Next Article in Journal
Experimental Investigation into the Structural and Functional Performance of Graphene Nano-Platelet (GNP)-Doped Asphalt
Next Article in Special Issue
Variability of Intrinsic Groundwater Vulnerability to Pollution in River Valley due to Groundwater Depth and Recharge Changes
Previous Article in Journal
Validation of All-Sky Imager Technology and Solar Irradiance Forecasting at Three Locations: NREL, San Antonio, Texas, and the Canary Islands, Spain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 9
Issue 4
10.3390/app9040685
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Role of Wetland Plants and Use of Ornamental Flowering Plants in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Review

by
Luis Sandoval
1,2,
Sergio Aurelio Zamora-Castro
3,
Monserrat Vidal-Álvarez
2 and
José Luis Marín-Muñiz
2,*
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Tecnológico Nacional de México/Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Misantla, Veracruz 93164, México
2
Sustainable Regional Development Academy, El Colegio de Veracruz, Xalapa, Veracruz 93164, Mexico
3
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz 93164, México
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(4), 685; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040685
Submission received: 22 January 2019 / Revised: 8 February 2019 / Accepted: 13 February 2019 / Published: 17 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Roles of Constructed Wetlands: Environmental Mitigation, Ecoservices and Resource Recovery)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Featured Application

This study describes the importance of the use of ornamental flowering plants in constructed wetlands as wastewater treatment systems, as well as highlighting which species have been tested in terms of their ability to adapt and remove contaminants so that they can be used in new designs of domiciliary, rural and urban wetlands, generating better water cleaning, aesthetic landscape and economic potential.

Abstract

The vegetation in constructed wetlands (CWs) plays an important role in wastewater treatment. Popularly, the common emergent plants in CWs have been vegetation of natural wetlands. However, there are ornamental flowering plants that have some physiological characteristics similar to the plants of natural wetlands that can stimulate the removal of pollutants in wastewater treatments; such importance in CWs is described here. A literature survey of 87 CWs from 21 countries showed that the four most commonly used flowering ornamental vegetation genera were Canna, Iris, Heliconia and Zantedeschia. In terms of geographical location, Canna spp. is commonly found in Asia, Zantedeschia spp. is frequent in Mexico (a country in North America), Iris is most commonly used in Asia, Europe and North America, and species of the Heliconia genus are commonly used in Asia and parts of the Americas (Mexico, Central and South America). This review also compares the use of ornamental plants versus natural wetland plants and systems without plants for removing pollutants (organic matter, nitrogen, nitrogen and phosphorous compounds). The removal efficiency was similar between flowering ornamental and natural wetland plants. However, pollutant removal was better when using ornamental plants than in unplanted CWs. The use of ornamental flowering plants in CWs is an excellent option, and efforts should be made to increase the adoption of these system types and use them in domiciliary, rural and urban areas.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the use of constructed wetlands (CWs) for wastewater treatment is an option widely recognized. This sustainable ecotechnology is based on natural wetland processes for the removal of contaminants, including physical, chemical and biological routes, but in a more controlled environment compared with natural ecosystems [1,2,3]. These ecologically engineered systems involve three important components: porous-filter media, microorganism and vegetation [2]. The mechanisms for the transformation of nutrient and organic matter compounds are conducted by biofilms of microorganisms formed in the porous media and the rhizosphere zone [4,5]. The media materials (soil, sand, rocks, and gravel) provide a huge surface area for microorganisms to attach, contributing to macrophyte growth, and also act as filtration and/or adsorption medium for contaminants present in the water [6]. Regarding the vegetation, one of the most conspicuous features of wetlands is the role that plants play in the production of root and rhizomes in order to provide substrates for attached bacteria and oxygenation of areas adjacent to the root, and absorb pollutants from water. Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and other nutrients are mainly taken up by wetland plants through the epidermis and vascular bundles of the roots, and are further transported upward to the stem and leaves [7]. This provides carbon for denitrification during biomass decomposition and prevents pollutants from being released from sediments [8,9,10]. The use of the CW technology began in Europe during the 1960s [1], and has been replicated on other continents. The type of vegetation used are plants from natural wetlands, including Cyperus papyrus, Phragmites australis, Typha and Scirpus spp., which have been evaluated for their positive effects on treatment efficiency for nutrient and organic compounds around the globe [8,9,11]. In Americas, such species are typical in CWs, and are found mainly in the United States, where the technology has been used extensively and is implemented in different rural and urban zones [12,13,14,15,16]. In recent studies (15 years ago), the goal of CW studies involved an investigation into the use of herbaceous perennial ornamental plants in CWs, including the use of species with different colored flowers to make the systems more esthetic, and therefore making it more probable for adoption and replication.
This review elucidates the role of macrophytes in CWs and highlights the use of ornamental flowering plants in this type of ecotechnology around the world. This includes plants that are not typical in natural wetlands, and shows the resulting removal efficiency and their importance in rural communities. The aim of this review is to create a context regarding the advantages that the use of CWs with ornamental flowering plants provides, emphasizing that these systems could be used for more sites that require wastewater treatment. The information from 87 constructed wetlands using ornamental flowering plants (OFP) in 21 countries was reported in the literature that was analyzed. Only published or accepted (in press) papers were considered; the results of theses or abstracts of conferences were not considered.

2. Role of Macrophytes in CWs

The plants that grow in constructed wetlands have several properties related to the water treatment process that make them an essential component of the design. Macrophytes are the main source of oxygen in CWs through a process that occurs in the root zone, called radial oxygen loss (ROL) [17]. The ROL contributes to the removal of pollutants because it favors an aerobic micro-environment, and waste removal is therefore accelerated, whereas, in anaerobic conditions (the main environment in CWs), there is less pollutant removal. In a recent study [18] comparing the use of plants in high density (32 plants m−2) and low density (16 plants m−2) CWs, the removal of nitrogen compounds in high density CWs was twice that of CWs using a low density of plants, which is strong evidence of the importance of plants in such systems. The removal rate of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorous (TP) were also positively correlated with the ROL of wetland plants, according to a study involving 35 different species [19].
The roots of plants are the site of many microorganisms because they provide a source of microbial attachment [8] and release exudates, an excretion of carbon that contributes to the denitrification process, which increases the removal of pollutants in anoxic conditions [20,21]. Other physical effects in plant tissue in water include: reduction in the velocity of water flow, promotion of sedimentation, decreased resuspension, and uptake of nutrients. However, for roots and rhizomes in the sediment, the physical effects include: stabilizing the sediment surface, less erosion, nutrient absorption, prevention of medium clogging (in subsurface conditions) and improved hydraulic conductivity. Aerial plant tissue favors in the light attenuation (reduced growth of photosynthesis), reduced wind velocity, storage of nutrients and aesthetic pleasing appearance of the system [2,5]. A 5-year study evaluated the influence of vegetation on sedimentation and resuspension of soil particles in small CWs [22]. The author showed that macrophytes stimulated sediment retention by mitigating the resuspension of the CW sediment (14 to 121 kg m−2). Macrophytes increased the hydraulic efficiency by reducing short-circuit or preferential flow. Plant presence led to decreasing saturated hydraulic conductivity in horizontal subsurface flow. This study was relevant, since monitoring macrophytes is essential for understanding and controlling clogging in subsurface CWs [22].
The removal of organic and inorganic pollutants in CWs is not only the role of microorganisms. This function is also exerted by plants that are able to tolerate high concentrations of nutrients and heavy metals, and, in some cases, plants are able to accumulate them in their tissues [23]. It has been estimated that between 15 and 32 mg g−1 of TN and 2–6 mg g−1 (dry mass) of TP are removed by CW plants, which was measured in the aboveground biomass [24,25].
Other uptakes of xenobiotic compounds (organic pollutants) are also the result of the presence of plants, involving processes such as transformation, conjugation and compartmentation [23].

