Desalination 249 (2009) 368–373

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

Heavy metal removal within pilot-scale constructed wetlands receiving river water
contaminated by confined swine operations
T.Y. Yeh ⁎, C.C. Chou, C.T. Pan
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Three parallel pilot-scale surface flow constructed wetlands were employed to investigate heavy metal
Accepted 24 November 2008 removal receiving river water contaminated by swine confined-housing operations in Taiwan. Wastewater
Available online 1 October 2009 from swine operation contained elevated levels of copper and zinc due to their abundance in feed. Two
macrophytes, namely cattail (Typha latifolia) and reed (Phragmites australis), were planted to observe their
Keywords:
heavy metal removal efficiency. Significant total recoverable copper and zinc reduction for three tested
Constructed wetland
Heavy metals
wetlands were 80 and 91% for unplanted control, 83 and 92% for cattail, and 83 and 92% for reed wetland
Translocation systems. Acid-soluble forms were 56 and 86% of total recoverable influent metals for copper and zinc,
Bioavailability respectively. More bioavailable zinc was subjected to releasing back to aqueous environment. Heavy metals
entering the studied systems as insoluble forms were settling from water column. Concentrations of metals
were higher in the vegetated sediments than in the non-vegetated sediments. The sequential extraction
results of sediments indicated that most retained metals were in less mobile fractions. Most of metal uptake
by vegetation remained in root portions. Translocations of both copper and zinc for tested macrophytes
were not prominent. The metal species in incoming water and metal fractionations in sediment were
demonstrated as the major factors to influence plant metal levels. The performance of the studied wetland
systems can comply with local water criteria rendering for further water reuse.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Constructed wetlands are engineered systems that have been
designed to employ natural processes including vegetation, soil, and
microbial activity to treat contaminated water. Constructed wetlands
possess the merits of low-cost and low-maintenance, and are capable
of removing various pollutants including heavy metals, nutrients,
organic matters, and micropollutants [1,2]. In addition, constructed
wetlands are recently used for treating various wastewater types
including point source domestic sewage, acid main drainage,
agricultural wastewater, landfill leachate, and non-point source
storm water runoff [3–7]. In Taiwan, 63 newly constructed full-scale
wetland water purification systems were in operation to treat
338,000 m3 per day contaminated surface water [8].
Heavy metal contamination is one of the most serious environ-
ment problems throughout the world. The wastewater generated
from confined swine operations is one of the primary pollution
sources in Taiwan [9]. The effluent is discharged in the surrounding
waterways containing significant amounts of heavy metals such as
copper and zinc. These metals are intentionally added in fodder to
⁎ Corresponding author. National University of Kaohsiung, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan. Tel.: +886 7 591 9536; fax: +886
7 591 9376.
E-mail address: tyyeh@nuk.edu.tw (T.Y. Yeh).
prevent diarrhea and to enhance immune systems of swine. The on-
farm treatment facilities are not properly operated or even not in
place for the swine operation. The manures of swine operation were
visibly observed in the river water in this study area. The remediation
options to treat large volume of low contaminated river are inevitable.
It might not be economical to build a concrete treatment plant to
mitigate metal polluted river water. Recently, green remediation
approaches, constructed wetlands, have gained drastically attention
due to their pollution removal, recreational assets, and landscape
aesthetic values in Taiwan. The potential of employing constructed
wetlands to treat metal-containing wastewater has also received
increasing attention worldwide [10,11]. Wetland soils characterized
by their reduced condition and high organic matter content can
accumulate heavy metals [12].
Metals introduced into wetlands might exist in various particulate
or dissolved forms while dissolved metals can adsorb onto particles,
exist as complexes with inorganic and organic ligands, or be remained
as the free ion state in solution. Metals are trapped within wetland
compartments via numbers of mechanisms including plant uptake,
cation exchange with soils, and particulate settling. Copper and other
divalent metal cations are known to bind strongly to peats and
humics, therefore wetlands are employed to trap metals before they
reach receiving water [13].
The chemical forms of heavy metals associated with the settled
solids can influence their fate. Many studies dealing with metals in

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.11.025
 T.Y. Yeh et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 368–373
the sediments focused on total concentration with no attempt to
distinguish various forms in which metal might exist. In order to
provide a complete picture for predicting the metal distribution,
mobility, and bioavailability in settled solids, the employment of
sequential extraction may be of great value [14]. Many schemes
have been proposed for the sequential extraction techniques [15,16].
Some of these schemes may be variants of one another with minor
variations in the chemical extractants and operating conditions.
The sequential extraction technique might not provide the precise
separation of metals in settled solids into all specific chemical forms.
Nonetheless, broad categories of heavy metals in sediments still can
be generated by the sequential extraction.
The major sink for metal removal within constructed wetlands
was in sediment while plants might also assist the metal reduction.
The emergent macrophytes developed their roots in the reduced soil
matrix where metals can be immobilized. The study also demon-
strated that metal concentration in plant tissue where higher in roots
than in stems and leaves [17].
The objectives of this research were to examine metal forms
relative to bioavailability and to measure the partitioning of metals
within the wetland compartments. Treatment performance of pilot-
scale wetland systems was characterized by investigating changes
in aqueous constituent concentrations from inflow to outflow. In
addition, the fraction of metals in sediments and the role of plants
in heavy metal decontamination within tested wetland systems
were studied. The evaluation of the extent of metals accumulated in
different parts of tested macrophytes was also conducted.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Experimental set up and operation conditions of wetlands
Three surface flow wetland systems were constructed and located
outdoors at the university campus. The experiment was performed at
Kaohsiung University in tropical southern Taiwan (22°73′N, 120°28′E).
Three pilot-scale wetland systems, including I) without vegetation
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental pilot wetlands.
369
as control, II) planting cattail (Typha latifolia), and III) planting reed
(Phragmites australis), were operated in continuous flow mode. The
inflow water was pumped from the river that was contaminated by
swine wastewater. The copper and zinc levels were elevated in
comparison to the metal levels of most surface water in Taiwan. Three
pilot-scale wetland units made of acrylic plates with dimension of
180 × 50 × 50 cm were built. The schematic of the wetland modules is
shown in Fig. 1. To support the growth of emergent macrophytes, one
layer of gravel and one layer of coarse sand, were laid at the bottom of
each wetland unit at depth of 10 and 20 cm, respectively. Specifically,
the support media consisted of (8–16 mm) gravel at the bottom layer
and (0–4 mm) sand at the top layer. The unplanted system as control
had the same setup as the one used in the planted system. The water
surface was maintained around 18 cm above the top of the media. One
month old cattail and reed macrophytes were transferred and planted in
June 2007 in tested wetland modules. Two planted wetland systems
received the secondary treated sewage for a month to make sure
the growth of macrophytes. Two units were planted with cattail and
reed at a density of 20/m2.
The experiments were carried out for four months (i.e. from the
beginning of July 2007 up to the end of October 2007). All wetland
units were fed with contaminated water with the elevated zinc and
copper concentrations at a constant flow rate of 0.144 m3 per day. The
wetland systems (planted cattail, planted reed, and unplanted) were
all operating with hydraulic retention time of 1.25 days and hydraulic
loading rate of 16 cm/d.
2.2. Sample collection and laboratory analysis
Influent and effluent samples were collected from each wetland
module daily for four months. Water samples were measured for
BOD, COD, SS, TP, and PO3−4 . All analyses were done according to the
standard methods [18]. Water quality parameters such as pH, temper-
ature, and dissolved oxygen were recorded while taking water samples.
A HACH sensION2 pH meter and an YSI 550A portable dissolved oxygen
meter were used to determine pH and DO. In addition to water samples,
370 T.Y. Yeh et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 368–373
Table 1
Influent water quality parameters of the pilot-scale constructed wetland.
Analysis items Average (± SD)
Temperature (°C) 21.6 ± 4.9
DO (mg/L) 2.71 ± 0.81
pH 7.66 ± 0.36
BOD (mg/L) 20.1 ± 11.1
COD (mg/L) 26.2 ± 11.9
SS (mg/L) 38.0 ± 17.2
TP (mg/L) 1.26 ± 0.38
PO3−
4 (mg/L) 0.53 ± 0.23
sediment samples (0–5 cm depth) were collected from each wetland
toward the end of experiment in October 2007. Sediment samples were
collected from a midpoint within each wetland. The sediment was
defined as the soil-like material that was present in the pore of the gravel
filter medium. The sediment was referred to as anything that was not
belowground biomass or gravel. The sediment originated mainly from
solids in the inflow water. At the end of the experiment, plant samples
were harvested from two planted wetland systems and analyzed to
determine for the metal uptake. The collected 77 water samples and 38
sediment samples of each wetland, and 18 plant samples of two planted
wetlands were analyzed for metal contents.
Water samples were taken daily from the inflow and outflow for
heavy metal determination. Soluble metals were determined after
that samples were filtrated through 0.45 μm membrane filters and
subsequently acidified to pH below 2. The soluble metals are most
likely to be the most bioavailable form. For acid-soluble metals, the
samples are acidified to pH 2 and filtered. Total recoverable metal
pretreatment involves vigorous digestion via microwave apparatus
(Perkin Elmer MW 3000). The filtrate and pretreated samples were
followed by the measurement of a Perkin Elmer AAnalyst 200 atomic
adsorption spectrophotometer (AA). The detection limits of copper
and zinc were 0.008 and 0.005 mg/L, respectively. Water samples
were analyzed for soluble, total, and acid extractable copper and zinc
contents. The macrophytes were first rinsed with DI water to remove
attached sediment, separated into roots, stems, and leaves, shredded
and dried. The vegetation and sediments were dried in an oven at
103 °C and digested via a microwave digestion apparatus. The metal
contents of various parts of vegetation were then measured by AA.
The distribution and chemical fraction of heavy metals retained in
pilot-scale wetland sediments were examined to investigate the
bioavailability of deposited heavy metals. The fractionation of heavy
metals was investigated by the sequential extraction techniques. Five
grams of air-dried sediment samples was placed in centrifuge tubes
and subjected to a six-step serial extraction procedure. The procedure
of sequential chemical extraction used in this study includes a series
of reagents. They are depicted as exchangeable (1 M KNO3), in-
organically bound (0.5 M KF), organically bound (0.1 M Na4P2O7), Fe-
and Mn-oxide bound (0.3 M Na3C6H5O7, 1 M NaHCO3 and 0.5 g
Na2S2O4), and sulfide (6 M HNO3) forms, respectively [19]. The metal
concentrations in each fraction were determined by AA.
Table 2
Metal species concentrations of influent and effluent unit: mg/L.
Constituents Metal species Influent
Copper Soluble 0.011 ± 0.009
Acid-soluble 0.036 ± 0.019
Total 0.064 ± 0.037
Zinc Soluble 0.055 ± 0.022
Acid-soluble 0.316 ± 0.132
Total 0.366 ± 0.137
2.3. Plant uptake data analysis
In order to evaluate the phytoextraction potential of plants, two
metal uptake parameters were calculated to enable comparisons of
metal uptake/distribution and comparisons among metals. Biocon-
centration factor (BCF) was then calculated as the ratio of root metal
to sediment metal concentrations (Croots/Csediments) while transloca-
tion factor (TF) was expressed as leaf and stem metal to root metal
concentration (Cstem + leaf/Croot) [20].
2.4. Statistical analyses
Statistical significance among metal contents was assessed using
mean comparison test. Differences between treatment concentration
means of metals were determined by Student's t tests. A level of
p < 0.05 considered statistically significant was used in all compar-
isons. Means are reported ± standard deviation. In addition, differ-
ences among five fractions in the sequential extraction experiment
were tested with F statistics. All statistical analyses were performed
with Microsoft Office EXCEL 2003.
3. Results and discussions
The water parameters of inflow contaminated river water are
shown in Table 1. The average inflow suspended solid concentration
was 38.0 mg/L while BOD and COD concentrations were 20.1 and
26.2 mg/L, respectively. This result indicated the level of particulate
organic pollution. The dissolved oxygen varied around 2.7 mg/L
revealed that the river water was polluted and was not in compliance
with local water quality criteria. The influent water pH was
approximately neutral while the temperature was 22 °C. Though the
redox was not monitored in this study, this parameter might be useful
to explain the metal behavior in the wetland sediment. Nevertheless,
the pH and oxidizing conditions favored partitioning of soluble metals
to the solid phase, by precipitation and sorption to solids such as
organic matter [21]. The inflow organic matter and suspended solid,
though the concentrations varied during the study period, did not
notably affect the growth of the plant species within the wetland
systems.
3.1. Metal species monitoring
The influent and effluent of copper and zinc metal species for three
tested pilot-scale wetland systems are shown in Table 2. The influent
total metals were significantly higher than soluble and acid-soluble for
both copper (p < 0.001) and zinc (p < 0.03). Acid-soluble forms were 56
and 86% of total recoverable influent metals for copper and zinc,
respectively. The results indicated that more bioavailable zinc was
subjected to releasing back to aqueous environment. Soluble fractions of
both metals only accounted for small amounts of total influent metals
(p < 0.001). Particulate copper and zinc were the predominate forms
which were responsible for metal settling. Average total recoverable
copper concentration was 0.064 mg/L in the influent while the effluent
I — control II — cattail III — reed
0.010 ± 0.008 0.010 ± 0.007 0.010 ± 0.006
0.012 ± 0.007 0.011 ± 0.005 0.010 ± 0.007
0.013 ± 0.007 0.011 ± 0.007 0.011 ± 0.008
(80%) (83%) (83%)
0.016 ± 0.010 0.019 ± 0.012 0.016 ± 0.008
0.025 ± 0.007 0.029 ± 0.016 0.025 ± 0.008
0.034 ± 0.013 0.030 ± 0.014 0.031 ± 0.014
(91%) (92%) (92%)
 T.Y. Yeh et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 368–373
copper concentrations were 0.013, 0.011, and 0.011 mg/L for the system
of control, planting cattail, and planting reed, respectively. The results
indicated 80, 83, and 83% decrease in total recoverable copper for the
control, cattail, and reed system, respectively. The vegetated wetland
systems demonstrated only slightly better copper removal. The effluent
total copper concentrations were not significantly different for planted
cattail (p = 0.078) and planted reed (p = 0.101) system when compared
with the unplanted control system. These results might be due to the
initial stage of wetland system operation. The initial growth phase of
vegetated system only exhibited slightly better metal reduction. Soluble
copper concentrations were similar for both influent and effluent. The
soluble copper from the water column was not removed effectively
within wetland systems.
Average total zinc concentration was 0.366 mg/L in the influent
while the effluent zinc concentrations were 0.034, 0.030, and
0.031 mg/L for the system of control, planting cattail, and planting
reed, respectively. The t-test statistical analyses were conducted to
observe the differences among the effluent zinc levels. The results
indicated 91, 92, and 92% decrease in total zinc for the control, cattail
(p = 0.068), and reed (p = 0.170) system, respectively. The vegetated
wetlands did not demonstrate significant zinc reduction compared to
the non-vegetated control wetland system. However, the significant
zinc removal efficiency of all tested wetland systems still illustrated
the ability of constructed wetland to function in transforming zinc
associated with the water column.
For all three tested wetland systems, the influent soluble forms
of metals were only accounted for 17% (p < 0.001) and 15% (p < 0.001) of
the total recoverable metals for copper and zinc, respectively. The major
amounts of inflow heavy metals were present in suspended particulate
forms or metal species complexed/adsorbed onto particles. Zinc entered
the wetland in a predominantly loosely bound form due to 86% inflow
zinc presented as acid-soluble forms. The results suggested that the
primary mechanisms of zinc removal might be metal species sorption
on the settling solids. The declined levels of total metals were consistent
with the decrease of suspended solids. Similar research results indicated
that more than 50% of the heavy metals can be easily adsorbed onto
particulate matter in the wetland and thus be removed from the water
column by sedimentation [11]. Copper in general tends to be adsorbed
most strongly and zinc is usually held weakly. The behavior of zinc is
more liable and is more likely caused by adverse impact to surrounding
biota [21]. In this study, zinc was probably associated with solids such as
clay particles or organic matter. The removal mechanism of copper
might be different from that of zinc within the studied wetland systems.
The concentrations of total heavy metals do not adequately reflect the
degree of adsorption such as loosely bound or tightly bound. The acid-
soluble heavy metal content has been demonstrated as a more direct
indication to the availability of the adsorbed metals and the possibility
of remobilization.
In this study, the bulk of incoming metals was mainly immobilized
via settlement into the bottom media and only slightly removed via
Table 3
Sequential extraction analysis of soil within tested wetlands unit: mg/kg.
Exchangeable Inorganic bound
Cu I 2.35 ± 1.47 (6.9%) 2.01 ± 0.66 (5.9%)
Control
II 2.21 ± 1.61 (5.4%) 1.79 ± 0.59 (4.4%)
Cattail
III 2.17 ± 0.69 (6.1%) 2.10 ± 0.97 (5.9%)
Reed
Zn I 1.97 ± 0.59 (1.5%) 1.03 ± 0.61 (0.8%)
Control
I 1.89 ± 0.71 (1.3%) 2.06 ± 0.57 (1.5%)
Cattail
III 3.37 ± 0.65 (2.3%) 2.12 ± 0.62 (1.4%)
Reed
371
emergent vegetation through complexation or chelation, leaving a
small percentage of the metal in the aqueous phase. Heavy metals
could be readily removed by constructed wetland systems, though
the removal efficiency might be influenced by the type of wetlands,
the age of wetlands, and the types of wastewater to be treated
[10]. Effective metal removal can be enhanced by providing feasible
conditions to promote settlement and to prevent resuspension.
Effluent concentrations of copper and zinc for these pilot-scale
wetland systems declined significantly. Sedimentation is believed as
the primary sinks or reservoirs for metals. In this study, heavy metals
entering the studied systems as insoluble forms were settling from
water column in the similar removal mechanism as suspended solids.
Heavy metal levels were reduced effectively due to settling processes
in these wetland systems. However, removal efficiencies are strongly
dependent on influent concentration and hydraulic loading rate. The
effluent copper and zinc concentration met the local regulatory
criteria of 0.03 mg/L. The polished water can be rendering for further
water reuse.
3.2. Sequential extraction analysis of sediments
Additional total metal extraction results by concentrated HNO3
extraction revealed that copper retained in sediments were 31.53,
36.27, and 36.33 mg/kg, while zinc retained in sediments were
141.80, 166.21, and 156.13 mg/ kg for control, cattail, and reed
wetland systems, respectively. Concentrations of metals were higher
in the vegetated sediments than in the non-vegetated sediments.
Metals in sediments exist in several forms including ionic or
complex species, complexed with organic matter, embedded in oxides
and hydroxides of iron and manganese, and entrapped in primary and
secondary minerals. The latter fractions are more inert, permanently
bound to the sediments, and less bioavailable [22]. Heavy metal
associated with different fractions has varied impacts on the
environment. The sequential extraction results of sediments within
three tested wetlands are listed in Table 3. Differences in averaged
concentrations among different fractions were tested with F statistics.
p values were all < 0.001 except for the copper in the planted reed
system (p = 0.043), indicating significant differences among different
fractions. Copper and zinc in sediments of wetland systems were
mainly organically, Fe- and Mn-oxide bound, and sulfide bound. These
results indicated that metals were immobilized and unavailable to the
surrounding biota. The relatively stable fractionation also makes both
metals unavailable for plant uptake. More copper than zinc presented
as the inorganically bound fraction (p < 0.001) in the unplanted
control system. This result revealed that more copper within the
wetlands sediments was weakly adsorbed. The loosely retained copper
might become a secondary source of metal pollution in the unplanted
wetland system.
The availability of heavy metals within sediments can change
under variable redox, pH, and salinity conditions. Within the reduced
Organic bound Fe- and Mn-oxide bound Sulfide bound
5.27 ± 1.98 (15.4%) 9.27 ± 1.74 (27.1%) 15.34 ± 4.69 (44.8%)
9.55 ± 2.04 (23.3%) 12.27 ± 1.53 (29.9%) 15.24 ± 5.28 (37.1%)
7.88 ± 4.05 (22.1%) 9.41 ± 3.76 (26.4%) 14.07 ± 3.87 (39.5%)
8.93 ± 4.92 (6.6%) 40.28 ± 9.47 (29.7%) 83.24 ± 15.39 (61.5%)
10.27 ± 4.01 (7.3%) 31.56 ± 19.38 (22.3%) 95.51 ± 10.17 (67.6%)
13.75 ± 7.02 (9.2%) 34.04 ± 11.27 (22.7%) 96.58 ± 14.62 (64.5%)
372 T.Y. Yeh et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 368–373
soil, matrix metals are mainly immobilized and metal accumulation in
the emergent macrophytes is slow. The elevated copper and zinc
concentration in cattail and reed might be the result of an increased
bioavailability of two metals.
3.3. Metal accumulation of macrophytes
The metal uptake results of cattail and reed are shown in Fig. 2. The
metal concentrations in plants were analyzed before starting to feed
metal-laden wastewater. The copper concentrations for cattail and
reed were 10.5 and 3.42 mg/kg, respectively, while zinc concentra-
tions for cattail and reed were 30.1 and 20.6 mg/kg, respectively. The
macrophytes were harvested for the metal uptake investigation
toward the end of experiments in October 2007. The growth phase of
plant was in the initial stage of wetland system operation. Metal
concentrations in the plant tissue were higher in roots than in both
stems and leaves. For two vegetation systems, both metal concentra-
tions in above- and belowground biomass were in the order of
root > stem > leave. Regarding metal vegetation uptake, roots are the
primary site of metal uptake. This result revealed that the significant
translocation did not occur for both copper and zinc. Harvesting might
not be viable metal removal options for these studied wetland
systems. These results are consistent with following studies. Swedish
investigation revealed that copper and zinc were taken by plants with
the highest accumulation found in the roots [22]. Study assessed the
feasibility of treating industrial wastewater within pilot-scale wetland
Fig. 2. Metal concentrations of various portions of macrophytes.
Table 4
Bioconcentration factor and translocation factor of macrophytes.
BCF TF
Copper Zinc Copper Zinc
Cattail 1.66 ± 0.17 1.09 ± 0.23 0.41 ± 0.07 0.36 ± 0.05
Reed 1.23 ± 0.39 1.05 ± 0.28 0.45 ± 0.05 0.27 ± 0.03
in Argentina. Average metal removal efficiencies were: Fe (83%), Cr
(82%), Ni (69%), and Zn (55%). Metal concentration in macrophyte
tissues increased significantly where metal concentration in the roots
was 2–3 times higher than in the stems and leaves. However, a small
fraction of metal retained (7%, 2%, and 4% of the Cr, Ni, and Zn,
respectively) in the wetland was stored in the macrophyte tissue [23].
Similar research results indicated that less than 2% of the annually
removed mass was accumulated in the aboveground reed biomass
while the rest was retained in the sediment or belowground reed
biomass [24]. The relative contribution of the aboveground vegetation
biomass in the overall metal accumulation was generally very low.
The sediment is the most important sink for metal accumulation.
Contradictory research investigated the metal accumulation by
different parts of wetland plants and concluded no clear trend [25].
Nevertheless, translocation of metal within emergent macrophyte is
dependent on the plant and metal species.
BCF and TF values for both vegetated system are listed in Table 4.
Comparisons between planted cattail and reed for copper and zinc
BCFs and TFs were conducted with t-test. Except for zinc BCF (p = 0.49),
all p values were <0.001 indicating significant differences between two
different macrophytes. BCFs were depicted to assess concentrations in
roots to environmental loading. In this study, metals were accumulated
in roots greater than concentration in adjacent sediments with BCF
of ≧1. TFs were calculated to enable the assessment of transport of
accumulated metal from root to shoot. Metals in leaves and stems were
lower than half that of roots. In this study, the underground organs of
plant species are mainly responsible for heavy metal phytoextraction.
Researches have demonstrated that metal concentrations in macro-
phytes vary considerably according to the plant part and to the type of
metals [22], though previous research results were reported that zinc
and copper accumulation in plant tissue is often higher compared to
other nonessential heavy metals [26]. The low plant metal levels might
be due that most copper and zinc were tightly bound according to
aforementioned sequential extraction analysis of sediment.
Besides direct vegetation uptake, emergent plants may contribute
to metal reduction via processes such as favoring the settlement of
particulate metals and promoting biochemical reactions which enhance
metal retention by the sediment. The role of vegetation in metal
retention includes serving as sites for metal precipitation and
sedimentation. In addition, previous research has demonstrated that
organic matter in the form of fallen leaf and stem debris from emergent
vegetation plays a significant role in the immobilization of metals within
wetland systems [27]. Plant metal concentrations might not be directly
correlated with sediment or water metal concentration. The availability
of metals to aquatic plants is complex and is dependent on factors
associated with the metal and substrate [28]. Effluent plant tolerance
is an important factor in the efficiency of wetlands and design. Due
the initial stage of wetland module operation, the significant toxic
symptoms of macrophytes were not detected within the duration of
the study. In addition, the metal levels in the incoming water and the
sediments might still be tolerated by the macrophytes. The metal
concentrations in plant tissue measured in this study were low when
compared with the reported toxicity thresholds in the literature [29].
4. Conclusions
Prominent metal reduction has been demonstrated in three pilot-
scale surface flow wetland systems receiving contaminated water
 T.Y. Yeh et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 368–373
from confined swine operations. Swine wastewater contains signif-
icant amounts of copper and zinc due to their abundance in feed. The
bulk of incoming metals was mainly immobilized via settlement into
the bottom media and only slightly removed by emergent plants. The
vegetated wetland systems only demonstrated slightly better metal
removal compared to the unplanted control system due to the early
growth phase of macrophytes. Evapotranspiration can have a big
effect on effluent metal concentrations in the outdoor study. The
emergent plants within surface flow wetland modules might lessen
the evapotranspiration. Nevertheless, the effect of evapotranspiration
on the water metal concentration needs to be further investigated.
Further study is required to scrutinize the water balance and metal
mass balance in the different compartments of wetland systems.
Significant translocation did not occur for both copper and zinc
within the wetland systems while metals were retained in roots of
vegetation. The immobilization of metals in sediment was not
effectively translocated by emergent macrophytes. The sediment
excavation rather than macrophyte harvesting is inevitable to be
employed if the permanent metal removal from wetland systems is
mandatory.
References
[1] R.H Kadlec, R.L. Knight, Treatment Wetlands, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL,
1996.
[2] C. Keffala, A. Ghrabi, Nitrogen and bacterial removal in constructed wetlands
treating domestic waste water, Desalination 185 (2005) 383–389.
[3] A.K. Kivaisi, The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and
reuse in developing countries: a review, Ecol. Eng. 16 (2001) 545–560.
[4] A. Al-Omari, M. Fayyad, Treatment of domestic wastewater by subsurface flow
constructed wetlands in Jordan, Desalination 155 (2003) 27–39.
[5] E. Huertas, M. Folch, M. Salgot, I. Gonzalvo, C. Passarell, Constructed wetlands
effluent for streamflow augmentation in the Besos River (Spain), Desalination
188 (2006) 141–147.
[6] B.E. Hamouri, J. Nazih, J. Lahjouj, Subsurface-horizontal flow constructed wetland
for sewage treatment under Moroccan climate conditions, Desalination 215 (2007)
153–158.
[7] D.P.L. Rousseau, E. Lesage, A. Story, P.A. Vanrolleghem, N.D. Pauw, Constructed
wetlands for water reclamation, Desalination 218 (2008) 181–189.
[8] Natural purification systems website, Taiwan Environmental Protection Adminis-
trate, http://wqp.epa.gov.tw/ecological/. Accessed 17 July, 2008.
[9] J.H. Hsu, S.L Lo, Effect of composting of characterization and leaching of copper,
manganese, and zinc from swine manure, Environmental Pollution 114 (2001),
119–127.
373
[10] P.E. Lim, M.G. Tay, K.Y. Mak, N. Mohamed, The effect of heavy metals on nitrogen and
oxygen demand removal in constructed wetland, Sci. Total Environ. 301 (2003)
13–21.
[11] A.S. Sheoran, V. Sheoran, Heavy metal removal mechanism of acid mine drainage
in wetlands: a critical review, Miner. Eng. 19 (2006) 105–116.
[12] A. Song, Z. Zheng, J. Li, X. Sun, X. Han, W. Wang, M. Xu, Seasonal and annual
performance of a full-scale constructed wetland system for sewage treatment in
China, Ecol. Eng. 26 (2006) 272–282.
[13] G.D. Dombeck, M.W. Perry, J.T. Phinny, Mass balance on water column trace
metals in a free-surface-flow-constructed wetlands in Sacramento, California,
Ecol. Eng. 10 (1998) 313–339.
[14] S. Yeoman, J.N. Lester, R. Perry, Phosphorus removal and its influence of metal
speciation during wastewater treatment, Wat. Res. 27 (3) (1993) 389–395.
[15] A. Tessier, P.G.C. Campbell, M. Bisson, Sequential extraction procedure for the
speciation of particulate trace metals, Anal. Chem. 51 (1979) 844–851.
[16] H.A. Elliott, B.A. Dempsey, P.J. Maille, Content and fractionation of heavy metals in
water treatment sludges, J. Environ. Qual. 19 (1990) 330–334.
[17] A.S. Mungur, R.B.E. Shutes, D.M. Revitt, M.A. House, An assessment of metal
removal by a laboratory scale wetland, Wat. Sci. Tech. 35 (1997) 125–133.
[18] APHA-AWWA-WEF, Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater,
19th ed, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, 1995.
[19] A. Tessier, P.G.C. Campbell, M. Bisson, Sequential extraction procedure for the
speciation of particulate trace metals, Anal. Chem. 51 (1979) 844–851.
[20] G.R. MacFarlane, C.E. Koller, S.P. Blomberg, Accumulation and partitioning of heavy
metals in mangroves: a synthesis of field-based studies, Chemosphere 69 (2007)
1454–1464.
[21] H. Pontier, J.B. Williams, E. May, Progressive changes in water and sediment quality
in wetland system for control of highway runoff, Sci. Total Environ. 319 (2004)
215–224.
[22] N.F.Y. Tam, Y.S. Wong, Retention and distribution of heavy metals in mangrove
soils receiving wastewater, Env. Poll. 94 (1996) 283–291.
[23] H.R. Hadad, M.A. Maine, C.A. Bonetto, Macrophyte growth in a pilot-scale constructed
wetland for industrial wastewater treatment, Chemosphere 63 (2006) 1744–1753.
[24] E. Lesage, D.P.L. Rousseau, E. Meers, F.M.G. Tack, N.D. Pauw, Accumulation of
metals in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland treating domestic
wastewater in Flanders, Belgium, Sci. Total Environ. 380 (2007) 102–115.
[25] J.S. Weis, P. Weis, Metal uptake, transport and release by wetland plants: implications
for phytoremediation and restoration, Environ. Int. 30 (2004) 685–700.
[26] C. Bragato, H. Brix, M. Malagoli, Accumulation of nutrients and heavy metals in
Phragmites australis Trin. Ex Steudel and Bolboschoenus maritimus Palla in a
constructed wetland of the Venice lagoon watershed, Environ. Pollut. 144 (2006)
967–975.
[27] R.W. Barley, C. Hutton, M.M.E. Brown, J.E. Cusworth, T.J. Hamilton, Trends in
biomass and metal sequestration associated with reeds and algae at Wheal Jane
Biorem passive treatment plant, Sci. Total Environ. 338 (2005) 107–114.
[28] P.A. Mays, G.S. Edwards, Comparison of heavy metal accumulation in a natural
wetland and constructed wetlands receiving acid mine drainage, Ecol. Eng. 16 (2001)
487–500.
[29] H.R. Hadad, M.A. Maine, C.A. Bonetto, Macrophyte growth in a pilot-scale constructed
wetland for industrial wastewater treatment, Chemosphere 63 (2006) 1744–1753.