everybody was convinced about the proficiency of this new ‘natural’ technology, and during
the following couple of years, several hundred Root Zone systems were constructed in
Denmark.
I was of course also very intrigued by this new fantastic technology that was based on ‘my’
study plant. Therefore I started to look for scientific documentation for the functioning and
performance of Root Zone Systems. Together with Hans-Henrik Schierup, I visited several
sites and research groups in Europe working with the use of wetlands for wastewater
treatment, including the Lelystad systems in the Netherlands, Max-Planck Institute systems in
___________________________________________________________________________
4 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
5. France, the multistage systems of Dr. Michel Radoux, Belgium, and Root Zone systems in
Germany. Subsequently, I investigated in some detail the wetland system in Othfresen, from
which Prof. Kickuth drank the effluent to prove the extraordinary efficiency of the Root Zone
method. And I discovered, that the ‘effluent’ water, that Prof. Kickuth drank, actually was
groundwater drawn from deep below the wetland, with no relation to the wastewater that was
being loaded into the system.
Although the scientific documentation for the functioning of Root Zone Systems was non-
existing, we ended up with more than 200 systems being constructed in Denmark in the
eighties. I started to carry out research particularly on the role of the plants in the systems in
relation to the treatment of wastewater. And in the late eighties I started to cooperate with
groups from other European countries–Paul Cooper, Raimund Haberl, Alain Lienard, among
others–to exchange experiences.
Ho, wait! Did you just say that Prof. Kickuth tricked his entire public? Didn’t any good
come out of his wetlands? Of course I know all these names, but not this story! Can you
tell a little about the results of your findings?
Our studies showed, that the soil-based root-zone systems were removing TSS and BOD
rather efficiently (>80% removal in general), but removal of nitrogen and phosphorus was
low (20–50%) are were mostly related to the removal in sludge in the sedimentation tank and
the bed itself. The systems did not nitrify–which was a problem in many places, as there was
effluent standards for ammonium. Despite the disappointing results, municipalities continued
to build these systems for several years, because the Kickuth related company claimed, that it
would take about five years before the full performance of the system could be expected. The
reeds were supposed, during this five year period, to increase the hydraulic conductivity of
the soils, and once the conductivity was high, the treatment performance should be as claimed.
This, however, never happened. All systems were plagued with surface runoff–wastewater
bypassing the bed and going more or less directly to the effluent.
Now 25 years later, many of the soil-based root-zone systems have been closed down or
amended with additional technologies for nitrification. Presently, hundreds of vertical flow
wetlands and evaporative willow systems are being constructed for single households in the
countryside every year.
What do you prefer as a “name”: Constructed Wetland or Treatment Wetland?
I do prefer Constructed Wetland for systems established for the treatment of different types of
wastewater as this is the name that has been most widely accepted in both the technical and
scientific community. I realise that it maybe would be more correct to use a term related to
the function that the wetland is performing–namely ‘wastewater treatment’–rather than to
refer to the fact that the wetland is constructed. However, constructed wetlands and treatment
wetlands are not exactly the same. Constructed wetlands are ‘constructed’, and hence do not
include natural wetlands; whereas ‘treatment wetlands’ can be constructed, but can also be
natural wetlands removing e.g. nutrients from surface and drainage water. In some of the
older literature the term ‘artifical wetlands’ is used, but as ‘artificial’ nowadays has a
negative flavour, this term is not used anymore. In the EU expert group we used the name
‘Emergent Hydrophyte Treatment Systems’–or EHTS-systems–in order to exclude systems
with submerged plants. However, the name has been a recuring discussion, and actually most
countries and designing engineers now use their own specific terminology. The name
Constructed Wetland is widely accepted throughout the world, so let’s stick with that.
I agree that we’re running towards the end of this discussion, or at least the
attractiveness of it, but I liked to hear the first-hand opinion!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 5
6. The next question that comes up is: do you see Constructed Wetlands as an ultimate
solution for waste water? And if so, in general or just occasional, i.e. when no sewer
system is available?
Constructed wetlands is just one of several available wastewater treatment options that can be
used as an onsite solution for wastewater management. In every site a proper selection of
treatment option should be made based on the site-specific conditions. In some cases other
solutions like soil infiltration, sand filters, technical systems or even pumping of the
wastewater to a centralised facility may prove to be a more appropriate solution depending on
the specific site-conditions and treatment requirements. Several individuals–and small design
companies–seem to be religious about the technology they are selling, and will propose a
constructed wetland system in all situations. This is a great mistake, and contributes to the
CW treatment technology in general.
Ha-ha, being from the small design company corner, I’ll make sure to hide for you all
the second best CW solutions I built! But sure: it is situational but some say: “At the
very much lower energy input CW’s demand, they could be considered a better option
in more cases”. I understand in your answer that you agree with that?
Here’s a daring question for you! Do you think the horizontal system is superior to the
vertical or is it the other way around or do we simply need them both?
The question is not as straight forward as it seems. The constructed wetland technology spans
a whole range of systems ranging from relatively ‘passive’ systems like horizontal subsurface
flow systems that require very little infrastructure and control structures, over vertical flow
systems that have more infrastructure and control but requires less foot-print, to more
technical systems amended with artificial aeration or tidal water flow. The latter are very
efficient, but resemble conventional technical systems in terms of energy usage and
complexity of design. The roles of the plants in the systems are largest in the passive systems,
while in the intensified systems the plants can probably be omitted (hence, one could
question if we are dealing with constructed wetlands in these cases?). I believe that every one
of these technologies has its place as a treatment option. And it will be the site-specific
conditions that will dictate which treatment option, or combination of treatment options, is
best fitted to solve the wastewater management problem at the specific site.
And if we take it in the greater perspective, what does our own (waste) water world
need most at the moment?
Here it is important to distinguish between developing countries and the more developed
western world. In many developing countries, a proper disposal and cleaning of wastewater is
still lacking resulting in illness, transfer of pathogens, etc. It is urgent that these regions get
better wastewater management systems and access to pure water. In the longer term, reuse of
the treated wastewater must be implemented. In the developed world, removal of nutrients
from the wastewater is still an urgent issue in many areas. In the long term, a more
sustainable use of resources must be implemented, which will involve a reuse of nutrients
from the wastewater as well as reuse of treated effluent water.
Is there, to your knowledge, a Constructed Wetland that is an example for us all?
There are a few constructed wetland systems that are excellent examples of how constructed
wetlands can be used. I would like here to mention ‘the Flower and the Butterfly Wetland’
that was established at the tourist island Koh Phi Phi in Thailand after the tsunami in 2004.
The treatment facility is designed to resemble a butterfly sitting on a flower with a symbolic
reference to the butterfly shaped contour of Koh Phi Phi. The wetland system is designed as a
___________________________________________________________________________
6 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
7. recovery based closed-loop system where wastewater is collected, treated and reused in an
integrated system. Pumps are powered by solar panels, and the wetland is planted with
ornamental flowers in a park-like environment that can be used by the people for recreation.
This is a case where the concept behind the system as well as the system itself makes sense.
Overview picture of the Flower
and the Butterfly wastewater
management system at Koh Phi
Phi in October 2006 when the
system was put in operation.
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of problems with the system mainly because no key-
person or key-authority has taken responsibility for managing the system. But the concept–
and the system itself–is a showcase for how constructed wetlands can be fitted into the local
context and provide the basis for appropriate wastewater management. Information about the
project can be found in the book authored by Laugesen, Fryd, Koottatep and Brix entitled
“Sustainable Wastewater Management in Developing Countries” and published by ASCE
Press in 2010, and in a paper in Ecological Engineering 37(5): 729–735 published in 2011.
Oh yes, I do agree that this is a special wetland! I hope to visit it once!
The last question that I have for you is: who would you like to be interviewed the next
time?
I would suggest that your next interviewee should be Bob Kadlec whom I consider one of the
biggest capacities within the constructed wetland science. With his theoretical and practical
engineering background, Bob has managed to place the constructed wetland technology on
the agenda as an attractive alternative option to more conventional technologies for treating
many kinds of wastewater. His textbook on Treatment Wetlands is the constructed wetland
‘bible’ for academics as well as practitioners.
These are very solid reasons to ask him to be next! Thank you very much Hans, for your
contribution!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 7
8. Balancing wetland clogging management and whole-life costs at a UK water utility
G Dotro1,2, M Jones2, E Butterworth1,2 and B Jefferson1
1
School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Building 39, Cranfield, Bedfordshire
MK43 0AL, UK. (E-mail: g.c.dotro@cranfield.ac.uk)
2
Waste water research and development, Severn Trent Water, 2 St John’s Street, Coventry,
CV1 2LZ, UK
INTRODUCTION
Horizontal flow wetlands have been successfully used in the UK for the past 20 years for
sewage treatment. Severn Trent Water (ST) alone has an asset base of 633 wetlands, with
more than 80% used for tertiary or combined tertiary and storm overflow treatment. The age
of the systems can range from 18- 20 years to a few months old, with the technology has been
the polishing step of the standard flow sheet for small sewage treatment works serving less
than 2,000 p.e. since the 1990s (Green and Upton 1995).
Treatment wetlands have been extensively researched worldwide, with the majority of
operations being for treatment of domestic wastewaters but also agricultural runoff and
industrial wastewaters (IWA 2000, Kadlec and Wallace 2009). The main arguments for the
technology are related to low capital and operational costs when compared against
conventional treatment. To date, whilst numerous wetlands have been successfully installed
for tertiary treatment, limited research has been published on the actual business case for
tertiary treatment wetlands and their associated sizing criteria.
Subsurface flow systems, where the water level is below the gravel/media layer, have been
reported to suffer from clogging of the bed matrix as they age and accumulate solids, limiting
the hydraulic residence time and associated treatment (Knowles et al. 2011). Several
strategies have been proposed throughout the years to manage this operational problem,
including preventative (e.g., best management practices) and restorative (e.g., complete
refurbishment) strategies (Nivala et al. 2011).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of sizing decisions in terms of the
economic viability of the technology, using Severn Trent Water as an example. To put this in
context, the use and management of wetlands in Severn Trent was reviewed, including the
historic performance from selected sites. Whole life cost analysis was used to compare
undersized wetlands which require frequent intervention against conventional treatment
technologies, as well as a conservative sizing approach to reduce intervention requirements.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Tertiary treatment wetlands in ST can be used for two purposes, i.e., tertiary-only or
combined tertiary and sewer overflows treatment (Figure 1). Where a separate storm route is
present, this can be either a dedicated “storm” wetland or a storm storage tank with gross
solids entrapment provided by CopaSacs®.
___________________________________________________________________________
8 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
9. Figure 1. Flowsheets for wetlands evaluated in this study; top: combined tertiary and sewage
overflow treatment; bottom: tertiary treatment only with separate storm route.
Treatment performance analysis
The records from 4 sites where influent and effluent wetland water quality was available were
used for calculating ninety-five percentile effluent values and illustrate process resilience
offered by treatment wetlands. In this context, resilience is described as the ability of a
treatment unit to produce consistent effluent quality under varying influent characteristics.
The resilience curve is generated by plotting effluent concentrations against percentile
distributions of the data. For percentile analysis, a minimum of 30 records per wastewater
stream were used. Variances were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
at the 0.05 level of significance.
Economic assessment analysis
Four sewage work scenarios were considered: 300 pe and 600 pe, each either treating 3 times
the dry weather flow (3DWF) or 6 DWF. Sizing and costing calculations were performed
using the cost curves developed by ST based on the last 5 years of capital investment and
operational expenditure by the company. The cost of wetland refurbishment corresponded to
current ST contracted services cost by two specialised suppliers. Average wetland life was
calculated by dividing the current wetland asset base and rate of refurbishment based on
2007–2011.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Wetland performance
Tertiary treatment quality was evaluated for effluent suspended solids (Figure 2) and effluent
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5; data not shown). The benefits of employing
wetlands as tertiary treatment is illustrated by the significantly higher (p<0.05) effluent
values observed at the inlet of the systems for suspended solids, corresponding to secondary
effluent that would otherwise be discharged onto water bodies at sub-standard levels.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 9
10. Figure 2. Distribution of effluent concentrations of suspended solids at the inlet (empty
markers) and outlet (full markers) of selected tertiary wetlands. Curves with greater slopes
represent more resilience of the treatment.
Typical ranges of hydraulic and solids loading rates in Severn Trent systems are 0.1–0.4 m/d
and 7-15 gTSS/m2/d, respectively. This is about seven times higher than hydraulic loading
rates employed in other wetlands for secondary treatment (Knowles et al. 2011). Thus, it is
expected that average wetland life is shortened due to the accelerated onset of clogging.
Clogging management and economic assessment
Refurbishments are triggered when clogging poses risk to in health and safety (e.g., spills
from the bed onto walkways), pollution (e.g., partially treated sewage overflows onto
adjacent land) or effluent quality. To address this, ST has a rolling programme to fund
contracted surveys every other year to every wetland, and the complete refurbishment of
targeted beds per year. Refurbishments consist of removing the plants from the surface,
excavating the gravel media, changing the insulating liner, washing the gravel, and replacing
it onto the bed. Replanting with common reeds is performed during spring–summer.
Based on the current asset base and the number of refurbishments performed per year, the
average wetland life in ST is 14.5 years. This is longer than the estimated 8 years from the
UK water industry survey (UKWIR, 2011) and previously believed life expectancy within ST
(Griffin et al. 2008). However, the key question was determining the breakeven point that
would make wetland technology match the capital and operational costs of conventional
technologies. The analysis showed that 12 refurbishments would need to take place at smaller
works (300 pe) before sand filters begin to compete with wetlands with the current sizing
criteria (Figure 3). Notably, sizing a wetland for using the lowest loading rates in the
literature that are believe to provide clogging-free HSSF wetlands for 20–25 years, resulted in
a more expensive approach to wetland use being equal to 5 to 7 refurbishments with the
current under-sizing approach.
___________________________________________________________________________
10 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
11. Figure 3. Economic assessment of current wetland sizing and use approach, alternative
conventional treatment and conservative sizing approach for two example sewage works.
CONCLUSIONS
Results illustrate the importance of whole life costing approaches to be embedded in wetland
design and operation guidelines within the field of low energy treatment systems. Under-
sizing of the systems has meant that wetlands need to be fully refurbished twice within their
expected 25-year life at significant cost. The whole life cost assessment showed that this
approach is 4 to 12 times more economic than conventional treatment alternatives for
combined tertiary and sewage overflow treatment, and 5 to 7 times lower whole life cost than
a wetland correctly sized for a theoretically refurbishment-free 25 year life. Clogging
management strategies are being developed to address this model, including on-site gravel
washing, routine maintenance and surveying, and planned refurbishment events based on
survey results. The results from this work can be used to inform business decisions and
develop best management guidelines for this application of the technology.
REFERENCES
Green, M., Upton, J. 1995.Constructed reed beds: appropriate technology for small communities.
Water Science and Technology 32(3), 339–348.
Griffin, P., Wilson, L., Cooper, D. 2008. Changes in the use, operation and design of sub-surface flow
constructed wetlands in a major UK water utility. In: Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, 1–7 November 2008. Indore, India,
419–426.
IWA 2000. Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control: Processes, Performance, Design and
Operation. London, UK: IWA Publishing.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D. 2009. Treatment Wetlands, second edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC
Press.
Knowles, P., Dotro, G., Nivala, J., García, J., 2011. Clogging in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands:
occurrence and contributing factors. Ecological Engineering 37(2):99–112.
Nivala, J., Knowles, P., Dotro, G., Garcia, J., Wallace, S. 2011. Clogging in subsurface-flow
treatment wetlands: measurement, modeling and management. Water Research, 46(6): 1625–40.
UKWIR, 2011. The Performance of Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Works Solutions. United
Kingdom Water Industry Research (UKWIR): London, United Kingdom
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 11
12. New cooperation between BOKU and Ecole de Mines de Nantes on modelling of
integrated sludge and wastewater treatment wetlands
Guenter Langergraber
Institute of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control, University of Natural
Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU University), Muthgasse 18, A-1190
Vienna, Austria
(tel: +43-(0)1-47654-5814; fax: +43-(0)1-47654-5803; email:
guenter.langergraber@boku.ac.at)
Florent Chazarenc
Department of Energy Systems and Environment, Ecole de Mines de Nantes
4, rue A. Kastler BP 20722, 44307 Nantes cedex 3, France
(tel: +33 2 51 85 86 93; fax: +33 2 51 85 82 99; email: Florent.Chazarenc@emn.fr)
In January 2012 BOKU University and Ecole de Mines de Nantes (EMN) started a 2 year
cooperation project entitled “Development of a numerical model for an integrated sludge and
wastewater treatment wetland”. The cooperation is granted within the bilateral AMADÉE
programme which is funded by ÖAD (Austrian agency for international mobility and
cooperation in education, science and research) in Austria and Égide (Service Recherche et
Entreprises Pôle gestion PHC) in France.
The objective of the project is to understand the relevant mechanisms and processes in
integrated sludge and wastewater treatment wetlands and wetlands for treating combined
sewer overflow as a basis for development of a numerical model for these processes. In
particular it is aimed to develop the basis for models to predict 1) the build-up of the sludge
layer and 2) the transport and deposition of suspended particulate matter. The main outcome
of the project should be a proposal for a larger scale research project.
The first meeting of the teams was held from 22 to 25 May 2012 at EMN in Nantes. Besides
presenting the work of the participating teams two field visits were scheduled: 1) the 2-stage
“French style” constructed wetland treating raw wastewater in Monnières and which is
designed for 500 person equivalent and 2) the natural wetland in Guérande which is utilized
for production of sea salt. The next meeting is planned to be held in Vienna in July 2012.
It is also worth to mention that the next and 5th international WETPOL symposium “Wetland
Pollutants Dynamic and Control–WETPOL 2013” will be held in Nantes organized by Ecole
des Mines de Nantes in October 2013. For its last edition this conference was jointly
organized with the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS). It brought together more than 500
researchers, scientists, regulators, decision-makers and other professionals from around the
world who shared their knowledge on a variety of topics pertaining to natural and constructed
wetlands. More information will be available soon at http://www.wetpol.org.
___________________________________________________________________________
12 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
13. Figure 1: Participants of the meeting at Ecole de Mines de Nantes (from left to right):
Cristian Barca (EMN), Raimund Haberl (BOKU), Christina Fuchsluger (BOKU), Alexander
Pressl (BOKU), Günter Langergraber (BOKU), Stéphane Prigent (EMN) + Florent
Chazarenc (taking picture).
Figure 2: Visiting the 2-stage “French style” CW treating raw wastewater in Monnières
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 13
14. Figure 3: Natural wetland in Guérande used for production of sea salt.
___________________________________________________________________________
14 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
15. Constructed wetlands and land reclamation in Palestine
Fabio Masi
IRIDRA Srl, Via La Marmora, 51, Florence, Italy
fmasi@iridra.com
Since 2008 some NGOs operating in the West Bank and in Gaza, started introducing the
Constructed Wetland (CW) technology in Palestine, with the main aim of creating a new
alternative water source for reducing the water stress typical for that area in the recent years
and for enhancing the local economy by the increase of the breeding capacity in herders
villages or of the agricultural productivity (mainly focusing on olive trees cultivations); most
of the projects have been financed by international organizations, like FAO, EC ECHO–Food
Security, Foundations, Italian Cooperation, etc.
Small CWs for greywater treatment and fodder production in herders villages (Hebron
Governorate) - Oxfam Italia
The CW systems in some cases are treating mixed wastewater from small groups of houses,
in some others greywater only, considering anyway a pro capite consumption ranging from 9
to 15 litres per day. The final effluent is then used to drop-irrigate arid pieces of land for
fodder production (several kinds of bushes with low water need), because the local economy
is mainly based on goats breeding and the water scarcity is one of the most important limiting
factors for its improvement. The CW system are designed in order to minimize the loss of
water by evapotranspiration and for providing the easiest maintenance, even because the
systems will by managed directly by the village councils, with direct involvement of the
community members.
Ramadin VF
CW system
for greywater
reuse.
Najada HF CW
system for a
primary school
mixed
wastewater
reuse; on the
right the
irrigated bushes
for fodder
production.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 15
16. Gaza HF CW system–in the Gaza strip about
10 HF CW systems for single houses and for a
school compound are already in operation; also
in this case the treated wastewater is
completely reused for fertirrigation.
Multistage CWs for small towns wastewater treatment and reuse for olive trees irrigation
Sarra’s VF CW+HF CW +Pond system
design (3500 p.e.) The project “Making
wastewater an asset: increasing
agricultural production introducing
irrigation by non-conventional water
sources” is managed by the NGOs GVC,
PHG and UAWC and is financed by the
EU - DCI-FOOD/2010/254-819.
The two villages of Hajja and Sarra, both
near Nablus, are going to get in operation
the two biggest CW systems for
secondary wastewater treatment in the
West Bank. While the works started in
Hajja in February 2012, Sarra’s CWTP
realization will be probably tendered in
July–August 2012.
All these treatment plants will be monitored, even though rarely with purely scientific
approaches, in order to assess the effective performances and the benefits obtained by the
creation of new alternative sources of water and nutrients on the local economies; all the
projects have been thought for the highest replication choosing representative situations that
are largely diffused in the Palestinian Territories. There is in fact still a considerable number
of small villages as also small towns, with few thousands of inhabitants in each one, both in
the West Bank and in Gaza, that are discharging in the environment untreated sewage,
loosing in this way a very important amount of a primary resource as water as also of
nutrients. The first experiences are showing promising good results and a good acceptance of
the CW technique from the served population and the local authorities and these factors
together could ensure a spread diffusion of this kind of approach in the next years.
___________________________________________________________________________
16 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
17. National urban wetland parks of China
Jun Zhai and Xi Lu
College of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering,
Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, P. R. China
zhaijun@cqu.edu.cn, alexandra_lucy@qq.com
Since the early 1970s, owing to the rapid growth of population and people’s undue pursuit of
economic development, many natural wetlands have been excessively occupied by urban
expansion, which, unfortunately, has caused serious deterioration of natural environment
(especially aquatic environment), sharp decrease in biodiversity and many other severe
consequences in the surrounding area. Gradually, Chinese government and the public began
to recognize the important role of wetland in environmental protection as climate control,
biodiversity protection, especially water purification. By the end of 2010s, many actions have
been taken to protect natural wetlands. One of the many effective ways is the establishment
of National Urban Wetland Parks of China (NUWPs).
NUWPs are established on the protection of some natural wetlands which are listed in the
urban green space system planning, for the purpose of environmental protection, biodiversity
protection, popularization of science, recreation and relaxation.
NUWPs have the following characteristics to distinguish them:
People can enjoy beautiful scenery and have access to a large variety of animals and
botany.
Programs about popularization of science can be conducted to spread the knowledge
of science and humanities. NUWP has both cultural and scientific value, deserving
highly protection.
NUWPs are parks adapted from natural wetlands listed in the urban green space
system, covering more than 35 ha of land.
Wetlands of NUWPs are demonstrational and influential.
National urban wetland parks (NUWPs) are ratified by Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
Development. There have been 41 NUWPs in China to date (as at 20 December 2010), as
listed in Table 1.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 17
18. Table 1. List of National urban wetland parks in China
Province Name of the National urban Land area Main public good of the wetland
wetland Park (ha.)
Beijing Cuihu National Urban 156.7 Biodiversity, science education
Wetland Park, Haidian
Heibei Nanhu National Urban 800 Subterranean water utilization,
Wetland Park, Tangshan recycled water treatment
Heibei Jumayuan National Urban 600 Supply water for North China,
Wetland Park, Laiyuan, improve the water quality of Juma
Baoding river
Shanxi Changzhi National Urban 740 Climate control, water filtration and
Wetland Park, Changzhi purification
Liaoning Lianhuahu National Urban 484 Water purification, science
Wetland Park, Tieling popularization, sightseeing
Jilin Nanhu National Urban 145 Habitat for birds and botany, tourism,
Wetland Park, Zhenlai biodiversity protection
Heilongjiang Yuting National Urban 224.62 Science education and recreation
Wetland Park, Nehe
Heilongjiang Qunli National Urban 33 Environmental restoration
Wetland Park, Harbin
Jiangsu Changguangxi National 625 Water purification, vegetation
Urban Wetland Park, Wuxi
Jiangsu Shanghu National Urban 2300 Water reserve, climate control,
Wetland Park, Changshu pollutant degradation
Jiangsu Shajiabang National Urban 266.7 Pollution-free aquatic product, bird
Wetland Park, Changshu resource
Jiangsu Lushuiwan National Urban 1500 Freshwater aquiculture
Wetland Park, Nanjing
Jiangsu Kunshan Urban Ecopark 210 Biodiversity protection and tourism
Jiangsu Guchenghu National Urban 6882 Environmental protection, science
Wetland Park, Gaochun, education, recreation
Nanjing
Zhejiang Xixi National Urban Wetland 1008 Ecosystem protection, water
Park, Hangzhou purification and reserve
Zhejiang Jinghu National Urban 1600 Vegetation, bird reserve and
Wetland Park, Shaoxing sightseeing
Zhejiang Sanjiang National Urban 481 Species gene banks, cereal reserve,
National Wetland Park, water reserve and reduce flood
Linhai
Zhejiang Jianyanghu National Urban 215.3 Environmental protection, agriculture
Wetland Park, Taizhou production, recreation
Anhui Nanhu National Urban 370 Environmental and biodiversity
Wetland Park, Huaibei protection
Anhui Shijianhu National Urban 1002 Improve self-cleaning capacity,
Wetland Park, Huainan impurity filtration and sedimentation
Fujian Xinglinwan National Urban No data Filtration and sedimentation
Wetland Park, Xiamen
___________________________________________________________________________
18 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
19. Jiangxi Kongmujiang National Urban 1563.9 Biodiversity protection, sightseeing
Wetland Park, Xinyu
Shandong Sanggouwan National Urban 1391 Water purification, biodiversity
Wetland Park, Rongcheng
Shandong Mingyuehu National Urban 70.9 Environmental protection, sightseeing
Wetland Park, Dongying
Shandong Daotunwa National Urban 2466.67 Environmental and biodiversity
Wetland Park, Dongping protection
Shandong Binhe National Urban 3600 Wastewater treatment
Wetland Park, Linyi
Shandong Xiaohai’erkou National 692 Climate control, water purification
Urban Wetland Park,
Haiyang
Shandong Dawenhe National Urban 2000 Filtration and purification
Wetland Park, Anqiu
Shandong Weishui Fengqing National 3250 Science education and water treatment
Urban Wetland Park,
Changyi
Shandong Tuhaihe National Urban 13333.33 Wetland remediation and sightseeing
Wetland Park, Zhanhua
Shandong Shuangyuehu National Urban 86.67 Environmental protection and
Wetland Park, Linyi recreation
Shandong Bailang Lüzhou National 1000 Sightseeing, biodiversity protection
Urban Wetland Park,
Weifang
Henan Tian’ehu National Urban 590 Water purification
Wetland Park, Sanmenxia
Henan Baihe National Urban 2450 Filtration and purification
Wetland Park, Nanyang
Henan Pingxihu National Urban 6600 Climate control, aquatic environment
Wetland Park, Pingdingshan protection
Henan Bailuzhou National Urban 90 Sightseeing and recreation
Wetland Park, Pingdingshan
Hubei Jinyinhu National Urban 77 Environmental protection and tourism
Wetland Park, Wuhan
Hunan Xidongtinghu Qingshanhu 35680 Ecosystem protection and water
National Urban Wetland treatment
Park, Changde
Guangdong Lutanghe National Urban 34.1 Biodiversity and water purification
Wetland Park, Zhanjiang
Guizhou Huaxi National Urban 460 Retain water, runoff reduction, climate
Wetland Park, Guiyang control
Gansu Chengbei National Urban 168.4 Climate control, water filtration and
Wetland Park, Zhangye reserve
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 19
20. Subsurface flow constructed wetlands as wildlife habitat:
a case study in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Anne H. Outwater (PhD, RN)
Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences
PO Box 65004, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
anneoutwater@yahoo.com
Introduction
Constructed wetland technology provides a cost-effective method for improving water quality
while providing valuable wetland habitat (Gelt, 1997). Even though it is rarely the primary
goal in the creation of such systems, constructed wetlands can be highly valued as wildlife
habitat (Ghermandi, van den Berg, Brander, de Groot, Nunes, 2009; Knight, 2001;
Oglethorpe & Miliadou, 2000). This becomes increasingly significant as Nature’s wetlands
are continuing to be lost globally and locally to urbanization.
Ghermandi et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the economic value of 186 wetlands;
water quality, non-consumptive recreation and provision of natural habitat and biodiversity
were valued as important and beneficial. For example Oglethorpe and Miliadou (2000)
surveyed 250 residents of Macedonia Greece, living within 80 kilometres of the artificial
Lake Kerkini created in 1932 by the construction of a dam. It was found that the most
important non-use (non-market, intangible) values arose from the very existence of the Lake
and from the function it provided for conserving wildlife habitats; these values, according to
the respondents, surpassed the Lake’s value in terms of fishing, research, recreation,
irrigation, and education.
Much of the literature concerning constructed wetlands and wildlife habitat are descriptions
of large surface flow facilities, many of which use a diversity of native wetland plant species
(e.g. Knight, 2001; Gelt, 1997). For example, in areas where soils are not suitable for a drain
field, the effluent of the constructed wetland flows by gravity to a wildlife habitat pond used
for final “polishing”. A well documented example is the arid metropolitan Show Low facility
in Arizona, USA (Knight, 2001; Gelt, 1997). In 1970 municipal waste water discharge into a
creek was halted, and diverted into a natural depression called Telephone Lake. As a result of
increasing population and increasing effluent flows, the facility has developed into a complex
made up of several lakes and marshes, covering 201 acres that is handling 1.42 million
gallons of wastewater daily. The success of the facility is partly measured by the number of
wildlife attracted to the area. In Show Low facility more than 125 species of birds, including
ten that are endangered or threatened, amphibians and large mammals such as elk, deer, black
bears, and raccoons can be found. Many human visitors come to see the animals and school
groups use the wetlands for environment field trips.
However there are gaps in the literature about small residential constructed wetlands,
especially subsurface flow systems, which are commonly viewed as less hospitable for
wildlife than surface flow. The purpose of reporting the following case study observations is
to describe changing wildlife usage when soakaway pits were replaced with a constructed
wetland.
___________________________________________________________________________
20 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
21. Methods
The researcher’s actions in the case study method include recording, constructing and
presenting a chronicle of empirical facts (Zucker, 2001). In this prospective case study,
written and photographic observations have been collected annually since 2005 with the
purpose of describing the evolution of a residential constructed wetland in coastal, equatorial
East Africa.
Setting
In Tanzania, 5.5 kilometres north of Dar es Salaam city centre, 0.5 metres above sea level,
low, medium, and high density plots were demarcated in the 1980’s; this new ward was
named Mikocheni B. Until the mid 1990’s there was a substantial wetland on the floodplain
between Mikocheni and the Indian Ocean; the dominant plant was the reed Phragmites
mauritianus. The wetland has given way to the large houses and office buildings of coastal
urbanization until now, only a few fragments remain.
On two adjacent medium density plots of 30′ by 90′ each, three houses were built. One house
was connected to its own septic tank where solids settled, and a soakaway pit to which
effluent flowed. The other two houses shared a septic tank and a soakaway pit.
The plots were swarming with Culex mosquitoes which, while not transmitting malaria, are
nevertheless very bothersome and make outdoor life uncomfortable. In trying to figure out
from where the mosquitoes were coming, it was a long time before the covers of the
soakaway pits were lifted. When the pits were uncovered, the walls were found to be
crowded with cockroaches and the fluid was roiling with mosquito larvae. The soak-away
pits were massive breeding pools for mosquitoes which crept in and out through unsealed
cracks between the cement cover and the cement pit.
Intervention
In 2005, a wetland to accommodate the sewage needs of the three houses (about ten people)
year round, was constructed to replace the soakaway pits. It is 4 by 1.5 metres, a subsurface
horizontal flow design, placed along the boundary line of the two properties. The substrate is
gravel. There is no outflow from the constructed wetland (see Fig. 1).
This wetland is a monoculture of Phragmites mauritanus, an indigenous locally common
plant that has been shown to have high treatment efficacy (Njau et al., 2010). Other positive
attributes are the structural stability of the plant, they do not drop a lot of debris and are
tolerant of both dry and wet conditions. In Tanzania almost all constructed wetlands are
planted with Phragmites. As is becoming standard practice (Interagency Workgroup on
Constructed Wetlands, 2000) globally, native plants were harvested from nearby wetlands
without damaging the original wetland. Maintenance of the constructed wetland has largely
been annual trimming of dry or collapsing plants; a heavy pruning was not conducted until
2011, when it was uniformly cut to about one metre.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 21
22. Fig. 1: A small residential subsurface flow constructed Fig. 2: Yellow-headed Dwarf Geckos in coastal
wetland using Phragmites reeds, at five years, in Dar es Tanzania quickly move to permanently inhabit a
Salaam, Tanzania. constructed wetland.
Results
As soon as the soakaway pits were decommissioned, the mosquito population plummeted.
The first creatures to inhabit the wetland were Yellow-headed Dwarf Geckos (Lygodactylus
luteopicturatus) (see Fig. 2). As shown in Table 1, these beautiful geckos are globally rare,
endemic only to Tanzania’s narrow coastal strip (Spawls et al., 2002). Until now, they seem
to be the only visible permanent residents.
For several years the reeds were too small to structurally support birds’ nests or to hide them
from heavy predation by Indian House Crows (Corvus splendens, an introduced pest). But
when the Phragmites had grown to almost five metres, the first birds to build nests in the
wetland appeared. Black-headed Weavers (Ploceus cucullatus) wove their long stemmed
balls hanging off the reed stems. After that, three other Ploceidae species attempted to build
nests in the wetland: Spectacled Weavers (P. ocularis suahelicus), African Golden Weavers
(P. subaureus aureoflavius), and Zanzibar Red Bishop Birds(Euplectes nigroventris) (Figs 3
and 4).
Fig. 3: A female Zanzibar Red Bishop bird examining a Fig. 4: Male Zanzibar Bishop bird in the Phragmites,
nest which has been prepared for her by a male. distracting nest predators
The Spectacled Weavers were heavily predated on by the House Crows while nesting in the
constructed wetland. They were able to find alternative places in the garden, on tree branches
hanging near the constructed wetland. The only species that consistently has been able to
raise one or two broods to adulthood every year in the wetland are Zanzibar Red Bishop
___________________________________________________________________________
22 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
23. Birds. They are the smallest of the world’s 117 species of weaver birds, found only in Kenya,
Mozambique and Tanzania (Animal Demography Unit, 2012). It seems that that this small
constructed wetland is adequate breeding habitat for one pair of the smallest weavers.
Patterns were found in the relationship between residence in the wetland and rain. The
Bishop Birds quietly inhabit the constructed wetland from about November to March:
courting, building nests and raising their young. When the fledglings fly from the nest, they
all disperse through the dry season. Then, as noted 27 October 2011, “It has been raining
again. Strong new stalks of Phragmites are pushing out of the gravel of the constructed
wetland. The Bishop Birds and Spectacled Weavers have returned! The Bishop Birds are
building in the constructed wetland; three pairs of Spectacled Weavers are building their
nests on various drooping tree branches nearby.”
Most species use the constructed wetland only part of the time. For example Speckled Lipped
Skinks(Mabuya maculilabris) can often be found during the dry season; Marbled Snout-
burrower frogs (Hemismus marmoratus) are only seen during the wet season. The constructed
wetland supports other wildlife as well, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1.Wildlife found in a small residential constructed wetland in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Species names Native habitat Habitat used Comment
Birds
Zanzibar Red Bishop Coastal Kenya and Breeding Has been permanently
Tanzania. displaced from most of DSM by
destruction of original wetlands.
