Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Improved test to determine design parameters for optimization of free T

surface flow constructed wetlands
Changqiang Guoa, Yuanlai Cuia, , Yuanzhi Shib, Yufeng Luoa, Fangping Liuc, Di Wana, Zhen Maa
⁎

a
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing 210029, China
c
Jiangxi Center Station of Irrigation Experiment, Nanchang 330201, China

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Orthogonal tests were performed to assess the effect of design parameters on hydraulic and treatment perfor-
Constructed wetland mances of constructed wetlands. The results showed that water depth, layout of in- and outlet, flow rate, and
Design parameter aspect ratio mainly affected hydraulic performance, and water depth, plant spacing, and layout of in- and outlet
Hydraulic performance mainly affected treatment performance. Optimal integrated performance was achieved with combination of
Treatment performance
20–30 cm water depth, five evenly distributed inlets and one middle outlet, a flow rate of 0.4–0.55 m3/h, 20-cm
Orthogonal test
plant spacing, a 1.125:1 aspect ratio, and planted with Scripus tabernaemontani. The average treatment perfor-
mances of 27.2%, 16.3%, and 30.7% removal rates were received for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total
suspended solid, respectively. The design parameters that significantly influenced hydraulic performance did not
significantly influence treatment performance. Various hydraulic and purification indicators displayed extremely
significant correlations. There was a significant correlation between hydraulic performance and mass removal
capacity.

1. Introduction ecological function, free water surface flow constructed wetlands (FWS
CWs) have been widely used in rural areas and suburbs to treat agri-
Thanks to their many advantages, such as low construction and cultural drainage and domestic sewage (Jia et al., 2014; Kadlec and
operating costs, good resistance to shock-loading, and sustainable Wallace, 2009; Tourneize et al., 2016; Vymazal, 2013). Furthermore,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: YLCui@whu.edu.cn (Y. Cui).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.020
Received 30 December 2018; Received in revised form 31 January 2019; Accepted 4 February 2019
Available online 04 February 2019
0960-8524/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Guo, et al.
due to their good oxygen enrichment capacity, they have often been
used for the secondary treatment of municipal wastewater treatment
plants to provide oxygen enrichment so as to avoid the hypoxia caused
by direct discharge of municipal wastewater, which threatens native
water organisms and the destruction of habitat (Ham et al., 2010;
Jenkins and Greenway, 2005). Because it is generally believed that
design parameters such as aspect ratio, water depth, and layout of in-
and outlet have direct and significant influence on hydraulic and
treatment performances, it is important to select appropriate design
parameters such that cost effectiveness is high and the integrated per-
formance of hydraulics and treatment is optimal (Varis and
Vakkilainen, 2006). Maximizing hydraulic and treatment performances
for the least land resource input is a principal goal in the design of FWS
CWs.
There have been many investigations of design parameters of FWS
CWs which affect hydraulic and treatment performance. Persson et al.
(1999), Persson (2000) concluded that appropriate aspect ratio (be-
tween 2:1 and 4:1), layout of in- and outlet, and guide plates are im-
portant to improve the hydraulic performance by using two-dimen-
sional business model studying the effects of different design
parameters on hydraulic performance, and their results were consistent
with previous studies (Liu et al., 2016; Persson and Wittgren, 2003;
Stamou and Noutsopoulos, 1994). Based on model construction, the
variation rule of hydraulic efficiency λ of FWS CWs under different
plant planting distribution and density has demonstrated that hydro-
phytes planted along coastal waters increase the short circuit of water
flow, resulting in the decline of hydraulic performance (Jenkins and
Greenway, 2005). Holland et al. (2004) examined the effect of water
depth and flow rate on hydraulic performance of pond wetlands and its
variation rule by field tracer tests. Many other researchers reached a
similar conclusion to the above researches about the effect of design
parameters on hydraulic performance through the tracer tests of FWS
CWs with different design parameters in small test areas (Bodin and
Persson, 2012; Fan et al., 2008; Guo et al., 2017a; Min and Wise, 2009;
Stern et al., 2001). At present, studies on the treatment performance of
FWS CWs are mainly focused on links to hydraulic performance of CWs,
as indicated by the residence time distribution (RTD) of tracer tests, by
constructing a one-dimensional dynamic reaction equation (Lin et al.,
2003; Liu et al., 2016; Wahl et al., 2010, 2012).
For evaluation of treatment performance of FWS CWs, current re-
search is mainly focused on the measurement of the rate of removal of
pollutants such as total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), ammo-
nium nitrogen (NH4+-N) and on determination of chemical oxygen
demand (COD). Whether there is an improvement of treatment per-
formance by harvesting emergent aquatic plants has also been ex-
amined (Kadlec and Wallace, 2009; Stone et al., 2004; Tuncsiper et al.,
2006; Vymazal, 2013, 2014; Zheng et al., 2015).
Although there has been extensive research on the impact of design
parameters on hydraulic performance of FWS CWs, to-date these studies
have examined individual design parameters separately. Few studies
have examined the interaction of multiple design parameters on hy-
draulic performance; systematic and comprehensive studies are gen-
erally absent (Wu et al., 2015). Similarly, the experimental research on
FWS CWs treatment performance have mainly focused on studying the
purification effect itself or have only been concerned with aquatic plant
density, species, and management options (harvesting or not) (Turker
et al., 2016; Vymazal, 2013; Zhang et al., 2017). Very little emphasis
has been placed on the effects of design parameters on treatment per-
formance and this has limited the understanding of purification process,
optimized parameter design, and how to improve the integrated per-
formance of FWS CWs. Consequently, an orthogonal experimental study
with mixed levels of hydraulic and treatment performances of FWS CWs
was designed to comprehensively and simultaneously analyze multiple
design parameters of 16 FWS CW communities in the Jiangxi Center
Station of Irrigation Experiment in 2016 (Guo et al., 2017b). The or-
thogonal experiment examined the variation tendency of both
200
Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212
hydraulic and treatment performances under 16 combinations of 6
design parameters, namely water depth, layout of in- and outlet, flow
rate, plant spacing, plant species and aspect ratio. The results of this
early study showed the significant influence of design parameters on
hydraulic performance and the significant linear correlation between
some design parameters and hydraulic indicators, and the extremely
significant correlations among hydraulic indicators. However, the re-
sults showed that there was no significant effect of design parameters
on treatment performance under current design conditions, and there
was no significant linear correlation between the hydraulic indicators
selected for evaluating hydraulic performance and the purification in-
dicators representing treatment performance, although the authors had
intended to explore the significant influence of design parameters on
treatment performance and the significant linear correlation between
the hydraulic and treatment performances (Guo et al., 2017b). Their
analyses suggest that poor rates of purification may be the key to the
unsatisfactory correlation between the two performances in this study,
where rates of removal of TN, TP and TSS were only 1.4%, 3.4% and
14.1%, respectively. The extremely low removal rates are not con-
ducive to providing an understanding of the internal relationships
among design parameters, hydraulic and treatment performances (Guo
et al., 2017b).
Based on the deficiencies observed in the 2016 study (Guo et al.,
2017b), the experimental design was improved in 2017, and a new
water distribution device was installed to produce a smaller inflow rate
and thus a larger hydraulic retention time (HRT). In addition, in order
to approximate the actual concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in
farmland drainage, allowed an improved assessment of treatment per-
formance of FWS CWs, a highly concentrated solution of nitrogen and
phosphorus was slowly and continuously released into the inflow by a
peristaltic pump producing an even mix when entering the test area,
and the nitrogen and phosphorus concentration was close to the daily
drainage concentration of farmland (TN 2–3 mg/L, TP 0.1–0.2 mg/L).
By improving the wetland water HRT and the inflow concentration of
nitrogen and phosphorus, a higher water quality purification effect was
expected, and the variation laws of the hydraulic and treatment per-
formances of FWS CWs under different combinations of multi-design
parameters could be further explored. The internal relations among
design parameters and hydraulic and treatment performances were
analyzed and clarified in depth, thereby providing theoretical guidance
for the improvement of performance and optimal design of FWS CWs.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
The test site is located in the experimental base of the Jiangxi
Province Center Station of Irrigation Experiment, located in the Ganfu
Plain of Poyang Lake basin. The geographical coordinates of the basin
are 115°49′E–116°46′E, 28°24′N–29°46′N. The basin is characterized by
a typical subtropical and humid monsoonal climate with an annual
average temperature of 18.1 °C. Annual average rainfall is 1685 mm, of
which 70% occurs between March and June inclusive.
The test plots consist of 16 water tanks surrounded by reinforced
concrete with rammed earth at the bottom. The size of each tank is
6.0 m length, 4.7 m wide, 0.8 m net depth, and 0.3 m wall thickness.
The substratum for the aquatic plants is a 20 cm thick backfill of soil
overlain by 20 cm thick site soil. At the end of 2016, the aquatic plants
in all the tanks were fully harvested due to plant blight.
2.2. Orthogonal design
A mixed level orthogonal experiment L16(44 × 23) was undertaken
as in 2016. Three key modifications from the pilot experiment (Guo
et al., 2017b) were (i) the imposition of a reduced inflow at each level
to obtain a longer HRT; (ii) the adjustment of plant spacing at each
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