3. Survey Results of the Use of Ornamental Flowering Plants in CWs

Many CWs around the world used OFP for the removal of various types of wastewater (Table 1). For example, in China, the most popular plants used is Canna sp., while in Mexico the ornamental plant used is more diverse, including plants with flowers of different colors, shapes and aromatic characteristics (Canna, Heliconia, Zantedeschia, Strelitzia spp).
A review of the available literature showed that ornamental plants are used to remove pollutants from domestic, municipal, aquaculture ponds, industrial or farm wastewater. The removal efficiency of ornamental plants was also evaluated for the following parameters: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorous (TP), ammonium (NH4-N), nitrates (NO3-N), coliforms and some metals (Cu, Zn, Ni and Al). There is no clear pattern in the use of certain species of ornamental plants for certain types of wastewater. However, it is important to keep in mind that CWs using ornamental plants are usually utilized as secondary or tertiary treatments, due to the reported toxic effects that high organic/inorganic loading has on plants in systems that use them for primary treatment (in the absence of other complementary treatment options) [110,111]. The use of OFP in CWs generates an esthetic appearance in the systems. In CWs with high plant production, OFP harvesting can be an economic entity for CW operators, providing social and economic benefits, such as the improvement of system landscapes and a better habitat quality. Some authors have reported that polyculture systems enhanced the CW resistance to environmental stress and disease [14,112].

3.1. Common Ornamental Plants Used in CWs

Limited quantities of OFP have been used in CWs. These types of plants are typical of subtropical and tropical regions. Our survey showed that the four most frequently used genera are, in order of most to least frequently used: Canna spp, Iris spp, Heliconia spp, Zantedeschia spp (Table 2). Species of the Canna genus are used in all continents, with Asia using them the most frequently. The Iris genus is also used in Asia, along with Europe and North America. Species of the Heliconia genus are commonly used in Asia and America, including Mexico, Central and South America. While Zantedeschia is most frequently used in Mexico (a country in North America), they are found with less frequency in Europe, Africa, and Central and South America. The use of OFP in CWs is most popular in tropical and subtropical regions, due to the warm temperatures and the extensive sunlight hours. Such environmental features stimulate a richer biodiversity than in other regions.

3.1.1. Canna Spp

This perennial herb belongs to the family Cannaceae (Figure 1a). It can grow in full sun or semi-shaded areas and in loamy soils, with plant heights varying from 0.75 to 3.0 m under tropical and subtropical conditions. It reportedly originated in Central and South America and spread throughout Europe, North America and many tropical regions of the world. The Canna genus includes 8–10 wild species and over 1000 hybrids that are used as garden ornamentals. During the last two centuries of cultivation and improvement, Canna has been transformed into an attractive OFP, with variability in flower colours (yellow, orange, red and salmon, achieved using colored stains) and other positive attributes [113,114].

3.1.2. Iris Spp

Irises are perennial plants (Figure 1b) whose flowers are distinguished by a great variety of colors and miscellany of patterns on the perianth leaves [115]. Depending on the species, flower width ranges from 2.5 to 25 cm. Iris leaves are grass-like or sword-like and embrace the shoot with their bracts. Plant height is highly diverse, ranging from 10 to 200 cm, which allows them to be used in a variety of flower compositions. As both the leaves and the flowers are decorative, with the proper selection of species and varieties, they can add splendour to any garden from early spring until late autumn. Irises of the beardless variety (Limniris) are growing in popularity throughout the world, characterized by the various shapes of their perianth sepals and their untypical leafy pistils. They are low-maintenance plants and are resistant to the diseases that affect bearded irises [115,116].

3.1.3. Heliconia Spp

This species is the only genus in the plant family Heliconiaceae (Figure 1c), which is a member of the order Zingiberales. In addition to the several cellular features (short root hair cells, sieve tube plastids with starch, silica bodies, inaperturate and exineless pollen) that distinguish the Zingiberales from other monocots, there are several very conspicuous characters by which they can be recognized, including (1) large leaves with long petioles and blades possessing transverse venation, (2) large, usually colorful, bracteate inflorescences, and (3) arillate seeds. This order is most closely related to the family Bromeliaceae and their relatives in the superorder Bromeliiflorae [117]. The inverted flowers, presence of a single staminode, and drupaceous fruits are special features of Heliconia. Many species and varieties native from Brazil are now being grown as potted plants and as cut-flowers. The number of species of Heliconia ranges from 120 to over 400 [118].

3.1.4. Zantedeschia Spp

Also known as Arum or Calla lilies, a relatively small genus of eight species, forms the tribe Zantedeschieae (Figure 1d) in the subfamily Philodendroideae [119]. This genus is confined to Southern Africa, including Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Zimbabwe and Tanzania. Showy and decorative hybrids and varieties of Zantedeschia have drawn much interest among plant breeders abroad, where tubers, cut flowers and container plants form the basis of a lucrative export industry in the USA, the Netherlands and New Zealand [119,120].

