Next Article in Journal
Optimized Process for Melt Pyrolysis of Methane to Produce Hydrogen and Carbon Black over Ni Foam/NaCl-KCl Catalyst
Next Article in Special Issue
Composites of Layered Double Hydroxides and ANA-Type Zeolite Synthesized from Hazardous Secondary Aluminum Dross for Cationic Dye Wastewater Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
New Perspective on Comparative Chemometric and Molecular Modeling of Antifungal Activity and Herbicidal Potential of Alkyl and Cycloalkyl s-Triazine Derivatives
Previous Article in Special Issue
Statistical Optimisation of Used-Cooking-Oil Degradation by Burkholderia vietnamiensis AQ5-12 and Burkholderia sp. AQ5-13
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/pr11020359
processes-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:
Review

Treatment Wetlands in Mexico for Control of Wastewater Contaminants: A Review of Experiences during the Last Twenty-Two Years

by
José Luis Marín-Muñiz
1,
Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo
2,
María Cristina López-Méndez
2,
Mayerlin Sandoval-Herazo
3,
Roberto Ángel Meléndez-Armenta
3,
Humberto Raymundo González-Moreno
4 and
Sergio Zamora
5,*
1
Academy of Sustainable Regional Development, El Colegio de Veracruz, Xalapa 91000, Veracruz, Mexico
2
Wetlands and Environmental Sustainability Laboratory, Division of Graduate Studies and Research, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico de Misantla, Veracruz, Km 1.8 Carretera a Loma del Cojolite, Misantla 93821, Veracruz, Mexico
3
División de Estudios Posgrado e Investigación, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Misantla, Misantla 93821, Veracruz, Mexico
4
Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Misantla, Km 1.8 Carretera a loma del Cojolite, Misantla 93821, Veracruz, Mexico
5
Facultad de Ingeniería, Construcción y Hábitat, Universidad Veracruzana, Bv. Adolfo Ruíz Cortines 455, Costa Verde, Boca del Rio 94294, Veracruz, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2023, 11(2), 359; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020359
Submission received: 29 September 2022 / Revised: 11 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 23 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Control, Removal and Optimization of Environmental Contaminants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Constructed or treatment wetlands (CWs) are a sustainable option to clean wastewater in the face of water pollution problems. Consequently, this study was aimed at reviewing and analyzing the use of CWs in Mexico. This involved types, sizes, and functionality in the removal of pollutants, as well as the main plant species that are used. Furthermore, 67 studies regarding CWs were found, which were classified according to the treatment area as microcosms, mesocosms, pilot scale, and full-scale at 18, 30, 25, and 27%, respectively. The most used types of CWs are those of subsurface flow (87%) versus free-water surface (13%), of which horizontal flow direction (58%) are the most common. Considering Full-Scale CWs, the pollutant removal reported for COD, BOD5, TN, and TP oscillated between 50–90%, 60–90%, 30–90%, and 30–70%, respectively. Among the vegetation that is more used for Mexican CWs, 78 different species were detected; Typha and Cyperus hydrophytes species and ornamental flowering plants as Zantedeschia aethiopica., Canna genus., Heliconia genus, Hedychium coronarium, and Anturium andreanum species (plants with commercial value) were the most used plants. It was concluded that although there is an important advance in the use of ecotechnology as it is an attractive answer for decentralized wastewater treatment in Mexico, results revealed the need to migrate towards the use of CWs in full-scale size, in order to address real pollution problems. Thus, the further implementation of CWs in rural and urban regions with similar tropical and subtropical characteristics as in Mexico is suggested by the authors.

1. Introduction

Water is an essential element that allowed the emergence of life in ecosystems and human development. Two-thirds of the Earth’s surface is covered with water [1]; however, the use of this vital liquid in the development of human activities has caused the degradation of environment and human health due to the discharge of untreated domestic wastewater into water bodies [2,3].
Municipal wastewater treatment is a process that has not received enough attention, mostly in developing countries due to the costs in the construction and implementation of the most conventional methods, as they rely on electricity 24 h per day, which increases the costs [4], turning these processes into a great challenge for their implementation. A recent study [5] reported that in Xaltianguis, Guerrero, Mexico, a sludge treatment plant with an expenditure of 1080 m3/day required USD 298,250 plus a monthly operating cost of USD 1944 per cubic meter. Thus, many of these systems are abandoned due to insufficient financial resources.
On average, high-income countries treat 70% of the municipal and industrial wastewater generated. In upper/middle income countries, this average falls to 38% and to 28%. In lower-middle income countries, only 8% of total municipal and industrial wastewater generated is treated. According to UNESCO in its World Report on the Development of Water Resources (2017) [6], these data support the statement that in the world, more than 80% of wastewater is discharged without any treatment. This situation has a worse impact on developing countries such as Mexico [7].
According to the latest National Inventory made by the National Water Commission (CONAGUA), there are 2786 plants in Mexico operating with an installed capacity of 196.7 m3 s−1 and a treated flow of 144.7 m3 s−1 [8]. Regarding the municipal wastewater collected, 63.73% is treated and of the non-municipal, including industrial wastewater, only 40.1% is treated [9]. Even worse is the case for rural areas whose number of inhabitants (<25,000) make it impossible to implement a treatment system.
Faced with such a situation in the country, alternatives based on nature have been sought to mitigate water pollution. To this respect, constructed wetlands have been an option that has begun to be used as a treatment system in recent decades in a parsimonious manner [10,11,12]. Thus, the objective of this work was to analyze and discuss the current scenario regarding the use of wetlands as a treatment alternative in Mexico in the last 22 years (2000–2022), as well as types of wetlands, dimensions, and vegetation type used in order to replicate them in sites with similar pollution problems.

1.1. Composition of the Population in Mexico

The United Mexican States, also known as Mexico or the Mexican Republic, is located in North America with a continental surface of 1.964 million km2 and a political division of 32 states populated by 126, 014, 024 inhabitants (2020), occupying the 11th place among the most populous nations in the world [13]. Despite the fact that the population in Mexico is predominantly urban (>2500 inhabitants; 79%) and the trend since the 1950s is towards a decrease in the percentage of the rural population (<2500 inhabitants; 21%), the proportion of the Mexican population distributed in rural localities is still high (185, 243 localities).

1.2. Context of Constructed Wetlands Eco-Technology in Mexican Regions

Constructed wetlands (CWs) eco-technology or eco-engineering systems are a nature-based solution (NBS), where natural processes are optimized to improve water quality. NBS is defined by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” [14,15].
CWs are characterized by relatively low establishment costs, robustness, easily operation and maintenance, and a high potential for application in developing countries, particularly in small rural communities. These systems replicate the various wetland processes in a more beneficial way for humans and under controlled environmental conditions [16,17].
Thus, CWs technology seems to be a sustainable solution for the municipal, rural, agricultural and industrial wastewater treatment for decentralized wastewater management, as they are known for their capacity to remove a wide range of pollutants from water through biological, physical, and chemical processes, and produce effluents that can meet the most stringent discharge standards and satisfactory treatment [12,18,19].
According to the water flow, constructed wetlands can be classified as follows: [20,21,22] (Figure 1):
  • Surface flow or Free Water Surface Constructed Wetlands (FWS)are shallow open waters, where plants are rooted in a soil layer on the bottom; these systems are strongly related to natural wetlands. The technology arose in the 1970s in the United States of America with the ecological engineering of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment.
  • Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands (HSSFW) are shallow watertight beds, filled with porous media. The media has high hydraulic conductivity that should guarantee the possibility of the development of the attached biofilm. Plants are rooted in the water-saturated beds, and water is loaded in the inlet of the bed; it flows below the surface in a horizontal pattern, in contact with the media and the plant roots, and is collected at the other end of the bed.
This type of wetland was first researched in Germany in 1954 by Dr. Seidel and Dr. Kickuth with the “root method” in 1960 [23], but it was only about 25 years ago that constructed wetland systems were applied to the decentralized wastewater treatment of single houses, institutions, and small to medium-sized settlements.
3.
Vertical Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands (VSSFW): Typically unsaturated, with a one-meter deep bed filled with a porous medium (sand, gravel, etc.). Water is treated as it trickles down through the media and is in contact with the plant roots. Plants support the vertical drainage process. The water is distributed homogeneously through a pressurized pipe network on the surface of the bed, trickles down, and is collected at the bottom of the bed through perforated drainage pipes.
An important feature of this type is the intermittent hydraulic loading with rest-ing intervals between the single discharges to the vertical bed. This intermittent load-ing provides an effective aeration mechanism because pores of the filter bed refill with oxygen during the intervals. As a result, high nitrification rates can be achieved in the filters. Denitrification can be carried out by recirculating the effluent into the primary treatment unit (septic tank) to eliminate nitrogen
4.
Hybrid constructed wetlands: various types of constructed wetlands may be combined in order to achieve higher treatment effects, especially for nitrogen. VSSFW systems have a much greater oxygen transport capacity and, therefore, provide much better conditions for nitrification. However, very limited or no denitrification occurs in VSSFW systems. Generally, studies that use hybrid systems combine VSSFW and HSSFW systems, however, all types of constructed wetlands could be combined.
In hybrid systems, the advantages of various types of wetlands can be combined to complement each other. It is possible to produce an effluent low in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which is fully nitrified and partly denitrified, and hence it has much lower total-N concentrations.
A recent study [24] showed that “the research content and methods in the field of constructed-wetland and water-management research are constantly being enriched and deepened, including the research methods frequently used in constructed wetlands in water management and in the research content under concern, the functions and roles of constructed wetlands, the relevant measurement indicators of the purification impact of constructed wetlands on water bodies, and the types of water bodies treated by constructed wetlands in water management”.
The lack of use of CW technology lies in the fact that most of the published documents dealing with CW experiences available are experimental and there is a shortage of local design guidelines, along with other issues of scarcity including professional and economy capacity [10,25]. Furthermore, nature-based solutions are not the focus of engineering schools in the region [19].
This review will also be an inventory of constructed wetlands in Mexico for decision makers in the region.

2. Materials and Methods

This review is based on the results provided by the Scopus® (www.scopus.com; accessed on 15 October 2022) database, and the Google Scholar web pages using the keywords “constructed”, “wetlands”, “artificial-wetlands”, “humedales construidos”, “humedales artificiales”, “treatment wetland”, and “phytoremediation”, along with “Mexico”, and limited to publications between 2000 and 2022.
Considering that the aims of this review were to describe and evaluate the “state-of-the-art” of CWs in the country, all the experiences published in papers were considered, including local reports, abstracts of congress regarding wetlands and non-published information obtained directly from the scientific community PanAmerican CW Network (HUPANAM) 2014–2021 (www.hupanam.com, accessed on 15 October 2022).
A total of 55 scientific papers, 19 papers of reviews, 10 books, 13 studies not published in papers but presented at wetland conferences, 3 local reports published online, and 12 institutional reports regarding the use of CWs in Mexico were found and analyzed.
To present the performance of systems, the gathered and processed information according to Rodríguez-Domínguez et al. [12] includes: location; type of technology; surface area; organic loading rate (based on biological oxygen demand (BOD5); chemical oxygen demand (COD))., concentration in the influent and the effluent; total nitrogen (TN) or total phosphorous concentration in the influent and the effluent; plant species used.

Description of the CW Size in the Reviewed Experiences

The size of the systems varied according to the scale of the experiment. In this study, the CW size was classified as follows: 1. Laboratory-scale (microcosms): regardless of the nature of the influent wastewaters, experiments developed in the laboratory with less than 0.99 m2 of surface area. 2. Mesocosm-scale: regardless of influent water origin, experiments carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse, with an effective surface area of 1 to 1.99 m2. 3. Pilot-scale: experiments settled on the site where wastewater is produced, receiving real wastewater to determine the system’s performance 2.0 to 19.99 m2. 4. Full-scale: experiments that were developed on-site, where the wastewater is generated, and treated, at least, part of the influent water on the site. The surface area ranges from 20 m2 to unlimited surface

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Most Used Treatment Systems in Mexico for Wastewater Treatment

The processes designed for the treatment of wastewater are varied; in general, they can be grouped into conventional technologies based on electrical energy and those of ecological treatment, which are environmentally friendly, simple, and low cost systems.
CONAGUA [12] reports the situation of the drinking water, sewerage, and sanitation subsector, and describes the most used treatments of municipal wastewater treatment plants, a total of 2786 wastewater treatment plants in operation (Figure 2). The type of treatment used in more plants is that of stabilization ponds, (827 plants; 29.7%). It is followed by activated sludge (795 plants; 28.5%). In third place is the up flow anaerobic reactor process (RAFA) (364 plants; 13.1%). In fourth place, wetlands stand out as a treatment alternative, of which 230 systems (8.25%) are registered treating from 2 to 190 ls−1, although there are not details regarding their design, construction, and operation.
These systems can work by themselves or combined with other technologies such as electromechanical, stabilization lagoons and anaerobic systems. Some general recommendations on wetland design and wetland pretreatment have already been reported recently [26,27]. In the National Inventory of Treatment Plants (2015) [28], only 68 wetlands were reported as pilot treatment systems, which suggests the importance of their application in the country.
It is highlighted that the 230 CWs reported are located in Sinaloa (116), Oaxaca (40), Tabasco (12), Chihuahua (24), Tlaxcala (7), Hidalgo (6), Jalisco (5), Michoacán de Ocampo (5), Aguascalientes (4), Campeche (3), Morelos (2), Querétaro de Arteaga (2), Guerrero (1), Nayarit (1), Sonora (1), and Zacatecas (1). In Veracruz, 6 CWs are reported combined with RAFA. These are the CWs reported by the different municipalities to CONAGUA, however, not all studies on wetlands in the country are included, especially when they are created by academic and scientific projects, and they are not reported to CONAGUA.
In the case of industrial wastewater treatment plants, CONAGUA [12] reports that there are 3375 plants in operation in the country and they generate a treated flow of 71,638 L per second. However, it is indicated that such inventory does not include treatment plants for hotels, shopping malls, hospitals, housing units, schools, and other establishments that provide services. For this type of wastewater treatment, there are not any reports using CWs.

3.2. Constructed Wetland Systems Used as an Alternative for Wastewater Treatment in Mexico

Conventional wastewater treatment removes pollutants through processes that require large amounts of electricity, with short hydraulic retention times, occupying smaller areas, and being especially advantageous in urban areas where the land has a high commercial value. However, its use brings with it the depletion of non-renewable resources and the corresponding environmental degradation in their processing, as well as the pollution caused by the sludge generated and its higher construction costs, operation, and maintenance [29].
In contrast, ecological treatment systems such as CWs, although they require larger spaces to be installed (3.4–4 m2/people equivalent) [26,30], they have the advantage of low operation and maintenance costs, relatively simple design, and high ease of operation, which makes them a treatment option mainly for rural communities where priority attention is focused on water distribution and/or sewerage implementation [31,32].
According to the data reviewed, 67 published studies on CWs performance were found and grouped according to their size (Figure 3a), 18% were studies in microcosms or laboratory level [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44], 30% were CWs in mesocosms size [5,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63] and, 25% were CWs in Pilot models [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80], while 27% were CWs operating in full-scale conditions (Table 1). These results revealed the need to migrate towards the use of CWs in full-scale, addressing real pollution problems in both rural and urban areas.
Six years ago, 76 published documents on CWs in Mexico were reported, but 33 texts were classified as graduate and postgraduate theses (not counted in this review), only 7 studies were classified as consolidated, operating to treat water in order to solve a water quality problem [10]. This comparative allows to reflect on the increase of initiatives using CW ecotechnology. Some authors punctuate [33,34,35] the importance of phytotechnologies or bioplants for the reduction of discharge of untreated wastewater like agricultural, industrial tannery, dairy, textile, pulp, paper, etc., in order to minimize the impact on the environment.
On the other hand, when the CWs analyzed were grouped according to the wetland type (Figure 3b), 13% studies used FWS, followed by VSSFW with 29%, and HSSFW with 58%. Generally, the higher use of subsurface CW versus FWS is related with most optimum performance in pollutant removals in organic compounds, with benefit given by the filter material media. Between vertical and horizontal flow of CWs, the first has been the least used as the water needs to be pumped intermittently to program the discharge (electric cost) [37,38,39,40].
Advances show that Mexico has begun to gain experience in the design and operation of wetlands and that in the medium term the number of CW treatment plants will increase. Thus, more specific and detailed manuals in Spanish are necessary to promote the use of CWs, as well as greater dissemination at educational levels of these alternatives.
Considering the size of CWs, 18 systems in full scale treating mainly domestic, community, or municipal wastewater were detected (31–11,600 m2) and described in Table 1. All of the full-scale CWs were operated in horizontal subsurface flow, indicating that such a condition is an important factor to consider in other CW designs.
In all cases, the pollutant removal of COD, BOD5, TN, and TP was observed, with variations of 50–90%, 60–90%, 30–90%, and 30–70%, respectively (Table 1). Such removals of BOD and COD comply with the established limits by Mexican Norms (NOM-001-SEMARNAT-2021), but compounds of N of P perhaps need coupling of new strategies to improve their elimination. Some studies have reported better nitrogen eliminations adding internal solid source of organic carbon in order to distinguish the role of nitrification-denitrification and Anammox in the nitrogen removal process [38,44,81].
It is important to highlight that some studies with more than 1000 m2 of CW area reported has been the result of funded projects with civil associations, governments, and community participation. These studies may serve as an example, that is, they could be replicated in other areas. In addition, it is essential to provide the communities with adequate training for the management of CWs in those sites that lack treatment systems. Data regarding dimensions, study sites, pollutant removals, and plant species used can be an option to analyze and to replicate these studies in other sites with wastewater issues.
It is also important to highlight the use of CWs not only in rural areas, but also in urban and peri-urban areas. Some studies have reported the cultural and economic potential when using CWs with ornamental flowering plants, generating cleaning, aesthetics areas, and new ecosystems for birds, butterflies, and other insects [82,83,84,85,86].
A social study regarding the relationship between people and CWs reported that the relationship between the foundation or the projects and the community is successful as the creation and operation of the artificial wetland is the result of trust, reciprocity, and interest between both actors to achieve local development [87]. These data were compared with reviews regarding the use of CWs in other countries [8,18,19,25,85], which shows the similitude in removal of pollutants but with differences in the vegetation used.
Table
Table 1. Full-scale constructed wetlands in Mexico.
Table 1. Full-scale constructed wetlands in Mexico.
Study SiteWastewater Treated
(CW Type)		Plants UsedCW Area (m2)Pollutant Removal
(%)		Reference
Erongarícuaro, MichoacánMunicipal
(HSSFW)		Phragmites communis, Typha latifolia11,600BOD5: 70–90
COD: 70–90		[88]
Santa Fe de la Laguna, Quiroga, MichoacánMunicipal (HSSFW)Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia8800BOD5: 94–98
COD: 91–93
TS: 97–97
TN: 56–88		[30,89]
Nautla, Veracruzcommunity
(HSSFW)		Canna hybrids, Alpinia purpurata, Cyperus papyrus2500COD: 80–90[90]
Cucuchucho, Tzintzuntzan, MichoacánCommunity
(HSSFW)		Phragmites australis, Typha latifolia y Zantedeschia aethiopica2000COD: 89
TN: 80
TP: 74		[89,91]
Acamixtla, Taxco de Alarcón, Guerrero.MunicipalPhragmites australis., Typha latifolia., Cyperus papyrus~2500DBO5: 70–95
DQO: 70–90		[92]
San Juán de Aragón, Gustavo A. Madero. MéxicoEutrophic lake (HSSFW)Phragmites australis., Equisetum hyemale y Cyperus papyrus1613BOD5: 88
TN: 72
TP: 50		[93]
Argovia, Tapachula, Chiapas.Coffe wash industry (HSSFW)Saccharum spp.,
Panicum máximum., Heliconia psittacorum.,
Vetiveria zizanoides y
Clorophytum conmutatum		300 COD: 91
Coliforms: 93		[94]
UAM-Azcapotzalco. Mexico CityMunicipal (HSSFW)Phragmites australis.,Typha latifolia200BOD: 80[95]
Area “Instituto Tecnológico de Boca del Río, Veracruz”UniversityAlpinia purpurata., Ruellia brottoniana., Canna hybrids., Cyperus papyrus., Heliconia pisittacorum., Pennisetum setaceumy and others ND.157NT: >70%
PT: >70%
DQO: 15%		[96]
Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Tapachula, Chiapas.domestic (HSSFW)Heliconia psittacorum., Alpinia purpurata, Typha domingensis.110COD: 64
BOD: 50
TN: 30–39
TP: 40		[97]
Chapala, Jalisco, MéxicoMunicipal (HSSFW) Canna hybrids y Strelitzia reginae70COD: 86
TN: 30–33
TP: 44		[98]
Pinoltepec, Emiliano Zapata, VeracruzMunicipal (HSSFW)Typha sp., Zantedeschia aethiopica., Hedychium coronarium. Cyperus papyrus60TN: 47
TP: 33
COD: 67
TS: 67
N-NH3: 27		[5,49]
Pastorías, Actopan, Veracruzcommunity sewage (HSSFW)Typha sp., Canna hybrids60COD: 92.5
N-NH4: 80.5
TSS: 80
TP: 85		[99]
Area
UAM Xochimilco, México.		Municipal (HSSFW) Arundo donax, Medicago sativa y Zandechia aethiopica55COD: 92
N-NH4: 85
P-PO4: 80		[100]
Akumal, Quintana RooTourist area (HSSFW)Alocasia spp., Typha sp., Matteuccia struthiopteris., Cordia sebestena., Carex sp., Cocos nucifera., Cassia spp. Ixora, Hymenocallis littoralis, Nerium, Dracaena spp., Acalypha spp., Cyperus ligularis., banana, coconut and Carica papaya., Acrostichum danaefolium., Tradescantia sp., Crinum sp., Musa sp., Epipremnum aureum., Chrysalidocarpus lutescens.canna spp., Thrinax radiata. Philodendron spp. Acalypha wilkesiana Sansivieria, Hibiscus spp. Dieffenbachia Caladium spp. Dracaena spp. Vinca rosea, Hedera helix Cestrum nocturnum, Ficus spp, Aloe vera Heliconia, Ravenala madagascariensis Unidentified Tree/Shrub Chamae- dorea (palm)50.41(average size of 30 CW)N-NH4: 15–97
P-PO4: 7–92
COD: 68–85		[101,102,103]
Xalapa, VeracruzWastewater from apartments (HSSFW)Hedychium coronarium, Strelitzia reginae, Zantedeschia aethiopica, Lilium sp., Cyperus papyrus, Heliconia sp.48 P-PO4: 44–62
N-NH4: 68–98
DBO5: 70–80		[104]
Santa María Nativitas, Texcoco, MexicoMunicipal (HSSFW)Calla lily., Zantedeschia aethiopica31.6COD: 80
TSS: 25
TN: 63
N-NH4: 26		[105]
Area university “Instituto Tecnológico de Xalapa”University Cyperrus papyrus, Heliconia sp. 196Not described[106]

3.3. Plants Used in Mexican CW Experiences

The Mexican region lies in the tropical and semitropical zone, and therefore the variety of plants that can be used is broader than in temperate or boreal zones. Warm temperatures, extensive radiation hours, wide diversity of plants and available land in Mexico, make it an important area for the use of CWs. This section presents the result of the reviewed information regarding the vegetation reported in Mexican CWs (Table 2). From the reviewed documents, it was possible to obtain a list of 78 different plant species, used in diverse conditions of density, cultures, and experiments in CWs, which represents 68.4% of the species reported in CWs in Latin America and the Caribbean [8].
The plants that grow in CWs have several properties related to the water treatment process, which makes them an essential component of the design [85,107,108,109]: (a) macrophytes are the main source of oxygen in CWs through a process that occurs in the root zone “radial oxygen loss”, (b) the roots of plants are the site where the microorganisms have a source of microbial attachment and release exudates, an excretion of carbon that contributes to the denitrification process, (c) other physical effects in plant tissue in water include: reduction in the velocity of water flow, promotion of sedimentation, decreased resuspension, and uptake of nutrients, (d) hence, roots and rhizomes in the sediment stimulate the stabilizing of the sediment surface, less erosion, nutrient absorption, prevention of medium clogging (in subsurface conditions), and improved hydraulic conductivity.
Some studies evaluate the differences in the performance between the use of monocultures or polycultures, the capacity of certain species to remove specific pollutants according to the position, water or filter media type, differences between environmental conditions associated with plant response and biomass production, or comparing vegetation of natural wetlands to ornamental terrestrial plants adapted to CWs conditions. The most commonly used plants in CWs in the world have been the Typha (latifolia, angustifolia, domingensis, orientalis, and glauca), Scirpus (e.g., lacustris, validus, californicus, and acutus) and Phragmites (communis, australis) spp. [85,109].
In Mexico, studies have focused on the use of upland ornamental plants in CWs in the last decade (Table 2), with a focus on the commercialization of flowers, and the aesthetic of constructed wetlands with pollutant removal efficiency similar to CWs with hydrophytes. In this review, 23 experiences used Typha spp., similar to the ornamental plant Zantedeschia aethiopica with 19 experiences. Furthermore, typical plant species as Cyperus papyrus (13 experiences) or Phragmites sp. (11 experiences) are being replaced by flowering ornamental plants as Zantedeschia aethiopica (19 experiences), Canna family (16 experiencies), Hedychium coronarium (8 experiences), Alpinia purpurata (8 experiences), Strelitzia reginae (8 experiences), Heliconia Family (8 experiences), Anthurium andreanum (6 experiences) or Iris sp. (5 experiences).
On the other hand, some species were reported only in one, two, or three cases (Table 2), for example, Lillium sp., Iris sibirica, Zingiber spectabile, Agapanthus africanus or the multiple-species survey conducted by Sinha et al. [101] for 30 subsurface CWs. Some of the plant species that were used are novel as they have never been reported before as plants used for CWs. Table 2 shows all the reported species and the frequency of each one in the experiences reviewed.
Table
Table 2. Plant species reported in Mexican CWs.
Table 2. Plant species reported in Mexican CWs.
Scientific NameTypical Name (Spanish)nPlant (Photo)ReferenceScientific NameTypical Name (Spanish)nPlant (Photo)Reference
Typha sp. (domingensis, latifolia)Tules, tifas, aneas23Processes 11 00359 i001[5,30,33,34,35,36,37,39,41,45,48,49,50,51,62,63,68,76,80,94,95,101,110]Lilium sp.Azucena2Processes 11 00359 i002[5,104]
Phragmites (communis, australis)Carrizos11Processes 11 00359 i003[30,34,36,47,62,68,88,91,93,95,105]Heliconia latispathaHeliconia pinza de langosta4Processes 11 00359 i004[58,101,104,106]
Cyperus papyrusPapiros13Processes 11 00359 i005[5,39,49,68,70,72,75,90,93,101,102,103,106]Heliconia strictaJamaica enana1Processes 11 00359 i006[97]
Cyperus alternifoliusSombrillas2Processes 11 00359 i007[5,49]Heliconia psittacorumavecilla, pico de loro3Processes 11 00359 i008[75,94,97]
Zantedeschia aethiopicaAlcatracez19Processes 11 00359 i009[5,37,40,46,49,51,53,54,57,64,66,75,91,100,104,105,111,112,113]Alpinia purpurataJengibre rojo8Processes 11 00359 i010[51,60,65,73,90,97,99,104]
Anthurium andreanumAnturios6Processes 11 00359 i011[5,46,53,64,66,104]Strelitzia reginaeAve de paraíso8Processes 11 00359 i012[40,44,46,66,75,98,104,112]
Hedychium coronariumJengibre blanco, huele de noche8Processes 11 00359 i013[5,64,65,71,72,73,75,104]Agapanthus africanusAgapanto, lirio africano1Processes 11 00359 i014[66]
Lilium sp.Azucenas2Processes 11 00359 i015[5,104]Pontederia sagittataEspiga de agua3Processes 11 00359 i016[52,69,70]
Heliconia latispathaHeliconia pinza de langosta4Processes 11 00359 i017[58,101,104,108]Iris germánicaLirio común1Processes 11 00359 i018[59]
Heliconia strictaJamaica enana1Processes 11 00359 i019[97]Iris sibiricaLirio de Siberia4Processes 11 00359 i020[37,38,39,110]
Iris japonicaLirio persa1Processes 11 00359 i021[75]Arundo donaxCaña de castilla1Processes 11 00359 i022[100]
Canna hybridsBanderas9Processes 11 00359 i023[46,57,59,64,65,74,90,98,110]Medicago sativaAlfalfa1Processes 11 00359 i024[102]
Canna lilyplatanillo1Processes 11 00359 i025[105]Zingiber spectabileMaracas1Processes 11 00359 i026[99]
Canna indicaBanderillas5Processes 11 00359 i027[40,52,60,72,101]Eleocharis macrostachyaJunquillo1Processes 11 00359 i028[67]
Hemerocallis dumortieriLirio de día1Processes 11 00359 i029[46]Schoenoplectus americanuJunco1Processes 11 00359 i030[67]
Spathiphyllum blandumCala de francia, lirio de la paz2Processes 11 00359 i031[55,56]Sagittaria lancifoliaCola de golondrina1Processes 11 00359 i032[63]
Spathiphyllum wallisiiCuna de moisés6Processes 11 00359 i033[52,53,54,60,71,75]Alocasia sp.Hoja elegante2Processes 11 00359 i034[75,101]
Lavandula sp.Lavanda1Processes 11 00359 i035[54]Scirpus sp.Juncos1Processes 11 00359 i036[76]
Chlorophytum (comosum, conmutatum)Cinta, lazo2Processes 11 00359 i037[61,94]Eichhornia crassipesJacinto de agua2Processes 11 00359 i038[77,79]
Vetiveria zizanoidesPasto vetiver1Processes 11 00359 i039[94]Thalia geniculataPlatanillo, hoja de lengua2Processes 11 00359 i040[34,78]
Saccharum spp.Caña1Processes 11 00359 i041[94]Paspalum paniculatumZacatón1Processes 11 00359 i042[78]
Panicum máximum.,Pasto guineo / privilegio1Processes 11 00359 i043[94]Eleocharis macrostachyaCabeza larga1Processes 11 00359 i044[43]
Equisetum hyemaleCola caballo1Processes 11 00359 i045[93]Eleocharis interstinctaZacate laguna1Processes 11 00359 i046[80]
Matteuccia struthiopteris., Cordia sebestena., Carex sp., Cocos nucifera., Hymenocallis littoralis., Dracaena spp., Acalypha spp., Cyperus ligularis., banana., Carica papaya., Acrostichum danaefolium., Tradescantia sp., Crinum sp., Ixora sp., Musa sp., Epipremnum aureum., Chrysalidocarpus lutescens., Thrinax radiata., Philodendron spp. Acalypha wilkesiana., Sansivieria hibiscus., Dieffenbachia Caladium spp., Dracaena spp. Vinca rosea., Hedera helix., Cestrum nocturnum., Nerium spp (oleander). Ficus spp. Cassia spp. (notebook). Aloe vera., Ravenala madagascariensis.[101]
n = number of experiences or studies where the specie was used.
This review shows the feasibility to produce flowers in treatment wetlands. Future studies conducted to evaluate the health of the plants to assess if the plants are suffering stress from the flooding with wastewater conditions of the wetlands are necessary. A report from 2008 with fluorescence spectra and the calculated ratio (F690 nm/F740 nm) indicated that Zantedeschia aethiopica in HSSFW were healthier than those in a VSSFW. The physical measurements led to the same conclusion. The results suggest that the plants in the VSSFW were stressed because less water was available for them under the cyclic flooding and draining characteristic in this type of wetland. It is also possible that the use of non-stratified media was influenced by reducing the water–root contact time [113].
On the other hand, other studies in Mexico have reported the coupling of wetlands with other systems to clean wastewater from coffee or pork processing [114,115], where the authors describe in an accessible way the stages of construction, operation, and maintenance of artificial wetlands. Such options are also an example of collaborative work between academia and government institutions.

4. Conclusions

In terms of wastewater treatment in Mexico, there are eco-friendly alternatives such as constructed wetlands, which in recent decades have become an important option to avoid contamination in Mexico. In this review, 67 studies were found which support the previous claim. When these studies were grouped according to the operation size, 27% subsurface CWs were detected in full-scale level. Such biological systems are already among the most used systems in the country, and they favor the elimination of pollutants through a filter medium, microorganisms, and vegetation. Likewise, 76 plant species have been evaluated within the Mexican CWs, highlighting some ornamental plants such as: Zantedeschia a., Canna spp., Hedychium c., or species of the genus Anthurium/Heliconias, which in addition to functioning as phytoremediators, they are an alternative for economic use as they are commercial plants, mainly for rural communities, where they hardly ever have the option of implementing conventional water treatment systems and where economic remuneration or jobs are scarce.
The study revealed that Mexican CWs use commonly ornamental flowering plants, such plant species can influence people’s interest when using CWs, as well as the impact of the technology either by floral appearance or integration in the place of establishment (floral planters).
Horizontal flow subsurface artificial wetlands have turned out to be an option in Mexico to solve real problems of water contamination, therefore their replication can be a pertinent need in all those places with a lack of wastewater treatment systems. Important eliminations of COD and BOD were detected, which makes them a sustainable alternative for wastewater treatment, mainly in rural communities where the dispersion of housing, high installation, and operation costs make it difficult to set up conventional treatment plants.
With this review regarding CWs in Mexico, it is demonstrated how this country is migrating to the use of nature-based solutions, still analyzing the vicissitudes of the use of such eco-technology.
In this task, it will be necessary to coordinate efforts to promote the transfer of technology and dissemination of these types of projects not only on the part of the government and society, but also the support of research centers, academia, private sector, and society as a whole, creating awareness about the environment for the benefit of present and future generations. Thus, new public policies to normalize the use of CWs as treatment systems and nature-based solutions are necessary.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Boyd, C.E. Water Quality: An Introduction, 3rd ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. CONAGUA. Subdirección General de Agua Potable, Drenaje y Saneamiento. Situación del Subsector Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento 2018. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/conagua/documentos/situacion-del-subsector-agua-potable-drenaje-y-saneamiento (accessed on 2 October 2022). (In Spanish)
  3. INEGI, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. 2018. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2018/EstSociodemo/DEFUNCIONES2017.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022). (In Spanish)
  4. UNESCO. Informe Mundial de las Naciones Unidas Sobre el Desarrollo de los Recursos Hídricos 2019: No Dejar a Nadie Atrás. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367304?posInSet=2&queryId=3ec29fb0-a44a-4183-bb8e-a907a7e4513e (accessed on 8 May 2022). (In Spanish).
  5. Hernández, M.E. Humedales ornamentales con participación comunitaria para el saneamiento de aguas municipales en México. Rinderesu 2016, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  6. UNESCO. Aguas Residuales, El Recurso No Explotado. 2017. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/es/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/2017-wastewater-the-untapped-resource/ (accessed on 20 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  7. IPCC. Resumen Para Responsables de Políticas. Calentamiento Global de 1,5 °C (p. 39); Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. 2019. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/SR15_Summary_Volume_spanish.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  8. CONAGUA. Situación del Subsector Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento. Comisión Nacional del Agua. Subdirección General de Agua Potable, Drenaje y Saneamiento. México. 2021. Available online: https://files.conagua.gob.mx/conagua/publicaciones/Publicaciones/SGAPDS-2-21-a.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2022). (In Spanish).
  9. CONAGUA. Inventario Nacional de Plantas Municipales de Potabilización y de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales en Operación. Subdirección General de Agua Potable, Drenaje y Saneamiento. México. 2020. Available online: https://files.conagua.gob.mx/conagua/publicaciones/Publicaciones/SGAPDS-2-22-a.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  10. García-García, P.L.; Ruelas-Monjardín, L.; Marín-Muñíz, J.L. Constructed wetlands: A solution to water quality issues in Mexico? Water Policy 2016, 18, 654–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zurita, F.; Roy, E.; White, J. Municipal wastewater treatment in Mexico: Current status and opportunities for employing ecological treatment systems. Environ. Techn. 2012, 33, 1151–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Rodríguez-Domínguez, M.; Konnerup, D.; Brix, H.; Arias, C. Constructed wetlands in Latin America and the Caribbean: A review of experiences during the last decade. Water 2020, 12, 1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. INEGI. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. 2020. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/ (accessed on 1 May 2022). (In Spanish).
  14. Cross, K.; Tondera, K.; Rizzo, A.; Andrews, L.; Puvher, B.; Istenič, D.; McDonald, R. Nature-Based Solutions for Wastewater Treatment. A Series of Factsheets and Case Studies; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Castellar, J.; Torrens, A.; Buttiglieri, G.; Monclús, H.; Arias, C.; Carvalho, P.; Galvao, A.; Gomas, J. Nature-based solutions coupled with advanced technologies: An opportunity for decentralized water reuse in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stefanakis, A.; Akratos, C.; Tsihrintzis, V. Vertical flow Constructed Wetlands: Eco-Engineering System for Wastewater and Sludge Treatment, 1st ed.; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J. Wetlands; John Wiley and Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Machado, A.; Beretta, M.; Duarte, E. Overview of the state of the art of constructed wetlands for decentralized wastewater management in Brazil. J. Envronmental Manag. 2017, 187, 560–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vera-Puerto, I.L.; Valdés, H.; Correa Becerra, C.L.; Arias, C.A. Constructed Wetlands and Effluent Reuse in Irrigation for Latin-American Countries: Analysis and Brief Answer from Chile for Arid Climates; Aarhus University: Aarhus, Denmark, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kadlec, R.H.; Wallace, S. Treatment Wetlands; Taylor and Francis Group: Florida, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kadlec, R.H.; Knight, R.L. Treatment Wetlands; Lewis Publishers Inc: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1996; pp. 68–80. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hernández, M.E. Ecological engineering for controlling water pollution in Latin America En. In Ecological Engineering for Controlling Water Pollution in Latin America in Ecological Dimensions for Sustainable Socio Economic Development; Yañez-Arancibia, A., Yáñez-Arancibia, A., Dávalos-Sotelo, R., Day, J.W., Reyes, E., Eds.; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Vidal, G.; Hormozábal, S.; Humedales Construidos. Diseño y operación. 2018 Concepción, Chile. Available online: https://ciudadesverdes.com/download/humedales-construidos-diseno-y-operacion/ (accessed on 5 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  24. Zhang, Y.; You, X.; Wang, M.; Dong, J. Knowledge atlas on the relationship between water management and constructed wetlands-A bibliometric analysis based on citespace. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brix, H.; Koottatep, T.; Fryd, O.; Laugesen, C. The flower and the butterfly constructed wetland system at Koh Phi Phi-System design and lessons learned during implementation and operation. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 729–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. CONAGUA. Manual de Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento. Diseño de Plantas de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales Municipales: Humedales Artificiales; SEMARNAT, Ed.; SEMARNAT: Ciudad de México, México, 2018; Available online: https://sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/CONAGUA%202015.%20Manual%20Humedales%20Artificiales%2030.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  27. Segura, I.; Cervantes, E.; Vázquez, S.; García, J. Operación y Mantenimiento Básico de un Humedal: El caso de San Francisco Uricho en el Municipio de Erongarícuaro, Michoacán; Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua: Morelos, México, 2018; 62p, Available online: https://agua.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Operaci%C3%B3n-y-mantenimiento-b%C3%A1sico-de-un-humedal_el-caso-de-San-Francisco-Uricho-en-el-municipio-de-Erongar%C3%ADcuaro-Michoac%C3%A1n.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  28. CONAGUA. Inventario Nacional de Plantas Municipales de Potabilización y de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales en Operación. Subdirección General de Agua Potable, Drenaje y Saneamiento. México. 2015. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/197610/Inventario_2015.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  29. Zurita-Martínez, F.; Castellanos-Hernández, O.A.; Rodríguez-Sahagún, A. El tratamiento de las aguas residuales municipales en las comunidades rurales de México. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agric. 2011, 1, 139–150. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=263120987011 (accessed on 30 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  30. Rivas, A.; Barceló-Quintal, I.; Moeller, G.E. Pollutant removal in a multi-stage municipal wastewater treatment system comprised of constructed wetlands and a maturation pond, in a temperate climate. Water Sci. Techn. 2011, 980, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Humedales construidos en México para el tratamiento de aguas residuales, producción de plantas ornamentales y reuso del agua. Agroproductividad 2017, 10, 5. Available online: http://revistaagroproductividad.org/index.php/agroproductividad/article/view/1028/879 (accessed on 15 June 2020). (In Spanish).
  32. Wu, H.; Zhang, J.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Shuang, L.; Liang, S.; Fan, J.; Liu, H. A review on the sustainability of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Design and operation. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 175, 594–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Durán de Bazúa, C.; Guido-Zárate, A.; Huanosta, T.; Padrón-López, R.; Rodríguez-Monroy, J. Artificial wetlands performance: Nitrogen removal. Water Sci. Tech. 2008, 58, 1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Navarro-Frómeta, A.; Durán-Domínguez, M. El tratamiento descentralizado del agua residual de pequeñas localidades rurales y suburbanas: Los humedales construidos, una tecnología a considerar. Rev. Cubana Quim. 2019, 31, 87–104. Available online: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2224-54212019000400087 (accessed on 28 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  35. Navarro, A.E.; Pastor, R.; Matramoros-Mercadal, V.; Bayona, J.M. Evaluation of treatment wetlands of different configuration for the sugarcane-mill effluent under tropical conditions. In Constructed Wetlands for Industrial Wastewater Treatment; Stefanakis, A., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 127–144. ISBN 9781119268345. [Google Scholar]
  36. Navarro, A.; García, Y.; Vázquez, A.; Marrugo, J. Eficiencia de un humedal de flujo subsuperficial para el tratamiento de aguas residuales del empacado de hortalizas. Avances Ciencias Ing. 2013, 4, 39–50. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3236/323627689004.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  37. Tejeda, A.; Torres-Bojorges, Á.X.; Zurita, F. Carbamazepine removal in three pilot-scale hybrid wetlands planted with ornamental species. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 98, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Del Toro, A.; Tejeda, A.; Zurita, F. Addition of Corn Cob in the Free Drainage Zone of Partially Saturated Vertical Wetlands Planted with I. sibirica for Total Nitrogen Removal—A Pilot-Scale Study. Water 2019, 11, 2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Del Toro, A.; Tejeda, A.; Ramos, J.; Ibarra, E.; Zurita, F. Resistencia de la Canna indica, Cyperus papyrus, Iris sibirica y Typha latifolia a vinazas tequileras en mesocosmos de humedales. In Book of Abstracts V Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Santa Catarina, Brasil, 2021; Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Caderno-V-HUPANAM-5o.-Wetlands-BR.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  40. Zurita, F.; White, J.R. Comparative study of three two-stage hybrid ecological wastewater treatment systems for producing high nutrient, reclaimed water for irrigation reuse in developing countries. Water 2014, 6, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Removal of wastewater pollutant in artificial wetlands implemented in Actopan, Veracruz, Mexico. Rev. Mex. Ing. Quím. 2016, 15, 553–563. Available online: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=62046829021 (accessed on 30 June 2019). (In Spanish). [CrossRef]
  42. León, K.; González, A.; Hernández, E.; Méndez, R.; Giácoman, G. Humedales construidos para la remoción de antibióticos en agua residual de granjas porcícolas en Yucatán. Rev. Latin. Amb. Cienc. 2020, 11, 367–370. Available online: https://rlac.buap.mx/sites/default/files/11%20%2828%29-85.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2022). (In Spanish).
  43. Olmos-Márquez, M.; Alarcón-Herrera, M.; Martín-Domínguez, I. Performance of Eleocharis macrostachya and its importance for arsenic retention in constructed wetlands. Environ. Sic. Poll. Res. 2012, 19, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Martínez, N.; Tejeda, A.; Del Toro, A.; Sánchez, M.; Zurita, F. Nitrogen removal in pilot-scale partially saturated vertical wetlands with and without and internal source of carbon. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Navarro, A.; Hernández, M.E.; Bayona, J.; Morales, L.; Ruiz, P. Removal of selected organic pollutants and coliforms in pilot constructed wetlands in southeastern Mexico. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2011, 91, 680–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zurita, F.; de Anda, J.; Belmont, M.A. Performance of laboratory-scale wetlands planted with tropical ornamental plants to treat domestic wastewater. Water Quality Res. J. Canada 2006, 41, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. González-Pereyra, D.; Cisneros-Almazán, R.; Berber-Mendoza, M.; Soto-Peña, G.; Cisneros-Pérez, R.; Algara-Siller, M. Humedales construidos para el tratamiento de aguas residuales de la industria del electroplanting. In Book of Abstracts V Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Santa Catarina, Brasil, 2021; Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Caderno-V-HUPANAM-5o.-Wetlands-BR.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  48. Hernández, M.E.; Enzastiga, P. Riparian constructed wetlands for improving water quality in a polluted river in southeastern Mexico. In Proceedings of the XVII World Congress of the International Commission of Agricultural and Byosystems Engineering, Québec, QC, Canada, 17 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hernández, M.E.; Galindo-Zetina, M.; Hernández-Hernández, J.C. Greenhouse gas emissions and pollutant removal in treatment wetlands with ornamental plants under subtropical conditions. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 114, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ojeda, L.; Romero, S.; Reyes, J.A.; Gallegos, R.; Herrera, A. Evaluación de la depuración de agua gris en un humedal artificial a escala piloto. In Book of Abstracts II Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Morelia, México, 2014; pp. 66–69. Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Memorias-II-Conferencia-Mexico.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  51. Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; García-González, M.; Ruelas-Monjardín, L.; Moreno-Casasola, P. Influence of different porous media and ornamental vegetation on wastewater pollutant removal in vertical subsurface flow wtland microcosms. Environ Eng. Sci. 2018, 35, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zamora-Castro, S.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Sandoval, L.; Vidal-Álvarez, M.; Carrión-Delgado, J. Effect of ornamental plants, seasonality, and filter media material in fill-and-drian constructed wetlands treating rural community wastewater. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Sandoval, L.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Zamora-Castro, S.; Sandoval-Salas, F.; Alvarado-Lassman, A. Evaluation of wastewater treatment by microcosms of vertical subsurface wetlands in partially saturated conditions planted with ornamental plants and filled with mineral and plastic substrates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Sandoval-Herazo, L.; Alvarado-Lassman, A.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Méndez-Contreras, J.; Zamora-Castro, S. 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]
  55. Sandoval, L.; Zurita, F.; Del Ángel-Coronel, O.; Adame-García, J.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Influence of a new ornamental species (Spathiphyllum blandum) on the removal of COD, nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal coliforms: A mesocosm wetland study with pet and tezontle substrates. Water Sci. Technol. 2020, 81.5, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Sandoval, L.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Adame-García, J.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Zurita, F. Effect of Spathiphyllum blandum on the removal of ibuprofen and conventional pollutants from polluted river water, in fully saturated constructed wetlands ar mesocosm level. J. Water Health 2020, 18, 224–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. González-Moreno, H.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Sánchez-DelaCruz, E.; Nakase, C.; Ángel-Coronel, O.; Reyes-Gonzalez, D.; Nava-Valente, N.; Sandoval-Herazo, L. Bioelectricity Generation and Production of Ornamental Plants in Vertical Partially Saturated Constructed Wetlands. Water 2021, 13, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernández-Echeverría, E.; Sandoval-Herazo, L.C.; 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. Quím. 2022, 21, IA2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sandoval-Herazo, M.; Nani, G.; Sandoval, L.; Rivera, S.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Alvarado-Lassman, A. Evaluación del desempeño de humedales construidos verticales parcialmente saturados para el tratamiento de aguas residuales porcinas. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecos. 2020, 13, 1–12. Available online: https://wwwrevistaccbauadymx/ojs/indexphp/TSA/article/view/3138/1416 (accessed on 25 July 2022). (In Spanish).
  60. Orduña-Gaytán, F.; Alvarado-Lassman, A.; Vallejo-Cantú, N.; Alvarado-Vallejo, A. Tratamiento híbrido (bioreactor anaerobio-humedal construido) para el manejo sustentable de aguas residuales de la industria azucarera. Rinderesu 2020, 5, 451–462. Available online: http://rinderesu.com/index.php/rinderesu/article/view/101 (accessed on 30 July 2022). (In Spanish).
  61. Lucero, M.; Esparza, M.; Ortiz, M.; Jiménez, M.; Hernández, M.; García, D. Humedal artificial susbsuperficial flujo horizontal para tratar un efluente de un RAFA (Industria chocolatera). In Book of Abstracts IV Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Lima, Perú, 2018; Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Memoria-IV-Conferencia-Peru.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  62. Romero-Aguilar, M.; Colín-Cruz, A.; Sánchez-Salinas, E.; Ortiz-Hernández, M.L. Tratamiento de aguas residuales por un sistema piloto de humedales artificiales: Evaluación de la remoción de la carga orgánica. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient 2009, 25, 157–167. Available online: https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rica/v25n3/v25n3a4.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2022). (In Spanish).
  63. Hernández, M.; Vega, M.; Giácoman, G.; Quintal, C. Hybrid constructed wetlands for domestic wastewater treatment in Yucatan, Mexico, using Typha dominguensis and Sagittaria lancifolia. Int. Proc. Chem. Biol. Environ. Eng. 2018, 103, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hernández, M.E.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Treatment Performance in Constructed Wetlands with Ornamental Plants: Case Studies in Veracruz, Mexico. In Artificial or Constructed Wetlands a Suitable Technology for Sustainable Water Management; Durán-Domínguez, M., Navarro-Frómeta, A., Bayona, J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 163–177. [Google Scholar]
  65. Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Hernández, M.E.; Gallegos-Pérez, M.P.; Amaya-Tejeda, S.I. Plant growth and pollutant removal from wastewater in domiciliary constructed wetland microcosms with monoculture and polyculture of tropical ornamental plants. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 147, 105658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zurita, F.; De Anda, J.; Belmont, M.A. Treatment of domestic wastewater and production of comercial flowers in vertical and horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Alarcón, M.T.; Valles-Aragón, M.C.; Olmos, M.A. Retención y distribución de arsénico en el mesocosmos de humedales construido. In Book of Abstracts II Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Morelia, México, 2014; pp. 9–12. Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Memorias-II-Conferencia-Mexico.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  68. Palacin, J.; Navarro, A.; Holland, G.; Marrugo, J. Remoción de fragancias presentes en agua de río mediante sistemas de humedales construidos. In Tópicos Sobre Contaminantes y Contaminación del Agua; Navarro, A., Leyva, Z., Mendoza, J., Eds.; Conacyt: Ensenada, México, 2019; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340793222_Remocion_de_fragancias_presentes_en_agua_de_rio_mediante_sistemas_de_humedales_construidos (accessed on 30 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  69. Olguín, E.J.; Sánchez-Galván, G.; González-Portela, R.E.; López-Vela, M. Constructed wetland mesocosms for the treatment of diluted sugarcane molasses stillage from ethanol production using Pontederia sagittata. Water Res. 2008, 42, 3659–3666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Olguin, E.; Sánchez-Galván, G.; Melo, F.; Víctor, J.; González-Portela, R. Long-term assessment at field scale of Floating Treatment Wetlands for improvement of water quality and provision of ecosystem services in a eutrophic urban pond. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 584–585, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zamora, S.; Sandoval, L.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Hernández-Orduña, M. Impact of ornamental vegetation type and different substrate layers on pollutant removal in constructed wetland mesocosms treating rural community wastewater. Processes 2019, 7, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Zamora, S.; Marín-Muñíz, J.L.; Nakase-Rodríguez, C.; Fernández-Lambert, G.; Sandoval, L. Wastewater treatment by constructed wetland eco-technology: Influence of mineral and plastic materials as filter media and tropical ornamental plants. Water 2019, 11, 2344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Sandoval-Herazo, L.C.; Alvarado-Lassman, A.; López-Méndez, M.C.; Martínez-Sibaja, A.; Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A.; Zamora-Castro, S.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Effects of Ornamental Plant Density and Mineral/Plastic Media on the Removal of Domestic Wastewater Pollutants by Home Wetlands Technology. Molecules 2020, 25, 5273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Mateo, N.; Nani, G.; Montiel, W.; Nakase, C.; Salazar-Salazar, C.; Sandoval, L. Efecto de Canna hybrids en humedales construidos parcialmente saturados para el tratamiento de aguas porcinas. Rinderesu 2019, 4, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
  75. Garzón-Zúñiga, M.A.; Zurita, J.G.; Barrios, R.G. Evaluación de un sistema de tratamiento doméstico para reúso de agua residual. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient. 2016, 32, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. De La Mora-Orozco, C.; González-Acuña, I.J.; Terán, R.A.S.; 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] [Green Version]
  77. Rodriguez-Espinosa, P.; Mendoza-Pérez, J.A.; Tabla-Hernández, J.; Martínez-Tavera, E.; Monroy-Mendieta, M.M. Biodegradation and kinetics of organic compounds and heavy metals in an artificial wetland system (AWS) by using water hyacinths as a biological filter. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 20, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jiménez-López, E.; López-Ocaña, G.L.; Bautista-Margulis, R.G.; Castelán-Estrada, M.C.; Guerrero-Peña, A.; Hernández-Barajas, J.; Torres-Balcázar, C.A.; De La Cruz-Luna, E.; Romellón-Cerino, M.J.; Solís-Sílvan, R. Wastewater treatment by constructed wetlands with Thalia geniculata and Paspalum paniculatum in a tropical system of Mexico. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plann. 2017, 12, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Laitinen, J.; Moliis, K.; Surakka, M. Resource efficient wastewater treatment in a developing area—Climate change impacts and economic feasibility. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 103, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tapia, F.; Gíacoman, G.; Herrera, J.; Quintal, C.; García, J.; Puigagut. Treatment of swine wastewater with subsurface-flow constructed wetlands in Yucatán, Mexico: Influence of plant species and contact time. Water SA. 2009, 35, 335–342. [Google Scholar]
  81. Si, Z.; Song, X.; Wang, Y.; Cao, X.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, B.; Chen, Y.; Arefe, A. Intensified heterotrophic denitrification in constructed wetlands using four solid carbon sources: Denitrification efficiency and bacterial community structure. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 267, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gerth, A.; Kuhne, A.; Hebner, A.; Wilken, D. Application of Phytotechnologies in developing countries. Asia Pac. J. Mol. Biol. Biotechnol. 2010, 18, 41–43. [Google Scholar]
  83. Nanninga, T.; Bisschops, I.; López, E.; Martínez-Ruiz; Murillo, D.; Essl, L.; Starkl, M. Discussion on sustainable water technologies for peri-urban areas of Mexico city: Balancing urbanization and environmental conservation. Water 2012, 4, 739–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Shukla, A.; Parde, D.; Gupta, V.; Vijay, R.; Kumar, R. A review on effective design processes of constructed wetlands. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 12749–12774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sandoval, L.; Zamora-Castro, S.A.; 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]
  86. Zitácuaro-Contreras, I.; Vidal-ÁLvarez, M.; Hernández y Orduña, M.; Zamora-Castro, S.; Betanzo-Torres, E.; Marín-Muñiz, J.; Sandoval-Herazo, L. Environmental, economic, and social potentialities of ornamental vegetation cultivated in constructed wetlands of Mexico. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Granados, D.; Montes de Oca, A.; Moctezuma, S. Humedales artificiales para el desarrollo comunitario: El caso de una comunidad Mazahua de México. Ciencia Amb. Clima. 2019, 2, 35–43. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sánchez-Chávez, J.; Bravo-Inclán, L.; Tomasini-Ortiz, C.; González-Villela, R.; Rivas-Hedez, A. Evolución de humedales de tratamiento en comunidades ribereñas del lago de Pátzcuaro (2006–2011). In Book of Abstracts III Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Santa Fe, Argentina, 2016; Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Memorias-III-Conferencia-Argentina.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  89. Starkl, M.; Essl, L.; Martinez, J.; López, E. Water Quality Improvements through Constructed Wetlands: A Case Study in Mexico. In Water Resource Management; ACTAPRESS: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  90. Crónica Veracruz.Com. Available online: https://cronicaveracruz.com/informacion/noticias/148208503/humedal-la-tortuga-de-nautla-resarcira-dano-ambiental-en-la-zona.html (accessed on 25 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  91. González, C.E.; Rivas, A. Humedales artificiales para el tratamiento de las aguas residuales generadas en áreas rurales ribereñas al lago de Pátzcuaro. Tláloc 2008, 41, 8–13. Available online: http://amh.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TLALOC_41.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  92. Rivas, R.; Elaboración del Diagnóstico del Humedal de Acamixtla, Recomendaciones y Propuesta de Acciones para su Rehabilitación, en la Localidad de Acamixtla Municipio de Taxco de Alarcón, en el Estado de Guerrero. Informe Final. IMTA. 2016. Available online: http://repositorio.imta.mx/handle/20.500.12013/1743 (accessed on 21 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  93. Luna-Pabello, V.; Aburto-Castañeda, S. Sistema de humedales artificiales para el control de la eutroficación del lago del bosque de san Juan de Aragón. Rev. Espec. Cienc. Quim-Biol. 2014, 17, 32–55. Available online:https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-888X2014000100003 (accessed on 5 June 2022). (In Spanish). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Orozco, C.; Cruz, A.; Rodríguez, M.; Pohlan, A. Humedal subsuperficial de flujo vertical como sistema de depuración terciaria en el proceso de beneficiado de café. Higiene Sanidad Ambiental. 2006, 6, 190–196. Available on: https://saludpublica.ugr.es/sites/dpto/spublica/public/inline-files/bc51015a2fc8ef6_Hig.Sanid_.Ambient.6.190-196(2006).pdf (accessed on 2 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  95. Barceló, I.D.; Rivas, A.; Solís, H.E.; García, J.; Salazar, M.; Giacomán, G.; Zetina, C. Comportamiento de un sistema humedal-laguna de maduración-humedal de pulimento a nivel piloto para el tratamiento de aguas municipales en la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana de la unidad azcapotzalco en la Cd. de México, México. In Book of Abstracts II Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Morelia, México, 2014; pp. 55–58. Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Memorias-II-Conferencia-Mexico.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  96. Lango, F.; Castañeda, M.; Humedal Artificial para Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales del Instituto Tecnológico de Boca del Río: Escalamiento. Informe. 2016. Available online: https://www.aguanet.com.mx/foro21/resumenes/ResumenExt2_3_Lango.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022). (In Spanish).
  97. Méndez-Mendoza, A.S.; Bello-Mendoza, R.; Herrera-López, D.; Mejía-González, G.; Calixto-Romo, A. Performance of constructed wetlands with ornamental plants in the treatment of domestic wastewater under the tropical climate of South Mexico. Water Pract. Techn. 2015, 10, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Merino-Solís, M.; Villegas, E.; Anda, J.; López-López, A. The Effect of the hydraulic retention time on the performance of an ecological wastewater treatment system: An anaerobic filter with a constructed wetland. Water 2015, 7, 1149–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Boyás, T.; Álvarez-Contreras, L.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Celis-Pérez, M.; Zamora-Castro, S.; Landa, M. Condiciones ambientales para el óptimo desarrollo de plantas ornamentales y fitorremediadoras. J. Basic Sci. 2022, 8, 96–103. Available online: http://revistas.ujat.mx/index.php/jobs. (accessed on 5 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  100. Ramírez-Carrillo, H.F.; Luna-Pabello, V.M.; Arredondo-Figueroa, J.L. Evaluación de un humedal artificial de flujo vertical intermitente, para obtener agua de buena calidad para la acuicultura. Rev. Mex. Ing. Quim. 2009, 8, 93–99. Available online: https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttextamp;pid=S1665-27382009000100009 (accessed on 6 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  101. Sinha, S.V.; Argyilan, E.P.; Krekeler, M.P.S. An environmental investigation of the mineralogical, geotechnical, hydrogeologic and botanical properties of subsurface flow constructed wetlands in Akumal Mexico. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 73, 2299–2317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Whitney, D.; Rossman, N.; Hayden, N. Evaluating an existing subsurface flow constructed wetland in Akumal, Mexico. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Krekeler, M.P.S.; Argyilan, E.P.; Lepp, J.; Kearns, L.E. Investigation of calcareous beach sands in the Akumal and Tulum areas for use in constructed wetlands, Eastern Yucatan Peninsula. Environ. Earth Sci. 2009, 59, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hernández, M.E.; Lagunes, G. Remoción de contaminantes y crecimiento de plantas ornamentales en humedales a escala piloto con diferente tipo de sustrato. In Book of Abstracts IV Panamerican Conference of Wetland Systems for Treatment and Improvement of Water Quality; Hupanam: Lima, Peru, 2018; Available online: https://hupanam.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Memoria-IV-Conferencia-Peru.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022). (In Spanish)
  105. Belmont, M.; Cantellano, E.; Thompson, S.; Williamson, M.; Sánchez, A.; Metcalfe, C. Treatment of domestic wastewater in a pilot-scale natural treatment system in central Mexico. Ecol. Eng. 2004, 23, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. City Adapt. Humedales ITSX. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYmGH3zy0Qamp;ab_channel=InstitutoTecnol%C3%B3gicoSuperiordeXalapa (accessed on 17 August 2022). (In Spanish).
  107. Vymazal, J. Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow: A review. Hydrobiologia 2011, 20, 133–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sánchez-Olivares, E.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Hernández-Alarcón, M.E. Liberación de oxígeno radial por las raíces de la splantas nativas de huemdales tropicales costeros de Veracruz en respuesta a diferentes condiciones de inundación. Bot. Sci. 2019, 97, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Vymazal, J. Emergent plants used in free water surface constructed wetlands: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61P, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Sandoval, L.; Zamora-Castro, S.; Celis-Pérez, M. Humedales con plantas ornamentales y relleno de plástico reutilizado como tratamiento sustentable de aguas residuales. J. Basic Sci. 2022, 8, 146–153. Available online: http://revistas.ujat.mx/index.php/jobs (accessed on 5 June 2022). (In Spanish).
  111. Tejeda, A.; Zurita, F. Capacity of Two Ornamental Species (Iris sibirica and Zantedeschia aethiopica) to Take up, Translocate, and Accumulate Carbamazepine under Hydroponic Conditions. Water 2020, 12, 1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zurita, F.; Carreón-Álvarez, A. Performance of three pilot-scale hybrid constructed wetlands for total coliforms and Escherichia coli removal from primary effluent—A 2-year study in a subtropical climate. J. Water Health 2015, 13, 446–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Zurita, F.; Belmont, M.A.; De Anda, J.; Cervantes-Martínez, J. Stress detection by laser-induced fluorescence in Zantedeschia aethiopica planted in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands. Ecolog. Eng. 2018, 33, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Mejía, G.; Herrera, D.; Bello, R.; Sokolov, M. Manual de Construcción y Manejo de Humedales Artificiales para el Tratamiento de Agua Residual de Beneficio de Café. ECOSUR. 2013. Available online: https://www.ecosur.mx/libros/producto/manual-de-construccion-y-manejo-de-humedales-artificiales-para-el-tratamiento-de-agua-residual-de-beneficio-de-cafe/ (accessed on 10 December 2022). (In Spanish).
  115. Pedrozo, A.; Ramírez, N. Guía para el tratamiento de las aguas residuales porcinas. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua. 2021. Available online: https://doi.org/10.24850/b-imta-2021-01 (accessed on 10 December 2022). (In Spanish).
Processes 11 00359 g001 550
Figure 1. Scheme of constructed wetland types.
Figure 1. Scheme of constructed wetland types.
Processes 11 00359 g001
Processes 11 00359 g002 550
Figure 2. Municipal wastewater treatment plants in Mexico. Elaborated with data from CONAGUA [12].
Figure 2. Municipal wastewater treatment plants in Mexico. Elaborated with data from CONAGUA [12].
Processes 11 00359 g002
Processes 11 00359 g003 550
Figure 3. Mexican constructed wetlands according to the size (a), and percentage of CWs type (b).
Figure 3. Mexican constructed wetlands according to the size (a), and percentage of CWs type (b).
Processes 11 00359 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Sandoval Herazo, L.C.; López-Méndez, M.C.; Sandoval-Herazo, M.; Meléndez-Armenta, R.Á.; González-Moreno, H.R.; Zamora, S. Treatment Wetlands in Mexico for Control of Wastewater Contaminants: A Review of Experiences during the Last Twenty-Two Years. Processes 2023, 11, 359. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020359

AMA Style

Marín-Muñiz JL, Sandoval Herazo LC, López-Méndez MC, Sandoval-Herazo M, Meléndez-Armenta RÁ, González-Moreno HR, Zamora S. Treatment Wetlands in Mexico for Control of Wastewater Contaminants: A Review of Experiences during the Last Twenty-Two Years. Processes. 2023; 11(2):359. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020359

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marín-Muñiz, José Luis, Luis Carlos Sandoval Herazo, María Cristina López-Méndez, Mayerlin Sandoval-Herazo, Roberto Ángel Meléndez-Armenta, Humberto Raymundo González-Moreno, and Sergio Zamora. 2023. "Treatment Wetlands in Mexico for Control of Wastewater Contaminants: A Review of Experiences during the Last Twenty-Two Years" Processes 11, no. 2: 359. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020359

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