Table 1
Factors and levels of the orthogonal design.
Level Depth/cm Layout of in- and outlet Flow rate/(m3 h−1) Plant spacing/cm Length × Width/m × m Plant species

1 20 Diagonal pass in- and outlet 0.40 20 6.0 × 3.0 (2:1) Typha latifolia
2 30 Central pass in- and outlet 0.55 30
3 40 Five evenly distributed inlets and one middle outlet 0.70 40 4.5 × 4.0 (1.125:1) Scripus tabernaemontani
4 50 Evenly distributed inlets and one middle outlet 0.85 50

level; and (iii) the increased pollutant concentration of inflow. The
orthogonal experiment settings of design parameters and horizontal
selection are summarized in Table 1, and the combinations of design
parameters are summarized in the appendix.
In contrast to the experiment undertaken in 2016, the aquatic plants
in each tank were pruned and harvested in April. By the start of this
trial in July 2017, plant spacing met the requirements for the test
program, and plant height was close to that of the 2016 experiment.
The height of Typha latifolia was 170 cm and the stem diameter was
20–30 mm. The height of Scripus tabernaemontani was 160 cm and stem
diameter was 6–10 mm. The average temperature during the experi-
ment was 33 °C. At the same time, by summarizing the water quality
test results in 2016 and the original intention of the study on the
treatment of agricultural non-point source pollution by FWS CWs, a
preconfigured solution containing a high concentration of nitrogen and
phosphorus was injected into the inflow through a peristaltic pump to
make the water flowing into the test plot blend to the same con-
centration of nitrogen and phosphorus as farmland daily drainage (TN
2–3 mg/L, TP 0.1–0.2 mg/L) so as to better simulate the treatment
performance of FWS CWs on farmland drainage (see Fig. 1).
2.3. Observations and methods
were analyzed.
2.3.1. Hydraulic indicators
In order to facilitate direct comparison of wetland performance
under different test conditions, the original tracer curves need to be
dimensionless (Holland et al., 2004). Inflow rates and water volumes
were used to normalize the coordinate horizontal time axis. The water
volume and the mass of injected tracer were used to normalize the
vertical tracer concentration axis (Werner and Kadlec, 2000).
t
= Q (t)/ V (t)dt
t0 (1)
c ( ) = c ( ) V ( )/ M (2)
where φ is the dimensionless time scaler (–), t0 is the time at which the
tracer was released (h), t’ is the computing time (h), t is the integral
variable (h), Q(t) is the wetland outflow rate (m3/h), V(t) is the water
volume (m3), c′( ) is the dimensionless concentration scaler (–), c(φ) is
outflow tracer concentration (g/m3), M is the mass of tracer released in
this test (g).
Because of the loss of tracer mass, recycled mass is generally used to
replace the released mass in tracer experiments (Kadlec, 1994).

This study mainly evaluated hydraulic performance by analyzing
tracing data, with rhodamine WT as the tracer. The hydraulic indicators
used here were the short circuit indicator φ10, the mixing indicator
MDI, the effective volume ratio e, and the moment index MI. Together
these indicators comprehensively reflect hydraulic performance (Guo
et al., 2015; Morrill et al., 1932; Thackston et al., 1987; Teixeira and
Renato, 2008; Wahl et al., 2010). The treatment performance of each
test plot was obtained through multiple sampling tests of equal time
intervals during the test. The water pollutants detected were TN, TP,
and TSS. The concentration removal rate and the mass removal rate
Mout = Q (t) c (t)dt
0 (3)
where Mout is the recovery mass of tracer at the end of the test (g).
Four representative hydraulic indicators, φ10, MDI, e and MI, were
calculated from the normalized tracer curve. The short circuit indicator
φ10 represents the corresponding abscissa value when the cumulative
distribution curve of the normalized tracer curve has a value of 0.1. The
higher the value is, the longer the time it takes for 10% of the applied
tracer to reach the outlet, and the better the hydraulic performance is.
The mixing indicator MDI was calculated as follows.

Fig. 1. Location of the test site.