3.2. Influence of Plants on Treatment Performance in Constructed Wetlands

Some studies have provided evidence of the positive effects that vegetation of natural wetlands has on pollutant removal (organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) in constructed wetlands when compared to systems without plants [5,10]. In planted mesocosms with Phragmites australis, the efficiency of total nitrogen and total phosphorous removal was 97% and 91%, respectively, while, in systems without plants, the removal efficiency was 53% for total nitrogen and 61% for total phosphorous [121]. A similar situation was observed when studying fluoride ion removal in constructed wetlands, where the pollutant removal in systems without plants was 20% lower than in systems with vegetation [45]. The increase in the removal of pollutants in systems with plants is due to the increased oxygen supply to the rhizosphere through the plants’ roots [2,8].
The use of ornamental plants in constructed wetlands for pollutant removal has been applied in different countries around the globe (Table 1), commonly in tropical and subtropical areas. A comparison of average performance efficiencies of CWs with different OFP showed that the removal percentages were similar across all plant genera for TSS (62–86%; n = 26; p = 0.236), COD (41–72%; n = 49; p = 0.211), BOD (51–82%; n = 38; p = 0.241), TP (49–66%; n = 44; p = 0.111), NH4-N (62–82%; n = 24; p = 0.301), NO3-N (63–93%; n = 34; p = 0.214) and TN (48–72%; n = 32; p = 0.116) (Figure 2). Such values are within the range reported [6] for CWs from China, India, Ireland, Spain and Thailand, as well as for the values reported in a review of wastewater treatment of CWs in developing countries [122] and CWs in tropical and subtropical regions [123,124], all using plants typically found in natural wetlands (Cyperus, Typha and Phragmites sp.), which were 67–92.5% for TSS, 49–81% for COD, 60–91.5% for BOD, 33–90% for NH4-N, and 50–77% for TP. In general, the mean TN and TP removal when using ornamental plants in CWs were less than the mean removal of the other pollutants (TSS, CDO, BOD, NH4-N or NO3-N) (Figure 2). Such removal is influenced not only by the plants, but also by other parameters, such as filter media, or operational parameters, such as hydraulic and influent loading, which are related with the removal of pollutants in CWs and need to be considered in system designs [125]. When comparing the removal efficiency of pollutants in CWs with OFP and CWs without plants (Figure 2), pollutant removal was almost 40% higher for TSS, COD, BOD, NT and N-NO3 in CWs with plants than in those without. For TP, the removal efficiency was almost 70% higher in CWs using ornamental plants than in those without vegetation.
Machado et al. [124] evaluated the use of CWs in Brazil, including systems with ornamental plants, and concluded that warm temperatures, extensive sunlight hours and available land are important characteristics for encouraging plant growth and proliferation. Such features are typical in tropical and subtropical regions, where the option of a CW with ornamental plants can be an excellent choice for the removal of pollutants.
In cases where the wetlands are constructed to assist rural communities that involve big areas, the growth of OFP also creates a useful source of commercialization. The flowers could be sold as bouquets, as plants with attached roots for use in gardens, or for crafts made with parts of the plants, providing another strategy for convincing landowners to adopt these systems. The statistics that we report here regarding the removal efficiency of ornamental plants in CWs around the world is evidence that urban areas can also use CW systems as beautiful landscapes in supermarkets, streets, universities, hospitals, in riverine areas or as floating wetlands in rivers, lakes or lagoons. The combination of different species of ornamental plants in CWs makes the system more colorful, and, therefore, more attractive for the public.
These comparisons indicate the same general range of removal efficiency between CWs using ornamental plants and CWs with vegetation from natural wetlands. Thus, it is clear that ornamental plants should be considered in new CW designs. The use of ornamental plants could be a strategy used to increase the adoption of these systems because it makes the systems more aesthetic, and, therefore, they would not be observed as a treatment system, but instead would be seen as large outdoor planters in house gardens. We recommend the construction of domiciliary wetlands using ornamental plants to decrease water pollution and to assist with maintaining a better public health.

3.3. Advantages of Using Ornamental Plants in CWs

A range of novel and cost-effective constructed wetland systems for wastewater treatment have been engineered around the world. The influence of design parameters, such as porous media, hydraulic retention time, and flow of water, on the performance of CWs has been reported, highlighting the sustainability of this technology and the esthetic appearance using OFP [6,28,125].
One of the advantages of using OFP in CWs is the significant reduction of nutrient contamination (20–35%; Figure 2) comparing when CWs unplanted, representing an economical and sustainable alternative to decentralization practices; CWs are less expensive than commercial systems and are easier to build and operate [16,72]. Furthermore, by using plants with commercial value, the resources invested in the design, construction and maintenance of the system can be recovered in the profits of retail sales, without impeding the removal of pollutants of the system. The production of flowers in the CWs can provide economic benefits to the operators of the technology and can create beautiful landscapes using flowers such as Canna, Iris, Heliconias and Zantedeschia spp. (Table 1 and Table 2). Such species have removed almost 80% of pollutants and provides color with the flowers to the systems and its use was detected in 39 countries for Canna genus and Zantedeschia genus was detected in 20 countries. In Thailand, a treatment water system with a butterfly shape was designed with the polyculture of OFP as reviewed in this study [111].

4. Conclusions

The use of ornamental flowering plants in constructed wetlands has been identified in 21 countries. The most commonly used ornamental plants are Canna spp., Iris spp, Heliconia spp., and Zantedeschia spp., which are mainly used in tropical and subtropical regions. Therefore, as CWs with OFP show good contaminants’ removal efficiencies in the reviewed studies, it is suggested that further research on CWs should be developed, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. Our survey also found that many ornamental plants are planted using a mixture of various species, or are mixed with plants from natural wetlands. There is no clear pattern in the use of a specific plant species for a certain type of wastewater, but the use of ornamental plants in wastewater treatment is a great economic and ecological option, and their flowers add to the esthetic appearance of CWs. The last characteristic could be used to increase system adoptions by the people in domiciliary, rural or urban areas. As an integral part of standard operating procedures, and the social involvement, using CWs with OFP would be a big step towards mitigating problems of small wastewater treatment systems in a timely manner.

Author Contributions

J.L.M.-M. and L.C.S.-H. wrote, coordinated and reviewed the paper and finalized the data collection. S.A.Z.-C. and M.V.-A. contributed to refining the paper structure and to improving the scientific aspects.

