Unit 2.6 - Methods - Developing Countries

In collaboration with
NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
MODULE 2 - Unit 2.6 - Treatment methods for developing and emerging countries Page n. 1/35

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
MODULE 2 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Unit 2.6: Treatment methods for developing and emerging countries
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2
2 Treatment methods in small communities .......................................................................... 3
2.1 Septic tanks ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Imhoff tanks ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Biogas latrines ................................................................................................................. 7
3 Basic principles of phytoremediation .................................................................................. 8
4 Constructed wetlands ......................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Free surface flow systems ............................................................................................. 11
4.1.1 Design principles ..................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 Operation and maintenance ..................................................................................... 16
4.2 Subsurface horizontal flow systems ............................................................................... 16
4.3 Subsurface vertical flow systems ................................................................................... 21
5 Ponds & lagoons ................................................................................................................. 28
5.1 Aerobic systems ............................................................................................................ 28
5.2 Anaerobic systems ........................................................................................................ 29
6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 30
7 References ........................................................................................................................... 32
TREATMENT METHODS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
1 Introduction
In many developing countries, public and private wastewater disposal systems are often very
deficient or even entirely missing. Decentralised concepts provide treatment facilities on a
comparably small scale, mostly for domestic wastewater from private households or comunal
institutions. As they are not restricted to merely managing individual user systems, they can close
the gap between on-site systems and the conventional, centralised system.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
The treatment steps may also be physically separated, combining on-site and co-operative
treatment, mostly uniting wastewater streams after primary or secondary treatment from several
decentralised facilities.
Treatment is mainly based on four systems including aerobic and/or anaerobic treatment
steps:
▪ sedimentation and primary treatment in sedimentation ponds, septic tanks, simple
biogas digesters or Imhoff tanks, deep anaerobic ponds,
▪ secondary anaerobic treatment in fixed bed filters or baffled septic tanks,
▪ secondary and tertiary aerobic / anaerobic treatment in constructed wetlands,
▪ secondary and tertiary aerobic / anaerobic treatment in ponds, also shallow polishing
ponds.
For a comprehensive treatment, different systems are usually combined according to the
influent characteristics and the required effluent quality. Hybrid systems or a combination of
secondary on-site treatment and tertiary co-operative treatment is also possible. This chapter will
particularly focus on phytoremediation and constructed wetlands technologies, as they represent
efficient emerging solutions for WWT in developing countries.
2 Treatment methods in small communities
Decentralized wastewater treatment can be a sensible solution for communities of largely

different sizes and demographics in countries at any level of development, but, like any other WWTP
system, these systems must be properly designed, maintained and operated to provide optimal
benefits. Primary and secondary WWTP treatment in small communities may be obtained by
applying different solutions, such as sedimentation ponds, septic tanks, simple biogas digesters or
Imhoff tanks, or deep anaerobic ponds. The treatment steps may be physically separated, or
connected each other, as well as to other emerging solutions, such as constructed wetlands. The
basic principles of de-centralized systems are presented in the following.
2.1 Septic tanks
Septic tanks are used for wastewater with a high percentage of settleable solids, typically for
effluent from domestic sources. Private households and enterprises in many communities, public

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
buildings such as schools and hospitals currently use individual on-site and small-scale septic
systems.
The system consists of a closed, often prefabricated tank where sedimentation takes place
and settleable solids are retained. Retention time of the liquid is in the order of one day. Sludge is
digested anaerobically in the septic tank, resulting in a reduced volume of sludge.
The septic tank treatment process is totally passive. The only operation and maintenance
activities required are periodic inspection, cleaning of the effluent filter and pumping (sludge removal)
of the tank. If the septic tank is sized properly, sludge removal only becomes necessary after several
years. Although its timing is not critical, in the case no intermediate storage and handling facilities
for the produced sludge are available, this technique can only be applied if reutilisation possibilities
are guaranteed.
Often, villages are located in areas with soils that are generally unsuitable for onsite disposal
of effluent from conventional septic systems, or they do not have the physical capacity on the small
village lots. Leach fields for the disposal of septic tank effluent can either be located on-site or the
effluent can be piped to a location with suitable soil (off-site), eventually with wastewater from other
lots.
Figure 1 (left). Schematic of a septic tank (Source: Molloy Precast Ltd).

Figure 2 (right). Installation of a prefabricated septic tank in Ghana (Source: WSUP).
The baffled septic tanks, also known as “baffled reactor”, is suitable for all kinds of wastewater,
preferably for those with a high percentage of non-settleable suspended solids and low COD/BOD
ratio.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
The baffled reactor is a combination of several anaerobic process principles – the septic tank,
the fluidised bed reactor and the UASB. Its upflow velocity which should not exceed 2 m/h, limits its
design. Based on a given hydraulic retention time, the upflow velocity increases in direct relation with
the reactor height. Reactor height cannot serve as a variable parameter to design the reactor for the
required hydraulic retention time (HRT) so that the limited upflow velocity results in large but shallow
tanks.
The baffled septic tank is ideal for decentralised wastewater treatment because it is simple to
build and simple to operate. Hydraulic and organic shock loads have little effect on treatment
efficiency. The baffled septic tank consists of at least four chambers in series. The last chamber can
have a filter in its upper part in order to retain eventual solid particles. The first compartment is always
a settling chamber for larger solids and impurities, followed by a series of upflow chambers. The
water stream between chambers is directed by baffle walls that form a down-shaft or by down-pipes
that are placed on partition walls. A settler can also follow the baffled septic tank as post-treatment.
Figure 3 – Representation of a baffled septic tank [Source: Tilley et al.]
2.2 Imhoff tanks
The particular conformation of the Imhoff tank enables to develop two treatment stages,
namely sedimentation and anaerobic secondary treatment. The Imhoff tank consists of an upper
chamber in which sedimentation takes place, from which collected solids slide down inclined bottom
slopes to a slot into a lower chamber in which the sludge is collected and digested.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Imhoff tank enables to obtain a primary treatment only, since they reduce the value of the
inflow polluting load only by 30 to 35 %. The Imhoff Tank can be in prefabricated circular or
rectangular elements of vibrated reinforced concrete, polyethylene or fiberglass.
The following table reports the Italian standards for the Imhoff tank, that may be used as a
reference for system dimensioning.
Figure 4 - Example of an Imhoff tank [Source: www.oppo.it, www.centrocontenitori.it]
Table 1 – Parameters for sizing of the Imhoff tank [Source: Circolare Ministeriale 04/06/1986]
Sizing of the Imhoff tank
settling compartment capacity 60 l per inhabitant
up to 10 inhabitants:
digesting compartment capacity 200 l per inhabitant
up to 80 inhabitants

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
The settling chamber must allow retention of approximately 4 to 6 hours during peak flow rates
(or longer in case of tanks of smaller volumes). The production of digested sludge is approximately
0.26 l/hab/d with 87% of humidity, equal to 34 g/hab/d of dry substances. The sludge should be
extracted every 4 to 6 months. The baffle walls are to be introduced in the slurry for a depth of at
least 5 cm, the diameter/height ratio is to be contained within 1.5 and 2.5 and – in any case – no
lower than 1.5.
The Imhoff Tank is to be provided with a ventilation pipe of net diameter no lower than 10 cm,
to be extended up to above the roof of the building the tank is serving. Said pipe may be the same
one of the slurry discharge duct. It must be provided with manholes whose dimensions must ensure
easy inspection and removal of the sludge without damaging the internal structure of the tank.
2.3 Biogas latrines
This sewerage collection and treatment system allows to serve small communities far from
urban areas. Biogas latrine is an economic solution in areas where collection and treatment systems
are completely lacking. It uses anaerobic digestion process to transform human waste into fertilizer
and gas suitable for uses like cooking, heating and lighting.
The latrine is directly linked to a biodigester. The biodigester consists of a large underground
dome, and is filled about half of its height with both urine and fecal sludge. Microorganisms in the
sludge break down the pathogens by anaerobic process, producing the biogas. The gas is collected
in the space above the sludge and it is delivered through a plug which seals the top of the dome.
Through a piping system the gas can be supplied to users.
A better and more efficient solution is transportation of biogas to a central location in the
community and distribution to users for a fee that pays maintenance. This fee must also be
comparable or less than the current cost of fuel paid by the households when bought from local
utility. After about 20-30 days, the slurry should become odorless and then it can be used as fertilizer.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Figure 5 - Biogas latrine in Nabikabala, Uganda Figure 6 - Biogas latrine in Tamilnadu, India
(Source: http://www.theafricansoup.org/) (http://www.civil.columbia.edu/edc/BiogasLatrine.
html
3 Basic principles of phytoremediation
For sake of completeness, the basic principles of phytoremediation are repeated in the
following. Readers can skip this chapter if they already read the unit on biological treatment (Unit 3).
Phytoremediation is a technique using vegetation to either stabilize or reduce contamination.
Although many people immediately think of this approach in connection with soil remediation, it can
be applied to surface water as well as groundwater, soils, sludges and sediment.
First tested actively in the early 1990s, phytoremediation has been tested widely worldwide.
Because it is a natural process, phytoremediation can be an effective remediation method at a variety
of sites and on numerous contaminants. Plant species are selected for use based on factors such
as ability to extract or degrade the contaminants of concern, adaptation to local climates, high
biomass, depth root structure, compatibility with soils, growth rate, ease of planting and maintenance
and ability to take up large quantities of water through the roots.
The plants essentially absorb the contaminants as they grow and live. Most often, plants
tagged for disposal, including trees, are incinerated, with their ash treated as hazardous waste.
The efficacy of such natural approaches in treating both groundwater and wastewater is the
subject of ongoing research worldwide. The results have and continue to be promising.
Groundwater remediation studies by the U.S. Air Force, in collaboration with various other
federal agencies, for example, examined phytoremediation’s potential for treating contaminants such

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
as trichloroethene, a chlorinated solvent. They planted eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids) above
shallow groundwater contaminated with low levels of trichloroethene and wanted to see what would
happen. They found that within three years, the trees were removing the contaminant from the
aquifer.
Poplars are frequently cited as an excellent species for cleaning groundwater. An example
given by the EPA are a site in Clackamas, Oregon, adjacent to a stream where illegal dumping
occurred. Hybrid poplar trees were planted on roughly four acres in 1998. Tests showed the trees
actively removing volatile organic compounds from both the groundwater and soil.
Figure 7 – A petroleum phytoremediation installation in California, USA (Source:

www.guadalupedunes.com)
European scientists have used bamboo to treat food industry grey water, which contains
organic matter, not sewage or chemicals. One such demonstration system treated 2,000 cubic
meters/day of water for nitrites and nitrates, as well as phosphates.
Phytoremediation research worldwide investigated many other types of plants.
Wastewater Treatment Systems, edited by H.A. Aziz and A. Mojiri, summarizes recent studies
on aquatic plants that act as hyperaccumulators. These are plants tolerant to metals. One study,
published in 2013, reported success with the plants Najas marina, Ceratophyllum demersum and
Vallisneria natans in treating heavy metals in 24 eutrophic lakes. Another study researched
Chrysopagann zizanioides for industrial wastewater treatment.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Another benefit, which may seem strange, is known as phyto-mining: the extraction of metals
such as nickel, zinc, cadmium and other economically valuable metals from plants used for
phytoremediation. In one study, the USDA found the ashes of alpine pennycress grown on a high-
zinc soil contained 30 to 40 percent zinc. These levels are similar to those found in high-grade zinc
ore.
Another important byproduct is biomass. In the case of the European bamboo filtration
approach, the plants have a high heating value and can be used locally as a boiler fuel.
A great number of phytoremediation projects is taking place in developing countries. Some
example is reported in the reference list.
4 Constructed wetlands
Constructed wetlands are shallow pools developed specifically for storm or waste water
treatment that create growing conditions suitable for wetland plants. Constructed wetlands are
designed to provide water quality benefits by minimising point source and nonpoint source pollution
prior to its entry into streams, natural wetlands and other receiving waters. They can also play a
water quantity management role.
There are two basic types of constructed wetlands:
▪ free surface flow systems have standing water at the surface and are more suited to
larger constructed wetland systems such as those designed for municipal wastewater
treatment;
▪ subsurface systems have no visible standing water and are designed so that the
wastewater flows through a gravel substrate beneath the surface vegetation.
Subsurface systems are differentiated in horizontal and vertical flow systems.
Properly constructed and maintained wetlands can provide very high removal rates of
pollutants from stormwater. Removal of pollutants is accomplished through adsorption, wetland plant
uptake, retention, gravitational settling, physical filtration and microbial decomposition, thus
improving runoff quality.
Among the most important pollutant removal processes are the purely physical processes of
sedimentation and filtration by aquatic vegetation. These processes account for the strong removal
rates for suspended solids, organic matter (particulate BOD), sediment-attached nutrients and
metals. Similarly, pathogens show good removal rates in constructed wetlands through
sedimentation and filtration, natural die-off and UV degradation.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Dissolved pollutants such as soluble organic matter, ammonia and ortho-phosphorus tend to
have lower removal rates. Removal rates for metals are variable, but are consistently high for lead,
which is often associated with particulate matter.
The following table shows the removal rates for different pollutants.
Table 2 – Removal rates for different pollutants [Source: CMHC].
The cost of establishing a constructed wetland varies depending on size and site conditions.
In general, the average construction cost range from $6,000 to $300,000 per hectare. Once
established, the operation and maintenance costs for constructed wetlands can be lower than for
alternative treatment options, generally less than $1,500/ha/year.
4.1 Free surface flow systems
FWS wetlands were one of the first treatment wetland options to be implemented as they
arguably mimic water purification processes within a natural wetland more than any other treatment
wetland type. They are commonly used to treat non-point sources such as urban stormwater,
agricultural runoff and metal-laden flows in addition to municipal wastewater. Due to a relatively low
cost per unit area, they generally find their greatest application in high flow volume, low pollutant
concentration situations. In domestic and municipal wastewater treatment applications, they are
usually found downstream of other treatment units and are often considered a tertiary or polishing
step. Aesthetic and habitat values are often as important to the design as water quality improvement.
The physical structure of a FWS wetland (Figure 8) is as diverse as its potential application.
They may be lined or unlined, constant or variable in depth, completely or partially vegetated, the
vegetation can be emergent, submerged or floating and they can vary in size from a few square

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
meters to multiple square kilometres. Yet there are several essential defining features. Water level
is maintained above a rooting matrix of soil, sand or gravel that supports the growth of wetland plants
that can survive continuously flooded conditions. Flow is horizontal but may take a circuitous path
from inlet to outlet at a very low velocity.
FWS wetlands depend on a diverse set of pollutant removal mechanisms, including physical
sedimentation and pollutant degradation by chemical, microbial and photo pathways. More so than
other treatment wetland variants, FWS wetlands simultaneously promote both aerobic and anaerobic
processes and organic matter loading rates often determine which dominates.
The wetland should be designed so that the upper layers of the water column are always
aerobic to prevent odour releases and promote death of pathogenic organisms. Virtually all redox-
dependent reactions, including nitrification and denitrification, are possible in the FWS wetland due
to this array of redox conditions. Open water areas allow sunlight to penetrate and enhance photo-
degradation. Most processes playing a role in FWS treatment wetlands are represented in Figure 9.
Figure 8 - Overview of a FWS wetland (source: IWA, 2017)
4.1.1 Design principles
While FWS wetlands have been used for secondary municipal wastewater treatment with only
solids separation as prior treatment, they have fewer attachment sites for microbial biofilms and thus

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
slower reaction rates compared to HF and VF wetlands, which are more cost effective for secondary
treatment objectives. Enhanced tertiary nutrient removal, settling of solids such as algae generated
in upstream treatment units, stabilisation of flow rate and pollutant concentration fluctuations, or
recharge of groundwater with processed wastewater are more typical objectives for FWS wetlands.
Provided there is sufficient area, the size can be increased to accommodate wildlife habitat and
aesthetic considerations.
Figure 9 - Major processes in FWS wetlands. (source: adapted from Wallace and Knight, 2006).
Hydrology, hydraulics, and climatic considerations are important design factors. The diversity
of potential applications, design objectives and treatment goals make design of FWS simultaneously
more complicated but also more forgiving compared to other treatment wetland options. They tend
to be less optimised for removal of a specific pollutant or suite of pollutants and the designer relies

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
more on background processes and process rates, not unlike those occurring in natural wetlands.
As with all natural processes, complete removal of organic carbon and nutrients is not possible. In
fact, wetlands will produce these compounds if influent values are less than background production
rates. Consideration of background concentrations as characterised by C* is much more important
to performance prediction than degradation kinetic parameters when influent concentrations are near
C* values, because rates are slow regardless of first-order kinetic constants.
Despite the similarities, there are important differences between FWS treatment wetlands and
natural wetlands. FWS wetlands receive pollutant loads that are low compared to other (secondary)
wastewater treatment systems, but are high compared to natural wetlands.
Hydrology
As with all treatment wetlands, it is important to isolate the system from runoff from surrounding
land areas (unless treating runoff is a design objective). Suitable freeboard for precipitation falling
onto the surface and an emergency overflow option should the design storm be exceeded must also
be provided. Freeboard should also take into consideration the formation of a detritus layer and,
when relevant, ice formation.
Losses due to infiltration (if unlined) and ET are generally more important than precipitation
inputs because water level should be maintained above the rooting media to prevent rapid oxidation
of the accumulated detritus layer. Infiltration from unlined systems must consider the initial infiltration
rate and the slower rate anticipated once a detritus layer is established.
Evapotranspiration losses can be significant in warm, arid climates and in summer in temperate
climates. Its effect is to reduce outflow and to concentrate contaminants, thus pollutant degradation
rates must exceed the rate at which ET concentrates pollutants. Due to open water above the soil
surface, ET from FWS wetlands as a first approximation can be considered as 80% of readily
available pan-evaporation rates.
Hydraulics
The depth of flow is limited to the maximum level a desired plant species can survive
permanently under flooded conditions. An upper limit is approximately 60 cm but most systems are
designed to have an average depth of around 30 cm. The depth can be increased in some internal
locations to promote open water areas. Aligning open water areas in strips perpendicular to the flow
direction can help limit hydraulic short-circuiting but may compromise wildlife and aesthetic
considerations.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Flow velocities and average depths across a FWS wetland are such that flow is usually in the
laminar or transitional range. However, the frictional drag created by a dense stand of emergent
vegetation cannot be ignored even in laminar flow.
The minimum surface area is then determined from water quality considerations as described
in the next subsection.
Water quality
Because of their widespread use as a tertiary polishing step in municipal wastewater treatment,
FWS wetlands typically target nutrient e.g. nitrate and/or phosphorus removal but have also been
employed to reduce pathogenic organisms and/or suspended solids. The key design parameter is
an appropriate wetland surface area to meet the discharge target or pollutant removal expectation.
Both volumetric and areal versions can be employed, but since the range in design depths for
FWS wetlands is relatively narrow, the two methods yield similar results.
Figure 10 – Photos of FWS wetlands. (source: Polito).
Other design considerations

Hydraulic short-circuiting and hydraulic dead-zones are common problems in large FWS
wetlands. Alternating vegetation and open water zones across the flow path can help but inlet and
outlet work designed to distribute and collect the flow across the entire width are essential
components. It is also possible to break the required wetland area into a set of smaller, more
manageable cells. Cells can be arranged in series or parallel. In either case, the hydraulic
inefficiencies of any one cell are minimised.
While species selection likely plays a role in performance, there is simply insufficient
information to make plant selection a design criteria even if water quality performance is the only
concern. The best option is to plant a FWS wetland with plants that are known to establish and grow

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
well in the region and to consider plant diversity for its influence on habitat improvement objectives
and insurance against catastrophic stand die-off. Commonly used plants include Phragmites, Typha
and Schoenoplectus genera in temperate climates, and plants such as Canna or Arundo in tropical
climates.
4.1.2 Operation and maintenance
FWS wetlands need very little maintenance under normal operating conditions. Periodic
inspection of inlet and outlet works and plant health is advisable. Plants that are subjected to oxygen
stress tend to concentrate roots closer to the surface, making them less tolerant of periodic deep-
water conditions and more susceptible to lodging, thus complete submergence and death.
4.2 Subsurface horizontal flow systems
Figure 11 - Schematic of a horizontal subsurface wetland (source: Tilley et al, 2014)
A horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland is a large gravel and sand-filled basin that is
planted with wetland vegetation. As wastewater flows horizontally through the basin, the filter
material filters out particles and microorganisms degrade the organics. The filter media acts as a
filter for removing solids, a fixed surface upon which bacteria can attach and a base for the

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
vegetation. Although facultative and anaerobic bacteria degrade most organics, the vegetation
transfers a small amount of oxygen to the root zone so that aerobic bacteria can colonize the area
and degrade organics as well. The plant roots play an important role in maintaining the permeability
of the filter.
In a typical HF wetland, the gravel bed is saturated and planted with emergent wetland plants
(Figure 12) water enters the treatment system at one end, flows through the gravel media and is
collected on the opposite end of the bed prior to being discharged. A standpipe located outside of
the wetland bed controls the water level within the gravel media. The whole bed is isolated from the
surrounding land by a combination of a plastic liner and a geotextile membrane.
For secondary treatment of domestic wastewater, the gravel depth is generally 0.5 to 0.7 m
and the water level is kept 5 – 10 cm below the surface. In tertiary treatment applications, the depth
of the basin itself is 1.0 to 1.5 m, of which approximately 0.60 m is filled with gravel.
The predominant microbiological removal pathways in HF wetlands are anaerobic. When used
for secondary treatment of domestic wastewater, HF are generally capable of removing BOD5 and
TSS to a reasonable extent (20 mg/L in the effluent) but the performance of individual systems
depends heavily on influent concentrations and hydraulic rate. Removal of TN in HF systems is
somewhat restricted due to limited aerobic conditions for nitrification. However, HF wetlands can be
very effective at denitrification provided that there is sufficient nitrate and carbon present in the water
column. Phosphorus is not sustainably removed in HF wetlands over the long term unless reactive
media is used. Design guidance for HF wetlands varies greatly. They can be sized using simple
specific surface area requirements (m2/PE), maximum areal loading rates (for example,
gBOD5/m2·d), or more sophisticated methods such as loading charts or the P-k-C* approach (Kadlec
and Wallace, 2009).
Length-to-width ratios for secondary HF wetlands generally fall between 2:1 and 4:1, whereas
for tertiary systems width is typically greater than the length to maximise the cross-sectional area
and reduce clogging potential with the higher hydraulic rates applied.
Most design guidelines specify a maximum loading rate based on the wetland plan area, as
this is simple to explain to builders and end users. The underlying assumption is that all HF beds
provide a standard depth of 0.6 m of media – a legacy of the earlier beliefs that the plant roots
provided the majority of treatment and this value being the assumed maximum root depth
penetration. The use of a maximum cross-sectional area loading, i.e., the load applied at the inlet

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
width and depth, moves away from this assumption and provides opportunity to modify bed length
and depth to enable sustainable treatment of the wastewater. The bed width, however, is typically
limited to a maximum of 25 – 30 m to facilitate even flow distribution into a single wetland cell.
The distribution and collection of wastewater is of critical importance to ensure the pollutants
come into contact with the microorganisms whilst minimising bed clogging. The beds typically have
a coarser media at both ends (Figure 12).
Outlet collection systems are typically agricultural drainage pipes, with holes or slots,
positioned across the width of the wetland bed end, connected to a swivel pipe to control water depth
within the bed (Figure 13).
Subsurface loading structures are typically pipes with tees or orifices evenly spaced every 10%
of the bed width, whereas surface loading structures are typically troughs with v-notches spaced at
2.5 m intervals.
Figure 12 - Examples of civil structures in HF wetlands; left: distribution troughs; right: water level
control structure (source: IWA, 2017).
In Europe, HF wetlands are typically planted with common reed (Phragmites sp.). The systems
can be planted with other types of plants, depending on local regulations and/or climate. For
example, in the United States, plants from the Phragmites genus are considered an invasive species,

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
so other species such as Sagittaria latifolia, Schoenoplectus validus, Schoenoplectus acutus and
Iris pseudacorus are used. In tropical climates, plants such as Cyperus, Typha, Helicornia and
Canna sp. have been used. The role of plants in HF wetlands is mainly related to physical processes
such as providing increased surface area for attached microbial growth and for providing better
filtration of TSS.
No treatment wetland system is maintenance free. The most critical operational issue for HF
wetlands is clogging. This occurs when the pore spaces in the media are filled with solids (organic
or inorganic), instead of wastewater, thus limiting the contact area and time between the biofilm and
the water. For HF wetlands providing treatment of domestic wastewater, clogging is most commonly
caused by excessive organic and/or solids loading onto the gravel bed. This is often due to improper
maintenance of the septic tank (secondary treatment HF wetland) or final settling tanks (tertiary HF
wetlands), or poor dimensioning of the wetland itself. Clogging can be minimised and the bed life
extended by selecting appropriate media (e.g., gravel vs. sand) and loading rates (checking both
hydraulic and mass pollutant loads), and ensuring the upstream processes are correctly maintained
to enable the bed to operate within the range of its intended design.
Routine checks for proper O&M of HF wetlands include:
• Upstream treatment: septic tanks (secondary treatment HF) and final settling tanks
(tertiary treatment HF) must be emptied regularly to prevent solids carryover to the HF
wetland.
• Influent distribution system: uneven distribution can result in a solids or organic loading
over a small portion of the intended influent area, and result in clogging. For HF
wetlands that have subsurface loading, the distribution pipes must be properly
designed and should contain inspection ports so that the influent header can be
periodically washed out and/or cleaned.
• Outlet control structure: the outlet level control structure should be checked on a routine
basis. The water level should be maintained 5 – 10 cm below the surface of the gravel.
• Surface sludge accumulation (surface-loaded tertiary HF wetlands only): surface-
loaded tertiary treatment systems should be monitored for sludge accumulation.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
• Vegetation: wetland vegetation should be monitored to ensure that unwanted plant

species (weeds) do not overtake the intended plant community. In hot and arid
climates, thatch may accumulate indefinitely and plant harvesting may be necessary.
Applicative examples – Sizing of a horizontal submerged flow wetland
Design a HF wetland for a single-family home (5 PE) in a temperate climate. BOD5 effluent
target is 30 mg/L. Perform the design according to a rule-of-thumb method. Assumptions:
• A septic tank for pre-treatment, and that the septic tank removes 1/3 of the BOD5 load.
• An average per capita wastewater generation of 150 L/d and a per capita BOD5 load of
60 g per person and day.
Perform the design according to a rule-of-thumb method.
Summary of inputs to the HF wetland:
Inflow, Qi = 5 PE × 150 L/PE d × 10-3 m3/L = 0.75 m3/d (1)
Mass Load In, Mi = 5 PE × 60 gBOD/PE d × 2/3 = 200 gBOD/d (2)
Concentration In, Ci = Mi/Qi = 200 gBOD/d / 0.75 m3/d = 266 mgBOD/L (3)
Choose a rule-of-thumb guideline. For example, according to the Danish guideline (Brix and
Johansen, 2004), HF wetlands are sized at 5 m2/PE.
A= 5 PE × 5 m2/PE = 25 m2 (4)
According to the Danish guideline, HF wetlands sized at 5 m2/PE are expected to achieve
90% reduction in BOD5, which should result in an effluent concentration close to 25 mg/L (0.1 ×
266 mg/L = 27 mg/L). Note that any further increase in the influent water quality (e.g., septic tank
effluent) would result in an increase in expected effluent BOD5 concentrations.
A length-to-width ratio between 2:1 and 4:1 is common for HF wetlands. Choosing a length-
to-width ratio of three yields the following calculation:
Knowing A = l/w
l/w = 3
solving for w:

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
w = (A/3)0.5 = 2.9 m (5)
Choosing a length-to-width ratio of three results in a wetland that is 2.9 m wide by 8.7 m
long (total area of 25.2 m2). These dimensions, although exact, are not practical to use in the field.
Engineering designs must take into consideration the constructability of the system. Choosing
wetland dimensions that are easy to measure and implement in the field is an important aspect of
the design process. Choosing a wetland of 3.0 m wide by 8.5 m long (total area of 25.5 m2) results
in a length-to-width ratio of 2:8, and system dimensions that are much easier to measure and
implement during construction. When adjusting the width of the wetland bed, it is generally better
to increase the width rather than to decrease it. Decreasing the width will increase the overall
cross-sectional organic loading rate and increase chances of clogging. Typical saturated depth
for a HF wetland treating septic tank effluent is 0.5 m.
4.3 Subsurface vertical flow systems
Figure 13 - Schematic of a typical VF wetland (source: Tilley et al., 2014)
The main application of VF wetlands is for secondary treatment of domestic wastewater. Figure
13 shows a schematic of a typical VF wetland in Europe. The sand and/or gravel bed is planted with
emergent macrophytes. Primary treated wastewater is loaded intermittently to the filter surface and
the large amount of water from a single loading causes good distribution of inflow water on the

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
surface. The water percolates through the substrate then gradually drains and is collected by a
drainage network at the base of the filter. Between loadings, oxygen re-enters the pore space of the
media, transporting oxygen into the filter bed in order to sustain aerobic microbial processes. The
whole bed is isolated from the surrounding land by a combination of a plastic liner and a geotextile
membrane.
Due to the highly oxidising conditions in the filter bed, VF wetlands with intermittent loading
are extremely efficient for removal of organic carbon (BOD5 or COD). They are also suitable when
strictly aerobic processes such as nitrification are required. Thus, VF wetlands are commonly used
for secondary as well as tertiary treatment of domestic wastewater. VF wetlands are also used to
treat landfill leachate and food processing wastewaters, which often contain high levels of
ammonium nitrogen and/or organic carbon), as well as other agro-industrial wastewaters such as
olive mill effluents, dairy farm wastewater and animal farm effluent.
The unsaturated conditions of the filter medium imply that several hydraulic considerations,
modelling approaches and design specifications that are exclusive for saturated media (HF
wetlands) are not applicable here.
The treatment efficiency of a VF wetland is directly related to the filter material used. If fine
material is used, the retention time of the wastewater in the filter is longer, often enabling higher
removal efficiencies; however, the hydraulic rates are limited, as it takes longer for water to infiltrate
and the potential for clogging increases. Coarser filter material enables higher hydraulic rates and
less clogging potential, but results in lower removal efficiencies. This can be partially overcome in
some cases by increasing the depth of the main layer.
Available design guidelines for VF wetlands are based on empirical rules-of-thumb, such as
those using specific surface area requirements.
All guidelines require a drainage layer of gravel at the bottom of the bed and an intermediate
or transition layer (e.g. 10 cm gravel of 4 – 8 mm in diameter) between main and drainage layer. The
intermediate layer prevents grains from the filtration layer from migrating into the drainage layer. The
coarse gravel in the drainage layer allows for good drainage and together with the drainage pipes,
provides oxygen to the deepest layer of the bed.
The design guidelines include a non-compulsory top layer of gravel (e.g. 4 – 8 mm) to prevent
erosion during intermittent loading as well as to allow no free water on the surface. Additionally, an
additional top layer increases thermal insulation and ensures higher temperatures of the filter in

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
winter (about 1 – 2°C for a 15 cm top layer). However, the main disadvantage is that the top layer
reduces oxygen supply to the main layer and fixes the stems of emergent macrophytes so that they
cannot move and break up the surface of the main layer in the non-loading periods.
Emergent macrophytes, most often Phragmites australis (common reed), are used for planting
VF wetlands. The roles of the macrophytes in relation to pollutant removal in VF wetlands are mainly
related to physical processes. The roots provide surface area for attached microbial growth, and root
growth is known to help maintain the hydraulic properties of the filter. The vegetation cover protects
the surface from erosion. In temperate climates, litter provides an insulation layer on the wetland
surface for operation during winter. Uptake of nutrients plays a minor role for common wastewater
parameters compared to the degradation processes caused by microorganisms.
If wetland plants are not harvested, some nutrients absorbed by the plant will be released to
the system during decomposition, resulting in a possible secondary pollutant release to the wetland.
Some plants also release organic compounds, which can be used to aid in denitrification.
Intermittent loading of the VF wetlands is achieved with a pump or, if the landscape allows and
adequate slope is available, intermitted dosing can be achieved with siphons (which do not require
external energy). In any case, a good distribution of the wastewater on the surface of the VF wetland
must be guaranteed to utilise the whole filter volume. The maximum hydraulic rate should not exceed
80 L/m2·d (0.08 m3/m2·d), the interval between loadings should be ≥ 6 hours. The distribution pipes
should have a diameter of about 40 mm with circular opening holes with a diameter of not less than
8 mm to avoid blocking of the openings with solids.
Figure 14 – Photos of VF wetlands (source: Polito)
For larger VF wetlands (> 100 PE), it is common practice to divide the surface area into several
smaller ones that can be loaded independently, thereby allowing one of these areas to be in resting

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
phase and not loaded. The German design guidelines recommend VF wetlands should be designed
so that a quarter of the total surface is in resting phase.
Experiences on the use of VF wetlands in warmer climates exist for several regions. Besides
a reduced specific surface area, hydraulic loads up to 200 mm/d can be applied in warm climate
regions (Stefanakis et al., 2014).
In a single stage VF wetland, removal of TN is limited to about 20 – 30%. If further nitrogen
removal is required, two approaches have been shown to be successful:
• recirculation: effluent of the VF wetland is recirculated into the primary treatment and
thus nitrate-rich water is brought into contact with organic matter. This aids in additional
denitrification;
• use of coarser filter material for the main layer combined with saturation of the drainage
layer: when using a coarse sand as filter material for the main layer (e.g. 1 – 4 mm or
2 – 3 mm) and a portion of the drainage layer is impounded, a TN removal rate of 60 –
70% can be reached without recirculation.
Besides secondary treatment, VF wetlands are also used as a tertiary treatment stage. For
tertiary treatment VF wetlands, the main design criteria in temperate climates is a maximum organic
loading rate of 20 g COD/m2·d. Compared to VF wetlands for secondary treatment, the hydraulic
rates in tertiary treatment VF wetlands can be higher and thus the specific surface area requirement
can be reduced.
The main operational problem of VF wetlands is clogging due to the insufficient removal of
sludge from the primary treatment step (e.g. septic tank). If sludge is not removed, it will be
transported to the filter surface and clog the filter. Several other operational problems can result from
poor design and/or problems during the construction phase. Problems during design and/or
construction that should be avoided include:
• Insufficient protection of VF wetland surface from surface water and superficial runoff:
soil substrate from the surrounding area is washed on the filter surface during rain
events and causes clogging of the gravel and sand layers. To prevent this, border strips
should be established around the filter beds.
• Unsuitable filter media: for economic and sustainability reasons, it is intended to use
sand and gravel from as near as possible to the implementation site. The main problem

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
that can occur is that too fine grain size distribution and/or unwashed sand or gravel
that contains a large portion of fines can lead to clogging of the filter.
• Uneven slope of the filter surface: ponding of water in single areas of the filter bed
might lead to clogging.
• Intermittent loading system: uneven distribution of wastewater causes uneven loading
on parts of the VF wetland and can result in ponding (and eventual clogging). Thus,
distribution pipes and opening holes must be evenly distributed over the surface of the
filter bed and even distribution of wastewater must be ensured.
• Primary treatment using a septic tank: poor quality concrete tanks can result in
corrosion and sludge drift. In some cases, weathering of septic tank walls can occur.
In the case that there is not enough ventilation into the tank, the cover of the septic tank
should be perforated or air circulation achieved by other means.
Applicative examples – Sizing of a horizontal submerged flow wetland
The following simple example shows the design of a VF wetland in a temperate climate. It
is estimated that the VF wetland shall treat household wastewater of a small settlement with 50
PE, the average flow is 150 L/PE·d. Pollutant per capita generation rates of 60 g BOD5, 120 g
COD and 11 g TKN per capita and day are assumed.
Step 1. Define influent flow and pollutant concentrations
Inflow, Qi = 50 PE ×150 L/PE d × 10-3 m3/L= 7.5 m3/d (6)
COD Conc. (raw wastewater) = 120 gCOD/PE d / 150 L/PE d × 10-3 mg/g= 800 mgCOD/L (7)
TKN Conc. (raw wastewater) = 11 gTKN/PE d / 150 L/PE d × 10-3 mg/g = 73.3 mgTKN/L (8)
Step 2. Design the three-chamber septic tank
It is assumed that septic tanks are sized at 0.25 m3/PE, with a minimum per capita tank
surface area of 0.06 m3/PE. The first chamber of the tank should comprise of 50% of the septic
tank volume, whereas the second and third chambers should each be comprised of 25% of the
total tank volume. The third chamber of the septic tank functions as the dosing tank for the
wetland. It is assumed that one-third of the COD is removed in the septic tank.
Calculate minimum tank volume: 50 PE × 0.25 m3/PE = 12.5 m3 (9)

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Selected septic tank volume = 13 m3 (10)
Calculate minimum surface area of septic tank: 50 PE × 0.06 m2/PE = 3 m2 (11)
Selected surface area of septic tank = 3.5 m2 (12)
Calculate depth of septic tank: 13 m3/3.5 m2 = 3.7 m (13)
HRT in first and second septic tank chamber: = 13 m3 × 0.75 / 7.5 m3/d = 1.3 d (14)
COD Concentration (post-septic tank) 800 mgCOD/L × 2/3 = 533 mgCOD/L (15)
Step 3. Design the VF wetland
Two different design approaches are shown. The first uses sand with a grain size of 0.06 –
4 mm. The second approach uses coarse sand with grain size 2 – 3 mm. The key parameters of
the two designs are shown in Table 3.
Summary
In general, the coarser the filter media used for the main layer of the VF bed:
• The higher the acceptable hydraulic and organic loads.
• The smaller the required surface area of the VF bed.
• The smaller the single loading of the VF bed.
• The more opening holes are required to achieve good distribution of the wastewater on
the surface.
• However, less pollutant removal (TSS, BOD5, COD and NH4-N) can be expected.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Table 3 - Key design parameters and expected effluent concentrations of two different VF wetlands.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
5 Ponds & lagoons
Ponds and lagoons are artificial lakes. What happens in ponds closely represents treatment
processes which take place in nature. In artificial ponds the different treatment processes are often
separated. Pure pond systems are cheap and need almost no maintenance, even in larger size.
Ponds may be classified into:
• sedimentation ponds (pre-treatment ponds with anaerobic sludge stabilisation)
• anaerobic ponds (anaerobic stabilisation ponds)
• oxidation ponds (aerobic cum facultative stabilisation ponds)
• polishing ponds (post-treatment ponds, placed after stabilisation ponds)
Pond systems that are planned for full treatment normally consist of several ponds serving
different purposes. For instance, a deep anaerobic sedimentation pond for sedimentation cum
anaerobic stabilisation of sludge, two or three shallow aerobic and facultative oxidation ponds with
longer retention times for predominantly aerobic degradation of suspended and dissolved matter and
one or several shallow polishing ponds for final sedimentation of suspended stabilised solids and
bacteria mass.
5.1 Aerobic systems
Wastewater for treatment in aerobic ponds should have a BOD5 content below 300 mg/l.
Aerobic ponds receive most of their oxygen via the water surface. For loading rates below 400
mg BOD/m2/d, surface oxygen can meet the entire oxygen demand. Oxygen intake increases at
lower temperatures and with surface turbulence caused by wind and rain.
Oxygen intake further depends on the actual oxygen deficit up to saturation point and thus may
vary between 40 g O2/m2/d at 20°C for fully anaerobic conditions and 10 g O2/m2/d in case of 75%
oxygen saturation. The secondary source is photosynthesic activity of algae. Too intensive growth
of algae and highly turbid water prevent sunlight from reaching the lower strata of the pond. Oxygen
“production" is then reduced because photosynthesis cannot take place. The result is a foul smell
because anaerobic facultative conditions prevail. Algae growth is desired in the beginning of
treatment, but not at the point of discharge as algae increase the BOD of the effluent. A small last
pond with a maximum 1-day retention time can reduce algae in the effluent. A larger pond area and
low loading rates with reduced nutrient supply for algae are the most secure, but also the most
expensive measure. Baffles or rock bedding prior to the outlet of each pond have a remarkable effect
on the retaining of algae. Treatment efficiency increases with longer retention times. The number of
ponds is of only relative influence. Given the same total surface, efficiency increases by

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
approximately 10% by splitting one into two ponds, three instead of two ponds add about 4% and
from three to four ponds, efficiency may increase by another 2%. Aerobic stabilisation ponds should
be shallow but deep enough to prevent weed growth at the bottom of the pond.
Figure 15 – Typical scheme of a waste stabilisation system: An anaerobic, facultative and maturation
pond in series. [Source: Tilley et al.]
5.2 Anaerobic systems
Usually, anaerobic ponds are integrated in a serial system of anaerobic, aerobic and possibly
maturation ponds. It is possible to provide separate sludge settling tanks preceding the main pond,
in order to reduce its organic sludge load.
Anaerobic ponds are deep (2 to 6 m) and highly loaded (0,1 to 1 kg BOD/m3/d). Anaerobic
conditions are maintained only through the depth of the pond; therefore, a minimum depth of 2 m is
necessary.
Ponds with organic Ioading rates below 300 g/m3*d BOD are likely to stay at an almost neutral
pH. Consequently, they release little H2S (hydrogen sulphate) and are therefore almost free of
unpleasant smell. Highly loaded anaerobic ponds have particularly high odour emissions in the
beginning until a heavy layer of scum has developed. Prior to the formation of scum, a small upper
layer of the pond will remain aerobic; these ponds may then be called facultative-anaerobic ponds.
Depending on the strength and type of wastewater and the desired treatment efficiency,
anaerobic ponds are designed for hydraulic retention times between 1 and 30 days. The settling

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
tanks should have a HRT (hydraulic retention time) of less than one day, depending on the kind of
wastewater. For domestic wastewater, the anaerobic pond may function as an open septic tank. It
should then be small in order to develop a sealing scum layer. In that case, treatment efficiency is in
the range of 50% to 70% BOD removal.
6 Conclusion
As a concluding remark of the chapter, the main advantages and disadvantages of the
decentralised treatment techniques are summarized in the following table.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Table 4 – Advantages and disadvantages of decentralised wastewater treatment systems [Source:

Naturgerechte Technologien]

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
7 References
Abbassi, B., Dullstein, S. and Rabiger, N.. Minimization of excess sludge production by
increase of oxygen concentration in activated sludge flocs; experimental and theoretical approach.
Water and Research 34: 139-146. (2000)
Agbontalor E.A. Phytoremediation: an environmentally sound technology for pollution
prevention, control and remediation in developing countries. Educational Research and Review Vol.
2 (7), pp. 151-156, 2007.
Aziz H.A., Mojiri A. Wastewater Engineering: Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems. IJSR
Publications. 2014.
Belgiorno V., De Feo G., Napoli R.M.A. (2002), Design parameters of biological aerated filters
for low strength domestic wastewater, in Proceedings IWA World Water Congress, Melbourne,
Australia 7-12 April 2002.
Breisha G.Z. Bio-removal of nitrogen from wastewaters - A review. Nature and Science, 2010.
Brix H. and Johansen N. H. (2004). Guidelines for the Establishment of Reed Bed Systems up
to 30 PE (Retningslinier for etablering af beplantede filteranlæg op til 30 PE). Økologisk Byfornyelse
og Spildevandsrensning No.52, Miljøstyrelsen. Miljøministeriet, Copenhagen, Denmark (in Danish).
Chaney, R.L., Ryan J.A., O’Connor, G.A. Organic contaminants in municipal biosolids: risk
assessment, quantitative pathways analysis and current research priorities. The Science of the Total
Environment 185: 187-216. (1996)
Constantine T., CH2M HILL Canada. An Overview of Ammonia and Nitrogen Removal in
Wastewater Treatment. Presentation. 2008.
Cooper P.F., Reed Beds & Contructed Wetlands for wastewater treatment, WRc Pub.,
Swindon, UK, 1996.
Crites R. Tchobanoglous G. Small and decentralized wastewater management systems.
WCB/McGraw-Hill (1998).
D’ Antonio G. Ingegneria sanitaria ambientale. Hoepli. (2007). In Italian.
Duncan Mara. Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries. Earthscan. 2004.
Gutterer B., Sasse L., Panzerbieter T., Reckerzügel T. Decentralised Wastewater Treatment
Systems (DEWATS) and Sanitation in Developing Countries. Water, Engineering and Development
Centre.
Henze M., Poul Harremoes, Jes la Cour Jansen, Arvin E.. Wastewater Treatment: Biological
and Chemical Processes Springer. (2002)

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control. Constructed

Wetlands for Pollution Control: Processes, Performance, Design and Operation. Scientific and
Technical Report n°.8. IWA Publishing, London. (2000).
IWA Publishing. Treatment wetlands (2017).
Kadlec R.H., Knight R.L., "Treatment wetlands", Lewis Publisher - CRC, Boca Raton (1996).
Kadlec R.H., Wallace S.D. (2009) Treatment Wetlands, Second Edition. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press.
Karpuzcu M., Önkal-Engin G., Demir I. Alternative approaches for wastewater treatment and
disposal in developing countries.
Massoud M.A., Tarhini A., Nasr J.A. Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and
management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009)
652–659.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering - Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. Third Edition.
NewYork, NY: McGraw Hill, Inc. (1991).
Moosavi S.G., Seghatoleslami M.J.. Phytoremediation: A review. Advance in Agriculture and
Biology.2013.
Moreira I., Oliveira O., Triguis J., dos Santos A., Queiroz A., Martins C., Silva C., Rosenaide
S. Phytoremediation using Rizophora mangle L. in mangrove sediments contaminated by persistent
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH's). Microchemical Journal 99 (2011) 376–382.
Naturgerechte Technologien, Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung TBW GmbH, Frankfurt.
Decentralised wastewater treatment methods for developing countries. 2001.
Naturgerechte Technologien, Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung (TBW) GmbH, Frankfurt,
Germany. Basic sanitation and human excreta disposal in latrines. 2000.
Nawahwi M.H., Aziz K.M., Mazleena S. Phytoremediation potential of Impatiens balsamina
towards naphthalene contaminated soil in different parts of plant. American-Eurasian J. Agric. &
Environ. Sci., 14 (7): 610-614, 2014.
Ochonogor R.O., Atagana H.I. Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soil by
Psoralea Pinnata. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 5, No. 5.
2014.
Ogbo E.M., Ufuoma A., Odogu G. Screening of four common Nigerian weeds for use in
phytoremediation of soil contaminated with spent lubricating oil. African Journal of Plant Science Vol.
3 (5), pp. 102-106, May, 2009.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Oh K., Cao T., Li T.,Cheng H. Study on Application of Phytoremediation Technology in

Management and Remediation of Contaminated Soils. Journal of Clean Energy Technologies, Vol.
2, No. 3. 2014.
Olatunji O.S., Ximba B.J., Fatoki O. S., Opeolu, B.O. Assessment of the phytoremediation
potential of Panicum maximum (guinea grass) for selected heavy metal removal from contaminated
soils. African Journals Online (AJOL) 2014.
Pütz P. Nitrogen parameters: Nitrification, Denitrification. 2015. Lange.
Rajakaruna N., Tompkins K., Pavicevic P.G. Phytoremediation: an affordable green
technology for the clean up of metal-contaminated sites in Sri-Lanka. Cey. J. Sci. (Bio. Sci.) 35 (1):
25-39, 2006.
Riddell, M.D.R., J.S. Lee, and T.E. Wilson. “Method for Estimating the Capacity of an Activated
Sludge Plant.” Journal of the Water Pollution Federation. 55 (4); 360-368 (1993).
Rogers, R.R. Sources, behaviour and fate of organic contaminants during sewage treatment
and sewage sludges. The Science of the Total Environment 185: 3-26 (1996)
Shutchaa M.K., Mubembaab M.M. Fauconc M.P., Ngongo M., Visserd M., Colinetb G., Meertsc
P. Phytostabilisation of Copper-Contaminated Soil in Katanga: An Experiment with Three Native
Grasses and Two Amendments. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2010.
Singh D., Tiwari A., Gupta R. Phytoremediation of lead from wastewater using aquatic plants.
Journal of Agricultural Technology 2012 Vol. 8(1): 1-11.
Stefanakis A., Akratos C.S., Tsihrintzis V.A. (2014) Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands: Eco-
engineering Systems for Wastewater and Sludge Treatment. Waltham, MA, USA: Elsevier.
Stephen E., Ijah U.J. Comparison Of Glycine Max and Sida Acuta in the Phytoremediation Of
Waste Lubricating Oil Polluted Soil. Nature and Science, 2011;9(8).
Tilley E., Ulrich L., Luethi C., Reymond P., Zurbruegg C. Compendium of sanitation systems
and technologies. Swiss Federal institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (2014).
Ujang Z., Henze M. Municipal wastewater management in developing countries: principles and
engineering. IWA Publishing. (2006)
US EPA. Nitrification and denitrification facilities. 1973.
Vymazal J. Wastewater Treatment, Plant Dynamics and Management in Constructed and
Natural Wetlands. Springer. (2008)
Wallace S.D., Knight R.L. (2006) Small-scale constructed wetland treatment systems:
Feasibility, design criteria, and O&M requirements. Water Environment Research Foundation
(WERF): Alexandria, Virginia.

IN URBAN SETTLEMENT
2023
Wanner, Jiri. Activated Sludge Bulking and Foaming Control. Lancaster, PA: Technomic
Publishing Company (1994).
Water Environment Federation. Operation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Chapter
22 - Biological Nutrient Removal Processes. 2007.
Water Planet Company. Nitrogen removal from wastewater: nitrogen chemistry.
Webber, M.D., Rogers, H.R., Watts, C.D., Boxall, A.B.A., Davis, R.D. and Scoffin, R.
Monitoring and prioritisation of organic contaminants in sewage sludges using specific chemical
analysis and predictive, non-analytical methods. The Science of the Total Environment 185: 27-44.
(1996).
http://www.lenntech.com
www.oppo.it
http://www.centrocontenitori.it/
http://civil.engr.siu.edu/301I_Ray/second.htm
http://www.civil.columbia.edu/edc/BiogasLatrine.html
www.acquaria.it
http://www.poopreport.com
www.paques.nl
www.guadalupedunes.com
http://www.pitt.edu
https://www.rwlwater.com/phytoremediation/
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/waho/waho_008.cfm
http://www.theafricansoup.org/

Unit 2.6 - Methods - Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Unit 2.6 - Methods - Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 2.6 - Methods - Developing Countries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In collaboration with

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

MODULE 2 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Unit 2.6: Treatment methods for developing and emerging countries

TREATMENT METHODS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

2 Treatment methods in small communities

Decentralized wastewater treatment can be a sensible solution for communities of largely

2.1 Septic tanks

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Figure 1 (left). Schematic of a septic tank (Source: Molloy Precast Ltd).

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Figure 3 – Representation of a baffled septic tank [Source: Tilley et al.]

2.2 Imhoff tanks

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Figure 4 - Example of an Imhoff tank [Source: www.oppo.it, www.centrocontenitori.it]

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

2.3 Biogas latrines

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

3 Basic principles of phytoremediation

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Figure 7 – A petroleum phytoremediation installation in California, USA (Source:

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Table 2 – Removal rates for different pollutants [Source: CMHC].

4.1 Free surface flow systems

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Figure 8 - Overview of a FWS wetland (source: IWA, 2017)

4.1.1 Design principles

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

Figure 10 – Photos of FWS wetlands. (source: Polito).

Other design considerations

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

4.1.2 Operation and maintenance

4.2 Subsurface horizontal flow systems

Figure 11 - Schematic of a horizontal subsurface wetland (source: Tilley et al, 2014)

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

4.2.1 Design principles

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

4.2.2 Operation and maintenance

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

• Vegetation: wetland vegetation should be monitored to ensure that unwanted plant

Applicative examples – Sizing of a horizontal submerged flow wetland

Perform the design according to a rule-of-thumb method.

Summary of inputs to the HF wetland:

Inflow, Qi = 5 PE × 150 L/PE d × 10-3 m3/L = 0.75 m3/d (1)

Mass Load In, Mi = 5 PE × 60 gBOD/PE d × 2/3 = 200 gBOD/d (2)

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

w = (A/3)0.5 = 2.9 m (5)

4.3 Subsurface vertical flow systems

Figure 13 - Schematic of a typical VF wetland (source: Tilley et al., 2014)

NON-AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT

4.3.1 Design principles