201
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

MDI = 90 / 10 (4) removal rate per unit time and area of the FWS CWs to pollutant i (g/
m2/d), Q is the flow rate (m3/h), and A is the surface area (m2).
where MDI is the Morrill Dispersion Index, an hydraulic indicator re-
MATLAB 2009b was used for data processing and analyses of tracer
flecting the degree of mixing within FWS CWs (–). φ90 refers to the
curves and hydraulic indicators, and Microsoft Excel 2007 was used for
dimensionless time when the ordinate value of the cumulative dis-
the analyses and calculation of purification indicators.
tribution curve of the normalized RTD is equal to 0.9 (–). When the
value of MDI reaches its minimum value 1, the wetland flow is the ideal
2.4. Statistic method
plug flow (Morrill et al., 1932; Guo et al., 2015, 2017a, 2017b).
The effective volume ratio e of FWS CWs is the centroid of the figure
A total of 16 groups of test data were obtained in this experiment.
enclosed by the normalized RTD and the horizontal axis, namely the
All four level factors, i.e. water depth, layout of in- and outlet, flow rate,
first order origin moment of the normalized RTD (Holland et al., 2004),
and plant spacing, were repeated four times in each level setting, and
thus:
the two level factors, namely aspect ratio, plant species and blank, were
e = M1 = c ( )d repeated eight times. In order to explore the influence of different de-
0 (5) sign parameters and level settings on hydraulic and treatment perfor-
* mances, statistical analyses were conducted.
where e is the effective volume ratio (–), and M1 is the first order origin
Extreme difference analysis, or intuitive analysis, is a common
moment of the normalized RTD (–). These two indicators are both equal
method to determine the main and secondary factors from the design
to 1 under the ideal condition of plug flow and completely mixed flow,
parameters examined in orthogonal tests (Du et al., 2016; Guo et al.,
which means that the actual HRT is equal to the theoretical HRT. Under
2017b; Jiang et al., 2015; Su et al., 2016). By comparing the maximum
the condition of e = 1, the FWS CW has good water flow pattern, and
difference in the average value of hydraulic or purification indicators
the water volume of the wetland is fully utilized, with no hydraulic
under all design parameters, it is possible to ascertain the relative im-
dead zone.
portance of different design parameters. The larger the difference value,
The Moment Index, MI, is an additional hydraulic index and is little
the more important is the influence of the level setting of the parameter
affected by tail truncation errors of tracer data. Consequently it has
on the results, and the more important the parameter is to the hydraulic
great accuracy and superiority compared with other hydraulic in-
or purification indicator. The design parameter with the maximum
dicators for evaluating the hydraulic performance of FWS CWs (Wahl
mean difference of all the indicators on each level is the design para-
et al., 2010). MI is given by:
meter that has the largest influence on the results among the design
1
parameters. This analysis is also known as principal factor analysis
MI = 1 (1 )C ( )d
0 (6) (PFA). Through extreme difference analysis, the design parameters of
the FWS CWs which have a principal influence on hydraulic and
where MI is the moment index, denoting the abscissa of the centroid of
treatment performances could be preliminarily judged.
the figure surrounded by the horizontal axis and the front half of the
In order to distinguish the differences in the influence of different
normalized RTD divided by the vertical line marked in x-co-
design parameters and level settings on the results, one-way analysis of
ordinate = 1. The larger the value, the further the distance from the
variance and multiple comparisons were conducted based on the
origin shown in the first half of the normalized RTD (bounded by the
characteristics of orthogonal design. The level of significance was set to
vertical dividing line of φ = 1), and the closer the centroid of the first
0.05 in all tests. Bivariate correlation analysis was conducted among
half to the vertical dividing line, and the better the hydraulic perfor-
design parameters, hydraulic, and treatment performances to obtain the
mance of the FWS CWs is (Liu et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2015, 2017a,
Pearson correlation coefficient and the degrees of significance among
2017b).
any pair of indices (design parameters, hydraulic performance, and
Based on the above analysis, it can be seen that under ideal plug
treatment performance). All statistical analyses were performed with
flow condition, the four hydraulic indicators, namely, the short circuit
Origin 9.0 and SPSS 19.0.
indicator φ10, mixing indicator MDI (≥1), effective volume ratio e, and
moment index MI (≤1), are all equal to 1. The larger the value of φ10
3. Results and discussion
and the smaller the value of MDI (≥1), the closer the wetland flow is to
the plug flow. Plug flow is generally accepted as the best flow condition
3.1. Tracer data observation
in FWS CWs. The closer to plug flow the wetland flow is, the better the
hydraulic performance of FWS CWs is.
The decrease in inflow in this experiment resulted in an increase in
the nominal HRT, compared to that observed in 2016. The nominal
2.3.2. Purification indicators HRT of all test wetlands were 4.2–22.5 h as shown in the appendix.
The concentration removal rates of different pollutants and the mass Based on the principle that the actual test should last at least 3 times the
removal rates of FWS CWs under different combinations of design nominal HRT (Bodin et al., 2013; Kadlec, 1994), the actual test times
parameters were obtained by the periodic measurement of the con- were 12–66 h, or longer. The average recovery rate of tracer mass in all
centrations of TN, TP, and TSS, using the following equations: test wetlands were more than 85%, meeting the criteria of tracer re-
N
(Cinlet, i,j Coutlet,i,j)/ Cinlet,i,j covery required by a complete tracer test (Bodin et al., 2013; Kadlec,
j= 1
= 1994). Due to the long duration, the sampling intervals at the inlet and
i
N (7)
outlet were once every 3–6 h after the start of the test, ensuring that
N
((Cinlet,i,j + Cinlet,i,j) (Coutlet,i,j + Coutlet,i,j))·Q/2/A·24 there were at least 6 water samples obtained in each test process, so as
j= 2 1 1
Li = to obtain the average removal rate of pollutants after the multiple
N
sampling, analysis and calculation. Test results of the in- and outlet
(8) concentrations of the 16 experimental wetlands under different design
where i is the monitored water pollutant, namely TN, TP or TSS; j is the parameters are presented in Fig. 2.
tested water sample sequence, 1–16; N is the total number of sampling, The pollutant concentrations at the outlet of the 16 test wetlands
16; cinlet,i,j is the concentration of pollutant i at the inlet of the wetland were lower than that at the inlet (Fig. 2). The inflow pollutants con-
at the jth water sample test (g/m3); coutlet,i,j is the concentration of centration of the 16 test wetland fluctuated to a certain extent, and the
pollutant i at the outlet of the wetland at the jth water sample test (g/ outflow pollutant concentration fluctuated therewith. In this test, the
m3); ηi is the concentration removal rate of pollutant i; Li is the mass average TN concentration of the inflow and outflow was

202
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

7 0.14
Inlet
(A) Inlet (B) Outlet
Outlet 0.12
6

5 0.10
TN concentration (mg/L)

TP concentration (mg/L)
4 0.08

3 0.06

2 0.04

1 0.02

0 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Constructed wetland Constructed wetland

60 (C) Inlet
Outlet

50
TSS concentration (mg/L)

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Constructed wetland

Fig. 2. In- and outlet concentrations of the orthogonal tests. (A) Variation in TN concentration at the in- and outlet in different test sequences; (B) Variation in TP
concentration at the in- and outlet in different test sequences; (C) Variation in TSS concentration at the in- and outlet in different test sequences.

2.877 ± 0.323 mg/L and 2.095 ± 0.243 mg/L, respectively; the
average inflow and outflow TP concentrations were
0.091 ± 0.009 mg/L and 0.076 ± 0.006 mg/L, respectively, and the
average TSS concentration was 20.1 ± 3.7 mg/L and 13.9 ± 2.7 mg/L
respectively. The average concentration removal rate of TN, TP and TSS
were 27.2%, 16.3% and 30.7%, respectively, significantly higher than
that in 2016 (1.4%, 3.4% and 14.1%, respectively).
The variations in the hydraulic and purification indicators of the test
scheme with the test sequence of wetlands are shown in Figs. 3 and 4,
respectively. The statistical analysis results of the hydraulic and pur-
ification indicators are shown in the appendix.
The evaluation indicators of the hydraulic and treatment perfor-
mances of different design parameter combinations differed greatly
with the test sequence (Figs. 3 and 4). The coefficients of variation Cv of
the short circuit indicator φ10 (0.260 ± 0.142) and mixing indicator
MDI (9.639 ± 5.336) were 0.544 and 0.554, respectively, which were
significantly larger than the values of other hydraulic indicators such as
e and MI. This indicated that the hydraulic indicators of φ10 and MDI
exhibited good sensitivity in identifying the change in wetland perfor-
mance. The hydraulic indicators in 2017 were significantly better than
those in 2016 (Guo et al., 2017b) after the inflow rate was decreased.
Hydraulic performance was improved by 15–30% on average. A
number of cases where e > 1 (0.951 ± 0.256) indicated that the FWS
CWs in this test had a large backflow area at a low flow rate or a low
hydraulic loading rate, which increased the repeated utilization rate of
the wetland volume.
The purification indicators of TN, TP, and TSS pollutant con-
centration removal rate were 0.260 ± 0.066 (ηTN), 0.159 ± 0.062
(ηTP) and 0.306 ± 0.112 (ηTSS), respectively, significantly better than
rates observed in 2016 (ηTN 0.014 ± 0.131; ηTP 0.034 ± 0.110; ηTSS
0.141 ± 0.125) as shown in the appendix. The difference between the
two years’ test results further indicated that the purification effects of
the FWS CWs on the pollutants were closely related to the HRT and
pollutant concentration in the inflow. Furthermore, the average value
of the concentration removal rates of TN, TP and TSS (26.0%, 15.9%,
30.6% respectively) were similar to the removal rates of the average
concentrations of TN, TP and TSS (27.2%, 16.3%, 30.7%), indicating
that all the import concentrations and all the export concentrations of
the 16 test wetlands fluctuated slightly. The mass removal rates of the
three pollutants in the test were LTN (0.659 ± 0.306 g/(m2·d)), LTP
(0.012 ± 0.005 g/(m2·d)), and LTSS (5.328 ± 3.097 g/(m2·d)), re-
spectively.
As shown in Fig. 3, the variation trend in effective volume ratio e
and moment index MI across the sequence was essentially consistent,
indicating that there was a strong linear correlation between e and MI.
In addition, the variation rule of the short circuit indicator φ10 with the
test sequence indicated that this indicator had a positive linear corre-
lation with the effective volume ratio e and the moment index MI.
Fig. 3B showed that the mixing indicator MDI presented a relatively
clear mutation peak at the 9th test sequence, resulting in its box dia-
gram being significantly different from the data distribution box dia-
gram of the remaining three hydraulic indicators (Fig. 3F). Through
data verification and multiple tests, it was shown that the calculation of
this indicator was correct, indicating that the combined conditions of
the test wetland’s design parameters of this sequence lead to maximum
mixing of water flow and the water tended to the completely mixed
flow. In addition, The short circuit indicator φ10 declined to its
minimum, 0.087, at the 9th test among the sequence, indicating that

