macrophytes no 40 july 2012 proof

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 1

Specialist Group on

Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control

Newsletter No. 40 July 2012

Edited by: Dr Suwasa Kantawanichkul

Department of Environmental Engineering

Faculty of Engineering

Chiang Mai University

Chiang Mai 50200

Thailand

Email: [email protected]

Group organisation

Chair: Dr Jan Vymazal ([email protected])

Secretary: Dr Suwasa Kantawanichkul ([email protected])

Regional Coordinators

ASIA: Dr Zhai Jun ([email protected]; [email protected])

Dr Suwasa Kantwanichkul ([email protected])

AUSTRALIA: Dr Margaret Greenway ([email protected])

NEW ZEALAND: Dr Chris C Tanner ([email protected])

EUROPE: Dr Jan Vymazal ([email protected])

Professor Reimund Harberl ([email protected])

Dr Guenter Langergraber ([email protected])

Professor Brian Shutes ([email protected])

Dr Fabio Masi ([email protected])

Mr Heibert Rustige ([email protected])

MIDDLE EAST: Professor Michal Green ([email protected])

Dr Tom Headley [email protected]

NORTH AMERICA: Dr Otto Stein ([email protected])

SOUTH AMERICA: Dr Gabriela Dotro ([email protected])

AFRICA Professor Jamidu H.Y.Katima ([email protected])

Dr Akintunde Babatunde ([email protected])

Disclaimer: This is not a journal, but a Newsletter issued by the IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water

Pollution Control. Statements made in this Newsletter do not necessarily represent the views of the Specialist Group or those

of the IWA. The use of information supplied in the Newsletter is at the sole risk of the user, as the Specialist Group and the

IWA do not accept any responsibility or liability.

mailto:[email protected]



















___________________________________________________________________________2 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40

CONTENTS

Message from the Chair…………………………..............…………………………………………3

Interviewing Hans Brix

Frank van Dien……………………………………………….....………………………………………4

Balancing wetland clogging management and whole-life costs at a UK water utility

G. Dotro, M. Jones, E. Butterworth and B. Jefferson……………………………………………..8

New cooperation between BOKU and Ecole de Mines de Nantes on modelling of integrated

sludge and wastewater treatment wetlands

Guenter Langergraber and Florent Chazarenc…………………………………………………..12

Constructed wetlands and land reclamation in Palestine

Fabio Masi…………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

National urban wetland parks of China

Jun Zhai and Xi Lu……………………………………………………………………………………17

Subsurface flow constructed wetlands as wildlife habitat: a case study in Dar es Salaam,

Tanzania

Anne H. Outwater…………………….………………………………………………………………20

Announcement: Sustainable Sanitation Practice journal…………………………………………25

Updates on IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition, Busan, Korea,

16–21 September 2012……………………………………….……………………………………… 26

10th IWA Leading Edge Conference on Water and Waste Water Technologies, Bordeaux,

France, 3–6 June, 2013……………………………………….……………………………………… 27

The IWA Water Wiki!……………………………………….……………………………………… 28

New from IWA Publishing………………………………………………………………………… 30

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Message from the Chair

Dear Group members,

I would like to draw your attention to the election of Group Chair and Secretary. As

you may know during the conference in India in 2008 we agreed that these two positions

should be elected for four years. Therefore, the current officers Jan and Suwasa will finish

their term during the conference in Perth in November 2012. The time is passing by and it is

time to proceed with the election. The election procedure is described below and we would

greatly appreciate if you can participate in the election. Please do not rely on other people and

cast your vote.

Election of officers

At this point we would like to call for candidates for both positions. The procedure is

as follows:

1. Each member of the Specialist Group (current active IWA membership mandatory) can

propose a candidate for both positions. The proposal should include up to one page

Curriculum Vitae of the candidate and this proposal should be supported by another two

members of the Group (active IWA membership mandatory). The proposal should include a

written statement of the nominee that he/she agrees with the nomination.

2. Deadline for proposals: August 31, 2012.

3. Proposals should be sent to both Jan ([email protected]) and Suwasa

([email protected])

3. The Chair and Secretary will prepare ballots for both positions and the ballots will be sent

out to all members by September 15, 2012. The ballots should be returned to Jan and Suwasa.

4. Deadline for voting: November 15, 2012.

5. The results will be announced during the Group meeting at the conference in Perth and the

results will be sent to all Group members after the conference.

Call for the Group conference in 2014

So far we have not received any proposals for the 2014 conference. The agreed policy

is that Institutions (countries) which are willing to host the conference should send the

preliminary proposal to the Chair and Secretary by the end of June. Therefore, I would greatly

appreciate if the interested parties may send the proposals for the first evaluation as soon as

possible.

Have a great summer and see you in Perth

Jan


Interviewing Hans Brix

Frank van Dien

ECOFYT, The Natherlands

Probably most people know you as one of the leading people

in the Constructed Wetland world. You've been keynote

speaker on many conferences on wetlands so surely: many

people have seen your face. And you were involved in the

PhD's of several people I know so surely: many people have

worked with you... But maybe it's time for even more people

to find out a little more about you. For starters, I wonder:

Where in your life did things definitely turn in the

direction that resulted in your role in the constructed

wetlands?

During my PhD in the beginning of the eighties, I studied

internal gas transport and gas-emission in the common reed –

Phragmites australis. My supervisor – Prof. Hans-Henrik

Schierup – had worked with primary production in

Phragmites wetlands, and so we were probably the scientists in Denmark knowing most about

Phragmites wetlands. Therefore, we were also consulted in the early eighties, when a new

natural technology called the ‘Root Zone Technique’ was

marketed in Denmark by a small Danish company (Dansk

Rodzoneteknik) that was associated to Prof. Kickuth in

Germany. The marketing was targeted at municipalities and

counties that, because of new legislation, had to establish

effective wastewater treatment in all small villages in rural

areas. The Root Zone Method was marketed as a

decentralised solution capable of removing everything,

including nitrogen and phosphorus, with efficiencies better

than 90%. Furthermore, it was claimed that the costs of

establishment were less than half, and the operating costs less

than 10%, of that of more conventional treatment options.

Hence, the Root Zone Method was a very attractive treatment option for local municipalities.

Decision makers and engineers from the municipalities were invited by Prof. Kickuth and his

Danish representative to visit a Phragmites wetland in Othfresen, Germany, that had received

untreated domestic wastewater since 1974. Several tourist coaches were filled with local

politicians and people from the technical offices of the municipalities to visit Germany, where

they enjoyed wine and music in the Harzen area, and most importantly, watched Prof. Kickuth

drink from the effluent of the Othfresen wetland system. Once back in Denmark, nearly

everybody was convinced about the proficiency of this new ‘natural’ technology, and during

the following couple of years, several hundred Root Zone systems were constructed in

Denmark.

I was of course also very intrigued by this new fantastic technology that was based on ‘my’

study plant. Therefore I started to look for scientific documentation for the functioning and

performance of Root Zone Systems. Together with Hans-Henrik Schierup, I visited several

sites and research groups in Europe working with the use of wetlands for wastewater

treatment, including the Lelystad systems in the Netherlands, Max-Planck Institute systems in

1955: born in Jerslev, Denmark

1981: Master degree in Biology

1987: First paper on constructed

wetlands published

1988: Establishment of IWA

Specialist Group on the Use of

Macrophytes in Water Pollution

Control

1989: PhD in Biology

2006: Promoted to full professor

at Aarhus University

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


France, the multistage systems of Dr. Michel Radoux, Belgium, and Root Zone systems in

Germany. Subsequently, I investigated in some detail the wetland system in Othfresen, from

which Prof. Kickuth drank the effluent to prove the extraordinary efficiency of the Root Zone

method. And I discovered, that the ‘effluent’ water, that Prof. Kickuth drank, actually was

groundwater drawn from deep below the wetland, with no relation to the wastewater that was

being loaded into the system.

Although the scientific documentation for the functioning of Root Zone Systems was non-

existing, we ended up with more than 200 systems being constructed in Denmark in the

eighties. I started to carry out research particularly on the role of the plants in the systems in

relation to the treatment of wastewater. And in the late eighties I started to cooperate with

groups from other European countries–Paul Cooper, Raimund Haberl, Alain Lienard, among

others–to exchange experiences.