Speckled Mousebirds, Purple- Various parts of East Safe resting These birds are endemic only to
banded Sunbirds, Scarlet-chested Africa including coast. place, East Africa, except for the
Sunbirds, Grey-headed Sparrows, temporary latter, which is also found in
Spectacled Weaver, African shelter southern Africa.
Golden Weaver, Black-headed
Weaver, Red-billed Firefinch,
Blue-capped Condon Bleu, Bronze
Mannikin, Yellow-fronted Canary,
Green-backed Cameroptera,
Reptiles
Yellow-headed Dwarf Gecko Narrow coastal strip from Globally rare;
southern Kenya to northern Permanent locally common
Mozambique
Speckle-lipped Skink Africa, south of the Sahara Seasonal, May be a colour variation, as it
Desert to Angola and dry season is very bronze-y.
Mozambique
Amphibians
Marbled Snout-burrower Eastern Africa Seasonal, Globally unusual;
wet season locally fairly common
Discussion
As two mosquito and cockroach ridden soakaway pits were decommissioned and replaced
with a subsurface flow constructed wetland, the population of these pests dramatically
decreased. In addition, locally threatened, globally rare birds and reptiles found refuge in the
new habitat. Even during drought, the constructed wetland remains ever green; it is attractive
and interesting enough to be considered a garden ornamental and an educational tool.
The productivity of the habitat multiplies as the size of the constructed wetland increases.
This is evident when comparing the small residential wetland described here with the much
larger subsurface flow wetlands draining the stabilization ponds at nearby University of Dar
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 23
24. es Salaam. There the Phragmites grows to over 7 metres. The same species inhabit both these
coastal constructed wetlands, but they appear more confident – noisier and livelier – in the
larger area. For example all the Plocidae that tried and failed to build productive nests at the
smaller wetland are able to thrive in the larger one. Many Yellow headed Dwarf Geckos are
living there as well.
Enhancement of natural habitat and biodiversity is increasingly being viewed as important
components of their total economic value (Ghermandi et al., 2009). The data reported here
suggest that (re-)construction of wetlands (even subsurface flow), using endemic plants, can
have a significant role in terms of local biodiversity enhancement in an increasingly
urbanized metropolis.
The effect of the wetland extends beyond its visual outline. For example the Spectacled
Weavers, who are known for building nests at swamp edges (Zimmerman et al., 1996), have
built their nests hanging nearby. This constructed wetland provides evidence for the
importance of using local flora in constructed wetland technology. These data also provide
guidance on the time of year to prune the coastal wetland in East Africa, and that would be
after the Bishop Birds have completed their breeding cycle, in late March.
Conclusion
Constructed wetlands are multi use. An increasingly significant function, as natural wetlands
continue to be destroyed and threatened with destruction, is that of a wildlife refuge. While
they cannot replace Nature’s complicated ecosystems, and the biodiversity typically will be
less, even residential-sized subsurface flow constructed wetlands, can provide important
habitat to wildlife in ways that are also appreciated by and beneficial to human beings.
References
Gelt, J. (1997).Constructed wetlands: using human ingenuity, natural processes to treat water, build
habitat. Arroyo, 9(4).
Ghermandil, A., van den Bergh, J. C.J.M., Brander, L. M., de Groot, H. L.F., Nunes, P. A.L.D. (2009).
The Values of Natural and Constructed Wetlands: A Meta-Analysis. Netherlands: Tinburgen
Institute. Accessed 5 June 2012, at http://www.tinbergen.nl.
Knight RL (1997) Wildlife habitat and public use benefits of treatment wetlands. Water Science &
Technology 35(5), 35–43.
Knight RL, Clarke Jr RA, Bastian RK (2001) Surface flow (SF) treatment wetlands as a habitat for
wildlife and humans. Water Science & Technology 44(11–12): 27–37.
Interagency Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands, (2000).Guiding Principles for Constructed
Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat. United States of America
Environmental Protection Agency: Wetlands Division
Njau, K., Mwegoha,W., &Mahenge, A. (2009). Operation and Maintenance Manual for Constructed
Wetlands. Tanzania: Waste Stabilization Ponds and Constructed Wetland Research Group,
University of Dar es Salaam.
Oglethorpe, D.R., Miliadou, D. (2000). Economic valuation of the non-use attributes of a wetland: a
case-study for Lake Kerkini. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43:755–767.
Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R., Ashe, J. (2002). A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa.
London: Academic Press.
Animal Demography Unit. Weaver Watch: Monitoring the Weavers of the World. South Africa:
University of Cape Town. Accessed 20 May 2012 at http://weavers.adu.org.za/
Zimmerman, D.A., Turner, D., Pearson, D.J. (1996). Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Princeton,
New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.
Zucker, D.M. (2001). Using case study methodology in nursing research. The Qualitative Report, 6(2).
Accessed 6September 2008 at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-2/zucker.html.
___________________________________________________________________________
24 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
25. Announcement: Sustainable Sanitation Practice journal
Sustainable Sanitation Practice – Issue 12 on “Treatment wetlands”
The journal Sustainable Sanitation Practice (SSP) is published
by the Austrian NGO EcoSan Club with the aim to make
available high quality information on practical experiences
with available sustainable sanitation systems. SSP should fill a
gap that we have identified in the last few years in which
sustainable sanitation has become an important issue that is
discussed among many disciplines. For SSP a sanitation
system is sustainable when it is not only economically viable,
socially acceptable and technically and institutionally
appropriate, but it should also protect the environment and the
natural resources. SSP is therefore fully in line with SuSanA,
the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (www.susana.org).
Issue 12 of SSP on “Treatment Wetlands” includes six contributions:
1. The Austrian experience with single-stage sand and gravel based vertical flow systems
with intermittent loading (the Austrian type is for treating mechanically pre-treated
wastewater).
2. The French experiences with two-stage vertical flow systems treating raw wastewater.
3. Ecosan Club’s experiences with TWs in Uganda.
4. Results from multi-stage TW treating raw wastewater in Morocco.
5. Results from horizontal flow experimental systems from Egypt.
6. Experiences from Denmark and UK on reed beds treating excess sludge from activated
sludge plants.
SSP is available online from the journal homepage at the EcoSan Club website
(www.ecosan.at/SSP) for free. The thematic topic of SSP's next issue will be "Faecal sludge
management" (issue 13, October 2012). Information on further issues planned is available
from the journal homepage. We would like to encourage readers and potential contributors
for further issues to suggest possible contributions and topics of high interest to the SSP
editorial office (ssp@ecosan.at). Also, we would like to invite you to contact the editorial
office if you volunteer to act as a reviewer for the journal.
Additionally, we also invite you to visit SSP and EcoSan Club on Facebook
(www.facebook.com/SustainableSanitationPractice and
www.facebook.com/EcoSanClubAustria, respectively).
Günter Langergraber, Markus Lechner, Elke Müllegger
(SSP journal editors)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 25
26. Updates on IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition,
Busan, Korea, 16–21 September 2012
The IWA World Water Congress & Exhibition 2012 Busan is a high-profile event that attracts 5,000
water professionals, companies and institutions from across the globe. It is a biennial event organised
by the International Water Association (IWA).
The event is a valuable and unique opportunity for the community of world-leading water
professionals to meet, exchange ideas, explore the state of the art and debate the key issues
underlying the science and practice of water. It is also where the entire water community congregates
once every two years and where IWA specialist groups showcase their work and plan for future
activities.
Ramp up your networking opportunities
We know that many of you come along to the congress to renew and create professional links,
business leads, and interdisciplinary collaborations.
Increase your reach and effectiveness this year by linking with other delegates and organisations
online.
Connect via the congress’s LinkedIn group, Facebook group and Twitter stream.
Want a hand getting into the conversation?
IWA Specialist Groups’ activities
Specialist Groups are the core of our association. Their members are engaged in many activities -
organising conferences, seminars, workshops, or writing books, reports, newsletters and journal
papers. Through task or working groups, they also produce scientific and technical reports, manuals
of best practice or position papers.
Group meetings
Many specialist groups will have open meetings during the congress, which you are all welcome to
attend. These meetings are mostly hosted during lunch breaks in one of the session rooms. All the
Congress delegates are invited to join the meetings. Please take this great opportunity to meet like-
minded people and to know more about the groups you are interested in.
IWA Specialist Groups Hub
”IWA SG Hub” – a dedicated space for specialist groups - will be located in the exhibition hall to
display group materials and resources and allow introductions and meetings with group leaders. The
groups and members can present, meet, network and showcase their upcoming activities at the SG
Hub. Please feel free to always pass by this area and you will be amazed by the information and
activities you can find here.
Groups Reception
A reception will be hosted at 17.00-18.00 on Tuesday at IWA Specialist Groups Hub on behalf of all
the specialist groups and will feature the IWA Sustainability Specialist Group Prizes ceremony.
Get involved
The groups are an exceptionally effective means of international networking, sharing information and
skills and making good professional and business contacts. If you’re an IWA member, you can join
any specialist group and with over 50 groups — we know you’ll find a niche.
More Information
For details and of group meetings and other relevant SG activities see the congress website or
contact Hong Li (hong.li@iwahq.org)
___________________________________________________________________________
26 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
27. 10th IWA Leading Edge Conference on Water and Waste Water
Technologies, Bordeaux, France, 3–6 June, 2013
www.let2013.org
We would like to urge water professionals around the world to attend IWA’s Leading Edge
Technology Conference 2013 (www.LET2013.org).
The conference is being held in the city of Bordeaux, the economic hub in southwestern France
constitutes the sixth-largest urban area in France. Bordeaux as a port city on the Garonne River has a
strong link with water and environment.
The conference program will attract leading water researchers from all over the world. Parallel tracks
offering a wide range of multidisciplinary presentations will provide ample opportunities to learn and
network with professionals in your fields of interest. Technical tours are also being planned to
demonstrate local applications of advanced water, wastewater and stormwater technologies and
management.
In addition the city of Bordeaux and its surrounding area offer great opportunities for recreation. The
historic part of the city of Bordeaux is on the UNESCO World Heritage List as "an outstanding urban
and architectural ensemble" of the 18th century. Bordeaux has more than 350 classified buildings and
buildings listed as Historic Monuments, including 3 religious World Heritage buildings since 1998 as
part of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France. Bordeaux is although well known as a
world's major wine industry capital.
Key date: Deadline for paper submission: 15 October.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 27
28. The IWA Water Wiki!
Invitation to Participate
www.iwawaterwiki.org
The WaterWiki is a website providing a place for the water community to interact, share
knowledge and disseminate information.
The WaterWiki is THE online resource for all areas of water, wastewater and environmental science
and management. We currently host over 1000 open-access materials, either as web articles or
downloadable pdfs.
Since the site was launched, we have been working with IWA Specialist Groups, offering them the
opportunity to set up their own group work spaces on the WaterWiki – we now have over 20 Groups
using the site to communicate and network online.
Want to get involved? We would like to invite members of the Use of Macrophytes in Water
Pollution Control Specialist Group to set up their own private Group Space on the Wiki.
WaterWiki Group Spaces – Why participate?
A Group Space on the WaterWiki is excellent way to share information within your group. You can:
- Include contact details of key members in the group
- Upload PDFS, Word documents, presentations etc.
- Circulate minutes from meetings, events, conferences etc.
- Plan up coming events and webinars
- Discuss research developments and group activities
Once you have established your group space on the Wiki, members can add, remove, or edit
content at anytime – and we have a dedicated support team on hand to answer any technical
queries.
If you are a member of the Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control IWA Specialist Group
and would like more information on creating and using a dedicated Group Space on the WaterWiki
please contact Chloe Parker (cparker@iwap.co.uk).
Feel free to use the wiki as your online reference point for all things water-related! Some of the
material that may be of interest to you can be found here:
Executive Summary of Arsenic Contamination in the World, Waterborne Pathogens,
Water policy and health, Methodology, Control systems, Data Analysis, Instrumentation, etc.
We are always looking to add new material to the WaterWiki in your subject area. If you are able to
write on any of the above subjects (about 600-1000 words), please do submit an article.
New Wiki Software Launch
March 2012 saw the launch of our new-version wiki software which has been designed to meet the
demands of the established WaterWiki community.
___________________________________________________________________________
28 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
29. Users will notice that the WaterWiki homepage has undergone a colourful facelift and now has a
slightly different layout. The homepage has been designed with WaterWiki members in mind to
provide ease of navigation between the different sections of the site.
The upgrade has not just been cosmetic – there are several new software features which will make
the IWA WaterWiki even more of a valuable interactive resource for the water community.
All the new WaterWiki features are backwards-compatible meaning that all existing content will
remain the same while wiki members will also be able to take advantage of great new site
functions including:
1. Increased browser compatibility: the WaterWiki is now optimised for use in Safari,
Internet Explorer version 7 or above, and Google Chrome web browsers.
2. Improvements to the WYSIWYG/Rich Text editing software for easier formatting, better
image positioning and the facility to upload larger file attachments.
3. More manageable Group Spaces which put you in control of your dedicated community
space. The new WaterWiki group spaces allow group leaders to create and manage spaces.
You can decide what your space will contain and who will have access to the materials and
keep your members up to date with group activity using your own dedicated group blog.
4. Increased file hosting capacity. Many users may have noticed that any large files they
uploaded would disappear from the wiki after a few days – this was a particular problem for
Specialist Groups wishing to exchange work documents on the WaterWiki. This problem has
been corrected with the new software.
5. Easier article navigation using the improved tagging system. A finite list of possible tags
for articles means that content is now grouped by subject category making it much easier
to search for related content.
6. Increased connectivity between you and the content you care about – your watchlist
emails will now contain active links to the content that you follow and you can now share
articles via email at the touch of a button.
7. Instant WaterWiki news: keep up to date with the most popular articles and active users
using up-to-the-minute RSS feeds of top users and most-read articles.
For more information on how to get started with the new features visit the Wiki Help section.
As always, please feel free to contact me (cparker@iwap.co.uk) with any questions.
Chloe Parker
IWA WaterWiki Community Manager
cparker@iwap.co.uk
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 29
30. New from IWA Publishing
Best Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water
ISBN: 9781843393856
Pre-order (August 2013) • 120 pages • Paperback
IWA Members price: £ 45.00 / US$ 81.00 / € 60.75
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781843393856&type=category
This Best Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water arises from the knowledge
collected by the European Research Network COST Action 637 involving 27 European countries and
the USA. Besides the large number of important papers, reports and reviews already available on
various aspects of arsenic occurrence in environment, water and food and related human exposure,
this book fills a gap in the field concerning assessment of risks, implications, challenges, and
actions required by public health managers.
It focuses only on the key aspects of risk assessment, management and communication relevant to
higher levels of arsenic in drinking water, which are geological factors, the extent of arsenic
occurrence, total exposure of arsenic and the role of drinking water, including regulatory aspects
as well as technical (treatment) issues.
-----
Arsenic Contamination in the World
An International Sourcebook
Susan Murcott
ISBN: 9781780400389 • June 2012 • 500 pages • Paperback
IWA members price: £ 94.50 / US$ 170.10 / € 127.58
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400389&type=category
Arsenic Contamination in the World: An International Sourcebook provides a global compendium
of cited arsenic incidences in drinking-water. This book details arsenic contamination by source,
region and arsenic-affected country.
Arsenic is identified in 105 countries and territories, representing a larger database than any
previous published work. Sources of arsenic contamination are categorized as: Anthropogenic,
Geogenic, Volcanogenic, Coal, Mining and Petroleum-related. National, regional and international
maps locate the affected areas and populations. A synthesis of critical country information includes
an estimate of the exposed population of over 178 million people worldwide.
--------------
___________________________________________________________________________
30 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
31. Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge
Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon
ISBN: 9781843393443 • April 2012 • 460 pages • Paperback
IWA members price: £ 82.50 / US$ 148.50 / € 111.38
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781843393443&type=category
Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge has been developed from
the RECLAIM WATER project supported by the European Commission under Thematic Priority 'Global
Change and Ecosystems' of the Sixth Framework Programme. Its strategic objective is to develop
hazard mitigation technologies for water reclamation providing safe and cost effective routes for
managed aquifer recharge.
Different treatment applications in terms of behaviour of key microbial and chemical contaminants
are assessed. Engineered as well as natural treatment trains are investigated to provide guidance
for sustainable MAR schemes using alternative sources such as effluent and stormwater. The
technologies considered are also well suited to the needs of developing countries, which have a
growing need of supplementation of freshwater resources. A broad range of international full-scale
case studies enables insights into long-term system behaviour, operational aspects, and fate of a
comprehensive number of compounds and contaminants, especially organic micropollutants and
bulk organics.
-----
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 31
32. Groundwater Set
Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon; Harvey Wood; C.G.E.M.
(Kees) van Beek; Milan Dimkic, Heinz-Jurgen Brauch and Michael
Kavanaugh; Philip E. LaMoreaux, et al.; M Brown, B Barley, H Wood
ISBN: 9781780404493 • May 2012
IWA members price: £ 400.00 / US$ 720.00 / € 540.00
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780404493&type=new
Special Offer: Groundwater Set
Purchase all six books together and save over 30% on buying separately.
Includes:
Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge
Edited by Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon
April 2012 • ISBN: 9781843393443
Disasters and Minewater
Good Practice and Prevention
Harvey Wood
January 2012 • ISBN: 9781780400068
Cause and Prevention of Clogging of Wells Abstracting Groundwater from
Unconsolidated Aquifers
C.G.E.M. (Kees) van Beek
October 2011 • ISBN: 9781780400242
Groundwater Management in Large River Basins
Edited by Milan Dimkic, Heinz-Jurgen Brauch and Michael Kavanaugh
November 2008 • ISBN: 9781843391906
Environmental Hydrogeology
Second Edition
Philip E. LaMoreaux, Mostafa M. Soliman, Bashir A. Memon, James W. LaMoreaux & Fakhry
A. Assaad
November 2008 • ISBN: 9781843392286
Minewater Treatment
Technology, Application and Policy
M Brown, B Barley, H Wood
April 2002 • ISBN: 9781843390046
-----
___________________________________________________________________________
32 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
33. Water and Energy
Threats and Opportunities
Gustaf Olsson
ISBN: 9781780400266 • June 2012 • 320 pages • Hardback
IWA members price: £ 51.75 / US$ 93.15 / € 69.86
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400266&type=category
Water and Energy – Threats and Opportunities creates an awareness of the important couplings
between water and energy. It shows how energy is used in all the various water cycle operations
and demonstrates how water is used – and misused – in all kinds of energy production and
generation.
Population increase, climate change and an increasing competition between food and fuel
production create enormous pressures on both water and energy availability. Since there is no
replacement for water, water security looks more crucial than energy security. This is true not only
in developing countries but also in the most advanced countries. The western parts of the USA
suffer from water scarcity that provides a real security threat.
The book does not aim to show “how to design” or to solve some of the very intricate conflicts
between water and energy. Instead it systematically lists ideas, possibilities and a number of
results. There are a few more technical chapters that act as entry points to more detailed technical
literature.
-----
Disasters and Minewater
Good Practice and Prevention
Harvey Wood
ISBN: 9781780400068 • January 2012 • 160 pages • Hardback
IWA members price: £ 59.25 / US$ 106.65 / € 79.99
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400068&type=category
Disasters and Minewater: Good Practice and Prevention draws together all of the major
minewater catastrophes that have occurred over the last half century. It examines incidents to find
useful and positive information of great value that could prevent future disasters. Practical
experience provides many lessons in respect of the causes of minewater incidents where lack of
adhesion to good practice is principally to blame.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 33
34. Disasters and Minewater: Good Practice and Prevention is of particular interest to students of
mining, civil engineering and environmental engineering. It is an invaluable resource for mining
engineers, geotechnical engineers, environmental engineers and disaster relief professionals and
consultants.
-----
SELECTED RESEARCH REPORTS
Diagnostic Tools to Evaluate Impacts of Trace Organic Compounds
CEC5R08
Author(s): Jerry Diamond
Publication Date: 30 Jun 2011 • ISBN: 9781843395478
Pages: 120 • Paperback
IWA members price: £ 77.25 / US$ 139.05 / € 104.29
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781843395478&type=category
-------------------
21st Century Water Municipal Issues and Concerns: Literature Review
INFR5SG09a
Author(s): Neil Weinstein
Publication Date: 30 Jun 2012 • ISBN: 9781780400150
Pages: 20 • eBook only
IWA members price: £ 77.25 / US$ 139.05 / € 104.29
http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400150&type=category
-----------------
For more information on IWA Publishing products or to buy online visit www.iwapublishing.com
Or contact one of IWA Publishing's distributors:
UK, Europe and Rest of World: North America:
Portland Customer Services BookMasters, Inc.
Commerce Way P.O. Box 388
Colchester Ashland
CO2 8HP, UK OH 44805, USA
Tel: +44 (0)1206 796 351 Tel: +1 800 247-6553
Fax: +44 (0)1206 799 331 (+1 419 281-1802 from Canada)
Email: sales@portland-services.com Fax: +1 419 281-6883
Email: order@bookmasters.com
___________________________________________________________________________
34 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
35. IWA Head Office: IWA Global Operational Office:
Alliance House Koningin Julianaplein 2 (7th floor)
12 Caxton Street 2595 AA the Hague
London SW1H 0QS The Netherlands
UK
Tel: +44 207 654 5500 Tel: +31 (70) 31 50 792
Fax: +44 207 654 5555 Fax: +31 (70) 34 77 005
Web site: http://www.iwahq.org/ Web Site: http://www.iwahq.org/
General e-mail: water@IWAhq.org General e-mail: water@IWAhq.org
Membership e-mail: members@iwahq.org
Company registered in England No. 3597005
Registered Charity (England) No. 1076690
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 35