Funding

This research was funded by ”El Colegio de Veracruz” with the agreement 2017-III-IerExt-21.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge to El Colegio de Veracruz and Tecnológico Nacionalde México, for the permits to carry out the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kadlec, R.; Wallace, S. Treatment Wetlands, 2nd ed.; Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. Wetlands, 5th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Humedales: Riñones del planeta y hábitat de múltiples especies; SEV-COLVER: Mexico, 2018; 100p. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brix, H. Functions of macrophytes in constructed wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 1994, 4, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shelef, O.; Gross, A.; Rachmilevitch, S. Role of plants in a constructed wetland: Current and new perspectives. Water 2013, 5, 405–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Valipour, A.; Ahn, Y. Constructed wetlands as sustainable ecotechnologies in decentralization practices: A review. Environ. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 180–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Valipour, A.; Azizi, S.; Raman, V.K.; Jamshidi, S.; Hamnabard, N. The comparative evaluation of the performance of two phytoremediation systems for domestic wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2014, 56, 319–326. [Google Scholar]
  8. Vymazal, J. Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow: A review. Hydrobiologia 2011, 20, 133–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vymazal, J. Emergent plant used in free water surface constructed wetlands: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, C.; Zhang, M.; Ye, M.; Wang, J.; Li, G. Pilot-scale electrochemical oxidation combined with constructed wetland system for unconventional surface water treatment. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2014, 89, 1599–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mburu, N.; Rousseau, D.; Bruggen, J.; Lens, P. Use of Macrophyte Cyperus papyrus in Wastewater Treatment; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bachand, P.A.M.; Horne, A.J. Denitrification in constructed free-water surface wetland: II. Effects of vegetation and temperature. Ecol. Eng. 2000, 14, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tilley, D.R.; Badrinarayanan, H.; Rosati, R.; Son, J. Constructed wetlands as recirculation filters in large-scale shrimp aquaculture. Aquac. Eng. 2002, 26, 81–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Karathanasis, A.D.; Potter, C.L.; Coyne, M.S. Vegetation effects on fecal bacteria, BOD, and suspended solid removal in constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chang, N.B.; Islam, K.; Marimon, Z.; Wanielista, M.P. Assessing biological and chemical signatures related to nutrient removal by floating islands in stormwater mesocosms. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 736–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Yu, Z.; Bill, B.; Stenstrom, M.; Cohen, Y. Feasibility of a semi-batch vertical-flow wetland for onsite residential gray water treatment. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 82, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, Q.; Hu, Y.; Xie, H.; Yang, Z. Constructed wetlands: A review on the role of radial oxygen loss in the rhizosphere by macrophytes. Water 2018, 10, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hernández, M.E.; Galindo-Zetina, M.; Hernandez-Hernández, J.C. Greenhouse gas emissions and pollutant removal in treatment wetlands with ornamental plants under subtropical conditions. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 114, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lai, W.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Z. Radial oxygen loss, photosynthesis, and nutrient removal of 35 wetland plants. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 39, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Morgan, J.A.; Martin, J.F. Performance of an ecological treatment system at three strengths of dairy wastewater loading. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 33, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martínez, N.; Tejeda, A.; Del Toro, A.; Sánchez, M.P.; Zurita, F. Nitrogen removal in pilot-scale partially saturated vertical wetlands with and without and internal source of carbon. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Baptestini, G.; Matos, A.; Martinez, M.; Borges, A.; Matos, M. Hydraulic conductivity variability in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. J. Braz. Assoc. Agric. Eng. 2017, 37, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stottmeister, U.; Wiebner, A.; Kuschk, P.; Kappelmer, U.; Kästner, M.; Bederski, O.; Müler, R.A.; Moormann, H. Effects of plants and microotganisms in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Biotecnol. Adv. 2003, 22, 93–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tanner, C.C. Plants for constructed wetland treatment systems-a comparison of the growth and nutrient uptake of eigh emergent species. Ecol. Eng. 1996, 7, 59–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, X.; Huang, S.; Tang, T.; Liu, X.; Scholz, M. Growth characteristic and nutrient removal capability of plants in subsurface vertical flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 44, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Paulo, P.L.; Begosso, L.; Pansonato, N.; Shrestha, R.R.; Bonez, M.A. Design and configuration criteria for wetland systems treating greywater. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 2001–2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Paulo, P.L.; Azevedo, C.; Begosso, L.; Galbiati, A.F.; Boncz, M.A. Natural systems treating greywater and blackwater on-site: Integrating treatment, reuse and landscaping. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 50, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sarmento, A.P.; Borges, A.C.; Matos, A.T. Effect of cultivated species and retention time on the performance of constructed wetlands. Environ. Technol. 2013, 35, 961–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Prata, R.; Matos, A.; Cecon, P.; Monaco, P.; Pimenta, L. Sewage treatment in wetlands cultivated with yellow lilly. Eng. Agrícola 2013, 33, 1144–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Teodoro, A.; Boncz, M.; Júnior, A.; Paulo, P. Disinfection of greywater pretreated by constructed wetlands using photo-Fenton: Influence of pH on the decay of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 958–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shi, L.; Wang, B.Z.; Cao, X.D.; Wang, J.; Lei, Z.H.; Wang, Z.R.; Liu, Z.Y.; Lu, B.N. Performance of a subsurface-flow constructed wetland in Southern China. J. Environ. Sci. 2004, 16, 476–481. [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, G.; Wu, Z.; Cheng, S.; Liang, W.; He, F.; Fu, G.; Zhong, F. Application of constructed wetlands on wastewater treatment for aquaculture ponds. Wuhan Univ. J. Nat. Sci. 2007, 12, 1131–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, Q.; Chen, Z.; Zhao, J.; Gu, B. Contaminant removal of domestic wastewater by constructed wetlands: Effects of plant species. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2007, 49, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, Z.H.; Rengel, Z.; Meney, K. Nutrient removal from simulated wastewater using Canna indica and Schoenoplectus validus in mono- and mixed culture in wetland microcosms? Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 183, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, X.B.; Liu, P.; Yang, Y.S.; Chen, W.R. Phytoremediation of urban wastewater by model wetlands with ornamental hydrophytes. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 2007, 19, 902–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sun, L.P.; Liu, Y.; Jin, H. Nitrogen removal from polluted river by enhanced floating bed grown canna. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cui, L.; Ouyang, Y.; Lou, Q.; Yang, F.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, W.; Luos, S. Removal of nutrients from wastewater with Canna indica L. under different vertical-flow constructed wetland conditions. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 1083–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, S.; Zhou, Q.; Xu, D.; He, F.; Cheng, S.; Liang, W.; Du, C.; Wu, Z. Vertical-flow constructed wetlands applied in a recirculating aquaculture system for channel catfish culture: Effects on water quality and zooplankton. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar]
  39. Qiu, Z.; Wang, M.; Lai, W.; He, F.; Chen, Z. Plant growth and nutrient removal in constructed monoculture and mixed wetlands related to stubble attributes. Hydrobiologia 2011, 661, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wen, L.; Hua, C.; Ping, Z.; Xiang, L. Removal of total phosphorus from septic tank effluent by the hybrid constructed wetland system. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 10, 2102–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wu, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, P.; Zhang, J.; Xie, H.; Zhang, B. Nutrient removal in constructed microcosm wetlands for treating polluted river water in northern China. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 560–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xie, X.; He, F.; Xu, D.; Dong, J.; Cheng, S.; Wu, Z. Application of large scale integrated vertical-flow constructed wetland in Beijing Olympic forest park: Design, operation and performance. Water Environ. J. 2012, 26, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chang, J.J.; Wu, S.Q.; Dai, Y.D.; Liang, W.; Wu, Z.B. Treatment performance of integrated vertical-flow constructed wetland plots for domestic wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 44, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Gao, J.; Wang, W.; Guo, X.; Zhu, S. Nutrient removal capability and growth characteristics of iris sibrica in subsurface vertical flow constructed wetlands in winter. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 70, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, J.; Liu, X.; Yu, Z.; Yi, X.; Ju, Y.; Huang, J.; Liu, R. Removal of fluoride and arsenic by pilot vertical-flow constructed wetlands using soil and coal cinder as substrate. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 70, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gao, J.; Zhang, J.; Ma, N.; Wang, W.; Ma, C.; Zhang, R. Cadmium removal capability and growth characteristics of iris sibrica in subsurface vertical flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hu, Y.; He, F.; Ma, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Z. Microbial nitrogen removal patways in integrated vertical-flow constructed wetland systems. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 207, 339–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wang, W.; Ding, Y.; Ullman, J.; Ambrose, R.; Wang, Y.; Song, X.; Zhao, Z. Nitrogen removal performance in planted and unplanted horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands treating different influent COD/N ratios. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 9012–9018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Morales, G.; López, D.; Vera, I.; Vidal, G. Humedales construidos con plantas ornamentales para el tratamiento de materia orgánica y nutrientes contenidos en aguas servidas. Theoria 2013, 22, 33–46. [Google Scholar]
  50. Burgos, V.; Araya, F.; Reyes-Contreras, C.; Vera, I.; Vidal, G. Performance of ornamental plants in mesocosm subsurface constructed wetlands under different organic sewage loading constructed wetlands under different organic sewage loading. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 99, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Leiva, A.; Núñez, R.; Gómez, G.; López, D.; Vidal, G. Performance of ornamental plants in monoculture and polyculture horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands for treating wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 120, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gutiérrez-Mosquera, H.; Peña-Varón, M. Eliminación de nitrógeno en un humedal construido subsuperficial, plantado con Heliconia psíttacorum. Tecnol. Cienc. Agua 2011, 11, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
  53. Madera-Parra, C.A.; Peña-Salamanca, E.J.; Peña, M.R.; Rousseau, D.P.L.; Lens, P.N. Phytoremediation of landfill leachate with Colocasia esculenta, Gynerum sagittatum and Heliconia psittacorum in Constructed Wetlands. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2015, 17, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Marrugo-Negrete, J.; Ortega-Ruíz, J.; Navarro-Frómeta, A.; Enamorado-Montes, G.; Urango-Cárdenas, I.; Pinedo-Hernández, J.; Durango-Hernández, J.; Estrada-Martínez, A. Remoción de cipermetrina presente en el baño de ganado utilizando humedales construidos. Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol. Agrop. 2016, 17, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Toro-Vélez, A.F.; Madera-Parra, C.A.; Peñón-Varón, M.R.; Lee, W.Y.; Bezares-Cruz, J.C.; Walker, W.S.; Cárdenas-Henao, H.; Quesada-Calderón, S.; García-Hernández, H.; Lens, P.N.I. BPA and NP removal from municipal wastewater by tropical horizontal subsurface constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 542, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. León, C.; Cháves, D. Tratamiento de residual vacuno utilizando microalgas, la lenteja de agua Lemna aequinoctiales y un humedal subsuperficial en Costa Rica. Rev. Latinoam. Biotecnol. Ambient. Algal 2010, 1, 155–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abou-Elela, S.; Hellal, M. Municipal wastewater treatment using vertical flow constructed wetlands planted with Canna, Phragmites and Cyprus. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 47, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Abou-Elela, S.; Golinielli, G.; Abou-Taleb, E.; Hellal, M. Municipal wastewater treatment in horizontal and vertical flows constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Choudhary, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, C. Removal of chlorinated resin and fatty acids from paper mill wastewater through constructed wetland. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2010, 80, 67–71. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yadav, A.; Dash, P.; Mohanty, A.; Abbassi, R.; Mishra, B. Performance assessment of innovative constructed wetland-microbial fuel cell for electricity production and dye removal. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 47, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Saumya, S.; Akansha, A.; Rinaldo, J.; Jayasri, M.A.; Suthindhiran, K. Construction and evaluation of prototype subsurface flow wetland planted with Heliconia angusta for the treatment of synthetic greywater. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 91, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ojoawo, S.; Udayakuman, G.; Naik, P. Phytoremediation of phosphorus and nitrogen with Canna x generalis reeds in domestic wastewater through NMAMIT constructed wetlands. Aquat. Procedia 2015, 4, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Haritash, A.K.; Sharma, A.; Bahel, K. The potential of Canna lily for wastewater treatment under Indian conditions. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2015, 17, 999–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Patil, Y.M.; Munavalli, G.R. Performance evaluation of and integrated on-site greywater treatment system in a tropical region. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Singh, M.; Srivastava, R. Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland for heavy metal removal from domestic wastewater. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2016, 35, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gill, L.W.; O’Luanaigh, N. Nutrient removal from on-site wastewater in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands in Ireland. Water Pract. Technol. 2011, 6, wpt2011041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Macci, C.; Peruzzi, E.; Doni, S.; Iannelli, R.; Masciandaro, G. Ornamental plants for micropollutant removal in wetland systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 2406–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kimani, R.W.; Mwangi, B.M.; Gichuki, C.M. Treatment of flower farm wastewater effluents using constructed wetlands in lake Naivasha Kenya. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 5, 1870–1878. [Google Scholar]