Ho, wait! Did you just say that Prof. Kickuth tricked his entire public? Didn’t any good

come out of his wetlands? Of course I know all these names, but not this story! Can you

tell a little about the results of your findings?

Our studies showed, that the soil-based root-zone systems were removing TSS and BOD

rather efficiently (>80% removal in general), but removal of nitrogen and phosphorus was

low (20–50%) are were mostly related to the removal in sludge in the sedimentation tank and

the bed itself. The systems did not nitrify–which was a problem in many places, as there was

effluent standards for ammonium. Despite the disappointing results, municipalities continued

to build these systems for several years, because the Kickuth related company claimed, that it

would take about five years before the full performance of the system could be expected. The

reeds were supposed, during this five year period, to increase the hydraulic conductivity of

the soils, and once the conductivity was high, the treatment performance should be as claimed.

This, however, never happened. All systems were plagued with surface runoff–wastewater

bypassing the bed and going more or less directly to the effluent.

Now 25 years later, many of the soil-based root-zone systems have been closed down or

amended with additional technologies for nitrification. Presently, hundreds of vertical flow

wetlands and evaporative willow systems are being constructed for single households in the

countryside every year.

What do you prefer as a “name”: Constructed Wetland or Treatment Wetland?

I do prefer Constructed Wetland for systems established for the treatment of different types of

wastewater as this is the name that has been most widely accepted in both the technical and

scientific community. I realise that it maybe would be more correct to use a term related to

the function that the wetland is performing–namely ‘wastewater treatment’–rather than to

refer to the fact that the wetland is constructed. However, constructed wetlands and treatment

wetlands are not exactly the same. Constructed wetlands are ‘constructed’, and hence do not

include natural wetlands; whereas ‘treatment wetlands’ can be constructed, but can also be

natural wetlands removing e.g. nutrients from surface and drainage water. In some of the

older literature the term ‘artifical wetlands’ is used, but as ‘artificial’ nowadays has a

negative flavour, this term is not used anymore. In the EU expert group we used the name

‘Emergent Hydrophyte Treatment Systems’–or EHTS-systems–in order to exclude systems

with submerged plants. However, the name has been a recuring discussion, and actually most

countries and designing engineers now use their own specific terminology. The name

Constructed Wetland is widely accepted throughout the world, so let’s stick with that.

I agree that we’re running towards the end of this discussion, or at least the

attractiveness of it, but I liked to hear the first-hand opinion!


The next question that comes up is: do you see Constructed Wetlands as an ultimate

solution for waste water? And if so, in general or just occasional, i.e. when no sewer

system is available?

Constructed wetlands is just one of several available wastewater treatment options that can be

used as an onsite solution for wastewater management. In every site a proper selection of

treatment option should be made based on the site-specific conditions. In some cases other

solutions like soil infiltration, sand filters, technical systems or even pumping of the

wastewater to a centralised facility may prove to be a more appropriate solution depending on

the specific site-conditions and treatment requirements. Several individuals–and small design

companies–seem to be religious about the technology they are selling, and will propose a

constructed wetland system in all situations. This is a great mistake, and contributes to the

CW treatment technology in general.

Ha-ha, being from the small design company corner, I’ll make sure to hide for you all

the second best CW solutions I built! But sure: it is situational but some say: “At the

very much lower energy input CW’s demand, they could be considered a better option

in more cases”. I understand in your answer that you agree with that?

Here’s a daring question for you! Do you think the horizontal system is superior to the

vertical or is it the other way around or do we simply need them both? The question is not as straight forward as it seems. The constructed wetland technology spans

a whole range of systems ranging from relatively ‘passive’ systems like horizontal subsurface

flow systems that require very little infrastructure and control structures, over vertical flow

systems that have more infrastructure and control but requires less foot-print, to more

technical systems amended with artificial aeration or tidal water flow. The latter are very

efficient, but resemble conventional technical systems in terms of energy usage and

complexity of design. The roles of the plants in the systems are largest in the passive systems,

while in the intensified systems the plants can probably be omitted (hence, one could

question if we are dealing with constructed wetlands in these cases?). I believe that every one

of these technologies has its place as a treatment option. And it will be the site-specific

conditions that will dictate which treatment option, or combination of treatment options, is

best fitted to solve the wastewater management problem at the specific site.

And if we take it in the greater perspective, what does our own (waste) water world

need most at the moment? Here it is important to distinguish between developing countries and the more developed

western world. In many developing countries, a proper disposal and cleaning of wastewater is

still lacking resulting in illness, transfer of pathogens, etc. It is urgent that these regions get

better wastewater management systems and access to pure water. In the longer term, reuse of

the treated wastewater must be implemented. In the developed world, removal of nutrients

from the wastewater is still an urgent issue in many areas. In the long term, a more

sustainable use of resources must be implemented, which will involve a reuse of nutrients

from the wastewater as well as reuse of treated effluent water.

Is there, to your knowledge, a Constructed Wetland that is an example for us all?

There are a few constructed wetland systems that are excellent examples of how constructed

wetlands can be used. I would like here to mention ‘the Flower and the Butterfly Wetland’

that was established at the tourist island Koh Phi Phi in Thailand after the tsunami in 2004.

The treatment facility is designed to resemble a butterfly sitting on a flower with a symbolic

reference to the butterfly shaped contour of Koh Phi Phi. The wetland system is designed as a

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


recovery based closed-loop system where wastewater is collected, treated and reused in an

integrated system. Pumps are powered by solar panels, and the wetland is planted with

ornamental flowers in a park-like environment that can be used by the people for recreation.

This is a case where the concept behind the system as well as the system itself makes sense.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of problems with the system mainly because no key-

person or key-authority has taken responsibility for managing the system. But the concept–

and the system itself–is a showcase for how constructed wetlands can be fitted into the local

context and provide the basis for appropriate wastewater management. Information about the

project can be found in the book authored by Laugesen, Fryd, Koottatep and Brix entitled

“Sustainable Wastewater Management in Developing Countries” and published by ASCE

Press in 2010, and in a paper in Ecological Engineering 37(5): 729–735 published in 2011.

Oh yes, I do agree that this is a special wetland! I hope to visit it once!

The last question that I have for you is: who would you like to be interviewed the next

time?

I would suggest that your next interviewee should be Bob Kadlec whom I consider one of the

biggest capacities within the constructed wetland science. With his theoretical and practical

engineering background, Bob has managed to place the constructed wetland technology on

the agenda as an attractive alternative option to more conventional technologies for treating

many kinds of wastewater. His textbook on Treatment Wetlands is the constructed wetland

‘bible’ for academics as well as practitioners.

These are very solid reasons to ask him to be next! Thank you very much Hans, for your

contribution!

Overview picture of the Flower

and the Butterfly wastewater

management system at Koh Phi

Phi in October 2006 when the

system was put in operation.


Balancing wetland clogging management and whole-life costs at a UK water utility

G Dotro1,2

, M Jones2, E Butterworth

1,2 and B Jefferson

1

1School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Building 39, Cranfield, Bedfordshire

MK43 0AL, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) 2Waste water research and development, Severn Trent Water, 2 St John’s Street, Coventry,

CV1 2LZ, UK

INTRODUCTION

Horizontal flow wetlands have been successfully used in the UK for the past 20 years for

sewage treatment. Severn Trent Water (ST) alone has an asset base of 633 wetlands, with

more than 80% used for tertiary or combined tertiary and storm overflow treatment. The age

of the systems can range from 18- 20 years to a few months old, with the technology has been

the polishing step of the standard flow sheet for small sewage treatment works serving less

than 2,000 p.e. since the 1990s (Green and Upton 1995).

Treatment wetlands have been extensively researched worldwide, with the majority of

operations being for treatment of domestic wastewaters but also agricultural runoff and

industrial wastewaters (IWA 2000, Kadlec and Wallace 2009). The main arguments for the

technology are related to low capital and operational costs when compared against

conventional treatment. To date, whilst numerous wetlands have been successfully installed

for tertiary treatment, limited research has been published on the actual business case for

tertiary treatment wetlands and their associated sizing criteria.

Subsurface flow systems, where the water level is below the gravel/media layer, have been

reported to suffer from clogging of the bed matrix as they age and accumulate solids, limiting

the hydraulic residence time and associated treatment (Knowles et al. 2011). Several

strategies have been proposed throughout the years to manage this operational problem,

including preventative (e.g., best management practices) and restorative (e.g., complete

refurbishment) strategies (Nivala et al. 2011).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of sizing decisions in terms of the

economic viability of the technology, using Severn Trent Water as an example. To put this in

context, the use and management of wetlands in Severn Trent was reviewed, including the

historic performance from selected sites. Whole life cost analysis was used to compare

undersized wetlands which require frequent intervention against conventional treatment

technologies, as well as a conservative sizing approach to reduce intervention requirements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tertiary treatment wetlands in ST can be used for two purposes, i.e., tertiary-only or

combined tertiary and sewer overflows treatment (Figure 1). Where a separate storm route is

present, this can be either a dedicated “storm” wetland or a storm storage tank with gross

solids entrapment provided by CopaSacs®.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 1. Flowsheets for wetlands evaluated in this study; top: combined tertiary and sewage

overflow treatment; bottom: tertiary treatment only with separate storm route.

Treatment performance analysis

The records from 4 sites where influent and effluent wetland water quality was available were

used for calculating ninety-five percentile effluent values and illustrate process resilience

offered by treatment wetlands. In this context, resilience is described as the ability of a

treatment unit to produce consistent effluent quality under varying influent characteristics.

The resilience curve is generated by plotting effluent concentrations against percentile

distributions of the data. For percentile analysis, a minimum of 30 records per wastewater

stream were used. Variances were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

at the 0.05 level of significance.

Economic assessment analysis

Four sewage work scenarios were considered: 300 pe and 600 pe, each either treating 3 times

the dry weather flow (3DWF) or 6 DWF. Sizing and costing calculations were performed

using the cost curves developed by ST based on the last 5 years of capital investment and

operational expenditure by the company. The cost of wetland refurbishment corresponded to

current ST contracted services cost by two specialised suppliers. Average wetland life was

calculated by dividing the current wetland asset base and rate of refurbishment based on

2007–2011.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Wetland performance

Tertiary treatment quality was evaluated for effluent suspended solids (Figure 2) and effluent

5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5; data not shown). The benefits of employing

wetlands as tertiary treatment is illustrated by the significantly higher (p<0.05) effluent

values observed at the inlet of the systems for suspended solids, corresponding to secondary

effluent that would otherwise be discharged onto water bodies at sub-standard levels.


Figure 2. Distribution of effluent concentrations of suspended solids at the inlet (empty

markers) and outlet (full markers) of selected tertiary wetlands. Curves with greater slopes

represent more resilience of the treatment.

Typical ranges of hydraulic and solids loading rates in Severn Trent systems are 0.1–0.4 m/d

and 7-15 gTSS/m2/d, respectively. This is about seven times higher than hydraulic loading

rates employed in other wetlands for secondary treatment (Knowles et al. 2011). Thus, it is

expected that average wetland life is shortened due to the accelerated onset of clogging.

Clogging management and economic assessment

Refurbishments are triggered when clogging poses risk to in health and safety (e.g., spills

from the bed onto walkways), pollution (e.g., partially treated sewage overflows onto

adjacent land) or effluent quality. To address this, ST has a rolling programme to fund

contracted surveys every other year to every wetland, and the complete refurbishment of

targeted beds per year. Refurbishments consist of removing the plants from the surface,

excavating the gravel media, changing the insulating liner, washing the gravel, and replacing

it onto the bed. Replanting with common reeds is performed during spring–summer.

Based on the current asset base and the number of refurbishments performed per year, the

average wetland life in ST is 14.5 years. This is longer than the estimated 8 years from the

UK water industry survey (UKWIR, 2011) and previously believed life expectancy within ST

(Griffin et al. 2008). However, the key question was determining the breakeven point that

would make wetland technology match the capital and operational costs of conventional

technologies. The analysis showed that 12 refurbishments would need to take place at smaller

works (300 pe) before sand filters begin to compete with wetlands with the current sizing

criteria (Figure 3). Notably, sizing a wetland for using the lowest loading rates in the

literature that are believe to provide clogging-free HSSF wetlands for 20–25 years, resulted in

a more expensive approach to wetland use being equal to 5 to 7 refurbishments with the

current under-sizing approach.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 3. Economic assessment of current wetland sizing and use approach, alternative

conventional treatment and conservative sizing approach for two example sewage works.

CONCLUSIONS Results illustrate the importance of whole life costing approaches to be embedded in wetland

design and operation guidelines within the field of low energy treatment systems. Under-

sizing of the systems has meant that wetlands need to be fully refurbished twice within their

expected 25-year life at significant cost. The whole life cost assessment showed that this

approach is 4 to 12 times more economic than conventional treatment alternatives for

combined tertiary and sewage overflow treatment, and 5 to 7 times lower whole life cost than

a wetland correctly sized for a theoretically refurbishment-free 25 year life. Clogging

management strategies are being developed to address this model, including on-site gravel

washing, routine maintenance and surveying, and planned refurbishment events based on

survey results. The results from this work can be used to inform business decisions and

develop best management guidelines for this application of the technology.

REFERENCES Green, M., Upton, J. 1995.Constructed reed beds: appropriate technology for small communities.

Water Science and Technology 32(3), 339–348.

Griffin, P., Wilson, L., Cooper, D. 2008. Changes in the use, operation and design of sub-surface flow

constructed wetlands in a major UK water utility. In: Proceedings of the 11th International

Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, 1–7 November 2008. Indore, India,

419–426.

IWA 2000. Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control: Processes, Performance, Design and

Operation. London, UK: IWA Publishing.

Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D. 2009. Treatment Wetlands, second edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC

Press.

Knowles, P., Dotro, G., Nivala, J., García, J., 2011. Clogging in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands:

occurrence and contributing factors. Ecological Engineering 37(2):99–112.

Nivala, J., Knowles, P., Dotro, G., Garcia, J., Wallace, S. 2011. Clogging in subsurface-flow

treatment wetlands: measurement, modeling and management. Water Research, 46(6): 1625–40.

UKWIR, 2011. The Performance of Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Works Solutions. United

Kingdom Water Industry Research (UKWIR): London, United Kingdom


New cooperation between BOKU and Ecole de Mines de Nantes on modelling of

integrated sludge and wastewater treatment wetlands

Guenter Langergraber

Institute of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control, University of Natural

Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU University), Muthgasse 18, A-1190

Vienna, Austria

(tel: +43-(0)1-47654-5814; fax: +43-(0)1-47654-5803; email:

[email protected])

Florent Chazarenc

Department of Energy Systems and Environment, Ecole de Mines de Nantes

4, rue A. Kastler BP 20722, 44307 Nantes cedex 3, France

(tel: +33 2 51 85 86 93; fax: +33 2 51 85 82 99; email: [email protected])

In January 2012 BOKU University and Ecole de Mines de Nantes (EMN) started a 2 year

cooperation project entitled “Development of a numerical model for an integrated sludge and

wastewater treatment wetland”. The cooperation is granted within the bilateral AMADÉE

programme which is funded by ÖAD (Austrian agency for international mobility and

cooperation in education, science and research) in Austria and Égide (Service Recherche et

Entreprises Pôle gestion PHC) in France.

The objective of the project is to understand the relevant mechanisms and processes in

integrated sludge and wastewater treatment wetlands and wetlands for treating combined

sewer overflow as a basis for development of a numerical model for these processes. In

particular it is aimed to develop the basis for models to predict 1) the build-up of the sludge

layer and 2) the transport and deposition of suspended particulate matter. The main outcome

of the project should be a proposal for a larger scale research project.

The first meeting of the teams was held from 22 to 25 May 2012 at EMN in Nantes. Besides

presenting the work of the participating teams two field visits were scheduled: 1) the 2-stage

“French style” constructed wetland treating raw wastewater in Monnières and which is

designed for 500 person equivalent and 2) the natural wetland in Guérande which is utilized

for production of sea salt. The next meeting is planned to be held in Vienna in July 2012.

It is also worth to mention that the next and 5th international WETPOL symposium “Wetland

Pollutants Dynamic and Control–WETPOL 2013” will be held in Nantes organized by Ecole

des Mines de Nantes in October 2013. For its last edition this conference was jointly

organized with the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS). It brought together more than 500

researchers, scientists, regulators, decision-makers and other professionals from around the

world who shared their knowledge on a variety of topics pertaining to natural and constructed

wetlands. More information will be available soon at http://www.wetpol.org.

http://www.wetpol.org/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Figure 1: Participants of the meeting at Ecole de Mines de Nantes (from left to right):

Cristian Barca (EMN), Raimund Haberl (BOKU), Christina Fuchsluger (BOKU), Alexander

Pressl (BOKU), Günter Langergraber (BOKU), Stéphane Prigent (EMN) + Florent

Chazarenc (taking picture).

Figure 2: Visiting the 2-stage “French style” CW treating raw wastewater in Monnières


Figure 3: Natural wetland in Guérande used for production of sea salt.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Constructed wetlands and land reclamation in Palestine

Fabio Masi

IRIDRA Srl, Via La Marmora, 51, Florence, Italy

[email protected]

Since 2008 some NGOs operating in the West Bank and in Gaza, started introducing the

Constructed Wetland (CW) technology in Palestine, with the main aim of creating a new

alternative water source for reducing the water stress typical for that area in the recent years

and for enhancing the local economy by the increase of the breeding capacity in herders

villages or of the agricultural productivity (mainly focusing on olive trees cultivations); most

of the projects have been financed by international organizations, like FAO, EC ECHO–Food

Security, Foundations, Italian Cooperation, etc.

Small CWs for greywater treatment and fodder production in herders villages (Hebron

Governorate) - Oxfam Italia

The CW systems in some cases are treating mixed wastewater from small groups of houses,

in some others greywater only, considering anyway a pro capite consumption ranging from 9

to 15 litres per day. The final effluent is then used to drop-irrigate arid pieces of land for

fodder production (several kinds of bushes with low water need), because the local economy

is mainly based on goats breeding and the water scarcity is one of the most important limiting

factors for its improvement. The CW system are designed in order to minimize the loss of

water by evapotranspiration and for providing the easiest maintenance, even because the

systems will by managed directly by the village councils, with direct involvement of the

community members.

Ramadin VF

CW system

for greywater

reuse.

Najada HF CW

system for a

primary school

mixed

wastewater

reuse; on the

right the

irrigated bushes

for fodder

production.



Gaza HF CW system–in the Gaza strip about

10 HF CW systems for single houses and for a

school compound are already in operation; also

in this case the treated wastewater is

completely reused for fertirrigation.

Multistage CWs for small towns wastewater treatment and reuse for olive trees irrigation

Sarra’s VF CW+HF CW +Pond system

design (3500 p.e.) The project “Making

wastewater an asset: increasing

agricultural production introducing

irrigation by non-conventional water

sources” is managed by the NGOs GVC,

PHG and UAWC and is financed by the

EU - DCI-FOOD/2010/254-819.

The two villages of Hajja and Sarra, both

near Nablus, are going to get in operation

the two biggest CW systems for

secondary wastewater treatment in the

West Bank. While the works started in

Hajja in February 2012, Sarra’s CWTP

realization will be probably tendered in

July–August 2012.

All these treatment plants will be monitored, even though rarely with purely scientific

approaches, in order to assess the effective performances and the benefits obtained by the

creation of new alternative sources of water and nutrients on the local economies; all the

projects have been thought for the highest replication choosing representative situations that

are largely diffused in the Palestinian Territories. There is in fact still a considerable number

of small villages as also small towns, with few thousands of inhabitants in each one, both in

the West Bank and in Gaza, that are discharging in the environment untreated sewage,

loosing in this way a very important amount of a primary resource as water as also of

nutrients. The first experiences are showing promising good results and a good acceptance of

the CW technique from the served population and the local authorities and these factors

together could ensure a spread diffusion of this kind of approach in the next years.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


National urban wetland parks of China

Jun Zhai and Xi Lu

College of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering,

Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, P. R. China

[email protected], [email protected]

Since the early 1970s, owing to the rapid growth of population and people’s undue pursuit of

economic development, many natural wetlands have been excessively occupied by urban

expansion, which, unfortunately, has caused serious deterioration of natural environment

(especially aquatic environment), sharp decrease in biodiversity and many other severe

consequences in the surrounding area. Gradually, Chinese government and the public began

to recognize the important role of wetland in environmental protection as climate control,

biodiversity protection, especially water purification. By the end of 2010s, many actions have

been taken to protect natural wetlands. One of the many effective ways is the establishment

of National Urban Wetland Parks of China (NUWPs).

NUWPs are established on the protection of some natural wetlands which are listed in the

urban green space system planning, for the purpose of environmental protection, biodiversity

protection, popularization of science, recreation and relaxation.

NUWPs have the following characteristics to distinguish them:

People can enjoy beautiful scenery and have access to a large variety of animals and

botany.

Programs about popularization of science can be conducted to spread the knowledge

of science and humanities. NUWP has both cultural and scientific value, deserving

highly protection.

NUWPs are parks adapted from natural wetlands listed in the urban green space

system, covering more than 35 ha of land.

Wetlands of NUWPs are demonstrational and influential.

National urban wetland parks (NUWPs) are ratified by Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural

Development. There have been 41 NUWPs in China to date (as at 20 December 2010), as

listed in Table 1.



Table 1. List of National urban wetland parks in China

Province Name of the National urban

wetland Park

Land area

(ha.)

Main public good of the wetland

Beijing Cuihu National Urban

Wetland Park, Haidian

156.7 Biodiversity, science education

Heibei Nanhu National Urban

Wetland Park, Tangshan

800 Subterranean water utilization,

recycled water treatment

Heibei Jumayuan National Urban

Wetland Park, Laiyuan,

Baoding

600 Supply water for North China,

improve the water quality of Juma

river

Shanxi Changzhi National Urban

Wetland Park, Changzhi

740 Climate control, water filtration and

purification

Liaoning Lianhuahu National Urban

Wetland Park, Tieling

484 Water purification, science

popularization, sightseeing

Jilin Nanhu National Urban

Wetland Park, Zhenlai

145 Habitat for birds and botany, tourism,

biodiversity protection

Heilongjiang Yuting National Urban

Wetland Park, Nehe

224.62 Science education and recreation

Heilongjiang Qunli National Urban

Wetland Park, Harbin

33 Environmental restoration

Jiangsu Changguangxi National

Urban Wetland Park, Wuxi

625 Water purification, vegetation

Jiangsu Shanghu National Urban

Wetland Park, Changshu

2300 Water reserve, climate control,

pollutant degradation

Jiangsu Shajiabang National Urban

Wetland Park, Changshu

266.7 Pollution-free aquatic product, bird

resource

Jiangsu Lushuiwan National Urban

Wetland Park, Nanjing

1500 Freshwater aquiculture

Jiangsu Kunshan Urban Ecopark 210 Biodiversity protection and tourism

Jiangsu Guchenghu National Urban

Wetland Park, Gaochun,

Nanjing

6882 Environmental protection, science

education, recreation

Zhejiang Xixi National Urban Wetland

Park, Hangzhou

1008 Ecosystem protection, water

purification and reserve

Zhejiang Jinghu National Urban

Wetland Park, Shaoxing

1600 Vegetation, bird reserve and

sightseeing

Zhejiang Sanjiang National Urban

National Wetland Park,

Linhai

481 Species gene banks, cereal reserve,

water reserve and reduce flood

Zhejiang Jianyanghu National Urban

Wetland Park, Taizhou

215.3 Environmental protection, agriculture

production, recreation

Anhui Nanhu National Urban

Wetland Park, Huaibei

370 Environmental and biodiversity

protection

Anhui Shijianhu National Urban

Wetland Park, Huainan

1002 Improve self-cleaning capacity,

impurity filtration and sedimentation

Fujian Xinglinwan National Urban

Wetland Park, Xiamen

No data Filtration and sedimentation

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Jiangxi Kongmujiang National Urban

Wetland Park, Xinyu

1563.9 Biodiversity protection, sightseeing

Shandong Sanggouwan National Urban

Wetland Park, Rongcheng

1391 Water purification, biodiversity

Shandong Mingyuehu National Urban

Wetland Park, Dongying

70.9 Environmental protection, sightseeing

Shandong Daotunwa National Urban

Wetland Park, Dongping

2466.67 Environmental and biodiversity

protection

Shandong Binhe National Urban

Wetland Park, Linyi

3600 Wastewater treatment

Shandong Xiaohai’erkou National

Urban Wetland Park,

Haiyang

692 Climate control, water purification

Shandong Dawenhe National Urban

Wetland Park, Anqiu

2000 Filtration and purification

Shandong Weishui Fengqing National

Urban Wetland Park,

Changyi

3250 Science education and water treatment

Shandong Tuhaihe National Urban

Wetland Park, Zhanhua

13333.33 Wetland remediation and sightseeing

Shandong Shuangyuehu National Urban

Wetland Park, Linyi

86.67 Environmental protection and

recreation

Shandong Bailang Lüzhou National

Urban Wetland Park,

Weifang

1000 Sightseeing, biodiversity protection

Henan Tian’ehu National Urban

Wetland Park, Sanmenxia

590 Water purification

Henan Baihe National Urban

Wetland Park, Nanyang

2450 Filtration and purification

Henan Pingxihu National Urban

Wetland Park, Pingdingshan

6600 Climate control, aquatic environment

protection

Henan Bailuzhou National Urban

Wetland Park, Pingdingshan

90 Sightseeing and recreation

Hubei Jinyinhu National Urban

Wetland Park, Wuhan

77 Environmental protection and tourism

Hunan Xidongtinghu Qingshanhu

National Urban Wetland

Park, Changde

35680 Ecosystem protection and water

treatment

Guangdong Lutanghe National Urban

Wetland Park, Zhanjiang

34.1 Biodiversity and water purification

Guizhou Huaxi National Urban

Wetland Park, Guiyang

460 Retain water, runoff reduction, climate

control

Gansu Chengbei National Urban

Wetland Park, Zhangye

168.4 Climate control, water filtration and

reserve


Subsurface flow constructed wetlands as wildlife habitat:

a case study in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Anne H. Outwater (PhD, RN)

Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences

PO Box 65004, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

[email protected]

Introduction

Constructed wetland technology provides a cost-effective method for improving water quality

while providing valuable wetland habitat (Gelt, 1997). Even though it is rarely the primary

goal in the creation of such systems, constructed wetlands can be highly valued as wildlife

habitat (Ghermandi, van den Berg, Brander, de Groot, Nunes, 2009; Knight, 2001;

Oglethorpe & Miliadou, 2000). This becomes increasingly significant as Nature’s wetlands

are continuing to be lost globally and locally to urbanization.

Ghermandi et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the economic value of 186 wetlands;

water quality, non-consumptive recreation and provision of natural habitat and biodiversity

were valued as important and beneficial. For example Oglethorpe and Miliadou (2000)

surveyed 250 residents of Macedonia Greece, living within 80 kilometres of the artificial

Lake Kerkini created in 1932 by the construction of a dam. It was found that the most

important non-use (non-market, intangible) values arose from the very existence of the Lake

and from the function it provided for conserving wildlife habitats; these values, according to

the respondents, surpassed the Lake’s value in terms of fishing, research, recreation,

irrigation, and education.

Much of the literature concerning constructed wetlands and wildlife habitat are descriptions

of large surface flow facilities, many of which use a diversity of native wetland plant species

(e.g. Knight, 2001; Gelt, 1997). For example, in areas where soils are not suitable for a drain

field, the effluent of the constructed wetland flows by gravity to a wildlife habitat pond used

for final “polishing”. A well documented example is the arid metropolitan Show Low facility

in Arizona, USA (Knight, 2001; Gelt, 1997). In 1970 municipal waste water discharge into a

creek was halted, and diverted into a natural depression called Telephone Lake. As a result of

increasing population and increasing effluent flows, the facility has developed into a complex

made up of several lakes and marshes, covering 201 acres that is handling 1.42 million

gallons of wastewater daily. The success of the facility is partly measured by the number of

wildlife attracted to the area. In Show Low facility more than 125 species of birds, including

ten that are endangered or threatened, amphibians and large mammals such as elk, deer, black

bears, and raccoons can be found. Many human visitors come to see the animals and school

groups use the wetlands for environment field trips.

However there are gaps in the literature about small residential constructed wetlands,

especially subsurface flow systems, which are commonly viewed as less hospitable for

wildlife than surface flow. The purpose of reporting the following case study observations is

to describe changing wildlife usage when soakaway pits were replaced with a constructed

wetland.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Methods

The researcher’s actions in the case study method include recording, constructing and

presenting a chronicle of empirical facts (Zucker, 2001). In this prospective case study,

written and photographic observations have been collected annually since 2005 with the

purpose of describing the evolution of a residential constructed wetland in coastal, equatorial

East Africa.

Setting

In Tanzania, 5.5 kilometres north of Dar es Salaam city centre, 0.5 metres above sea level,

low, medium, and high density plots were demarcated in the 1980’s; this new ward was

named Mikocheni B. Until the mid 1990’s there was a substantial wetland on the floodplain

between Mikocheni and the Indian Ocean; the dominant plant was the reed Phragmites

mauritianus. The wetland has given way to the large houses and office buildings of coastal

urbanization until now, only a few fragments remain.

On two adjacent medium density plots of 30′ by 90′ each, three houses were built. One house

was connected to its own septic tank where solids settled, and a soakaway pit to which

effluent flowed. The other two houses shared a septic tank and a soakaway pit.

The plots were swarming with Culex mosquitoes which, while not transmitting malaria, are

nevertheless very bothersome and make outdoor life uncomfortable. In trying to figure out

from where the mosquitoes were coming, it was a long time before the covers of the

soakaway pits were lifted. When the pits were uncovered, the walls were found to be

crowded with cockroaches and the fluid was roiling with mosquito larvae. The soak-away

pits were massive breeding pools for mosquitoes which crept in and out through unsealed

cracks between the cement cover and the cement pit.

Intervention

In 2005, a wetland to accommodate the sewage needs of the three houses (about ten people)

year round, was constructed to replace the soakaway pits. It is 4 by 1.5 metres, a subsurface

horizontal flow design, placed along the boundary line of the two properties. The substrate is

gravel. There is no outflow from the constructed wetland (see Fig. 1).

This wetland is a monoculture of Phragmites mauritanus, an indigenous locally common

plant that has been shown to have high treatment efficacy (Njau et al., 2010). Other positive

attributes are the structural stability of the plant, they do not drop a lot of debris and are

tolerant of both dry and wet conditions. In Tanzania almost all constructed wetlands are

planted with Phragmites. As is becoming standard practice (Interagency Workgroup on

Constructed Wetlands, 2000) globally, native plants were harvested from nearby wetlands

without damaging the original wetland. Maintenance of the constructed wetland has largely

been annual trimming of dry or collapsing plants; a heavy pruning was not conducted until

2011, when it was uniformly cut to about one metre.


Fig. 1: A small residential subsurface flow constructed

wetland using Phragmites reeds, at five years, in Dar es

Salaam, Tanzania.

Fig. 2: Yellow-headed Dwarf Geckos in coastal

Tanzania quickly move to permanently inhabit a

constructed wetland.

Results

As soon as the soakaway pits were decommissioned, the mosquito population plummeted.

The first creatures to inhabit the wetland were Yellow-headed Dwarf Geckos (Lygodactylus

luteopicturatus) (see Fig. 2). As shown in Table 1, these beautiful geckos are globally rare,

endemic only to Tanzania’s narrow coastal strip (Spawls et al., 2002). Until now, they seem

to be the only visible permanent residents.

For several years the reeds were too small to structurally support birds’ nests or to hide them

from heavy predation by Indian House Crows (Corvus splendens, an introduced pest). But

when the Phragmites had grown to almost five metres, the first birds to build nests in the

wetland appeared. Black-headed Weavers (Ploceus cucullatus) wove their long stemmed

balls hanging off the reed stems. After that, three other Ploceidae species attempted to build

nests in the wetland: Spectacled Weavers (P. ocularis suahelicus), African Golden Weavers

(P. subaureus aureoflavius), and Zanzibar Red Bishop Birds(Euplectes nigroventris) (Figs 3

and 4).

Fig. 3: A female Zanzibar Red Bishop bird examining a

nest which has been prepared for her by a male.

Fig. 4: Male Zanzibar Bishop bird in the Phragmites,

distracting nest predators

The Spectacled Weavers were heavily predated on by the House Crows while nesting in the

constructed wetland. They were able to find alternative places in the garden, on tree branches

hanging near the constructed wetland. The only species that consistently has been able to

raise one or two broods to adulthood every year in the wetland are Zanzibar Red Bishop

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Birds. They are the smallest of the world’s 117 species of weaver birds, found only in Kenya,

Mozambique and Tanzania (Animal Demography Unit, 2012). It seems that that this small

constructed wetland is adequate breeding habitat for one pair of the smallest weavers.

Patterns were found in the relationship between residence in the wetland and rain. The

Bishop Birds quietly inhabit the constructed wetland from about November to March:

courting, building nests and raising their young. When the fledglings fly from the nest, they

all disperse through the dry season. Then, as noted 27 October 2011, “It has been raining

again. Strong new stalks of Phragmites are pushing out of the gravel of the constructed

wetland. The Bishop Birds and Spectacled Weavers have returned! The Bishop Birds are

building in the constructed wetland; three pairs of Spectacled Weavers are building their

nests on various drooping tree branches nearby.”

Most species use the constructed wetland only part of the time. For example Speckled Lipped

Skinks(Mabuya maculilabris) can often be found during the dry season; Marbled Snout-

burrower frogs (Hemismus marmoratus) are only seen during the wet season. The constructed

wetland supports other wildlife as well, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.Wildlife found in a small residential constructed wetland in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Species names Native habitat Habitat used Comment

Birds Zanzibar Red Bishop Coastal Kenya and

Tanzania. Breeding Has been permanently

displaced from most of DSM by

destruction of original wetlands. Speckled Mousebirds, Purple-

banded Sunbirds, Scarlet-chested

Sunbirds, Grey-headed Sparrows,

Spectacled Weaver, African

Golden Weaver, Black-headed

Weaver, Red-billed Firefinch,

Blue-capped Condon Bleu, Bronze

Mannikin, Yellow-fronted Canary,

Green-backed Cameroptera,

Various parts of East

Africa including coast. Safe resting

place,

temporary

shelter

These birds are endemic only to

East Africa, except for the

latter, which is also found in

southern Africa.

Reptiles Yellow-headed Dwarf Gecko

Narrow coastal strip from

southern Kenya to northern

Mozambique

Permanent Globally rare;

locally common

Speckle-lipped Skink Africa, south of the Sahara

Desert to Angola and

Mozambique

Seasonal,

dry season May be a colour variation, as it

is very bronze-y.

Amphibians Marbled Snout-burrower

Eastern Africa Seasonal,

wet season Globally unusual;

locally fairly common

Discussion

As two mosquito and cockroach ridden soakaway pits were decommissioned and replaced

with a subsurface flow constructed wetland, the population of these pests dramatically

decreased. In addition, locally threatened, globally rare birds and reptiles found refuge in the

new habitat. Even during drought, the constructed wetland remains ever green; it is attractive

and interesting enough to be considered a garden ornamental and an educational tool.

The productivity of the habitat multiplies as the size of the constructed wetland increases.

This is evident when comparing the small residential wetland described here with the much

larger subsurface flow wetlands draining the stabilization ponds at nearby University of Dar


es Salaam. There the Phragmites grows to over 7 metres. The same species inhabit both these

coastal constructed wetlands, but they appear more confident – noisier and livelier – in the

larger area. For example all the Plocidae that tried and failed to build productive nests at the

smaller wetland are able to thrive in the larger one. Many Yellow headed Dwarf Geckos are

living there as well.

Enhancement of natural habitat and biodiversity is increasingly being viewed as important

components of their total economic value (Ghermandi et al., 2009). The data reported here

suggest that (re-)construction of wetlands (even subsurface flow), using endemic plants, can

have a significant role in terms of local biodiversity enhancement in an increasingly

urbanized metropolis.

The effect of the wetland extends beyond its visual outline. For example the Spectacled

Weavers, who are known for building nests at swamp edges (Zimmerman et al., 1996), have

built their nests hanging nearby. This constructed wetland provides evidence for the

importance of using local flora in constructed wetland technology. These data also provide

guidance on the time of year to prune the coastal wetland in East Africa, and that would be

after the Bishop Birds have completed their breeding cycle, in late March.

Conclusion

Constructed wetlands are multi use. An increasingly significant function, as natural wetlands

continue to be destroyed and threatened with destruction, is that of a wildlife refuge. While

they cannot replace Nature’s complicated ecosystems, and the biodiversity typically will be

less, even residential-sized subsurface flow constructed wetlands, can provide important

habitat to wildlife in ways that are also appreciated by and beneficial to human beings.

References Gelt, J. (1997).Constructed wetlands: using human ingenuity, natural processes to treat water, build

habitat. Arroyo, 9(4).

Ghermandil, A., van den Bergh, J. C.J.M., Brander, L. M., de Groot, H. L.F., Nunes, P. A.L.D. (2009).

The Values of Natural and Constructed Wetlands: A Meta-Analysis. Netherlands: Tinburgen

Institute. Accessed 5 June 2012, at http://www.tinbergen.nl.

Knight RL (1997) Wildlife habitat and public use benefits of treatment wetlands. Water Science &

Technology 35(5), 35–43.

Knight RL, Clarke Jr RA, Bastian RK (2001) Surface flow (SF) treatment wetlands as a habitat for

wildlife and humans. Water Science & Technology 44(11–12): 27–37.

Interagency Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands, (2000).Guiding Principles for Constructed

Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat. United States of America

Environmental Protection Agency: Wetlands Division

Njau, K., Mwegoha,W., &Mahenge, A. (2009). Operation and Maintenance Manual for Constructed

Wetlands. Tanzania: Waste Stabilization Ponds and Constructed Wetland Research Group,

University of Dar es Salaam.

Oglethorpe, D.R., Miliadou, D. (2000). Economic valuation of the non-use attributes of a wetland: a

case-study for Lake Kerkini. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43:755–767.

Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R., Ashe, J. (2002). A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa.

London: Academic Press.

Animal Demography Unit. Weaver Watch: Monitoring the Weavers of the World. South Africa:

University of Cape Town. Accessed 20 May 2012 at http://weavers.adu.org.za/

Zimmerman, D.A., Turner, D., Pearson, D.J. (1996). Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Princeton,

New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.

Zucker, D.M. (2001). Using case study methodology in nursing research. The Qualitative Report, 6(2).

Accessed 6September 2008 at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-2/zucker.html.

http://www.tinbergen.nl/

http://weavers.adu.org.za/

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-2/zucker.html

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Announcement: Sustainable Sanitation Practice journal

Sustainable Sanitation Practice – Issue 12 on “Treatment wetlands”

The journal Sustainable Sanitation Practice (SSP) is published

by the Austrian NGO EcoSan Club with the aim to make

available high quality information on practical experiences

with available sustainable sanitation systems. SSP should fill a

gap that we have identified in the last few years in which

sustainable sanitation has become an important issue that is

discussed among many disciplines. For SSP a sanitation

system is sustainable when it is not only economically viable,

socially acceptable and technically and institutionally

appropriate, but it should also protect the environment and the

natural resources. SSP is therefore fully in line with SuSanA,

the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (www.susana.org).

Issue 12 of SSP on “Treatment Wetlands” includes six contributions:

1. The Austrian experience with single-stage sand and gravel based vertical flow systems

with intermittent loading (the Austrian type is for treating mechanically pre-treated

wastewater).

2. The French experiences with two-stage vertical flow systems treating raw wastewater.

3. Ecosan Club’s experiences with TWs in Uganda.

4. Results from multi-stage TW treating raw wastewater in Morocco.

5. Results from horizontal flow experimental systems from Egypt.

6. Experiences from Denmark and UK on reed beds treating excess sludge from activated

sludge plants.

SSP is available online from the journal homepage at the EcoSan Club website

(www.ecosan.at/SSP) for free. The thematic topic of SSP's next issue will be "Faecal sludge

management" (issue 13, October 2012). Information on further issues planned is available

from the journal homepage. We would like to encourage readers and potential contributors

for further issues to suggest possible contributions and topics of high interest to the SSP

editorial office ([email protected]). Also, we would like to invite you to contact the editorial

office if you volunteer to act as a reviewer for the journal.

Additionally, we also invite you to visit SSP and EcoSan Club on Facebook

(www.facebook.com/SustainableSanitationPractice and

www.facebook.com/EcoSanClubAustria, respectively).

Günter Langergraber, Markus Lechner, Elke Müllegger

(SSP journal editors)

www.ecosan.at/SSP

www.facebook.com/SustainableSanitationPractice

www.facebook.com/EcoSanClubAustria


Updates on IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition, Busan, Korea, 16–21 September 2012 The IWA World Water Congress & Exhibition 2012 Busan is a high-profile event that attracts 5,000 water professionals, companies and institutions from across the globe. It is a biennial event organised by the International Water Association (IWA). The event is a valuable and unique opportunity for the community of world-leading water professionals to meet, exchange ideas, explore the state of the art and debate the key issues underlying the science and practice of water. It is also where the entire water community congregates once every two years and where IWA specialist groups showcase their work and plan for future activities.

Ramp up your networking opportunities

We know that many of you come along to the congress to renew and create professional links, business leads, and interdisciplinary collaborations. Increase your reach and effectiveness this year by linking with other delegates and organisations online. Connect via the congress’s LinkedIn group, Facebook group and Twitter stream. Want a hand getting into the conversation?

IWA Specialist Groups’ activities Specialist Groups are the core of our association. Their members are engaged in many activities - organising conferences, seminars, workshops, or writing books, reports, newsletters and journal papers. Through task or working groups, they also produce scientific and technical reports, manuals of best practice or position papers. Group meetings Many specialist groups will have open meetings during the congress, which you are all welcome to attend. These meetings are mostly hosted during lunch breaks in one of the session rooms. All the Congress delegates are invited to join the meetings. Please take this great opportunity to meet like-minded people and to know more about the groups you are interested in. IWA Specialist Groups Hub ”IWA SG Hub” – a dedicated space for specialist groups - will be located in the exhibition hall to display group materials and resources and allow introductions and meetings with group leaders. The groups and members can present, meet, network and showcase their upcoming activities at the SG Hub. Please feel free to always pass by this area and you will be amazed by the information and activities you can find here. Groups Reception A reception will be hosted at 17.00-18.00 on Tuesday at IWA Specialist Groups Hub on behalf of all the specialist groups and will feature the IWA Sustainability Specialist Group Prizes ceremony. Get involved The groups are an exceptionally effective means of international networking, sharing information and skills and making good professional and business contacts. If you’re an IWA member, you can join any specialist group and with over 50 groups — we know you’ll find a niche. More Information For details and of group meetings and other relevant SG activities see the congress website or

contact Hong Li ([email protected])

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/IWA-World-Water-Congress-Exhibition-4394135

http://www.facebook.com/iwa2012busan

https://twitter.com/#!/iwa2012busan


http://www.iwahq.org/3k/networks/specialist-groups/list-of-groups.html


____________________________________________________________________________________________________


10th IWA Leading Edge Conference on Water and Waste Water Technologies, Bordeaux, France, 3–6 June, 2013

www.let2013.org We would like to urge water professionals around the world to attend IWA’s Leading Edge Technology Conference 2013 (www.LET2013.org). The conference is being held in the city of Bordeaux, the economic hub in southwestern France constitutes the sixth-largest urban area in France. Bordeaux as a port city on the Garonne River has a strong link with water and environment. The conference program will attract leading water researchers from all over the world. Parallel tracks offering a wide range of multidisciplinary presentations will provide ample opportunities to learn and network with professionals in your fields of interest. Technical tours are also being planned to demonstrate local applications of advanced water, wastewater and stormwater technologies and management. In addition the city of Bordeaux and its surrounding area offer great opportunities for recreation. The historic part of the city of Bordeaux is on the UNESCO World Heritage List as "an outstanding urban and architectural ensemble" of the 18th century. Bordeaux has more than 350 classified buildings and buildings listed as Historic Monuments, including 3 religious World Heritage buildings since 1998 as part of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France. Bordeaux is although well known as a world's major wine industry capital. Key date: Deadline for paper submission: 15 October.

http://www.let2013.org/


The IWA Water Wiki! Invitation to Participate

www.iwawaterwiki.org

The WaterWiki is a website providing a place for the water community to interact, share knowledge and disseminate information. The WaterWiki is THE online resource for all areas of water, wastewater and environmental science and management. We currently host over 1000 open-access materials, either as web articles or downloadable pdfs. Since the site was launched, we have been working with IWA Specialist Groups, offering them the opportunity to set up their own group work spaces on the WaterWiki – we now have over 20 Groups using the site to communicate and network online. Want to get involved? We would like to invite members of the Use of Macrophytes in Water

Pollution Control Specialist Group to set up their own private Group Space on the Wiki.

WaterWiki Group Spaces – Why participate? A Group Space on the WaterWiki is excellent way to share information within your group. You can:

- Include contact details of key members in the group - Upload PDFS, Word documents, presentations etc. - Circulate minutes from meetings, events, conferences etc. - Plan up coming events and webinars - Discuss research developments and group activities

Once you have established your group space on the Wiki, members can add, remove, or edit content at anytime – and we have a dedicated support team on hand to answer any technical queries. If you are a member of the Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control IWA Specialist Group and would like more information on creating and using a dedicated Group Space on the WaterWiki please contact Chloe Parker ([email protected]). Feel free to use the wiki as your online reference point for all things water-related! Some of the material that may be of interest to you can be found here:

Executive Summary of Arsenic Contamination in the World, Waterborne Pathogens, Water policy and health, Methodology, Control systems, Data Analysis, Instrumentation, etc. We are always looking to add new material to the WaterWiki in your subject area. If you are able to write on any of the above subjects (about 600-1000 words), please do submit an article.

New Wiki Software Launch

March 2012 saw the launch of our new-version wiki software which has been designed to meet the demands of the established WaterWiki community.

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/


http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/ExecutiveSummaryofArsenicContaminationintheWorld

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/WaterbornePathogens

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/Waterpolicyandhealth

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/AnalysisandAnalyticalMethods

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/Controlsystems

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/DataAnalysis

http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/Instrumentation

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Users will notice that the WaterWiki homepage has undergone a colourful facelift and now has a slightly different layout. The homepage has been designed with WaterWiki members in mind to provide ease of navigation between the different sections of the site. The upgrade has not just been cosmetic – there are several new software features which will make the IWA WaterWiki even more of a valuable interactive resource for the water community. All the new WaterWiki features are backwards-compatible meaning that all existing content will remain the same while wiki members will also be able to take advantage of great new site functions including:

1. Increased browser compatibility: the WaterWiki is now optimised for use in Safari, Internet Explorer version 7 or above, and Google Chrome web browsers.

2. Improvements to the WYSIWYG/Rich Text editing software for easier formatting, better

image positioning and the facility to upload larger file attachments.

3. More manageable Group Spaces which put you in control of your dedicated community space. The new WaterWiki group spaces allow group leaders to create and manage spaces. You can decide what your space will contain and who will have access to the materials and keep your members up to date with group activity using your own dedicated group blog.

4. Increased file hosting capacity. Many users may have noticed that any large files they

uploaded would disappear from the wiki after a few days – this was a particular problem for Specialist Groups wishing to exchange work documents on the WaterWiki. This problem has been corrected with the new software.

5. Easier article navigation using the improved tagging system. A finite list of possible tags

for articles means that content is now grouped by subject category making it much easier to search for related content.

6. Increased connectivity between you and the content you care about – your watchlist

emails will now contain active links to the content that you follow and you can now share articles via email at the touch of a button.

7. Instant WaterWiki news: keep up to date with the most popular articles and active users

using up-to-the-minute RSS feeds of top users and most-read articles. For more information on how to get started with the new features visit the Wiki Help section. As always, please feel free to contact me ([email protected]) with any questions. Chloe Parker IWA WaterWiki Community Manager [email protected]

http://iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome

http://iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Help/WebHome




New from IWA Publishing

Best Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water

ISBN: 9781843393856 Pre-order (August 2013) • 120 pages • Paperback IWA Members price: £ 45.00 / US$ 81.00 / € 60.75

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781843393856&type=category This Best Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water arises from the knowledge collected by the European Research Network COST Action 637 involving 27 European countries and the USA. Besides the large number of important papers, reports and reviews already available on various aspects of arsenic occurrence in environment, water and food and related human exposure, this book fills a gap in the field concerning assessment of risks, implications, challenges, and actions required by public health managers. It focuses only on the key aspects of risk assessment, management and communication relevant to higher levels of arsenic in drinking water, which are geological factors, the extent of arsenic occurrence, total exposure of arsenic and the role of drinking water, including regulatory aspects as well as technical (treatment) issues. -----

Arsenic Contamination in the World An International Sourcebook

Susan Murcott ISBN: 9781780400389 • June 2012 • 500 pages • Paperback IWA members price: £ 94.50 / US$ 170.10 / € 127.58

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400389&type=category Arsenic Contamination in the World: An International Sourcebook provides a global compendium of cited arsenic incidences in drinking-water. This book details arsenic contamination by source, region and arsenic-affected country. Arsenic is identified in 105 countries and territories, representing a larger database than any previous published work. Sources of arsenic contamination are categorized as: Anthropogenic, Geogenic, Volcanogenic, Coal, Mining and Petroleum-related. National, regional and international maps locate the affected areas and populations. A synthesis of critical country information includes an estimate of the exposed population of over 178 million people worldwide. --------------

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781843393856&type=category


____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge

Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon ISBN: 9781843393443 • April 2012 • 460 pages • Paperback IWA members price: £ 82.50 / US$ 148.50 / € 111.38

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781843393443&type=category Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge has been developed from the RECLAIM WATER project supported by the European Commission under Thematic Priority 'Global Change and Ecosystems' of the Sixth Framework Programme. Its strategic objective is to develop hazard mitigation technologies for water reclamation providing safe and cost effective routes for managed aquifer recharge. Different treatment applications in terms of behaviour of key microbial and chemical contaminants are assessed. Engineered as well as natural treatment trains are investigated to provide guidance for sustainable MAR schemes using alternative sources such as effluent and stormwater. The technologies considered are also well suited to the needs of developing countries, which have a growing need of supplementation of freshwater resources. A broad range of international full-scale case studies enables insights into long-term system behaviour, operational aspects, and fate of a comprehensive number of compounds and contaminants, especially organic micropollutants and bulk organics.

-----



Groundwater Set Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon; Harvey Wood; C.G.E.M. (Kees) van Beek; Milan Dimkic, Heinz-Jurgen Brauch and Michael Kavanaugh; Philip E. LaMoreaux, et al.; M Brown, B Barley, H Wood ISBN: 9781780404493 • May 2012 IWA members price: £ 400.00 / US$ 720.00 / € 540.00

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780404493&type=new

Special Offer: Groundwater Set

Purchase all six books together and save over 30% on buying separately. Includes:

Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge Edited by Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon April 2012 • ISBN: 9781843393443

Disasters and Minewater Good Practice and Prevention Harvey Wood January 2012 • ISBN: 9781780400068

Cause and Prevention of Clogging of Wells Abstracting Groundwater from Unconsolidated Aquifers C.G.E.M. (Kees) van Beek October 2011 • ISBN: 9781780400242

Groundwater Management in Large River Basins Edited by Milan Dimkic, Heinz-Jurgen Brauch and Michael Kavanaugh November 2008 • ISBN: 9781843391906

Environmental Hydrogeology Second Edition Philip E. LaMoreaux, Mostafa M. Soliman, Bashir A. Memon, James W. LaMoreaux & Fakhry A. Assaad November 2008 • ISBN: 9781843392286

Minewater Treatment Technology, Application and Policy M Brown, B Barley, H Wood April 2002 • ISBN: 9781843390046

-----

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780404493&type=new

____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Water and Energy Threats and Opportunities

Gustaf Olsson ISBN: 9781780400266 • June 2012 • 320 pages • Hardback IWA members price: £ 51.75 / US$ 93.15 / € 69.86

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400266&type=category Water and Energy – Threats and Opportunities creates an awareness of the important couplings between water and energy. It shows how energy is used in all the various water cycle operations and demonstrates how water is used – and misused – in all kinds of energy production and generation. Population increase, climate change and an increasing competition between food and fuel production create enormous pressures on both water and energy availability. Since there is no replacement for water, water security looks more crucial than energy security. This is true not only in developing countries but also in the most advanced countries. The western parts of the USA suffer from water scarcity that provides a real security threat. The book does not aim to show “how to design” or to solve some of the very intricate conflicts between water and energy. Instead it systematically lists ideas, possibilities and a number of results. There are a few more technical chapters that act as entry points to more detailed technical literature. -----

Disasters and Minewater Good Practice and Prevention

Harvey Wood ISBN: 9781780400068 • January 2012 • 160 pages • Hardback IWA members price: £ 59.25 / US$ 106.65 / € 79.99


Disasters and Minewater: Good Practice and Prevention draws together all of the major minewater catastrophes that have occurred over the last half century. It examines incidents to find useful and positive information of great value that could prevent future disasters. Practical experience provides many lessons in respect of the causes of minewater incidents where lack of adhesion to good practice is principally to blame.




Disasters and Minewater: Good Practice and Prevention is of particular interest to students of mining, civil engineering and environmental engineering. It is an invaluable resource for mining engineers, geotechnical engineers, environmental engineers and disaster relief professionals and consultants. ----- SELECTED RESEARCH REPORTS

Diagnostic Tools to Evaluate Impacts of Trace Organic Compounds CEC5R08 Author(s): Jerry Diamond Publication Date: 30 Jun 2011 • ISBN: 9781843395478 Pages: 120 • Paperback IWA members price: £ 77.25 / US$ 139.05 / € 104.29 http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781843395478&type=category -------------------

21st Century Water Municipal Issues and Concerns: Literature Review INFR5SG09a Author(s): Neil Weinstein Publication Date: 30 Jun 2012 • ISBN: 9781780400150 Pages: 20 • eBook only IWA members price: £ 77.25 / US$ 139.05 / € 104.29 http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=isbn9781780400150&type=category ----------------- For more information on IWA Publishing products or to buy online visit www.iwapublishing.com Or contact one of IWA Publishing's distributors: UK, Europe and Rest of World: Portland Customer Services Commerce Way Colchester CO2 8HP, UK Tel: +44 (0)1206 796 351 Fax: +44 (0)1206 799 331 Email: [email protected]

North America: BookMasters, Inc. P.O. Box 388 Ashland OH 44805, USA Tel: +1 800 247-6553 (+1 419 281-1802 from Canada) Fax: +1 419 281-6883 Email: [email protected]



http://www.iwapublishing.com/



____________________________________________________________________________________________________


IWA Head Office:

Alliance House

12 Caxton Street

London SW1H 0QS

UK

Tel: +44 207 654 5500

Fax: +44 207 654 5555

Web site: http://www.iwahq.org/

General e-mail: [email protected]

Membership e-mail: [email protected]

Company registered in England No. 3597005

Registered Charity (England) No. 1076690

IWA Global Operational Office:

Koningin Julianaplein 2 (7th floor)

2595 AA the Hague

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 (70) 31 50 792

Fax: +31 (70) 34 77 005

Web Site: http://www.iwahq.org/

General e-mail: [email protected]

http://www.iwahq.org/



http://www.iwahq.org/


macrophytes no 40 july 2012 proof

Technology

group conference

iwa specialist group

dr zhai

election of group chair

dr suwasa kantwanichkul

group meeting

iwa water wiki

chair dear group members