203
C. Guo, et al.
Fig. 3. Hydraulic indicator distribution across the test sequences. The upper and lower boundaries of the box represent 75% and 25% of the data, respectively. The
centerline of the box represents the median value. The hollow dot in the center of the box represents the mean of the data. The upper and lower whiskers extending
from the box represent the maximum and minimum values of the data, respectively. The subplots are labeled in alphabetical order.
there was extremely serious short-circuiting flow occurring along with
the severe mixed flow. The short circuit has a strong positive correla-
tion with the mixing.
The concentration removal rates and mass removal rates of pollu-
tants were relatively stable with the distribution of the test sequence,
and they were essentially uniformly distributed on both sides of the
mean (Fig. 4). In addition, pollutant concentration removal rate
reached to the lowest value at the 9th test sequence (Fig. 3), in which
the mixing indicator MDI was the largest and the short circuit indicator
φ10 was the smallest. The TSS mass removal rate of this sequence was
minimal while the mass removal rates of TN and TP were maintained at
a low level. All of these fact proved that a severe short-circuiting and
mixing flow not only seriously reduced the hydraulic performance of
FWS CWs, but also weakened the treatment performance simulta-
neously.
3.2. Principal factor analysis
The evaluation indicators of the 16 test wetlands under different
design parameters and different level settings are listed in Table 2. The
main design parameters affecting the hydraulic and purification in-
dicators were analyzed by PFA, or extreme difference method. The
larger the extreme difference, the larger the influence of the design
parameters on hydraulic and treatment performances of FWS CWs.
PFA demonstrated that water depth, layout of in- and outlet, and
flow rate were the three of the most important factors that affecting
hydraulic performance. Water depth was a particularly important factor
and this was consistent with previously published research (Holland
204
Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212
et al., 2004; Persson, 2000).
Despite previous work highlighting the importance of aspect ratio as
a determinant of hydraulic performance of FWS CWs (Persson, 2000;
Persson and Wittgren, 2003; Walker, 1998), the present study did not
identify aspect ratio as being important (Guo et al., 2017b). This was
because of the limitation of the level setting of aspect ratio and the
small difference between the two levels (2:1 and 1.125:1). Nevertheless,
PFA showed that aspect ratio was the factor that had the greatest in-
fluence on hydraulic indicators among the three two-level factors, and
its influence on the short circuit indicator φ10, effective volume ratio e
and moment index MI was greater than the influence of the four-level
factor of plant spacing on the three hydraulic indicators in this study
(Table 2). The extreme difference of the blank column in this test was
the lowest among all design parameters, indicating that there were few
other factors more important than the design parameters selected in
this test to affect hydraulic performance.
The results of PFA of purification indicators showed that water
depth and flow rate were the most important factors affecting TN
concentration reduction, while water depth and layout of in- and outlet
were the main factors affecting TN mass removal rate (Table 2). Water
depth and plant spacing were the main factors influencing TP con-
centration reduction, while water depth and flow rate were the main
factors influencing TP mass removal rate. Plant spacing and layout of
in- and outlet were the most important factors affecting TSS con-
centration reduction, while water depth and plant spacing were the
main factors influencing TSS mass removal. Thus, for both hydraulic
indicators and purification indicators, water depth was always the main
influencing factor. Plant spacing, flow rate and layout of in- and outlet
C. Guo, et al.
Fig. 4. Purification indicator distributions across the test sequences. The upper and lower boundaries of the box represent 75% and 25% of the data, respectively. The
centerline of the box represents the median value. The hollow dot in the center of the box represents the mean of the data. The upper and lower whiskers extending
from the box represent the maximum and minimum values of the data, respectively. The subplots are labeled in alphabetical order.
were also the main factors influencing treatment performance.
3.3. Indicator evaluation
The variation trend of the hydraulic and purification indicators
under different design parameters are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. Op-
timal design parameter combinations of the hydraulic, treatment, and
synthetic performances were evaluated using different evaluation index
systems and summarized in Table 3.
(1) Hydraulic performance
From an evaluation of each single hydraulic indicator reflecting the
hydraulic performance (Fig. 5), it was demonstrated that the combi-
nation of design parameters was different when each hydraulic in-
dicator reached an optimum (Table 3). However, for the overall eva-
luation of hydraulic performance, the optimal combination of design
parameters was uniquely identified as A2B4C4D1E2F2G2. This combi-
nation consisted of a water depth of 30 cm, evenly distributed inlets and
one middle outlet, a flow rate of 0.85 m3/h, a plant spacing of 20 cm, an
aspect ratio of 1.125:1, and Scripus tabernaemontani as the plant species.
In addition, there was no significant difference in hydraulic perfor-
mance between a water depth of 20 cm and 30 cm (Table 3), which was
consistent with that in 2016. However, as is clearly shown in Fig. 5, the
hydraulic performance dropped off rapidly from 30 cm to 50 cm of
water depth. The short circuit indicator φ10 decreased from 0.353 to
0.123, the effect volume ratio e decreased from 1.062 to 0.665, and the
moment index MI decreased from 0.767 to 0.531, the drop was a
whopping 31% to 65%. Thus larger water depth leaded to short circuit
205
Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212
of water flow, decreased effective volume, and reduced the hydraulic
performance of FWS CWs.
The biggest difference between the two years’ conclusion on design
parameters’ influence was reflected in the flow rate, that is, the flow
rate of the design parameter combination with the optimal hydraulic
performance was level 2 (C2 1.8 m3/h) in 2016, while the optimal flow
rate of this test was level 4 (C4 0.85 m3/h). However, both of these two
values approached an optimal value somewhere in the middle. Hence,
for FWS CWs, too low or too high a flow rate was not conducive to an
improved hydraulic performance. Optimal hydraulic performance may
be achieved at a flow rate of between 0.85 m3/h and 1.8 m3/h, or a
hydraulic loading rate of between 0.047 m/h and 0.1 m/h.
The results of this test (such as the influence of the layout of in- and
outlet, water depth and plant spacing on hydraulic performance) were
in broad agreement with those of earlier studies (Holland et al., 2004;
Persson, 2000). However, as with the results in 2016, the variation
trend of the impact of aspect ratio on hydraulic performance in 2017
was inconsistent with previous research (Persson, 2000; Persson and
Wittgren, 2003). We found that the lower aspect ratio was beneficial to
hydraulic performance of FWS CWs (Fig. 5).
Similar to the results in 2016, there were almost the same change
trends among short circuit indicator φ10, effective volume ratio e, and
moment index MI, meaning that there was a strong positive correlation
between the three indicators, and the mixing indicator MDI was nega-
tively correlated with the three hydraulic indicators (Fig. 5).
(2) Treatment performance
The optimal combination of design parameters for treatment
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

Table 2
Extreme differences in the evaluation indicators (2017).
Layout of in-Flow ratePlant Aspect Plant Blank
Evaluation indicators Level Depth A
and outlet B C spacing D ratio E species F G
1 0.324 0.182 0.185 0.295
0.219 0.251 0.257
2 0.353 0.189 0.304 0.264
φ10 3 0.241 0.304 0.255 0.263
0.301 0.269 0.263
4 0.123 0.366 0.297 0.219
Extreme
0.230 0.184 0.119 0.076 0.082 0.018 0.006
difference
1 7.661 13.932 9.511 10.182
10.653 9.014 9.255
2 6.168 10.802 7.035 8.171
MDI 3 12.350 7.278 13.371 7.845
8.624 10.263 10.022
4 12.375 6.543 8.638 12.356
Extreme
6.207 7.389 6.336 4.511 2.029 1.249 0.767
Hydraulic difference
indicator 1 1.065 0.887 0.804 1.088
0.849 0.931 0.945
2 1.062 0.861 0.940 0.917
e 3 1.013 0.966 1.043 0.898
1.053 0.972 0.957
4 0.665 1.092 1.017 0.901
Extreme
0.400 0.231 0.239 0.190 0.204 0.041 0.012
difference
1 0.736 0.655 0.621 0.731
0.634 0.677 0.686
2 0.767 0.647 0.680 0.683
MI 3 0.700 0.689 0.714 0.674
0.733 0.690 0.680
4 0.531 0.742 0.718 0.645
Extreme
0.236 0.095 0.097 0.086 0.099 0.013 0.006
difference
1 0.310 0.228 0.307 0.284
0.248 0.253 0.253
2 0.246 0.284 0.283 0.277
ƞTN 3 0.225 0.302 0.236 0.244
0.272 0.267 0.267
4 0.259 0.226 0.214 0.235
Extreme
0.085 0.076 0.093 0.049 0.024 0.014 0.014
difference
1 0.171 0.143 0.170 0.170
0.159 0.142 0.147
2 0.223 0.170 0.178 0.186
ƞTP 3 0.126 0.182 0.142 0.170
0.159 0.176 0.171
4 0.117 0.141 0.146 0.111
Extreme
0.106 0.041 0.036 0.075 0.000 0.034 0.024
difference
1 0.281 0.247 0.346 0.345
0.270 0.263 0.299
2 0.295 0.318 0.302 0.347
ƞTSS 3 0.339 0.385 0.252 0.339
0.342 0.349 0.313
Purification 4 0.310 0.275 0.324 0.193
indicator Extreme
0.058 0.138 0.094 0.154 0.072 0.086 0.014
difference
1 1.0230 0.6125 0.5238 0.7338
0.6116 0.5493 0.6218
2 0.5420 0.8315 0.7513 0.7705
LTN 3 0.5270 0.6078 0.6163 0.5430
/g·m-2 d-1 0.7058 0.7681 0.6956
4 0.5440 0.5830 0.7435 0.5875
Extreme
0.4960 0.2485 0.2275 0.2275 0.0941 0.2189 0.0739
difference
1 0.0118 0.0133 0.0086 0.0108
0.0108 0.0112 0.0118
2 0.0170 0.0126 0.0129 0.0137
LTP 3 0.0104 0.0113 0.0118 0.0140
/g m-2 d-1 0.0133 0.0129 0.0123
4 0.0091 0.0110 0.0150 0.0097
Extreme
0.0079 0.0023 0.0064 0.0043 0.0024 0.0016 0.0004
difference
1 6.75 6.46 3.82 5.30
4.26 4.50 5.92
2 6.59 4.65 6.74 4.40
LTSS 3 4.28 6.11 4.02 7.64
/g m-2 d-1 6.40 6.15 4.74
4 3.68 4.10 6.74 3.98
Extreme
3.07 2.36 2.92 3.65 2.14 1.65 1.19
difference
The values highlighted in grey correspond to the main factors. The values in bold indicate that the influence
of aspect ratio of the two-level design parameter is significant and cannot be ignored in this test.

206
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

Fig. 5. Variation trend of hydraulic indicators under different design parameters (2017).

performance was A1/2B3C1/2D2E2F2G2, which corresponds to a water
depth of 20 cm or 30 cm, five evenly distributed inlets and one middle
outlet, a flow rate of 0.4 m3/h or 0.55 m3/h, a plant spacing of 30 cm,
an 1.125:1 aspect ratio, and Scripus tabernaemontani as the plant spe-
cies. The evaluation indicators of treatment performance, i.e. purifica-
tion indicators, changed with different design parameters and level
settings (Fig. 6).
As was the case in hydraulic performance analysis, the best com-
bination of design parameters differed when each purification indicator
reached their optimum value. The effect of different levels of the same
design parameter on purification indicators did not result in a con-
sistent variation trend, and sometimes showed an opposite variation
(Fig. 6). For example, in terms of the variation trend analysis of the
effect of water depth, the variation trend in concentration removal rate
of TN and TP across different water depths was opposite to that of TSS.
In addition to water depth, the variation trend of other design para-
meters' level settings on the removal of TN, TP and TSS was essentially
consistent. In contrast, the mass removal rates of the three pollutants
followed the same trend, declining rapidly as the water depth in-
creased. The falling range was also about 50%, suggesting that there
may be a positive correlation between mass removal rate and hydraulic
indicators, which dropped rapidly when water depth increased from
30 cm to 50 cm as previously mentioned. I Generally, TP removal was
principally achieved by means of deposition and adsorption, which was
facilitated under a higher water depth and a lower flow rate. However,
the poor water flow condition resulted in a low mass removal rate of
TP, as did TN and TSS (Fig. 6). It can be seen that if the overall water
flow condition was poor, even if the design of a single design parameter

Fig. 6. Variation trend of purification indicators under different design parameters (2017).

207
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

Table 3
Optimal combination of design parameters based on different indicator evaluations.

The values in bold indicate the optimal combination of design parameters for hydraulic and treatment per-
formance. The values highlighted in grey indicate the optimal combination of the design parameters for the
overall performance of FWS CWs.

was conductive to the improvement of the purification effect, it is of no
help.
A smaller plant spacing was beneficial to the removal of TN, TP and
TSS (Table 3). The smaller plant spacing (i.e. larger plant density)
provides an increased surface area for biofilm attachment and provide
more oxygen to the root zone through the fibrous bundles of plant
stems. This promotes microbial adsorption and degradation, thus
facilitating TN and TP removal (Badhe et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016;
Wu et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2016). At the same
time, higher plant density resulted in a reduced flow velocity because of
an increase in resistance to flow, thus accelerating particle sedimenta-
tion and promoting TSS removal (Gunes et al., 2012).
The removal rates of TN, TP and TSS in the wetland had a slump
when there was one middle outlet and an even distribution of inlets, the

208
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

removal rate declined sharply under this design parameter combination
(Fig. 6). This was inconsistent with the change trend of removal rate in
the first three water inlet modes. The results showed that the TN, TP,
and TSS mass removal rates decreased rapidly as water depth increased,
indicating that high water depth was not conducive to the pollutant
mass removal capacity of FWS CWs. However, the numerical value of
mass removal fluctuated as the level settings of the layout of in- and
outlet, flow rate, and plant spacing were experimentally varied. In
general, the optimal flow rate to maximize mass removal indicators was
higher than that to maximize concentration removal (Table 3).
(3) Overall performance of the constructed wetlands
Combining the results of the hydraulic and treatment performance,
the design parameter combination A1/2B3C1/2D2E2F2G2 resulted in an
optimal overall performance. This combination included a water depth
of 20 cm or 30 cm, five evenly distributed inlets and one middle outlet,
flow rates of 0.4 m3/h or 0.55 m3/h, plant spacing of 30 cm, an aspect
ratio 1.125:1, and Script tabernaemontani as the plant species. Because
an excellent purification capacity was the ultimate goal for wetland
design, the optimal design parameter combination for overall perfor-
mance was the same as that for treatment performance in this study.
The ultimate purpose of the study of hydraulic performance was to
improve the treatment performance of FWS CWs.
The maximum difference between the design parameter combina-
tions, when hydraulic and treatment performances are optimized in-
dividually, lay in the difference of flow rates (Table 3). In the current
tests, the flow rate producing the best hydraulic performance was the
fourth level, while the best treatment performance was achieved at the
first level, which was almost at the two extremes of flow rate. Never-
theless, for the purpose of wetland design for pollution reduction, the
first level of flow rate was selected as optimal for overall performance
of FWS CWs. Although the hydraulic performance with an even dis-
tribution of inlets and one middle outlet was the best among the four
levels of in- and outlet layout, consistent with the results in 2016 (Guo
et al., 2017b) and previous research (Persson, 2000; Persson and
Wittgren, 2003), treatment performance was sharply reduced with this
combination (Fig. 6). Under the combination of optimal design para-
meters for treatment performance, the layout mode was five evenly
distributed inlets and one middle outlet, and the hydraulic performance
was also excellent, with only a slightly lower performance observed
than that of the evenly distributed inlets (Fig. 5).
3.4. Analysis of variance
In order to determine the degree of influence of different design
parameters on wetland performance, univariate principle effect tests of
design parameters, hydraulic performance and treatment performance
were performed using a general linear model (Table 4).
As shown in Table 4, water depth, layout of in- and outlet, flow rate
and aspect ratio had significant impacts on the short circuit indicator
φ10 (p < 0.1), confirming our results of 2016. Two years of research
results showed that the short circuit indicator was significantly affected
by design parameters, and reasonable wetland design could sig-
nificantly improve the short circuit condition of water flow. At the same
time, most of the design parameters, such as water depth, layout of in-
and outlet, flow rate, plant spacing and aspect ratio, had significant
influence on the effective volume ratio e (p < 0.1). Water depth, flow
rate and aspect ratio had significant effects on the moment index MI
(p < 0.1). However, the results in 2016 showed that the design para-
meters had no significant effect on the mixing indicator MDI and the
effective volume ratio e (Guo et al., 2017b). Furthermore, the results
derived from the variance analysis of design parameter’s impacts on
hydraulic indicators were consistent with the results of extreme dif-
ference analysis (i.e. PFA; Table 2). Water depth, layout of in- and
outlet, flow rate, and aspect ratio were the main factors influencing
hydraulic performance.
The change in the design scheme may have some influence on test
results. The influence of aspect ratio on hydraulic performance of FWS
CW was reflected in the 2017 experiment. Aspect ratio became the most
significant factor influencing hydraulic performance (e.g., e and MI)
among the six design parameters. Despite having only two level settings
and small differences between the two values imposed, the impact on
hydraulic performance of FWS CWs was significant, reflecting the im-
portant role that aspect ratio plays in wetland function. This point was
verified by the extreme difference analysis (Table 2), indicating that
there is a need for further research to identify the optimal setting for the
aspect ratio.
In contrast to the observation that design parameters had significant
influence on most hydraulic indicators, there were no significant in-
fluences of design parameters on the six purification indicators, except
for an influence of water depth on TP mass removal LTP (Table 4). Thus
changes in design parameters in this study almost have no significant
differences on treatment performance, consistent with the results in
2016 (Guo et al., 2017b).
3.5. Correlation analysis
The calculation of correlation coefficients and the analysis of sig-
nificance among design parameters and evaluation indicators were
performed using bivariate correlation analysis (Tables 5 and 6).
As shown in Table 5, water depth had a significant correlation with
all hydraulic indicators of FWS CWs (p < 0.1) and was the design
parameter exerting the greatest influence on hydraulic performance
among all the analyzed design parameters. This was consistent with the
results of the main effect analysis summarized in Table 4. In addition,
the layout of in- and outlet had a significant correlation with the hy-
draulic indicators φ10 and MDI (p < 0.1), but there was no significant
correlation among the remaining design parameters and the hydraulic
indicators because the correlation was, overall, weak (R < 0.4). The

Table 4
Main effect analysis of design parameters on evaluation indicators (2017).
Design parameter φ10 MDI e MI ȠTN ȠTP ȠTSS LTN LTP LTSS

Water depth 0.041** 0.174 0.046** 0.042** 0.260 0.339 0.387 0.219 0.095* 0.494
Layout of in- and outlet 0.046** 0.163 0.084* 0.101 0.243 0.679 0.171 0.431 0.295 0.626
Flow rate 0.077* 0.206 0.082* 0.097* 0.223 0.725 0.251 0.453 0.124 0.481
Plant spacing 0.133 0.263 0.096* 0.121 0.374 0.472 0.137 0.449 0.155 0.480
Aspect ratio 0.044** 0.230 0.037** 0.038** 0.317 0.997 0.124 0.424 0.116 0.322
Plant species 0.196 0.351 0.179 0.282 0.488 0.386 0.104 0.207 0.171 0.397
Blank 0.939 0.785 0.930 0.928 0.706 0.463 0.811 0.646 0.856 0.463

The values in bold indicate that the effect of the corresponding factors on the relevant indicators should not be discounted.
***
p < 0.01.
** p < 0.05.
* p < 0.1.

209
C. Guo, et al. Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212

Table 5
Correlation analysis between design parameters and evaluation indicators.
Deign parameter φ10 MDI e MI ȠTN ȠTP ȠTSS LTN LTP LTSS

** * ** *** * **
Water depth −0.585 0.440 −0.562 −0.628 −0.304 −0.485 0.137 −0.547 −0.359 −0.429*
0.017 0.088 0.023 0.009 0.253 0.057 0.612 0.028 0.173 0.097
Layout of in- and outlet 0.544** −0.556** 0.324 0.280 0.021 0.012 0.157 −0.118 −0.200 −0.210
0.029 0.025 0.220 0.294 0.937 0.966 0.561 0.664 0.457 0.435
Flow rate 0.234 0.080 0.334 0.300 −0.564** −0.204 −0.119 0.198 0.442* 0.225
0.383 0.767 0.206 0.259 0.023 0.450 0.660 0.463 0.087 0.403
Plant spacing −0.186 0.134 −0.261 −0.248 −0.316 −0.362 −0.476* −0.251 −0.072 −0.026
0.491 0.621 0.329 0.355 0.233 0.169 0.063 0.348 0.790 0.923
Aspect ratio 0.298 −0.196 0.411 0.409 0.188 0.001 0.329 0.159 0.268 0.357
0.263 0.466 0.114 0.116 0.486 0.997 0.213 0.557 0.315 0.174
Plant species 0.065 0.121 0.083 0.052 0.106 0.286 0.395 0.369 0.179 0.275
0.810 0.656 0.759 0.849 0.695 0.284 0.130 0.159 0.507 0.303
Blank 0.021 0.074 0.024 −0.025 0.102 0.198 0.065 0.125 0.049 −0.198
0.939 0.785 0.930 0.928 0.706 0.463 0.811 0.646 0.856 0.463

The values in italics represent the p-values. The values in bold indicate significant and good correlation between design parameters and evaluation indicators.
*** p < 0.01.
** p < 0.05.
* p < 0.1.

correlation analysis of design parameters and purification indicators
showed that there was a significant negative correlation between water
depth and the purification indicators, ȠTP, LTN, and LTSS (p < 0.1), a
significant negative correlation between flow rate and TN removal rate
(p < 0.1), and a significant negative correlation between plant spacing
and TSS removal rate (p < 0.1). However, in general, linear correla-
tions among design parameters and purification indicators were weak
in this study.
In addition to e and MDI, there was a significant correlation between
other different hydraulic indicators (p < 0.05) (Table 6), which may
have arisen because of an inner link between the calculation formulas
of these hydraulic indicators. In particular, the short circuit indicator
φ10 exerted a extremely significant linear correlation with the mixing
index MDI, effective volume ratio e and moment index MI, which in-
dicated that the hydraulic performance of wetland can be basically
obtained by analyzing the short circuit indicator φ10 only. In addition,
there was a significant (p < 0.1) and moderate (0.4 < R < 0.6)
correlation among the purification indicators of concentration removal
rates. There was no significant correlation between the pollutant mass
removal indicators except for TP and TSS. Furthermore there were
significant correlations between TP concentration removal and the
mass removal of TP and TSS, and there was a significant correlation
between TN concentration and mass removal. The strong significant
correlation between TP and TSS further verified that TP mainly existed
in the form of particles and mainly removed by adsorption and pre-
cipitation (Vymazal, 2007; Wang et al., 2015). The removal capacity of
phosphorus varies greatly (from 40% to 90%) among different types of
CWs. Traditionally, FWS CWs has a limitation of the capacity to remove
phosphorus, and the major phosphorus removal processes, namely ad-
sorption, precipitation, and plant uptake, were all saturable. Harvesting
of biomass of aquatic plants could be substantial to maintain the
treatment performance of FWS CWs.
There were no significant correlations among TSS concentration
removal and the other three mass removal indicators. Although the
short circuit indicator φ10 and the mixing index MDI revealed sig-
nificant correlations with TP concentration removal (p < 0.1), there
was a weak correlation between hydraulic indicators and pollutants
concentration removal rates overall, as previously observed by Rengers
et al. (2016). Nevertheless, the mass removal rates of TP and TSS were
significantly correlated with the four hydraulic indicators (p < 0.1),

Table 6
Correlation analysis between various evaluation indicators.
Evaluation indicator φ10 MDI e MI ȠTN ȠTP ȠTSS LTN LTP

***
MDI −0.753
0.001
e 0.875*** −0.394
0.000 0.131
MI 0.905*** −0.512** 0.974***
0.000 0.043 0.000
ȠTN 0.056 −0.330 −0.060 −0.038
0.838 0.212 0.826 0.890
ȠTP 0.476* −0.592** 0.271 0.409 0.507**
0.063 0.016 0.309 0.116 0.045
ȠTSS 0.194 −0.351 0.119 0.152 0.486* 0.491*
0.472 0.183 0.661 0.574 0.056 0.053
LTN 0.288 −0.174 0.322 0.304 0.487* 0.338 0.207
0.279 0.519 0.224 0.253 0.056 0.201 0.442
LTP 0.521** −0.416 0.442* 0.580** −0.170 0.602** 0.191 0.274
0.039 0.109 0.086 0.019 0.529 0.014 0.478 0.304
LTSS 0.492* −0.451* 0.395 0.485* 0.109 0.451* 0.329 0.362 0.703***
0.053 0.080 0.130 0.057 0.688 0.079 0.213 0.169 0.002

The values in italics represent the p-values. The values in bold indicate significant and good correlation between the evaluation indicators.
*** p < 0.01.
** p < 0.05.
* p < 0.1.

210
C. Guo, et al.
which was consistent with the result of indicator evaluation on treat-
ment performance aforementioned. Hence, there were significant cor-
relation between hydraulic performance and mass removal capacity of
FWS CWs.
3.6. Discussion
Two years’ experimental results showed that under the conditions of
large flow rate (in 2016), the most important factors affecting hydraulic
performance were water depth, layout of in- and outlet, and plant
spacing, as shown in the appendix. Similarly, water depth and plant
spacing were the main factors influencing the removal of TN and TP,
while water depth and layout of in- and outlets were the main factors
influencing TSS removal (Guo et al., 2017b). However, during low in-
flow rates (as applied in 2017), water depth, layout of in- and outlet and
flow rate were the main factors affecting hydraulic performance and TN
removal of FWS CWs, while water depth and plant spacing were the
main factors influencing TP removal, and layout of in- and outlets and
plant spacing were the main factors influencing TSS removal (Table 2).
Water depth and layout of in- and outlet were always the main factors
affecting the hydraulic performance of FWS CWs in this two-year ex-
perimental study, while water depth and plant spacing were the main
factors affecting treatment performance. In addition, the effect of plant
spacing on hydraulic performance was only apparent at high flow rates,
because the effects of plant stems on resistance to flow rate become
more apparent at high flow rate.
When flow rates are large much, the design parameters had no sig-
nificant influence on the hydraulic performance of FWS CWs (Guo et al.,
2017b). In contrast, since flow rates decreased, water depth, layout of in-
and outlet, plant spacing and aspect ratio had significant influences on
hydraulic performance, with effects of water depth and aspect ratio being
especially pronounced (Table 4). The extreme difference analysis and
variance analysis showed that the significant influence of aspect ratio on
hydraulic performance began to emerge at a low flow rate (Table 4). The
importance of aspect ratio in wetland design is apparent from the fact that
only two levels of aspect ratio were applied and the difference between
them was small and yet a significant impact was apparent. In the future
test, the aspect ratio levels should be increased and expanded, for example,
from 1:1 to 8:1, to deeply study the influence on the performance of FWS
CWs. The design parameters had no significant influence on treatment
performance of FWS CWs in 2017 test. The reason for this could be that
the concentration removal rate was still too low to display significant
differences (ȠTN: 27%, ȠTP: 16%, ȠTSS: 31%). In other studies, removal
rates of TN and TP could be as large as 60–80% (Gunes et al., 2012; Jia
et al., 2014; Maniquiz et al., 2012; Tuncsiper et al., 2006; Zhang et al.,
2009). In fact, for FWS CWs, the hydraulic residence time is usually about
five days in order to achieve satisfactory removal effect. Generally
speaking, single-stage constructed wetlands cannot achieve high removal
of TN due to their inability to provide both aerobic and anaerobic con-
ditions at the same time, constructed wetland system composed of surface
flow and subsurface flow is a common sewage treatment device (Jia et al.,
2014; Vymazal, 2007). However, in this test, the cause of these large
differences in removal rate under different design conditions need to be
further explored.
In the 2017 tests, the concentration and the mass removal rates
were introduced as purification indicators, and these remained ap-
proximately consistent across the correlation analysis. There were al-
most no significant correlations among hydraulic indicators and con-
centration removal rates, whereas correlations among hydraulic
indicators and mass removal rate were mostly significant. How to dis-
tinguish these two kinds of purification indicators, their physical
meaning behind the values, and which kind of indicator was the re-
presentative index of treatment performance of FWS CWs remained to
be determined by further research. The final results of the correlation
analysis showed that there were a few significant correlations between
hydraulic and treatment performance.
211
Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212
4. Conclusions
Water depth, layout of in- and outlet, flow rate, and aspect ratio
were the main and significant design parameters affecting the hydraulic
performance of FWS CWs. Water depth, plant spacing, and layout of in-
and outlet were the main factors affecting the efficiency of pollutant
removal. These design parameters displayed significant influence on
hydraulic performance and negligible effect on treatment performance.
Hydraulic indicators showed an extremely significant correlation and
there were a few significant correlations among purification indicators.
The correlation between hydraulic performance and mass removal ca-
pacity of FWS CWs was significant.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51779181). We are very grateful to Cuixin
Jiang, Lu Wang and Zepeng Xu for their assistance on water quality
analyses.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.020.
References
Bodin, H., Persson, J., 2012. Hydraulic performance of small free water surface con-
structed wetlands treating sugar factory effluent in western Kenya. Hydrol. Res. 43
(4), 476.
Bodin, H., Persson, J., Englund, J.E., 2013. Influence of residence time analyses on esti-
mates of wetland hydraulics and pollutant removal. J. Hydrol. 501, 1–12.
Badhe, N., Saha, S., Biswas, R., Nandy, T., 2014. Role of algal biofilm in improving the
performance of free surface, up-flow constructed wetland. Bioresour. Technol. 169,
596–604.
Du, J., Yang, M.N., Yang, S.F., 2016. Correlations and optimization of a heat exchanger
with offset fins by genetic algorithm combining orthogonal design. Appl. Therm. Eng.
107, 1091–1103.
Fan, L.W., Hai, R.T., Wang, W.X., Lu, Z.X., Yang, Z.M., 2008. Application of computa-
tional fluid dynamic to model the hydraulic performance of subsurface flow wet-
lands. J. Environ. Sci. 20 (12), 1415–1422.
Gunes, K., Tuncsiper, B., Ayaz, S., Drizo, A., 2012. The ability of free water surface
constructed wetland system to treat high strength domestic wastewater: a case study
for the Mediterranean. Ecol. Eng. 44, 278–284.
Guo, C.Q., Dong, B., Liu, J.J., Liu, F.P., 2015. The best indicator of hydraulic short-cir-
cuiting and mixing of constructed wetlands. Water Pract. Technol. 10 (3), 505–516.
Guo, C.Q., Cui, Y.L., Dong, B., Liu, F.P., 2017a. Tracer study of the hydraulic performance
of constructed wetlands planted with three different aquatic plant species. Ecol. Eng.
102, 433–442.
Guo, C.Q., Cui, Y.L., Dong, B., Luo, Y.F., Liu, F.P., Zhao, S.J., Wu, H.R., 2017b. Test study
of the optimal design for hydraulic performance and treatment performance of free
water surface flow constructed wetland. Bioresour. Technol. 238, 461–471.
Holland, J.F., Martin, J.F., Granata, T., Bouchard, V., Quigley, M., Brown, L.C., 2004.
Effects of wetland depth and flow rate on residence time distribution characteristics.
Ecol. Eng. 23 (3), 189–203.
Ham, J., Yoon, C.G., Kim, H.J., Kim, H.C., 2010. Modeling the effects of constructed
wetland on nonpoint source pollution control and reservoir water quality improve-
ment. J. Environ. Sci. 22 (6), 834–839.
Jenkins, G.A., Greenway, M., 2005. The hydraulic efficiency of fringing versus banded
vegetation in constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 25 (1), 61–72.
Jia, H.F., Sun, Z.X., Li, G.H., 2014. A four-stage constructed wetland system for treating
polluted water from an urban river. Ecol. Eng. 71, 48–55.
Jiang, J.P., Luo, Z.Y., Chen, H., Zhou, D., Sha, D.H., Fang, M.X., Cen, K.F., 2015.
Orthogonal design process optimization for particle charge distribution of mosquito
coil smoke aerosol enhanced by pulsed corona discharge. Powder Technol. 286,
507–515.
Kadlec, R.H., 1994. Detention and mixing in free water wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 3, 345–380.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D., 2009. Treatment Wetlands, second ed. CRC Press/Taylor &
Fancis Group, Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742, USA.
Lin, A.Y.C., Debroux, J.F., Cunningham, J.A., Reinhard, M., 2003. Comparison of rho-
damine WT and bromide in the determination of hydraulic characteristics of con-
structed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 20 (1), 75–88.
Liu, J.J., Dong, B., Guo, C.Q., Liu, F.P., Brown, L.C., Li, Q., 2016. Variations of effective
volume and removal rate under different water levels of constructed wetland. Ecol.
Eng. 95, 652–664.
Morrill, A.B., Dean, J.B., Orton, J.W., Ellms, J.W., 1932. Sedimentation basin research
and design. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 24 (9), 1442–1463.
C. Guo, et al.
Min, J.K., Wise, W.R., 2009. Simulating short-circuiting flow in a constructed wetland:
the implications of bathymetry and vegetation effects. Hydrol. Process. 23, 830–841.
Maniquiz, M.C., Lee, S.Y., Choi, J.Y., Jeong, S.M., Kim, L.H., 2012. Treatment perfor-
mance of a constructed wetland during storm and non-storm events in Korea. Water
Sci. Technol. 65 (1), 119–126.
Persson, J., Somes, N.L.G., Wong, T.H.F., 1999. Hydraulics efficiency of constructed
wetlands and ponds. Water Sci. Technol. 40 (3), 291–300.
Persson, J., 2000. The hydraulic performance of ponds of various layouts. Urban Water 2
(3), 243–250.
Persson, J., Wittgren, H.B., 2003. How hydrological and hydraulic conditions affect
performance of ponds. Ecol. Eng. 21 (4–5), 259–269.
Rengers, E.E., Silva, J.B., Paulo, P.L., Janzen, J.G., 2016. Hydraulic performance of a
modified constructed wetland system through a CFD-based approach. J. Hydro-en-
viron. Res. 12, 91–104.
Stamou, A., Noutsopoulos, G., 1994. Evaluating the effect of inlet arrangement in settling
tanks using the hydraulic efficiency diagram. Water S.A. 20 (1), 77–84.
Stern, D.A., Khanbilvardi, R., Alair, J.C., Richardson, W., 2001. Description of flow
through a natural wetland using dye tracer tests. Ecol. Eng. 18 (2), 173–184.
Stone, K.C., Poach, M.E., Hunt, P.G., 2004. Marsh-pond-marsh constructed wetland de-
sign analysis for swine lagoon wastewater treatment. Ecol. Eng. 23 (2), 127–133.
Su, L.S., Zhang, J.B., Wang, C.J., Zhang, Y.K., Li, Z., Song, Y., Jin, T., Ma, Z., 2016.
Identifying main factors of capacity fading in lithium ion cells using orthogonal de-
sign of experiments. Appl. Energy 163, 201–210.
Thackston, E.L., Shields, F.D., Schroeder, P.R., 1987. Residence time distributions of
shallow basins. J. Environ. Eng. 113 (6), 1319–1332.
Tuncsiper, B., Ayaz, S.C., Akca, L., 2006. Modelling and evaluation of nitrogen removal
performance in subsurface flow and free water surface constructed wetlands. Water
Sci. Technol. 53 (12), 111–120.
Teixeira, E.C., Renato, D.N.S., 2008. Performance assessment of hydraulic efficiency in-
dexes. J. Environ. Eng. 134 (10), 851–859.
Tourneize, J., Chaumont, C., Mander, U., 2016. Implications for constructed wetlands to
mitigate nitrate and pesticide in agricultural drained watersheds. Ecol. Eng. 103B,
415–425.
Turker, O.C., Ture, C., Bocuk, H., Cicek, A., Yakar, A., 2016. Role of plants and vegetation
structure on boron (B) removal process in constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 88,
143–152.
Varis, O., Vakkilainen, P., 2006. China’s challenges to water resources management.
Agrifood Res. Rep. 68, 115–129.
Vymazal, J., 2007. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci.
212
Bioresource Technology 280 (2019) 199–212
Total Environ. 380, 48–55.
Vymazal, J., 2013. Emergent plants used in free water surface constructed wetlands: a
review. Ecol. Eng. 61P, 582–592.
Vymazal, J., 2014. Constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters: a re-
view. Ecol. Eng. 73, 724–751.
Walker, D.J., 1998. Modelling residence time in stormwater ponds. Ecol. Eng. 10,
247–262.
Werner, T.M., Kadlec, R.H., 2000. Wetland residence time distribution modeling. Ecol.
Eng. 15, 77–90.
Wahl, M.D., Brown, L.C., Soboyejo, A.O., Martin, J., Dong, B., 2010. Quantifying the
hydraulic performance of treatment wetlands using the moment index. Ecol. Eng. 36
(12), 1691–1699.
Wahl, M.D., Bown, L.C., Soboyejo, A.O., Dong, B., 2012. Quantifying the hydraulic per-
formance of treatment wetlands using reliability functions. Ecol. Eng. 47, 120–125.
Wang, X.O., Tian, Y.M., Zhao, X.H., Peng, S., Wu, Q., Yan, L.J., 2015. Effects of aeration
position on organics, nitrogen and phosphorus removal in combined oxidation pond-
constructed wetland systems. Bioresour. Technol. 198, 7–15.
Wu, H.M., Zhang, J., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Hu, Z., Liang, S., Fan, J.L., Liu, H., 2015. A
review on the sustainability of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: design
and operation. Bioresour. Technol. 175, 594–601.
Wang, Y.H., Wang, J.F., Zhao, X.X., Song, X.S., Gong, J., 2016. The inhibition and
adaptability of four wetland plant species to high concentration of ammonia waste-
water and nitrogen removal efficiency in constructed wetlands. Bioresour. Technol.
202, 198–205.
Wu, H.M., Lin, L., Zhang, J., Guo, W.S., Liang, S., Liu, H., 2016. Purification ability and
carbon dioxide flux from surface flow constructed wetlands treating sewage treat-
ment plant effluent. Bioresour. Technol. 219, 768–772.
Zhang, D.Q., Gersberg, R.M., Keat, T.S., 2009. Constructed wetlands in China. Ecol. Eng.
35, 1367–1378.
Zheng, Y.C., Wang, X.C., Ge, Y., Dzakpasu, M., Zhao, Y.Q., Xiong, J.Q., 2015. Effects of
annual harvesting on plants growth and nutrient removal in surface-flow constructed
wetlands in northwestern China. Ecol. Eng. 83, 268–275.
Zheng, Y.C., Wang, X.C., Dzakpasu, M., Zhao, Y.Q., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Ge, Y., Xiong,
J.Q., 2016. Effects of interspecific competition on the growth of macrophytes and
nutrient removal in constructed wetlands: a comparative assessment of free water
surface and horizontal subsurface flow systems. Bioresour. Technol. 207, 134–141.
Zhang, J., Sun, H.M., Wang, W.G., Hu, Z., Yin, X.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Fan, J.L., 2017.
Enhancement of surface flow constructed wetlands performance at low temperature
through seasonal plant collocation. Bioresour. Technol. 224, 222–228.