  69. Belmont, M.A.; Metcalfe, C.D. Feasibility of using ornamental plants (Zantedeschia aethiopica) in subsurface flow treatment wetlands to remove nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand and nonylphenol ethoxylate surfactants—A laboratory-scale study. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 21, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Belmont, M.A.; Cantellano, E.; Thompson, S.; Williamson, M.; Sánchez, A.; Metcalfe, C.D. Treatment of domestic wastewater in a pilot scale natural treatment system in central Mexico. Ecol. Eng. 2004, 23, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Orozco, C.; Cruz, A.; Rodríguez, M.; Pohlan, A. Humedal subsuperficial de flujo vertical como sistema de depuración terciaria en el proceso de beneficiado de café. Hig. Sanid. Ambient. 2006, 6, 190–196. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zurita, F.; De Anda, J.; Belmont, M. Performance of laboratory-scale wetlands planted with tropical ornamental plants to treat domestic wastewater. Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 2006, 41, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zurita, F.; Belmont, M.; De Anda, J.; Cervantes-Martínez, J. Stress detection by laser-induced fluorescence in Zantedeschia aethiopica planted in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 33, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ramírez-Carrillo, H.F.; Luna-Pabello, V.M.; Arredondo-Figueroa, JL. Evaluación de un humedal artificial de flujo vertical intermitente, para obtener agua de buena calidad para la acuicultura. Rev. Mex. Ing. Quím. 2009, 8, 93–99. [Google Scholar]
  75. Zurita, F.; De Anda, J.; Belmont, M.A. Treatment of domestic wastewater and production of commercial flowers in vertical and horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zurita, F.; Del Toro-Sánchez, C.; Gutierrez-Lomelí, M.; Rodríguez-Sahagún, A.; Castellanos-Hernández, O.; Ramirez-Martínez, G.; White, J. Preliminary study on the potential of arsenic removal by subsurface flow constructed mesocosms. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 47, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Castañeda, A.A.; Flores, H.E. Tratamiento de aguas residuales domésticas mediante plantas macrófitas típicas en Los Altos de Jalisco, México. Paakat Rev. Tecnol. Sociedad 2013, 3, 126–134. [Google Scholar]
  78. Zurita, F.; White, J. Comparative study of three two-stage hybrid ecological wastewater treatment systems for producing high nutrient, reclaimend water for irrigation reuse in developing countries. Water 2014, 6, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hallack, M.; Payan, J.C.; Mungaray, A.; López, A.; González, M.; Castañón, M.C.; Pérez-Banuet, M. Implementación y evaluación de un sistema de tratamiento de agua residual natural a través de humedales construidos en el noroeste de México. In Gestión de Humedales Españoles y Mexicanos: Apuesta Conjunta por su Futuro; Sastre, A., Díaz, I., Ramíres, J., Eds.; Universidad de Alcalá, 2015; ISBN 978-84-16599-15-8. Available online: http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/370/37012012004.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2018).
  80. Mendoza, A.; Bello-Mendoza, R.; Herrea-López, D.; Mejía-González, G.; Calixto-Romo, A. Performance of constructed wetlands with ornamental plants in the treatment of domestic wastewater under the tropical climate of south Mexico. Water Pract. Technol. 2015, 10, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Merino-Solís, M.; Villegas, E.; de Anda, J.; López-López, A. The effect of the hydraulic retention time on the performance of an ecological wastewater treatment system: An anaerobic filter with a constructed wetland. Water 2015, 7, 1149–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zurita, F.; Carreón-Álvarez, A. Performance of three pilot-scale hybrid constructed wetlands for total coliforms and Escherichia coli removal from primary effluent—A 2-year study in subtropical climate. J. Water Health 2015, 13, 446–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Garzón, M.; González, J.; García, R. Evaluación de un sistema de tratamiento doméstico para reúso de agua residual. Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient. 2016, 32, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hernández, M.E. Humedales ornamentales con participación comunitaria para el saneamiento de aguas municipales en México. RINDERESU 2016, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  85. López-Rivera, A.; López-López, A.; Vallejo-Rodríguez, R.; León-Becerril, E. Effect of the organic loading rate in the stillage treatment in a constructed wetland with Canna indica. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2016, 35, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tejeda, A.; Torres-Bojorges, A.; Zurita, F. Carbamazepine removal in three pilot-scale hybrid wetlands planted with ornamental species. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 98, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; García-González, M.C.; Ruelas-Monjardín, L.C.; Moreno-Casasola, P. Influence of different porous media and ornamental vegetation on wastewater pollutant removal in vertical subsurface flow wetland microcosms. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2018, 35, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sandoval-Herazo, L.C.; Alvarado-Lassman, A.A.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L.; Méndez-Contreras, J.M.; Zamora-Castro, S.A. Effects of the use of ornamental plants and different substrates in the removal of wastewater pollutants through microcosms of constructed wetlands. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Singh, S.; Haberl, R.; Moog, O.; Shrestha, R.R.; Shrestha, P.; Shrestha, R. Performance of an anaerobic baffled reactor and hybrid constructed wetland treating high-strength wastewater in Nepal—A model for DEWATs. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Calheiros, C.S.; Rangel, O.S.S.; Castro, P.K.L. Constructed wetland systems vegetated with different plants applied to the treatment of tannery wastewater. Water Res. 2007, 41, 1790–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Calheiros, C.; Bessa, V.; Mesquita, R.; Brix, H.; Rangel, A.; Castro, P. Constructed wetlands with a polyculture of ornamental plants for wastewater treatment at a rural tourism facility. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 79, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. García, M.; Soto, F.; González, J.M.; Bécares, E. A comparison of bacterial removal efficiencies in constructed wetlands and algae-based systems. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 32, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ansola, G.; González, J.M.; Cortijo, R.; de Luis, E. Experimental and full-scale pilot plant constructed wetlands for municipal wastewaters treatment. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 21, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Weragoda, S.K.; Jinadasa, K.B.S.N.; Zhang, D.Q.; Gersberg, R.M.; Tan, S.K.; Ng, W.J. Tropical application of floating treatment wetlands. Wetlands 2012, 32, 955–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chyan, J.M.; Lu, C.C.; Shiu, R.F.; Bellotindos, L. Purification of landscape water by using an innovative application of subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chyan, J.M.; Jhu, Y.X.; Chen, I.; Shiu, R. Improvement of nitrogen removal by external aeration and intermittent circulation in a subsurface flow constructed wetland of landscape garden ponds. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016, 104, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sirianuntapiboon, S.; Jitvimolnimit, S. Effect of plantation pattern on the efficiency of subsurface flow constructed wetland (SFCW) for sewage treatment. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2007, 2, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sohsalam, P.; Englande, A.; Sirianuntapiboon, S. Seafood wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands: Tropical case. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 1218–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Konnerup, D.; Koottatep, T.; Brix, H. Treatment of domestic wastewater in tropical subsurface flow constructed wetlands planted with Canna and Heliconia. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kantawanichkul, S.; Karnchanawong, S.; Jing, S.H. Treatment of fermented fish production wastewater by constructed wetland system in Thailand. Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2009, 36, 149–157. [Google Scholar]
  101. Brix, H.; Koottatep, T.; Fryd, O.; Laugesen, C.H. The flower and the butterfly constructed wetland system at Koh Phi Phi—System design and lessons learned during implementation and operation. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 729–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Torit, J.; Siangdung, W.; Thiravetyan, P. Phosphorus removal from domestic wastewater by Echinodorus cordifolius L. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2012, 47, 794–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tunçsiper, B. Nitrogen removal in a combined vertical and horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetland system. Desalination 2009, 247, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Neralla, S.; Weaver, R.W.; Lesikar, B.J.; Persyn, R.A. Improvement of domestic waste water quality by subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 75, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Polomski, R.F.; Bielenberg, D.G.; Whitwell, T. Nutrient Recovery by Seven Aquatic Garden Plants in a Laboratory-scale Subsurface-constructed Wetland. Hortscience 2007, 42, 1674–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zachritz, W.H.; Hanson, A.T.; Sauceda, J.A.; Fitzsimmons, K.M. Evaluation of submerged surface flow (SSF) constructed wetlands for recirculating tilapia production systems. Aquac. Eng. 2008, 39, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chen, Y.; Bracy, R.; Owings, A. Nitrogen and phosphorous removal by ornamental and wetland plants in a greenhouse recirculation research system. HortScience 2009, 44, 1704–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Konnerup, D.; Trang, N.T.D.; Brix, H. Treatment of fishpond water by recirculating horizontal and vertical flow constructed wetlands in the tropics? Aquaculture 2011, 313, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. McKinlay, R.G.; Kasperek, K. Observations on decontamination of herbicide polluted water by marsh plant system. Water Res. 1999, 33, 505–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Gersberg, R.M.; Elkins, B.V.; Lyon, S.R.; Goldman, C.R. Role of aquatic plants in wastewater treatment by artificial wetlands. Water Res. 1986, 20, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Duarte, A.; Canais-Seco, T.; Peres, J.; Bentes, I.; Pinto, J. Sustainability indicators of subsusrface flow constructed wetlands in Portuguese small communities. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2010, 9, 625–634. [Google Scholar]
  112. Prata, R.C.; Matos, A.T.D.; Cecon, P.R.; Monaco, P.A.; Pimenta, L.A. Sewage treatment in wetlands cultivated with yellow lily. Eng. Agríc. 2013, 33, 1144–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Patra, B.; Acharya, L.; Mukherjee, A.K.; Panda, M.K.; Panda, C.P. Molecular characterization of ten cultivars of Canna lilies (Canna Linn.) using PCR based molecular markers (RAPDs and ISSRs). Int. J. Integr. Biol. 2008, 2, 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  114. Gupta, A.; Maurya, R.; Roy, R.K.; Sawant, S.; Yadav, H. AFLP based genetic relationship and population structure analysis of Canna-An ornamental plant. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 154, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kulig, M.; Wronski, M.; Ostafin, K. The characteristics of flowers, and of clumps of selected iris species and varieties, from the Limniris section. Hortic. Landsc. Archit. 2013, 34, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  116. Kulig, M. Characteristics of flowers of selected iris species and varieties from Limniris section. Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. 2012, 15, 04. [Google Scholar]
  117. Maas, P.J.M. Renealmia (Zingiberaceae—Zingiberoideae); Costoideae (Zingiberaceae). Flora Neotrop. Monogr. 1977, 18, 1–218. [Google Scholar]
  118. Kress, W.J. The diversity and distribution of Heliconia (Heliconiaceae) in brazil). Acta Bot. Bras. 1990, 4, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bogner, J.; Nicolson, D.H. A revised classification of Araceae with dichotomous keys. Willdenowia 1991, 21, 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  120. Letty, C. The Genus Zantedeschia. Bothalia 1973, 11, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Rodríguez, M.; Brisson, J. Pollutant removal efficiency of native versus exotic common reed (Phragmites australis) in North American treatment wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 74, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zhang, D.; Jinadasa, K.; Gersberg, R.; Liu, Y.; Ng, W.; Tan, S. Application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in developing countries—A review of recent developments. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 141, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zhang, D.; Jinadasa, K.; Gersberg, R.; Liu, Y.; Tan, S.; Ng, W. Application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in tropical and subtropical regions (2000–2013). J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 30, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Machado, A.I.; Beretta, M.; Fragoso, R.; Duarte, E. Overview of the state of the art of constructed wetlands for decentralized wastewater management in Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 187, 560–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Frazer-Williams, R. A review of the influence of design parameters on the performance of constructed wetlands. J. Chem. Eng. 2010, 25, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 09 00685 g001 550
Figure 1. Popular Ornamental flowering plants used in CWs (constructed wetlands). (a) Canna sp.; (b) Iris sp., (c) Heliconia sp. and (d) Zantedeschia sp.
Figure 1. Popular Ornamental flowering plants used in CWs (constructed wetlands). (a) Canna sp.; (b) Iris sp., (c) Heliconia sp. and (d) Zantedeschia sp.
Applsci 09 00685 g001
Applsci 09 00685 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparing the average removal efficiencies of contaminants using ornamental plants and systems unplanted in various CW systems in the globe.
Figure 2. Comparing the average removal efficiencies of contaminants using ornamental plants and systems unplanted in various CW systems in the globe.
Applsci 09 00685 g002
Table
Table 1. Ornamental flowering plants and removal of wastewater pollutants in CWs (constructed wetlands) around the globe.
Table 1. Ornamental flowering plants and removal of wastewater pollutants in CWs (constructed wetlands) around the globe.
CountryType of WastewaterVegetationRemoval Efficiency of Pollutants (%)Reference
BrazilDomesticHeliconia psittacorumTSS: 88, COD: 95, BOD: 95Paulo et al. [26]
DomesticAlpinia purpurataArundina bambusifoliaCanna spp.
Heliconia psittacorum L.F.		COD: 48-90, PO4-P: 20, TKN: 31 and TSS: 34.Paulo et al. [27]
SwineHedychium coronarium
Heliconia rostrata		COD: 59, TP: 44, TKN: 34 and NHx 35
COD: 57, TP: 38, TKN: 34 and NHx: 37		Sarmento et al. [28]
Hemerocallis flavaCOD: 72, BOD: 90, TN: 52, TP: 41 and SST: 72.Prata et al. [29]
Heliconia psittacorum L.F. Teodoro et al. [30]
ChinaMunicipalCanna indicaCOD: 77, BOD: 86, TP: >82, TN: >45Shi et al. [31]
Aquaculture pondsCanna indica mixed with other speciesBOD: 71, TSS: 82, chlorophyll-a: 91.9, NH4-N: 62, NO3-N: 68 and TP: 20. Li et al. [32]
Domestic Canna indica LinnCOD: 82.31, BOD: 88.6, TP: >80, TN: >85Yang et al. [33]
Municipal Canna indicaNH4-N: 99, PO4-P: 87Zhang et al. [34]
Drain of some factoriesR. carnea, I. pseudacorus, L. salicariaCOD: 58-92, BOD: 60-90
TN: 60-92, TP: 50-97, 		Zhang et al. [35]
River Canna spCOD: 95, N-NH4: 100, N-NO3: 76, TN: 72Sun et al. [36]
DomesticCanna indicaTP: 60, NH4-N: 30-70, TN: ~25Cui et al. [37]
Aquaculture pondsCanna indica mixed with other natural wetland plantsBOD: 56, COD: 26, TSS: 58, TP: 17, TN: 48 and NH4-N: 34.Zhang et al. [38]
Wastewater from a student dormitory (University)Canna indica mixed with other natural wetland plantsCOD: 50–70, BOD: 60–80, N-NO3: 65–75, TP: 50–80Qiu et al. [39]
DomesticCanna indica and Hedychium coronariumTP: 40–70Wen et al. [40]
Polluted river Iris pseudacorus mixed with other natural wetland plantsTN: 68, NH4-N: 93, TP: 67Wu et al. [41]
SewageIris pseudacorus, mixed with other plants of natural wetlandsTN: 20 and TP: 44Xie et al. [42]
MunicipalCanna indicaCOD: 60, NO3-N: 80, TN: 15, TP: 52Chang et al. [43]
Simulated polluted river waterIris sibiricaCOD: 22, TN: 46, NH4-N: 62, TP: 58Gao et al. [44]
Synthetic Canna spFluoride: 51, Arsenic: 95Li et al. [45]
Simulated polluted river waterIris sibiricaCd: 92Gao et al. [46]
SyntheticCanna indica L.N: 56–60Hu et al. [47]
Synthetic (hydrophonic sol.)Canna indica L.TN: 40–60, N-NO3: 20–95, NH4-N: 20–55Wang et al. [48]
ChileSewageZantedeschia aethiopica, Canna spp. and Iris sppBOD: 82, TN: 53, TP: 60.Morales et al. [49]
SewageTulbaghia violácea, and Iris pseudacorus.BOD: 57–88, COD: 45–72, TSS: 70–93, PO4-P: 6–20.Burgos et al. [50]
Ww rural communityZantedeschia aethiopicaOrganic matter: 60%, TSS: 90%Leyva et al. [51]
ColombiaDomesticHeliconia psíttacorumNH3: 57
COD: 70		Gutiérrez-Mosquera and Peña-Varón [52]
Synthetic landfill leachateHeliconia psittacorumCOD, TKN and NH4 (all: 65–75)Madera-Parra et al. [53]
Cattle bath Alpinia purpurataSST: 58, TP: 85, COD: 63Marrugo-Negrete et al. [54]
MunicipalHeliconia psitacorumBisphenol A: 73, Nonylphenols: 63Toro-Vélez et al. [55]
Costa RicaDairy raw manureLudwigia inucta, Zantedechia aetiopica, Hedychium coronarium and Canna generalisBOD: 62, NO3-N: 93, PO4-P: 91, TSS: 84León and Cháves [56]
EgyptMunicipalCanna spTSS: 92, COD: 88, BOD: 90Abou-Elela and Hellal [57]
MunicipalCanna spTSS: 92, COD: 92, BOD: 92Abou-Elela et al. [58]
IndiaPaper mill effluentCanna indica9,10,12,13-tetrachlor- ostearic acid: 92 and 9,10-dichlorostearic acid: 96Choudhary et al. [59]
Synthetic Canna indicaDye: 70–90
COD: 75		Yadav et al. [60]
Synthetic greywaterHeliconia angustaCOD:40, BOD: 70, TSS: 62, TDS: 19Saumya et al. [61]
DomesticCanna generalisTN: 52, T-PO3: 9Ojoawo et al. [62]
Collection pondCanna LilyBOD: 70–96, COD: 64–99Haritash et al. [63]
Hostel greywaterCanna indicaCOD, TKN and Pathogen all up 70Patil and Munavalli, [64]
DomesticPolianthus tuberosa L.Heavy metals (Pb and Fe: 73–87), (Cu and Zn: 31–34) and Ni and Al: 20–26Singh and Srivastava [65]
IrelandDomesticIris pseudacorusTN: 30, TP:28Gill and O’Luanaigh [66]
ItalySynthetic Zantedeschia aethiopica, Canna indicaN: 65–67, P: 63–74, Zn and Cu: 98–99, Carbamazepine: 25–51, LAS: 60–72Macci et al. [67]
KenyaFlower farmCanna spp.BOD: 87, COD: 67, TSS: 90, TN: 61Kimani et al. [68]
MexicoMunicipalZantedeschia aethiopocaCOD: 35, TN: 45.6 Belmont and Metcalfe [69]
DomesticZantedeschiaAethiopica and Canna flaccidSST: 85.9, COD: 85.8, NO3-N: 81.7, NH4-N: 65.5, NT: 72.6Belmont et al. [70]
Coffee processing Heliconia psittacorumCOD: 91, Coliformes: 93 Orozco et al. [71]
Domestic Strelitzia reginae, Zantedeschia esthiopica, Canna hybrids, Anthurium andreanum, Hemerocallis DumortieriCOD: >75, P: > 66, Coliforms: 99Zurita et al. [72]
DomesticZantedeschia aethiopicaBOD: 79, TN: 55, PT: 50Zurita et al. [73]
Wastewater form canals Zantedeschia aethiopicaCOD: 92, N-NH4: 85, P-PO4: 80Ramírez-Carrillo et al. [74]
Municipal Strelitzia reginae, Anthurium, andreanum.TSS: 62, COD: 80, BOD: 82, TP: >50, TN: >49Zurita et al. [75]
GroundwaterZantedeschia aethiopica and Anemopsis californicaAs: 75–78Zurita et al. [76]
DomesticGladiolus sppBOD: 33, TN: 53, TP: 75Castañeda and Flores [77]
Mixture of greywater (from a cafeteria and research laboratories)Zantedeschia aethiopica and Canna indica COD: 65, NT: 22.4, PT: 5. Zurita and White [78]
DomesticZantedeschia aethiopicaBOD: 70 Hallack et al. [79]
DomesticHeliconia stricta, Heliconia psittacorum and Alpinia purpurataBOD: 48, COD: 64, TP: 39, TN: 39Méndez-Mendoza et al. [80]
Municipal Canna hybrids and Strelitzia reginaeDQO: 86, NT: 30–33, PT: 24–44Merino-Solís et al. [81]
MunicipalZantedeschia aethiopica and Strelitzia reginae COD: 75, TN: 18, TP: 2, TSS: 88.Zurita and Carreón-Álvarez [82]
DomiciliarSpathiphyllum wallisii, Zantedechia aethiopica, Iris japonica, Hedychium coronarium, Alocasia sp, Heliconia sp. and Strelitzia reginae.N-NH4: 64-93
BOD: 22–96
COD: 25–64		Garzón et al. [83]
Community Zantedeschia aethiopica, Lilium sp, Anturium spp and Hedychium coronariumNT: 47, PT: 33, COD: 67Hernández [84]
Stillage TreatmentCanna indicaBOD: 87, COD: 70López-Rivera et al. [85]
Artificial Iris sibirica and Zantedeschia aethiopicaCarbamazepine: 50–65Tejeda et al. [86]
CommunityAlpinia purpurata and Zantedeschia aethiopica Marín-Muñiz et al. [87]
Polluted riverZantedeschia aethiopicaNO3-N: 45, NH4-N: 70, PO4-P: 30Hernández et al. [18]
MunicipalSpathiphyllum wallisii, and Zantedeschia aethiopica Sandoval-Herazo et al. [88]
UniversityStrelitzia reginae Martínez et al. [21]
NepalMunicipalCanna latifoliaTSS: 97, COD: 97, BOD: 89, TP: >30Sigh et al. [89]
PortugalTannery Canna indica mixed with other plantsCOD: 41–73, BOD: 41–58Calheiros et al. [90]
Community Canna flaccida, Zantedeschia aethiopica, Canna indica, Agapanthus africanus and Watsonia borbonicaBOD, COD, P-PO4, NH4 and total coliform bacteria (all up to 84)Calheiros et al. [91]
SpainDomesticIris sppBacteria: 37García et al. [92]
MunicipalIris pseudacorusBacteria: 43Ansola et al. [93]
Sri Lanka MunicipalCanna iridifloraBOD: 66, TP: 89, NH4-N: 82, N-NO3: 50Weragoda et al. [94]
TaiwanDomesticCanna indicaN-NH4: 73, BOD: 11Chyan et al. [95]
Canna indicaN-NH4: 57, N-NO3: 57Chyan et al. [96]
Thailand DomesticCanna sppCOD: 92, BOD: 93, TSS: 84, NH4-N: 88, TP: 90Sirianuntapiboon and Jitvimolnimit [97]
SeafoodCanna siamensis, Heliconia spp and Hymenocallis littoralisBOD: 91–99, SS: 52–90, TN: 72–92 and TP: 72–77 Sohsalam et al. [98]
Domestic Heliconia psittacorum L.f. and Canna generalis L. BaileyTSS: Both > 88, COD: 42-83 Konnerup et al. [99]
Fermented fish production Canna hybridBOD, COD, TKN: ~ 97Kantawanichkul et al. [100]
Collection system for business and hotel Cannae lilies, HeliconiaBOD: 92, TSS: 90, NO3-N: 50, TP: 46Brix et al. [101]
DomesticCrinum asiaticum, Spathiphyllum clevelandii SchottPO4-P: ~20Torit et al. [102]
TurkeyMunicipalIris australisNH4-N: 91, NO3-N: 89, TN: 91Tunçsiper [103]
USADomesticCanna flaccida, Gladiolus sp., Iris sp. Baceria: ~50Neralla et al. [104]
Nursery Canna· generalis, Eleocharis dulcis, Iris Peltandravirginica.N: ~50, P: ~60Palomsky et al. [105]
Domestic Iris pseudacorus L., Canna x. generalis L.H. Bail., Hemerocallis fulva L. and Hibiscus moscheutosL.BOD > 75, TSS > 88, Fecal baceteria > 93Karathanasis et al. [14]
Tilapia production Canna sp.TSS: 90, NO2-N: 91, NO3-N: 76, COD: 12.5 and NH3-N: 7.5 Zachritz et al. [106]
Stormwater runoffCanna x generalis Bailey, Iris pseudacorus L., Zantedeschia aethiopica (L.) N and P
Canna (>90), Iris (>30)
Zantedeschia (>90)		Chen et al. [107]
ResidentialAeonium purpureum and Crassula ovate, Equisetum hyemale, Nasturtium, Narcissus impatiens, and AnigozanthosTSS: 95
BOD: 97		Yu et al. [16]
VietnamFishpondCanna generalisBOD: 50, COD: 25–55Konnerup et al. [108]
United KingdomHerbicide polluted waterIris pseudacorusAtrazine: 90–100McKinlay and Kasperek. [109]
Table
Table 2. Four most commonly genera plants used in CWs around the globe, identified during the 87 survey studies in 21 countries, grouped by continents.
Table 2. Four most commonly genera plants used in CWs around the globe, identified during the 87 survey studies in 21 countries, grouped by continents.
AsiaEuropeAmericaAfricaTotal
North AmericaCentral and South America
USAMexico
Canna224542239
Iris55422 18
Heliconia4 44 12
Zantedeschia 21133120

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sandoval, L.; Zamora-Castro, S.A.; Vidal-Álvarez, M.; Marín-Muñiz, J.L. Role of Wetland Plants and Use of Ornamental Flowering Plants in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 685. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040685

AMA Style

Sandoval L, Zamora-Castro SA, Vidal-Álvarez M, Marín-Muñiz JL. Role of Wetland Plants and Use of Ornamental Flowering Plants in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Applied Sciences. 2019; 9(4):685. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040685

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sandoval, Luis, Sergio Aurelio Zamora-Castro, Monserrat Vidal-Álvarez, and José Luis Marín-Muñiz. 2019. "Role of Wetland Plants and Use of Ornamental Flowering Plants in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Review" Applied Sciences 9, no. 4: 685. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040685

APA Style

Sandoval, L., Zamora-Castro, S. A., Vidal-Álvarez, M., & Marín-Muñiz, J. L. (2019). Role of Wetland Plants and Use of Ornamental Flowering Plants in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Applied Sciences, 9(4), 685. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9040685

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop