Next Article in Journal
Different Adsorption Behaviors and Mechanisms of Anionic Azo Dyes on Polydopamine–Polyethyleneimine Modified Thermoplastic Polyurethane Nanofiber Membranes
Next Article in Special Issue
Unsaturated Vertical Flow Constructed Wetland for Chlorothalonil Remediation with Target Application in Ethiopian Floriculture Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Future Rainfall Erosivity over Iran Based on CMIP5 Climate Models
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Algicidal and Denitrifying Bacteria on the Vertical Distribution of Cyanobacteria and Nutrients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/w14233860
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Partially Saturated Vertical Constructed Wetlands and Free-Flow Vertical Constructed Wetlands for Pilot-Scale Municipal/Swine Wastewater Treatment Using Heliconia latispatha

by
José Antonio Fernández Viveros
1,
Georgina Martínez-Reséndiz
1,2,
Florentina Zurita
3,
José Luis Marín-Muñiz
4,
María Cristina López Méndez
1,
Sergio Zamora
5 and
Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo
1,*
1
Wetlands and Environmental Sustainability Laboratory, Division of Graduate Studies and Research, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Misantla, Km 1.8 Carretera a Loma del Cojolite, Misantla 93821, Veracruz, Mexico
2
CONACYT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia), Tecnológico Nacional de México Campus Misantla, Misantla 93821, Veracruz, Mexico
3
Environmental Quality Research Center, Centro Universitario de la Ciénega, Universidad de Guadalajara, Av. Universidad 1115, Ocotlán 1115, Jalisco, Mexico
4
Academy of Sustainable Regional Development, El Colegio de Veracruz, Xalapa 91000, Veracruz, Mexico
5
Faculty of Engineering, Construction and Habitat, Universidad Veracruzana, Bv. Adolfo Ruiz Cortines 455, Costa Verde, Boca del Rio 94294, Veracruz, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(23), 3860; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233860
Submission received: 30 September 2022 / Revised: 22 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 November 2022 / Published: 27 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wastewater Bio-Ecological Treatment)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands (PSV-CWs) and free-flow vertical constructed wetlands (FFV-CWS) are treatment systems for which there is limited information on their operation in tropical climates and even scarcer information on their use for municipal/swine wastewater treatment. In this work, the removal of pollutants from municipal wastewater mixed with swine effluents was evaluated using PSV-CWs and FFV-CWs, at pilot scale, with the presence and absence of vegetation in a tropical climate. Six vertical flow CWs made up of polyvinyl chloride (1 m high and 0.5 m in diameter) were used; three were operated with free-flow conditions and three with partially saturated conditions. In each type of configuration, two reactors were planted with an individual of Heliconia latispatha, and one remained without vegetation. They were fed with municipal wastewater mixed with 50% of swine wastewater. Their ability to remove COD, TSS, TP, TN, N-NH4, and N-NO3 and plant development were evaluated. Heliconia latispatha registered better results of adaptation and vegetative development in the PSV-CWs in comparison with FFV-CWs measured as total biomass (5697.1 g/m2 and 5095.7 g/m2, respectively). PSV-CWs were slightly better for TSS elimination (4.21%), while FFV-CWs presented a better performance for TN removal (3.76%), N-NH4 (3.94%) and N-NO3 (4.76%) in the systems with vegetation; no significant difference (p ˃ 0.05) was found between the two types of CWs for the removal of COD and TP. However, significant differences (p ˂ 0.05) were found between the systems with vegetation and those without vegetation in both configurations. These results demonstrate that PSV-CWs represent a better option for the treatment of municipal/swine wastewater since their efficiency was slightly higher than, or similar to that of, FFV-CWs and allowed a better development of H. latispatha.

1. Introduction

Wastewater generation is a problem in urban centers. In Mexico, in the year 2000, it was estimated that 250 m3/s of municipal wastewater was generated in urban centers, while, in 2012, approximately 229.73 m3/s was discharged [1]. According to projections, in the year 2030, 9200 million cubic meters of wastewater will be generated [2].
Municipal wastewater treatment has become one of the most challenging environmental problems, due to the increasing volume of urban wastewater and stricter regulations on the concentration of pollutants in effluents [3]. In developing countries, the most common method of wastewater disposal has been its direct discharge into water bodies. In this way, the problem was diluted or moved away from its place of origin with the certainty that the ecosystems would process the contaminants and would not suffer negative consequences. However, when the volume of wastewater discharged increases and exceeds the natural capacity of aquatic ecosystems to process it, the great health and environmental impacts become evident. In this way, untreated municipal wastewater represents a danger to aquatic ecosystems due to its content of nutrients and organic matter in large quantities [4].
On the other hand, some effluents, such as those from pig farms, are characterized by their high content of organic matter and nutrients, which is influenced by the number of animals and the production stage. When these discharges are combined with municipal wastewater, the content and removal of contaminants from the wastewater mixture become more complex. This occurs mainly in places where there is no control of these discharges and treatment.
In general, the conventional treatment of municipal wastewater consists of expensive technologies, which require skilled labor. The analysis and study of the costs of the different treatments is essential to evaluate their efficacy in a comprehensive way. Therefore, there is a need for cheaper, more robust, and more effective processes for the decontamination and disinfection of wastewater, taking into account the need to protect human health and the environment [5]; an example is the technology of constructed wetlands. Constructed wetlands (CWs) are engineered systems in which the processes that occur in natural wetlands are simulated [6,7,8]. Biological and physicochemical processes take place in them to remove pollutants from wastewater. These systems have been successful in tropical climates due to their efficiency, easy installation and maintenance, low cost, and easy operation [9] in areas with limited technological access where wastewater treatment plants with techniques such as coagulation–flocculation, enzymatic methods, activated sludge, electrochemical methods, and oxidation, among others, are not affordable.
In CWs, vegetation is a component that influences the processes of pollutant removal and, therefore, the good performance of the systems [10] in which not only conventional plants are used, but also those with economic value [11]. Canna hybrids [12], Zantedeschia aethiopica [13], Anthurium, Agapanthus [14,15], and Heliconia latispatha are examples of unconventional vegetation. Heliconia latispatha is a macrophyte plant and, in some cases, it has been used in CWs for the treatment of different types of wastewaters, providing excellent results in the removal of pollutants. However, Heliconia latispatha has not been tested for the removal of high concentrations of pollutants in free-flowing and partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands or in the treatment of domestic/swine wastewater. Additionally, it is an important commercial plant for its aesthetic value in rural areas in Mexico [16]. Thus, its evaluation is important for its possible use in large-scale systems.
Macrophytes are the main source of oxygen in some types of CWs through a process that occurs in the root zone, called radial oxygen loss [17]. It is important to know that by using systems without plants as controls, the efficiency of the vegetation can be known. Another important element of CWs is the substrate used, such as gravel, zeolite, limestone, and tezontle, due to their porosity, low density, and ease of obtaining [17,18,19].
Water flow is another determining factor in the CW process. Thus, horizontal subsurface flow CWs, surface flow constructed wetlands, vertical flow constructed wetlands [20] and hybrids, have been developed. The latter is the most commonly used to treat wastewater whose characteristics do not allow a single treatment stage to remove pollutants [21,22,23,24]. Regarding partially saturated vertical flow constructed wetlands, configurations have been designed that improve their performance for the removal of specific compounds, as shown by Martínez et al. [25] and Nakase et al. [26] for the removal of nitrogen and organic matter, demonstrating a significant improvement in the removal of these compounds. These systems have a saturation zone and a free-flow zone integrated into a single system that is achieved by raising the water outlet of the system, while free vertical flow constructed wetlands have the system’s water outlet at the bottom, so that the water descends freely.
Therefore, the implementation of ecological and economic technologies that enable the treatment of wastewater from this type of agroindustry is an urgent need. Considering the above, the objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment of municipal/swine wastewater through FFV-CWs and PSV-CWs on a pilot scale using ornamental plants (Heliconia latispatha) in a tropical climate. Thus, the importance of this study lies in the use of partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands (PSV-CWs), since there is little information about their operation in tropical climates and even scarcer information on the treatment of municipal/swine wastewater.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location of the Study Area

This study was carried out at the facilities of the Higher Technological Institute of Misantla, Misantla campus, Veracruz, Mexico (19°56′ north latitude and 96°51′ west longitude), at an altitude of 300 m above sea level, with a humid subtropical climate, average annual rainfall of 2036.4 mm, and an average annual temperature of 22.7 °C [27]. The study was carried out from 1 June 2019 to 30 July 2020. The climate is classified as tropical, and its rainy season begins after September.

2.2. System Description

Six pilot-scale CWs were installed and evaluated outdoors; the units were made up of polyvinyl chloride cylinders (1 m height and 0.5 m in diameter) (Figure 1).
Three vertical CW operated in free-flow conditions (FFV-CW) and the other three with partially saturated flow (PSV-CW); in these, the residual water level was maintained at 0.5 m from the bottom, favoring anaerobic conditions, and the remaining 0.5 m of height was free drainage (Figure 2).
All the mesocosms were filled up to a height of 1 m with tezontle (3 to 10 mm in diameter), a material used in previous studies by this research group due to its properties and easy availability in the study area [26]. The material was taken from a local material bank in the municipality of Misantla. The ornamental species (Heliconia latispatha) was used with a height of 16 ± 1.5 cm, selected for its commercial value and easy adaptation to total or partial flood conditions, obtained in its natural state on the outskirts of the municipality of Misantla, Veracruz, Mexico (located at coordinates 19°57′40″ north latitude and 96°52′2″ west longitude). Two individuals of H. latispatha were planted in each FFV-CW and PSV-CW, that were evaluated in duplicate. A unit of each vertical CW type without plants was used as a control. This was in order to know the effect of vegetation in these types of systems.
The evaluation of the CW systems was carried out during a 12-month period (August 2019–July 2020). Before their evaluation, a process of adaptation to the wastewater quality conditions was carried out (Table 1). This was in order to favor the adaptation of plants and the stimulation of microbial growth. The systems were fed for 30 days with drinking water. Subsequently, for the following 335 days, they were fed with a mixture of 50% of domestic wastewater, taken from a collection system within the facilities of the Higher Technological Institute of Misantla, and 50% of wastewater from a pig farm near the study site. The wastewater was mixed with an agitator in a tank with a capacity of 1100 L for its homogeneity, which in turn worked as a sedimentation tank where the mixture was allowed to settle for 8 h (as a pretreatment stage). Its physicochemical composition is shown in Table 1.
Subsequently, the water was pumped to a tank located 30 cm above the level of the CWs (before feeding the systems) through an automated system that fed the CWs (Figure 3). This was implemented with an Arduino SP32 microcontroller with a Wi-Fi module and Bluetooth for remote management and data collection with cloud storage in order to stop or free the flow of wastewater CWs (Figure 4). Electro valves and flow meters installed at the entrance of each mesocosm activated with a relay were used to control the volume fed in the period of time (8 L every 4 h).

2.3. Physical and Chemical Parameters

The pH and the total suspended solids (TSS) were determined with a waterproof multiparameter (standard methods). The chemical oxygen demand (COD) was determined by the dichromate method [27]. Dissolved oxygen (DO) was determined with a Milwaukee probe (MW 600). Total nitrogen (TN), ammoniacal nitrogen (N-NH4), nitrate (N-NO3), and total phosphorus (TP) were determined according to the Official Mexican Standards (NMX-AA-026-SCFI-2010) [28]. To measure the vegetative development, a flexometer and a vernier were used. The parameters were measured every 15 days throughout the study at the laboratory of wetlands and environmental sustainability of the Higher Technological Institute of Misantla.

2.4. Plant Development

The height of the plant was measured by means of a tape measure, the thickness of the stem with a Vernier, and shoot production, plant health, and flower production by sight. Biomass production was also quantified at the end of the study. All the plants and suckers were taken, and the plants were separated into aerial and underground parts (root), and washed and dried to obtain the fresh weight of each one (seven plants per yield on average). Subsequently, they were dried in the open air and finally calcined at a temperature of 105 °C in an electric oven for 4 h, until reaching a constant weight. Biomass was calculated by adding the dry weight averages of the aerial and underground parts.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

A non-parametric test was used to analyze the data generated during the study and to compare the removal of contaminants between treatments using the Kruskal–Wallis test at a significance level of 5% with the InfoStat software version 2020. The null hypothesis established that there was no difference between the partially saturated vertical wetland systems and the free-flowing vertical wetlands, both in the control system and in the vegetation system for contaminant removal.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. pH in the Influent and Effluents of the Systems

The average pH value throughout the study at the system inlet was 8.8 units (Table 2, Figure 5), a value higher than those reported by [29] for swine wastewater. However, it should be considered that this water is a 50:50 mixture of swine wastewater with municipal wastewater. The combination of the waters evaluated in this work alkalized the water, in relation to the output, whose values ranged between 6.33 and 7.83 units and an average of 7.27 (Table 2).
This reduction of the pH in the effluents, with respect to the influent, behaved in a similar way and allowed acting as a diluent, decreasing the pH to values close to neutrality, which were conducive for a large number of purification processes, such as nitrification, to be carried out. According to [30], the optimum pH for this process is 7.0–8.0. Denitrification requires an optimum range from 6.5 to 7.5, although other authors point out that it can occur with a pH of 6.0–8.0 [31], while the ammonification process is carried out in an optimum pH range of 6.5–8.5 [32].

3.2. Ambient Temperature and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the Influent and Effluents of the Systems

During the evaluation period (August 2019–July 2020), the ambient temperature ranged between 14.5 and 32 °C; the maximum temperature was recorded in May (32 °C). These conditions are considered adequate for the optimal development of plants and microorganisms present in the system as suggested by [17], who mentions that in tropical and subtropical zones plant development is better stimulated due to warm temperatures and extensive hours of sunlight.
The values regarding the removal of total suspended solids were obtained through the processes [30] of filtration through the porous stone (red volcanic gravel), and sedimentation [33], the effect of the plant root and rhizomes, and the CWs configuration. These processes also slowed the rate of water circulation in the wetland from 2.5 M/s to 1.9 M/s, contributing to TSS (Figure 6) removal [34]. It should be noted that TSS removal in this work was higher than those reported in other vertical CWs studies for swine wastewater [34,35,36].

3.3. Contaminant Concentrations and Removal

3.3.1. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

COD represents the degradation process of the organic matter contained in the wastewater. Values of up to 1486 mg L−1 were recorded in the influent; this parameter was removed by almost 94%, with greater removal observed in the PSV-CWs and FFV-CWs with vegetation (Table 2, Figure 7). There was no statistical difference between these two systems; however, a difference was observed with respect to those without vegetation (p = 0.0001). The highest removal efficiency corresponded to the PSV-CWs with 87.6 ± 11.9%, surpassing the other treatment processes and other systems such as the one reported by [37]. They used a UASB reactor to treat swine wastewater that achieved an average removal efficiency of 77.4%.

3.3.2. Total Phosphorus (TP)

Regarding total phosphorus, significant differences (p = 0.0001) were observed between the values of the input water and the treated water. Differences were also found between CWs with vegetation and those without it (Table 2, Figure 8). The most relevant results were in the PSV-CWs (58.5 ± 12.5%) and FFV-CWs with vegetation (57.0 ± 12.9%) in which there were no statistical differences. This could possibly be due to the fact that one of the mechanisms of phosphorus elimination is favored by the absorption of the plants in CWs [38], even though it is the least complex mechanism. However, given the form of water supply in the CWs with vertical flow, there is a greater contact surface with the root zone of the wastewater, which could favor this mechanism in these systems. These results are similar to those reported by Nakase et al. [26] in PSV-CWs regarding phosphorus removal in the presence of vegetation. In addition, the absorption in the porous media could also play an important role as it can be observed in the systems without the presence of vegetation (Figure 8), which is another well-documented mechanism of phosphorus removal in CWs [38].
Evaluating the elimination of phosphates in these systems in order to discover the elimination mechanism that predominates in the PSV-CWs of phosphorus is suggested.

3.3.3. Total Nitrogen (TN), Ammoniacal Nitrogen (N-NH4), and Nitrate (N-NO3)

The average concentration of total nitrogen (TN) in the influent water was 127.7 mg L-1. The highest efficiency was found in the FFV-CWs with vegetation. A removal of 69.9 ± 6.4% (p = 0.0001) in the FFV-CWs and PSV-CWs with vegetation were superior to the treatments without vegetation (Table 2, Figure 9).
In this report, TN removal results were similar to those reported by [35] and superior to those obtained by [39]; they employed vertical CWs for swine wastewater treatment. The efficiency obtained in TN removal was possible thanks to denitrification, ammonification, and nitrification processes that were favored by the pH conditions, presence of vegetation, and seasonal temperature, which ranges between 20 and 35 °C. These values were considered as optimal by [40]. The aforementioned processes are characteristic in CWs.
N-NH4 is the form of nitrogen absorbed by vegetation. It is therefore likely to decrease in CWs [26]. Another mechanism of N-NH4 removal is ammonification, followed by nitrification and ammonia volatilization [41]. In this study, the nitrogen average in the form of ammonia detected at the system influent was 98.6 mg L−1. The most significant removal (p = 0.0001) was 70.1 ± 5.8% in FFV-CWs, followed by PSV-CWs with 65.5 ± 5.6%, which are precisely the vegetated wetlands (Table 2, Figure 10).
An average of 30.2 mg L−1 of N-NO3 was present at the system influent. The removal efficiency was 71.6 ± 9.4% in the FFV-CWs (p = 0.0001), which was found to be the best. Overall, the best results were for CWs with vegetation (Table 2, Figure 11).
This was expected as the first pathway for removal of N-NO3 in the system is vegetation, by ingress of NO3 to the roots by diffusion or with water flow [42]. The other pathway is denitrification under low or no oxygen conditions, where bacteria degrade organic matter [43]. In denitrification, facultative anaerobic bacteria utilize NO3, converting it to N2 in gas form. It should be noted that in CWs, when the flow is horizontal, anoxic–anaerobic conditions predominate due to the permanence of water, so denitrification occurs in the presence of organic matter. Hybrid CWs have been shown to be more effective than single-stage systems [44]; however, in this case, an excellent efficiency was also observed.
Table 2 shows the percentages of removal efficiency in relation to the concentration of influent and effluent water, where it can be observed that the highest COD removal efficiency occurred in PSV-CWS and FFV-CWS (with vegetation) with a removal of 93.42 and 92.42%, respectively. PSV-CWs without vegetation showed a higher TSS removal efficiency, followed by PSPSV-CWs without vegetation; however, between PSV-CWs and FFV-CWs (with vegetation) there was no significant difference in their removal efficiencies. The pH did not show a significant difference in the different treatments.
The best removal of TN, N-NH4, and N-NO3 was in the FLCP. Finally, TP presented a better percentage of removal in PSV-CWs and FFV-CWs with plants during the study.
Table 2 also shows the statistical difference in the averages of the parameters evaluated in each of the treatments during the study period, where in at least one treatment there is a significant difference with respect to the input values to the system.

3.3.4. Biomass and Vegetative Development

Heliconia latispatha showed vigorous growth according to all the parameters measured during the 12 months of experimentation (Table 3). At the end of the experiment, the plants reached a value of 217.5 ± 10 cm and 182 ± 10 cm in height in the partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands and free-flow vertical constructed wetlands, respectively (Figure 12), with an average stem thickness of 2.5 ± 0.5 cm and 2.3 ± 0.5 cm. The increase in height of Heliconia latispatha in all wetlands showed a linear relationship with time. In the same way, the number of flowers was higher in the PSV-CWS; however, the production of flowers was similar in both the partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands and the free-flow vertical constructed wetlands. This early and abundant flowering could be attributed to the amount of phosphorus available in pig wastewater, as this nutrient plays a crucial role in the reproductive phases of plants, stimulating their vegetative growth reflected in the number of leaves and inflorescences [45]. In general, the Heliconias latispathas planted in the partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands showed better development. This could be due to the fact that the conditions that create the saturated and unsaturated zone in the partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands favor the N-NH4 assimilation by the plants through their roots, stimulating their development [46].
The biomass produced at the end of the study period can be seen in the Table 4. The results indicated higher biomass growth in the PSV-CWs with a final total biomass of 5696.7 g/m2 in dry weight, higher by 11.6% than those grown in the FFV-CWs.
These favorable values, and those reported in other studies, are characteristic of this species, which highlights its ability to adapt to domestic and pig wastewater as they contain high concentrations of organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other microelements [47].

4. Conclusions

Partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands proved to be a suitable alternative for the treatment of municipal and swine wastewaters that contain higher concentrations of contaminants than conventional municipal wastewater. On the other hand, the use of Heliconia latispatha as vegetation favored the elimination of pollutants in both configurations of the CWs (partially saturated and free-flow vertical systems), although the plant development showed a higher total biomass in PSV-CWs than in FFV-CWs. However, flower production was similar in both types of CWs. In addition, the saturation zone of the PSV-CWs of 50 cm was adequate to eliminate contaminants contained in municipal/swine wastewater. Future research should be directed towards the evaluation of the saturation zone and new ornamental species that allow the favoring and increasing of the conditions to eliminate contaminants in waters with high contaminant loads. However, since the climate is considered tropical, and the rainy season starts after September, it is assumed that the excess rain may have diluted the contaminants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.F.V. and L.C.S.H.; methodology, G.M.-R. software, M.C.L.M. validation, L.C.S.H., F.Z. and J.L.M.-M.; formal analysis, J.L.M.-M.; investigation, J.A.F.V.; resources, L.C.S.H.; data curation, F.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.F.V. and L.C.S.H.; writing—review and editing, G.M.-R. and J.L.M.-M.; visualization, J.A.F.V.; supervision, L.C.S.H.; project administration, F.Z. and S.Z.; funding acquisition, L.C.S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Tecnológico Nacional de México with the project: TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER PRODUCED BY SWINE MICROENTERPRISES IN VERACRUZ, MEXICO, THROUGH PARTIALLY SATURATED VERTICAL FLOW CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS. Project Key: 5035.19P (2019).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

To the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) in Mexico, for the scholarship to study a doctorate in Engineering Sciences at Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Misantla.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. CONAGUA. Estadísticas del Agua en México. 2014. Available online: http://www.conagua.gob.mx/conagua07/publicaciones/publicaciones/eam2014.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2022).
  2. CONAGUA. Numeragua México. 2016. Available online: http://201.116.60.25/publicaciones/Numeragua_2016.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2022).
  3. Crîstiu, D.; Simon-Várhelyi, M.; Luca, A.V.; Brehar, M.A.; Vasile Mircea, V.C. Augmenting Heat Balance of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Model and Improving Plant Control by Counteracting Temperature Disturbances. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2020, 48, 1141–1146. [Google Scholar]
  4. Preisner, M. Surface Water. Pollution by Untreated Municipal Wastewater Discharge Due to a Sewer Failure. Environ. Process. 2020, 7, 767–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gallego-Valero, L.; Moral-Parajes, E.; Román-Sánchez, I.M. Wastewater Treatment Costs: A Research Overview through Biblioetric Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bakhshoodeh, R.; Alavi, N.; Oldham, C.; Santos, R.M.; Babaei, A.A.; Vymazal, J.; Paydary, P. Constructed wetlands for landfill leachate treatment: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 146, 105725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Naeem, M.; Ansari, A.A.; Gill, S.S. (Eds.) Contaminants in Agriculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nuamah, L.A.; Li, Y.; Pu, Y.; Nwankwegu, A.S.; Haikuo, Z.; Norgbey, E.; Bofah-Buoh, R. Constructed wetlands, status, progress, and challenges. The need for critical operational reassessment for a cleaner productive ecosystem. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Oliveira, G.A.; Colares, G.S.; Lutterbeck, C.A.; Dell’Osbel, N.; Machado, Ê.L.; Rodrigues, L.R. Floating treatment wetlands in domestic wastewater treatment as a decentralized sanitation alternative. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 773, 145609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Almeida-Naranjo, C.E.; Guachamín, G.; Guerrero, V.H.; Villamar, C.-A. Heliconia stricta Huber behavior in hybrid constructed wetlands fed with synthetic domestic wastewater. Water 2020, 12, 1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zitácuaro-Contreras, I.; Vidal-Álvarez, M.; Hernández y Orduña, M.G.; Zamora-Castro, S.A.; Betanzo-Torres, E.A.; Marín-Muñíz, J.L.; Sandoval-Herazo, L.C. Environmental, Economic, and Social Potentialities of Ornamental Vegetation Cultivated in Constructed Wetlands of Mexico. Sustainability 2021, 12, 6267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. González-Moreno, H.R.; Marín-Muníz, J.L.; Sánchez-De la-Cruz, E.; Nakase, C.; Del Ángel-Coronel, O.A.; Reyes-Gonzalez, D.; Nava-Valente, N.; Sandoval-Herazo, L.C. Bioelectricity Generation and Production of Ornamental Plants in Vertical Partially Saturated Constructed Wetlands. Water 2021, 13, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vera-Puerto, I.; Escobar, J.; Rebolledo, F.; Valenzuela, V.; Olave, J.; Tíjaro-Rojas, R.; Correa, C.; Arias, C. Performance Comparison of Vertical Flow Treatment Wetlands Planted with the Ornamental Plant Zantedeschia aethiopica Operated under Arid and Mediterranean Climatic Conditions. Water 2021, 13, 1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zurita, F.; De Anda, J.; Belmont, M.A. Treatment of domestic wastewater and production of commercial flowers in vertical and horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Leiva, A.M.; Gutiérrez, E.; Arias, C.A.; Vidal, G. Influence of water quality parameters on the removal of triclosan and ibuprofen in vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands using multivariate analysis. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fernández-Echeverría, E.; Herazo, L.S.; Zurita, F.; Betanzo-Torres, E.; Sandoval-Herazo, M. Development of Heliconia latispatha in constructed wetlands, for the treatment of swine/domestic wastewater in tropical climates, with PET as a substitute for the filter medium. Rev. Mex. Ing. Química 2022, 21, IA2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sandoval, L.; Zamora-Castro, S.; Vidal-Álvarez, M.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Role of Wetland Plants and Use of Ornamental Flowering Plants in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Toledo, M.S.; Teixeira, M.A.; Pimentel, M.M.; Saraiva, C. Efficiency of horizontal subsurface flow-constructed wetlands considering different support materials and the cultivation positions of plant species. Rev. Ambient. Água 2020, 15, 2–13. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sandoval-Herazo, L.C.; Alvarado-Lassman, A.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Méndez-Contreras, J.M.; Zamora-Castro, S.A. Effects of the use of ornamental plants and different substrates in the removal of wastewater pollutants through microcosms of constructed wetlands. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Maiga, Y.; von Sperling, M.; Mihelcic, J.R. Constructed Wetlands. In Water and Sanitation for the 21st Century: Health and Microbiological Aspects of Excreta and Wastewater Management (Global Water Pathogen Project); Rose, J.B., Jiménez-Cisneros, B., Mihelcic, J.R., Verbyla, M.E., Eds.; Part 4: Management Of Risk from Excreta and Wastewater—Section: Sanitation System Technologies, Pathogen Reduction in Sewered System Technologies; Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI, UNESCO: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haydar, S.; Anis, M.; Afaq, M. Performance evaluation of hybrid constructed wetlands for the treatment of municipal wastewater in developing countries. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2020, 28, 1717–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dell’Osbel, N.; Stolzenberg, C.G.; Alves, O.G.; Ribeiro, R.L.; Pereira, S.F.; Lawish, R.A.; López, D.A.R.; Lutterbeck, C.A.; Oliveira, S.E.; Kist, T.L.; et al. Hybrid constructed wetlands for the treatment of urban wastewaters: Increased nutrient removal and landscape potential. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 28, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, X.; Wang, T.; Xu, Z.; Zhang, L.; Dai, Y.; Tang, X.; Tao, R.I.R.; Yang, Y.; Tai, Y. Effect of heavy metals in mixed domestic-industrial wastewater on performance of recirculating standing hybrid constructed wetlands (RSHCWs) and their removal. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 379, 122363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saeed, T.; Miah, M.J.; Majed, N.; Alam, M.K.; Khan, T. Effect of effluent recirculation on nutrients and organics removal performance of hybrid constructed wetlands: Landfill leachate treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 125427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martínez, N.B.; Tejeda, A.; Del Toro, A.; Sánchez, M.P.; Zurita, F. Nitrogen removal in pilot-scale partially saturated vertical wetlands with and without an internal source of carbon. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Nakase, C.; Zurita, F.; Nani, G.; Reyes, G.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Cabrera-Hernández, A.; Sandoval, L. Nitrogen removal from domestic wastewater and the development of tropical ornamental plants in partially saturated mesocosm-scale constructed wetlands. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. O’Dell, J.M. (Ed.) Method 410.4: The Determination of Chemical Oxygen Demand by Semi-Automated Colorimetry; Revision 2.0; Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1993.
  28. Norma Mexicana NMX-AA-026-SCFI-2010; Water Analysis—Determination of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Natural Water, Wastewaters and Treated Wastewaters—Test Method. 2013. Available online: http://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/166772/NMX-AA-026-SCFI-2010.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2022).
  29. Garzón-Zúñiga, M.A.; Buelna, G. Characterization of Swine Wastewater and Its Treatment by Different Processes in Mexico. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient. 2014, 30, 65–79. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kadlec, R.H.; Wallace, S. Treatment Wetlands, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  31. Vymazal, J. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 380, 48–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Morandi, C.; Schreiner, G.; Moosmann, P.; Steinmetz, H. Elevated Vertical-Flow Constructed Wetlands for Light Greywater Treatment. Water 2021, 13, 2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rowan, A.C.; Irala, C.Z.; Zamora, C.Q. Artificial Wetlands, an alternative for Wastewater purification in the Municipality of Mizque, Bolivia. Des. Technol. Dev. 2018, 5, 88–108. [Google Scholar]
  34. Alarcón Herrera, M.T.; Zurita Martínez, F.; Lara-Borrero, J.A.; Sáez, V.; Gladys, C. Treatment wetlands: Wastewater sanitation alternative applicable in Latin America. Pontif. Univ. Javer. 2018, 1–30. Available online: https://repository.javeriana.edu.co/handle/10554/34519 (accessed on 30 October 2022).
  35. Mateo, N.; Nani, G.; Montiel, W.; Nakase, C.; Salazar-Salazar, C. Effect of Canna hybrids in partially saturated constructed wetlands for swine water treatments. Int. J. Sustain. Reg. Dev. 2019, 4, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sandoval-Herazo, M.; Nani, G.; Rivera, S.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Sandoval, L. Performance evaluation of partially saturated vertical constructed wetlands for swine wastewater treatment. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2020, 23, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pacco, A.; Vela, R.; Miglio, R.; Quipuzco, L.; Juscamaita, J.; Álvarez, C.; Fernández-Polanco, F. Proposal of design parameters of a UASB reactor for swine wastewater treatment. Sci. Agropecu. 2018, 9, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Andrés, E.; Araya, F.; Vera, I.; Pozo, G.; Vidal, G. Phosphate removal sing zeolite in treatment wetlands under different oxidation-reduction potentials. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 117, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. De La Mora-Orozco, C.; González-Acuña, I.J.; Saucedo-Terán, R.A.; Flores-López, H.E.; Rubio-Arias, H.O.; Ochoa-Rivero, J.M. Removing Organic Matter and Nutrients from Pig Farm Wastewater with a Constructed Wetland System. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Kadlec, R.H.; Reddy, K.R. Temperature effects in treatment wetlands. Water Environ. 2001, 73, 543–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kumar, S.; Dutta, V. Constructed wetland microcosms as sustainable technology for domestic wastewater treatment: An overview. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 11662–11673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Li, H.; Liu, F.; Luo, P.; Chen, X.; Chen, J.; Huang, Z.; Peng, J.; Xiao, R.; Wu, J. Stimulation of optimized influent C: N ratios on nitrogen removal in surface flow constructed wetlands: Performance and microbial mechanisms. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yang, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, N.; Xie, H.; Zhang, J.; Hu, Z.; Wang, Q. Influence of application of manganese ore in constructed wetlands on the mechanisms and improvement of nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 170, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vymazal, J. The use of hybrid constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment with special attention to nitrogen removal: A review of a recent development. Water Res. 2013, 47, 4795–4811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Blanco, D.; Suárez, J.; Jiménez, J.; González, F.; Álvarez, L.M.; Cabeza, E.; Verde, J. Efficiency of swine waste treatment in plugged lagoon digesters. Pastures 2015, 38, 441–447. Available online: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0864-03942015000400008&lng=es&tlng=es (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  46. Sandoval-Herazo, M.; Martínez-Reséndiz, G.; Fernández Echeverria, E.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Sandoval Herazo, L.C. Plant biomass production in constructed wetlands treating swine wastewater in tropical climates. Fermentation 2021, 7, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xinshan, S.; Qin, L.; Denghuab, Y. Nutrient Removal by Hybrid Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for High Concentration Ammonia Nitrogen Wastewater. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2010, 2, 1461–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 14 03860 g001 550
Figure 1. Pilot-scale constructed wetlands for the treatment of municipal/swine wastewater.
Figure 1. Pilot-scale constructed wetlands for the treatment of municipal/swine wastewater.
Water 14 03860 g001
Water 14 03860 g002 550
Figure 2. Pilot-scale wetland system configuration: free-drainage zone and saturated zone.
Figure 2. Pilot-scale wetland system configuration: free-drainage zone and saturated zone.
Water 14 03860 g002
Water 14 03860 g003 550
Figure 3. Control system for the wastewater supply in the CWs.
Figure 3. Control system for the wastewater supply in the CWs.
Water 14 03860 g003
Water 14 03860 g004 550
Figure 4. Model of the automated control system for the feeding of the system.
Figure 4. Model of the automated control system for the feeding of the system.
Water 14 03860 g004
Water 14 03860 g005 550
Figure 5. Average pH (±E.E.) values obtained during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Figure 5. Average pH (±E.E.) values obtained during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Water 14 03860 g005
Water 14 03860 g006 550
Figure 6. Average TSS (±E.E.) values obtained during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Figure 6. Average TSS (±E.E.) values obtained during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Water 14 03860 g006
Water 14 03860 g007 550
Figure 7. Average COD concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Figure 7. Average COD concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Water 14 03860 g007
Water 14 03860 g008 550
Figure 8. Average TP concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Figure 8. Average TP concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Water 14 03860 g008
Water 14 03860 g009 550
Figure 9. Average TN concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Figure 9. Average TN concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Water 14 03860 g009
Water 14 03860 g010 550
Figure 10. Average N-NH4 concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Figure 10. Average N-NH4 concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Water 14 03860 g010
Water 14 03860 g011 550
Figure 11. Average N-NO3 concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Figure 11. Average N-NO3 concentrations (±E.E.) during the experiment. (FLCP: free flow with plant; FLSP: free flow without plant; PSCP: saturated flow with plant; PSSP: saturated flow with plant; E.E.: standard error).
Water 14 03860 g011
Water 14 03860 g012 550
Figure 12. Growth of Heliconia latispatha during the 12 months of experimentation.
Figure 12. Growth of Heliconia latispatha during the 12 months of experimentation.
Water 14 03860 g012
Table
Table 1. Chemical characteristics of the municipal/swine wastewater used in this study.
Table 1. Chemical characteristics of the municipal/swine wastewater used in this study.
ParameterValue
pH8.8 ± 0.1
TSS (mg/L)1108.8 ± 33.5
COD (mg/L)1486.1 ± 45.4
TP (mg/L)30.19 ± 0.7
TN (mg/L)127.7 ± 1.9
N-NH4 (mg/L)98.6 ± 1.7
N-NO3 (mg/L)16.8 ± 1.5
Note: Values are given as the average ± standard deviation (n = 48).
Table
Table 2. Statistical difference (Kruskal–Wallis with p = 0.0001) and removal efficiencies in each of the treatments during the study period.
Table 2. Statistical difference (Kruskal–Wallis with p = 0.0001) and removal efficiencies in each of the treatments during the study period.
TreatmentsCODTSSpHTNN-NH4TPN-NO3
Entrance1486.1 ± 45.4 c1108.8 ± 33.5 c8.80 ± 0.07 c127.7 ± 1.9 d98.6 ± 1.70 d30.19 ± 0.71 c16.8 ± 1.5 e
PSV-CWs97.8 ± 16.4 a67.7 ± 5.2 a6.78 ± 0.06 a40.9 ± 0.5 b33.4 ± 0.38 b11.95 ± 0.27 a5.5 ± 0.7 b
% efficiency93.4293.8923.0067.9766.1360.4267.26
FFV-CWs112.7 ± 18.1 ab114.4 ± 9.4 b6.91 ± 0.06 ab36.1 ± 0.6 a27.7 ± 0.37 a11.93 ± 0.25 a4.7 ± 0.6 a
% efficiency92.4289.6821.4871.7371.9160.4872.02
PSV-CWs-SV189.6 ± 47.2 ab109.4 ± 9.9 b6.81 ± 0.08 ab47.2 ± 0.8 c36.2 ± 0.75 b18.88 ± 0.34 b7.0 ± 0.7 d
% efficiency87.2490.1322.6163.0463.2837.4658.33
FFV-CWs-SV203.9 ± 50.7 b122.8 ± 15.4 b7.09 ± 0.08 b53.7 ± 1.2 c43.5 ± 0.77 c18.16 ± 0.40 b6.1 ± 0.7 c
% efficiency82.2888.9219.4358.0055.8939.8563.70
Note: Values are provided as the average ± standard deviation (n = 48). Means with a common letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05). PSV-CWs = partially saturated vertical flowing wetland with vegetation; FFV-CWs- = free-flow vertical wetland with vegetation; PSV-CWs-SV = partially saturated vertical wetland not having vegetation; FFV-CWs-SV = free-flow vertical wetland not having vegetation.
Table
Table 3. Vegetative development of the PSV-CWS and FFV-CWS during the 12 months of experimentation.
Table 3. Vegetative development of the PSV-CWS and FFV-CWS during the 12 months of experimentation.
PSV-CWsFFV-CWs
Day 1Day 120Day 240Day 360Day 1Day 120Day 240Day 360
Plant height (cm)2096167217.52067142182
Stem thickness (cm)0.41.21.92.50.511.92.3
Number of shoots0691305911
Number of flowers071316061315
Table
Table 4. Root and total aerial biomass produced in plants (grams in dry weight per m2).
Table 4. Root and total aerial biomass produced in plants (grams in dry weight per m2).
CWsBiomass AerialBiomass RootTotal Biomass
PSV-CWs2342.43354.75697.1
FFV-CWs2110.12985.65095.7
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Viveros, J.A.F.; Martínez-Reséndiz, G.; Zurita, F.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Méndez, M.C.L.; Zamora, S.; Sandoval Herazo, L.C. Partially Saturated Vertical Constructed Wetlands and Free-Flow Vertical Constructed Wetlands for Pilot-Scale Municipal/Swine Wastewater Treatment Using Heliconia latispatha. Water 2022, 14, 3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233860

AMA Style

Viveros JAF, Martínez-Reséndiz G, Zurita F, Marín-Muñiz JL, Méndez MCL, Zamora S, Sandoval Herazo LC. Partially Saturated Vertical Constructed Wetlands and Free-Flow Vertical Constructed Wetlands for Pilot-Scale Municipal/Swine Wastewater Treatment Using Heliconia latispatha. Water. 2022; 14(23):3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Viveros, José Antonio Fernández, Georgina Martínez-Reséndiz, Florentina Zurita, José Luis Marín-Muñiz, María Cristina López Méndez, Sergio Zamora, and Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo. 2022. "Partially Saturated Vertical Constructed Wetlands and Free-Flow Vertical Constructed Wetlands for Pilot-Scale Municipal/Swine Wastewater Treatment Using Heliconia latispatha" Water 14, no. 23: 3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233860

APA Style

Viveros, J. A. F., Martínez-Reséndiz, G., Zurita, F., Marín-Muñiz, J. L., Méndez, M. C. L., Zamora, S., & Sandoval Herazo, L. C. (2022). Partially Saturated Vertical Constructed Wetlands and Free-Flow Vertical Constructed Wetlands for Pilot-Scale Municipal/Swine Wastewater Treatment Using Heliconia latispatha. Water, 14(23), 3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14233860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop