UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Evaluation of a pilot constructed wetland system as an appropriate technology for septage treatment in… Chiew, Hannah 2011

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2011_fall_chiew_hannah.pdf [ 44.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0063030.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0063030-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0063030-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0063030-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0063030-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0063030-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0063030-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0063030-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0063030.ris

Full Text

EVALUATION OF A PILOT CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEM AS AN APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY FOR SEPTAGE TREATMENT IN CAMBODIA  by  Hannah Chiew B.A.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 1997  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE  in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Civil Engineering)  The University of British Columbia (Vancouver) May 2011  © Hannah Chiew, 2011  ABSTRACT Septic tanks are one of the most commonly used forms of onsite sanitation systems in developing countries. However, lack of regulation on the design and installation and the lack of proper disposal for the septage generated may cause serious environmental degradation and pose serious public health hazards. This study presents the findings of a pilot-scale constructed wetland system in Cambodia for the treatment of septage for 8 months. After a 6-month Acclimatization Period, the system was operated at two hydraulic loading rates (HLRs) of 15.5 and 27.4 mm/day to evaluate the impact of HLR on the treatment efficacy.  During the 8-month period, the system achieved mass  removal efficiency of 96% - 98% for total suspended solids (TSS), 80% - 97% for turbidity, 61% - 78% for biological oxygen demand (BOD) and 61% - 90% for chemical oxygen demand (COD), but was less efficient in removing total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN), which exhibited efficiencies of 52% - 58% and 57% - 66%, respectively. The system also achieved 1.56 – 2.25 log reduction for E. coli and 0.49 – 0.81 log reduction for total coliform (TC). Although the HLR was almost doubled during the 2-month period, the effluent quality did not degrade appreciably in most cases, and caused little or no impact on the treatment efficacy. It is possible that harvesting prior to the start of the HLR exercise had an adverse impact on the eco system and destabilized the system, causing the results with lower HLR (or higher HRT) to be worse than expected. Another possible reason for the lack of difference could be due to the high variability of influent quality. It is possible that there is no apparent benefit in decreasing the HLR in this case. The k - C * , or first order removal model, was used to model the longitudinal concentration profile and estimated the removal rate constant.  !! ! ""!  There were no apparent relationships between HLR and the removal rate constants in the k - C * model. The effluent may be suitable for localized and restricted irrigation with careful crop selection, or re-used with dilution due to its high nitrogen content.  !!  ! """!  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "" TABLE OF CONTENTS $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "# LIST OF TABLES $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ #"" LIST OF FIGURES$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ % LIST OF NOMENCLATURE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%""" ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ %# DEDICATION $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%#"" 1.0  INTRODUCTION$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&  1.1  Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Technology$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&  1.2  Current Practices of Wastewater Management in Developing Countries$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'  1.3  Sanitation in Cambodia $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(  1.4  Reuse Potential $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ )  1.5  Research Objectives $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*  1.6  Outline of Thesis $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&& LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND STUDIES $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&+  2.0 2.1  Constructed Wetland in Developing Countries $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&+  2.2  Types of Constructed Wetland$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,  2.2.1  Free water surface (FWS) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,  2.2.2  Subsurface (SSF)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)  2.2.3  Previous work$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&-  2.3  Capabilities and Limitations of Constructed Wetlands $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+'  2.4  Wetland Hydrology $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+,  2.5  Summary of Sizing Methods $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+-  2.6  Summary$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'* ! "#!  3.0  METHODOLOGY$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'+  3.1  Research Site Information $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'+  3.2  Design Basis and Sizing Consideration$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'.  3.3  Macrophytes and Biomass $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'/  3.4  First Order Modeling$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,*  3.5  System Description$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,&  3.5.1  Challenges with wastewater distribution $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,.  3.6  Septage (Influent) Characterization $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,/  3.7  System Operation $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(+  3.8  Sampling and Analytical Protocols$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$('  3.8.1  Sampling protocols $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$('  3.8.2  Analytical protocols $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$((  3.9  Statistical Analysis and Data Analysis $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(.  3.10  Summary $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)*  4.0  EVALUATION OF TREATMENT EFFICACY OF THE PILOT SYSTEM $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)&  4.1  Operating Conditions $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)&  4.2  Summary of Treatment Efficacy $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)(  4.3  Particulates Removal $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)-  4.4  BOD, COD and TOC Removal $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.&  4.5  Nitrogen Removal $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..  4.6  TP and PO4 Removal$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-*  4.7  Pathogen Removal $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-(  4.8  Dissolved Oxygen $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-/  4.9  Biomass Production $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-/  4.10  Summary $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/'  ! #!  5.0  DISCUSSION$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/,  5.1  Estimated Removal Kinetics$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/,  5.2  Effects of HLR on Treatment Efficacy $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*+  5.3  Suitability of Effluent for Irrigation Application $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*,  5.3.1  Public health concerns $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*(  5.3.2  Crop health concerns $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*.  5.4 6.0  Summary$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*/  BIBLIOGRAPHY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&&+ APPENDICES $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&+, Appendix A Field and Raw Data$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&+( Appendix B Seasonal Variability In Pilot System Performance (Inlet and Outlet)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)* Appendix C Precipitation and Temperature Data $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&.*  ! #"!  LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of constructed wetlands for secondary waste water treatment (Massoud et al., 2009) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$( Table 1-2 Health-based targets and helminth reduction targets for treated wastewater use in agriculture (WHO, 2006). DALY=disability-adjusted life year. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Table 1-3 Verification monitoring of wastewater treatment (E. coli numbers per 100 ml of treated wastewater) for the various levels of wastewater treatment in irrigation options (WHO, 2006).$$$$/ Table 1-4 Recommended key parameters for crop health for wastewater use in agriculture* (Mara, 2004) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&* Table 3-1 System design information $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,, Table 3-2 Average influent characterization (mean ± standard deviation, S.D.) and results of one-way ANOVA statistic (F-ratio)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(* Table 3-3 Summary of testing analytical methods and water quality standards for parameters tested in this study$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$() Table 4-1 Summary of operating conditions (mean ± S.D.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)+ Table 4-2 Summary of influent concentration, effluent concentration and % removal for Acclimatization, Trial 1 and Trial 2 (mean ± S.D., except for E. coli and TC which are in log units or log reduction units ± S.D.) and results of one-way ANOVA statistic (F-ratio). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)) Table 4-3 Biomass production (kg dry weight/m2) during Acclimatization period$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/* Table 4-4 NPK ratio (average)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/& Table 5-1 Summary of estimated rate constants, k (m/year), for the pilot constructed wetland system and comparison with other literature (± approximate S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/. Table 5-2 Comparison of effluent quality against recommendation by WHO and FAO (Ayers & Westcot, 1989; Mara, 2004; Westcot, 1997)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*( Table A01 pH, conductivity, DO and temperature in the pilot constructed wetland system, April – Dec, 2010 (Inlet = inlet tank; W1-W4 = sampling wells in subsurface cell 1; W5-W8 = samping wells in subsurface cell 2; Tank 3 inlet = inlet to FWS cell; Tank 3 outlet = final effluent) $$$$$$$$$$&+( Table A02 Water level, flow, HLR and HRT data, April – Dec 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&'( Table A03 Turbidity (NTU) in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 (y0 = inlet, y1 = sampling wells W1 and W2, y2 = sampling wells W3 and W4, y3 = sampling wells W5 and W6, y4 = sampling wells W7 and W8, y5 = effluent outlet) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&'! #""!  Table A04 TSS (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&'/ Table A-5 BOD (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,* Table A06 COD (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,* Table A-7 TOC (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,+ Table A08 NH3/NH4+ (mg/l as N) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,' Table A09 TKN (mg/l as N) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,, Table A-10 TN (mg/l as N) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,( Table A-11 NO2 (mg/l as NO2) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,) Table A012 NO3 (mg/l as NO3) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,. Table A-13 TP (mg/l as PO4) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,Table A-14 PO4 (mg/l as PO4) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&,/ Table A-15 Fe (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010&(* Table A-16 Mg (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&(& Table A017 Ca (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&(+ Table A-18 K (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $&(+ Table A-19 Na (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&(' Table A-20 B (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $&(,  ! #"""!  Table A-21 Cl (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 &(, Table A-22 SO4 (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&(( Table A023 E. coli (coli/100mL) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&(. Table A-24 TC (coli/100mL) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&(-  ! "%!  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Types of constructed wetland (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&, Figure 2-2 Free water surface constructed wetland (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&( Figure 2-3 Subsurface constructed wetland (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&) Figure 3-1 Research site at Cambodia$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'' Figure 3-2 Research site at RDIC, Kien Svay, Cambodia $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$', Figure 3-3 Weather / Climate chart - Phnom Penh, Cambodia, based on monthly averages, 1997-2001 (Cramer, 2011)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$'( Figure 3-4 Schematic of the pilot constructed wetland system$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,' Figure 3-5 Inlet bay (top), outlet bay (bottom) of the subsurface cells$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,( Figure 3-6 Inlet tank (top), outlet collection bay of the subsurface cells (bottom) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,) Figure 3-7 Inlet distributions for cell 1 before modification (top), and after modification (bottom) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,Figure 4-1 Diurnal variation in difference in inlet and outlet flowrate of the pilot constructed wetland system measured during a 48h period. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$), Figure 4-2 Inlet and outlet turbidity (± standard error, S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)/ Figure 4-3 Longitudinal concentration profile of TSS through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.* Figure 4-4 Relationship between turbidity and TSS (for TSS above 40 mg/l)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.& Figure 4-5 Inlet and outlet concentration of COD (± S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.+ Figure 4-6 Inlet and outlet concentration of BOD (± S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.' Figure 4-7 Inlet and outlet concentration of TOC (± S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.' Figure 4-8 Longitudinal concentration profile of COD through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$., Figure 4-9 Longitudinal concentration profile of BOD through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.( Figure 4-10 Longitudinal concentration profile of TOC through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.) ! %!  Figure 4-11 Inlet and outlet concentration of TN (± S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.Figure 4-12 Longitudinal concentration profile of TN through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$./ Figure 4-13 Inlet and outlet concentration of TP (± S.E.)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-+ Figure 4-14 Inlet and outlet concentration of PO4 (± S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-+ Figure 4-15 Longitudinal concentration profile of TP through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-' Figure 4-16 Longitudinal concentration profile of PO4 through the pilot constructed wetland system at HLR 1 (15.5 mm/day) and HLR 2 (27.4 mm/day) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-, Figure 4-17 Inlet and outlet concentration (log units) of E. coli (± S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-) Figure 4-18 Inlet and outlet concentration (log units) of TC (± S.E.) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-) Figure 4-19 Longitudinal concentration profile of E. coli through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-. Figure 4-20 Longitudinal concentration profile of TC through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-Figure 4-21 Plant growth, May - October, 2010 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/+ Figure 5-1 Estimated k values for TSS (top) and BOD (bottom) ± S.E.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$/Figure 5-2 Estimated k values for COD (top) and TOC (bottom) ± S.E.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$// Figure 5-3 Estimated k values for PO4 (top) and TP (bottom) ± S.E. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&** Figure 5-4 Estimated k values for TN (top) and E. coli (bottom) ± S.E.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*& Figure 5-5 Estimated k values for TC ± S.E.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*+ Figure 5-6 Influent and effluent Fe concentration (mg/l) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&*, Figure B-1 COD concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)* Figure B-2 BOD concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)* Figure B-3 Turbidity concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)& Figure B-4 TSS concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)& Figure B-5 TOC concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)+  ! %"!  Figure B-6 NH3/NH4+ concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)+ Figure B-7 TKN concentration vs. Time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)' Figure B-8 TN concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)' Figure B-9 PO4 concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&), Figure B-10 TP concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&), Figure B-11 Cl concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)( Figure B-12 SO4 concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)( Figure B-13 E. coli (log units) vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)) Figure B-14 TC (log units) vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)) Figure B-15 Fe concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&). Figure B-16 Mg concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&). Figure B-17 K concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)Figure B-18 Ca concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)Figure B-19 Na concentration vs. time $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)/ Figure B020 B concentration vs. time$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&)/ Figure C01 Precipitation data for May 2010 - December 2010 from weather station on site.$$$$$&.* Figure C02 Zoomed in precipitation data for Trial 1 and Trial 2 (October 27 - December 21, 2010). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&.& Figure C03 Temperature data for May 2010 - December 2010 from the weather station on site. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&.+ Figure C04 Zoomed in temperature data for Trial 1 and Trial 2 (October 27 - December 21, 2010). $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&.'  ! %""!  LIST OF NOMENCLATURE BOD  Biological Oxygen Demand  COD  Chemical Oxygen Demand  FAO  Food and Agriculture Organization  FWS  Free Water Surface  HDPE  High-density polyethylene  HRT  Hydraulic Retention Time  HLR  Hydraulic Loading Rate  HSSF  Horizontal Subsurface Flow  IMF  International Monetary Fund  JMP®  Jump statistical analysis software  POU  Point of Use  RDI  Resource Development International  SAS®  Statistical Analysis Software  S.D.  Standard Deviation  S.E.  Standard Error  SSF  Subsurface Flow  TC  Total Coliform  TDP  Total Dissolved Phosphates  TN  Total Nitrogen  TOC  Total Organic Carbon  TSS  Total Suspended Solids  TP  Total Phosphorus  TVA  Tennessee Valley Authority ! %"""!  UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USDA  United States Department of Agriculture  USEPA  United States Environmental Protection Agency  VSSF  Vertical Flow Subsurface VSSF  WHO  World Health Organization  ! %"#!  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful for the many help that the faculty, staff and fellow students at UBC who have directly and indirectly contributed to the completion of my thesis work. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Robert Millar who not only gave me the opportunity to do something that I am passionate about but who also has been an uplifting source of encouragement throughout the course of my thesis work. Paula Parkinson and Timothy Ma were invaluable in helping me with lab work and making sense of my data. Pattul was always helpful whenever I need some help with lab procedures. This project would not have been possible if Mickey Sampson did not decide to quit his job in Kentucky and dedicated his life to Cambodia. A man of God, his compassion and dedication had touched and inspired many lives, including me. He will be truly missed by many. Special thanks to Taber Hand who sparked my interest and initiated the idea of this research with his work in wetlands and encouraged me to conduct my research in Cambodia. I also wish to thank Andrew Shantz at Resource Development International (RDI), who has not only supported my work tremendously, but is also a dear friend whose passion I admire. His crew at the laboratory at RDI including Makara Thang, Lim Sereyrath, Samnet Chan, Pherak, Ramy, and Simech have made my time at RDI a wonderful experience. Not forgetting the help I received from the administration team at RDI including Wendi Sampson, John and Vicki Burnette, Mark and Ann Hall, whom had so graciously allowed me to use their land for my research. They and many others had ! %#!  made my stay in Cambodia a truly enjoyable and memorable experience, again and again. Special and unique people like Ming Supian and Ming Sarom whose motherly kindness I will never forget, Lori Frees, with whom I shared many wonderful conversations; Sothy and her 3 adorable kids, Amui, Totla, and Daniel, whose lovely smiles and unselfish help brightened my days and always put a smile on my face; Da the troublemaking brother; Sua the ever-encouraging and gentle soul, whom I have yet to beat in ping pong; the lovely Sampsons girls, Date, Michal and Madelyn; the equally lovely Sampsons boys, Zach and Zay. Special thanks to Son Kosal, a.k.a, Saul, my field technician, who oversaw my wetland system and communicating to me over email during my absence from the site. Each person that I met at the special village called Preak Thom, you hold a special place in my heart. Finally, my heartfelt thanks to my family – my parents, my brother Billy and his family, Linda and Riley the cutest boy around, who is the love of my life, and my brother Richard, for supporting me physically (feeding me lovely meals), emotionally (being my friends through thick and thin, even for letting me crying on their shoulders), financially (how in the world did I get by the past 2 ! years?), and in their prayer support, even if they don’t understand my research. Last but not least, I thank my God, Jehovah Jireh for giving me all that I have and for carrying me through my life even when I didn’t realize I was broken.  ! %#"!  DEDICATION  To my family: Mom & Dad, Billy, Linda, Riley and my future niece, Richard,  and  Mickey Sampson, Who made it possible in the first place  !%#""!  1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Technology According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2.6 billion people, or 39% of the world’s population, currently lack access to adequate sanitation globally, and some 1.1 billion people still defecate in the open; most of whom are located in the developing countries (WHO/UNICEF, 2010). The situation with drinking water is comparatively much better, with 5.9 billion people, or 87% of the world’s population, now have access to safer and improved drinking water sources (WHO/UNICEF, 2010). Adequate drinking water and sanitation is often considered as a necessary prerequisite to hygienic safety, but also an important factor in establishing prosperity and political stability of a society (Diaz & Barkdoll, 2006). The impact of the lack of access to adequate drinking water and sanitation is magnified in developing countries, whereby lack of access to adequate drinking water and sanitation almost always co-exists with widespread poverty. Increasing population growth and accelerating human activities in developing countries in particular, forces both the adequate water supply and proper waste disposal to be some of the most important resource management issues. Hence, the development and exploitation of the existing available water resource for the needs of the population must be sustainable, including the sustainability of domestic wastewater treatment. Sustainable development is defined as “which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet  ! &!  their own needs” (Brundtland & Khalid, 1987). This also drives the motivation of reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture for this study. Muga et al. (2008) concluded that overall sustainability of a wastewater treatment technology is a function of economic, environmental and social dimensions, and the selection and interpretation of indicators is influenced by an area’s geographic and demographic situation. Their study showed that there are varying degrees of sustainability in the way a particular treatment technology is selected and then operated. As a general guideline, the following criteria would be relevant in considering the sustainability in relation to domestic wastewater treatment in developing countries (Mara, 2004): The selected technology should: • be low cost in terms of capital and operation and maintenance; • be simple to operate and maintain; • require low or zero energy input, other than naturally available energy such as solar energy; • require low or zero chemicals for operation; • be high performance, having the ability to produce an effluent of the required quality; • result in low sludge production; • where relevant, have a low land intake.  ! +!  Often, the last factor is compromised because other factors take priority as land cost is not high in rural areas of developing countries. The purchase of land as a resource is renewable as stated in Mara’s book (Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries) (2004), “money spent on land is not money wasted, but money spent on electricity is money gone for ever.” 1.2 Current Practices of Wastewater Management in Developing Countries In the context of wastewater treatment for a community or a region one would often begin with the question of whether a centralized or conventional wastewater treatment system or a decentralized system would be more suitable. Centralized wastewater treatment systems involve advanced collection and treatment processes that process large quantities of wastewater and usually require significant capital investment and appreciable energy and chemical input for operation. Decentralized systems on the other hand, are usually designed to operate at a small scale and as such, are much less capital-intensive. Decentralized wastewater management is defined as the collection, treatment and reuse of wastewater at or near the point of generation. Decentralized wastewater management systems are used commonly for treating individual onsite and small community-scale wastewater flows from dispersed facilities (Asano, 2007). A study done by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) revealed that decentralized systems are generally more cost effective than centralized systems in managing wastewater in rural areas (USEPA, 1997). Several approaches for secondary treatment are currently being employed to address the issue of wastewater management in developing countries, ranging from media filters to lagoons, to aerobic treatment-based solutions, for which Massoud et ! '!  al. (2009) provided an overview. Mara (2004) gave a concise and comprehensive review of the technologies most applicable in developing countries. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and depending on the acceptable tradeoffs, the solution may be tailored to a specific situation. For example, the consideration between land area and operational cost, as well as the acceptable effluent quality has to be considered carefully before arriving at the appropriate solution. In choosing the “most appropriate technology”, two factors have to be considered; affordability which relates to the economic condition of the community, and appropriateness which relates to the environmental and social conditions (Grau, 1996). Constructed wetlands are gaining popularity as natural systems for wastewater treatment (Sundaravadivel & Vigneswaran, 2001) and their advantages and disadvantages as a secondary treatment method are described by Massoud (2009) in Table 1-1.  ! ,!  Table 1-1 Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of constructed wetlands for secondary waste water treatment (Massoud et al., 2009) Main advantages  Main disadvantages  Inexpensive to operate and construct  Periodic maintenance of wetlands usually required  Reduced odors  Require a continuous supply of water  Able to loadings  handle  variable  wastewater Affected by seasonal variations in weather conditions  Provide wildlife habitat  Can be disrupted by high ammonia and solids levels  loads  of  For the purpose of this thesis, constructed wetland has been selected because of its fulfillment of all the criteria except the land requirement, which is considered as less critical considering the achievable effluent quality for the purpose of re-use (Campbell & Ogden, 1999; Kivaisi, 2001; Mara, 2004; Massoud et al., 2009). In addition, a wetland itself is culturally very familiar to the population in Cambodia because of the large wetlands in the country, and the public generally appreciates the ability of the natural wetlands in providing clean water. 1.3 Sanitation in Cambodia Like other countries in the Southeast Asia, Cambodia’s climate is characterized by monsoons, with flooding to some degree occurring almost every year. The country has two distinct seasons – the rainy season, which runs from May to October, and the dry season, which runs from November to April. According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), Cambodia is a least developed country, with a growing GDP per capita of US$314 in 2002 ! (!  (USDA, 2009) to US$795 in 2010 (IMF, 2010) and a population of 14.8 milion (World Bank, 2011). Cambodia is experiencing rapid urban growth fueled further by emerging urban economies designed to attract foreign investment, but at the same time, the country is faced with limited technical capacity, weak urban governance and inadequate financial frameworks (Seshimo & Chen, 2005). According to UNICEF (2006), in rural Cambodia, less than 16% of the population has access to adequate sanitation and 65% to safe water. In urban areas, the situation is much better and the sanitation situation has improved rapidly over the last few years due to rapid urban and economic growth. However, some 80% of the Cambodians still live in the rural areas (Degan, 2007). Cambodia has one of the highest infant and under-five mortality rates in the region at 69 and 90 per 1,000 live births, respectively (Degan, 2007; UNICEF, 2006). More than one third of Cambodians live below the poverty line, struggling to live on less than $1 a day (UNICEF, 2006). Poverty is especially pervasive in rural areas and among children, who constitute more than half of the country’s population (UNICEF, 2006). 1.4 Reuse Potential More than 10% of the world’s population consumes foods produced by irrigation with wastewater whereby both treated and untreated wastewater are used directly and indirectly (WHO, 2006). As population growth and urbanization continue to accelerate, there is a need to better incorporate wastewater into the overall management of water resources as the production of wastewater increases. Besides examining the effectiveness of constructed wetlands as a solution to septage treatment in this study, it makes sense to investigate the reuse potential of the ! )!  effluent at the same time, since the septage is generally rich in nutrient content. In this study, the effluent reuse is assessed based on the microbial and chemical quality of the effluent to determine its suitability for reuse, which essentially addresses the public health and crop health concerns (Tables 1-2 to 1-4). WHO (2006) has developed comprehensive guidelines in wastewater, excreta and greywater use, from a public health perspective, which are summarized in Tables 1-2 and 1-3.  The  health-based target is often quantified in terms of disability-adjusted life year (DALY), which measures the overall disease burden, expressed as the number of years lost due to ill-health, disability or early death (Murray & Lopez, 1996). The guidelines developed to address the crop health concern are summarized by Mara (2004), based on the recommendations provided by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), as illustrated in Table 1-4 (Ayers & Westcot, 1989; Westcot, 1997).  ! .!  Table 1-2 Health-based targets and helminth reduction targets for treated wastewater use in agriculture (WHO, 2006). DALY=disability-adjusted life year.  Type of irrigation  Health-based target for viral, bacterial and protozoan pathogens  Microbial reduction target for helminth eggs  Unrestricted  " 10-6 DALY per person per yeara  " 1 egg/L (arithmetic mean)b,c  Restricted  " 10-6 DALY per person per yeara  " 1 egg/L (arithmetic mean)b,c  Localized (e.g., drip irrigation  " 10-6 DALY per person per yeara  (a) Low-growing crops:d " 1 egg/L (arithmetic mean) (b) High growing crops:d,e No recommendation  a  The health-based target can be achieved, for unrestricted and localized irrigation, by a 6-7 log unit pathogen reduction (obtained by a combination of wastewater treatment and other health protection measures); for restricted irrigation, it is achieved by a 2-3 log unit pathogen reduction.  b  When children under 15 years of age are exposed, additional health protection measures should be used.  c  An arithmetic mean should be determined throughout the irrigation season. The mean value of " 1 egg/L should be obtained for at least 90% of samples in order to allow for the occasional high-value sample (i.e. with > 10 eggs/L). With some wastewater treatment processes (e.g. waste stabilization ponds), the hydraulic retention time can be used as a surrogate to assure compliance with " 1 egg/L.  d  High-growing crops include fruit trees, olives, etc.  e  No crops to be picked up from the soil.  ! -!  Table 1-3 Verification monitoring of wastewater treatment (E. coli numbers per 100 ml of treated wastewater) for the various levels of wastewater treatment in irrigation options (WHO, 2006).  Type of irrigation  Unrestricted  Option  Required pathogen reduction by treatment (log units)  Verification monitoring level (E. coli per 100 ml)  Notes  A  4  "103  Root crops  B  3  "104  Leaf crops  C  2  "105  Drip irrigation of highgrowing crops  D  4  "103  Drip irrigation of lowgrowing crops  "101 or  Verification level depends on the requirements of the local regulatory agencya  E  Restricted  a  6 or 7  "100  F  4  "10  Labour-intensive agriculture (protective of adults and children under 15)  G  3  "105  Highly mechanized agriculture  H  0.5  "106  Pathogen removal in a septic tank  4  For example, for secondary treatment, filtration and disinfection: 5-day BOD < 10 mg/l; turbidity < 2NTU;  chlorine residue of 1 mg/l; pH of 6-9; and faecal coliform not detectable in 100 mL.  ! /!  Table 1-4 Recommended key parameters for crop health for wastewater use in agriculture* (Mara, 2004) Parameter  Upper Limit  pH  6.5 – 8.5  Conductivity/Salinity!  < 75 ms/cm!  Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR)!  < 18!  Total Nitrogen (TN)!  30 mg/l!  Boron  < 1 mg/l  * Based on FAO guideline  1.5 Research Objectives This research was motivated by the author’s personal experience living in Cambodia briefly in 2007-2008. The broad objective of this research is to contribute to the ongoing effort of improving the sanitation condition in developing countries, and to the exploration of one of the viable solutions in septage management. Specific objectives of this research are: 1. To design a constructed wetland system as per current design guideline and obtain the rate constants for the climate conditions in Cambodia or other places with similar climate (Campbell & Ogden, 1999; Kadlec & Knight, 1996). 2. To investigate the impact of hydraulic loading rate (HLR) on removal of parameters and wetland performance as outlined in Section 3.8.  ! &*!  3. To evaluate the treatment efficacy and determine if the system provides adequate effluent that is suitable for irrigation (Tables 1-2 to 1-4) from the water quality perspective. 1.6 Outline of Thesis The following chapters of this thesis are presented as follows:  •  Chapter 2 presents an overview of constructed wetlands, in terms of historical development, the different types of constructed wetlands, relevant studies done to date, the capabilities and limitations of constructed wetlands, the hydrology involved as well as a brief overview of the sizing methods, with an emphasis on the method used in this study.  •  Chapter 3 provides a breakdown of the methods employed in this study, including the system description, system operation, and design basis; the influent characterization; statistical methods employed and the model used in describing the concentration profile within the wetland system.  •  Chapter 4 summarizes the results of evaluation of treatment efficacy in terms of percentage removal, inlet and outlet concentration, and the longitudinal concentration profile based on first order modeling.  •  Chapter 5 summarizes the estimated removal kinetics and discusses the effects of HLR on treatment efficacy as well as on the reuse potential of the effluent for irrigation.  •  Chapter 6 concludes by summarizing the main findings of the study and the implications, with recommendation for future studies. ! &&!  2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND STUDIES 2.1 Constructed Wetland in Developing Countries Wetlands are defined as transitional areas between land and water. The term “wetland” encompasses a broad range of wet environments, including marshes, bogs, swamps, wet meadows, tidal wetlands, floodplains, and ribbon (riparian) wetlands along stream channels. There is a high degree of interaction between functions of hydrology, soil chemistry, nutrient recycling, habitat and so forth. Constructed wetlands, on the other hand, are man-made and are designed to mimic the natural processes occurring in natural wetlands and essentially acting as complex bioreactors, removing pollutants from the water. Constructed wetlands are also known as treatment wetlands, artificial wetlands, reed beds, and root zone beds. In storm-water management, some other similar concepts include rain gardens and bioswales. The concept of using a wetland to improve water quality is not new, with the first documented use dating back to 1904. However, a constructed wetland is a relatively new term and the first scientific research studies began some 60 years ago with Dr. Kathe Seide in Germany who worked on pilot-scaled constructed wetland wastewater treatment facilities and presented her findings in 1953 (Brix, 1994; Campbell & Ogden, 1999). A good review of the development of constructed wetlands is given by Brix (1994). The technology underwent extensive research in the 70s and 80s in the United States under Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) including applications in industrial and domestic wastewater such as treatment of acid mine drainage or seepage, pulp mill effluent, landfill leachate, municipal wastewater, urban runoff, and ! &+!  agricultural wastes (Hammer, 1989; Moshiri, 1993; Pries, 2002). Interestingly, there was also work done for space application as a result of early European work (Wolverton, 1982). Constructed wetlands consist of a properly designed basin that contains water, a substrate, and most commonly, vascular plants. It appears that free water surface flow wetlands are the dominant type of wetlands used for wastewater treatment in the U.S., whereas the subsurface type of wetlands are more common in Europe, Australia and South Africa (Brix, 1994; Wood, 1995). Many of the constructed wetlands used for wastewater treatment act as a polishing step for an existing lagoon system, with the most common pretreatments being facultative and aerated lagoons. Up to the 90s, the existing systems were designed with a range of hydraulic loading rate, implying a lack of clear design consensus. Currently, constructed wetlands have been employed in various applications such as domestic wastewater, industrial waste, acid mine waste, agricultural waste, and stormwater runoff treatment, and are well documented for applications in developed countries (Hammer, 1989; Kadlec & Wallace, 2009; Moshiri, 1993). In developing countries, the application of constructed wetlands is comparatively less well documented. Despite the many recommendations that constructed wetlands appear to be a viable option for wastewater treatment in developing countries (Haberl, 1999; Kivaisi, 2001; Sundaravadivel & Vigneswaran, 2001), the actual implementation remains slow. Denny (1997) attributes this firstly to the tendency of aid programs from developed countries to favour more overt technologies which have a commercial spin-off for the donors, and secondly, to the fact that the developed world advisors ! &'!  maybe entrenched in appropriate technologies for their own countries and are unable to transfer their conceptual thinking to the realities and cultures of the third world. 2.2 Types of Constructed Wetland Constructed wetland design is broadly categorized into two types: free water surface and subsurface. And within the subsurface type, it is further divided into horizontal flow and vertical flow (Figure 2-1).  Constructed Wetland  Surface Flow  Floating Plants  Submerged Plants  Subsurface Flow  Emergent Plants  Horizontal Flow  Vertical Flow  Figure 2-1 Types of constructed wetland (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009) A brief comparison between free water surface and subsurface systems are listed as follows: 2.2.1 Free water surface (FWS) FWS or surface flow wetlands consist of a shallow basin or channel, with some sort of subsurface barrier to prevent seepage, soil or other medium to support emergent vegetation, and a water control structure that maintains a shallow depth of water. Water level is above ground and hence water flow is ! &,!  primarily above ground. Aquatic plant systems used in free water surface wetlands include floating plant systems and/or submerged plant systems. Free water surface wetlands look much like natural marshes and can provide wildlife habitat and aesthetic benefits as well as water treatment. The near-surface layer is aerobic while the deeper waters and substrate are usually anaerobic.  !  Figure 2-2 Free water surface constructed wetland (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009) The advantages of free water surface wetlands are: lower capital and operating costs, relatively straightforward construction, easy operation and maintenance, and more aesthetic benefits compared with subsurface systems. The disadvantages, on the other hand, are: larger land area requirements, less tolerance to cold weather, and potential odour and pest problems, which are discussed in Section 2.3.  ! &(!  2.2.2 Subsurface (SSF) SSF wetlands are also called vegetated submerged bed, root zone method, microbial rock reed filter, or plant-rock filter systems. Subsurface wetlands consist of a sealed basin with a porous substrate, in which the substrate is typically composed of soil, sand, rock, gravel or artificial media. The water level is designed to remain below the top of the substrate where water flows through filtering medium (sand or gravel bed) and flow path can be either horizontal or vertical. Hence SSF wetlands are further classified as horizontal flow subsurface (HSSF) wetlands and vertical flow subsurface (VSSF) wetlands. Due to the shallow depth, the roots of the vegetation usually penetrate to the bottom of the bed. Subsurface wetland systems are commonly used to treat wastewaters with relatively low solids concentrations and are operated under relatively uniform flow conditions (Campbell & Ogden, 1999).  !  Figure 2-3 Subsurface constructed wetland (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009)  ! &)!  The advantages of subsurface wetlands are: minimization of pest and odor problems (no free standing water) and thus well suited for systems located in close proximity to the public. SSF wetlands also appear to offer high performance levels for 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) at relatively low costs for construction, operation and maintenance. It is well suited for small to moderate-sized installations where suitable land and media are available at a reasonable cost. SSF wetlands appear more cost effective than FWS wetlands for systems under 75,000 – 80,000 gpd (with anaerobic pretreatment) vs. aerobic pre-treatment and FWS wetlands (Campbell & Ogden, 1999). Unlike FWS wetlands, SSF wetlands offer greater cold tolerance and possibly greater assimilation potential per unit of land area. The disadvantages of the SSF type wetland system are mainly in terms of cost, operation, maintenance and performance. SSF wetlands require higher capital and repair or maintenance cost, which is primarily due to the substrate cost. They also tend to have problems with ammonia removal (lack of oxygen in the bed profile and hydraulic retention time (HRT) that is too brief to complete the nitrification reactions), although optimized relationships are not fully developed or understood currently (Campbell & Ogden, 1999). Good design is more critical, especially with respect to surface ponding and clogging problems, which are some common problems in the earlier design of SSF wetlands. Finally, since SSF wetland is a more complicated design, the SSF system is more difficult to regulate than the FWS system.  ! &.!  In this study, a hybrid system composed of two SSF wetland cells and one FWS wetland cell was designed to treat the septage generated onsite, after consideration of the wastewater strength. A hybrid system should be more versatile by incorporating the benefits of both SSF and FWS wetlands. 2.2.3 Previous work Most of the published data on constructed wetland performance are in the temperate or subtropical climate region, such as North America, Europe, and Australia. More and more research is being conducted in the tropical region, where most of the developing countries are located, presumably due to the assumption that the higher temperature would enhance the removal rate constant, and thus the suitability of the technology, although other studies have shown that removal is often independent of temperature for pollutants such as BOD, TSS and total phosphorus (TP) (Kadlec & Knight, 1996). Most studies found high removal of pollutants in constructed wetlands treating domestic wastewater. Examples of relevant studies conducted in the tropical region are summarized below: •  Ascuntar (2009) focused on the study of hydrodynamic behaviour of horizontal SSF constructed wetland for secondary treatment of domestic wastewater in Ginebra, southwest Columbia, and found that the  real  hydrodynamic  behaviour  of  these  systems  shows  characteristics of a completely stirred tank reactor instead of the commonly assumed ideal plug flow system.  ! &-!  •  Kantawanichkul et al. (1999; 2001; 2003) conducted several lab-scaled and  pilot-scale  experiments  treating  domestic  wastewater  and  wastewater from pig farms examining the treatment efficacy of SSF constructed wetland, nitrogen removal and comparison of two designs of experimental hybrid constructed wetland systems (vegetated horizontal subsurface flow followed by vegetated vertical flow vs. vegetated vertical flow over an un-vegetated horizontal flow) in Thailand. •  Katsenovich et al. (2009) evaluated the effectiveness of five different emergent plant species in treating effluent from an existing wastewater treatment facility in El Salvador and identified Phragmites and Brachiaria as the most effective plants in SSF constructed wetland.  •  Konnerup et al. (2009) conducted a study with six pilot-scale horizontal SSF constructed wetland units with ornamental species with varying hydraulic loading rates and found high removal efficiency of TSS, and moderate removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD), and estimated the removal rate constants based on a first-order k - C * model.  •  Lim et al. (2001) looked at the oxygen demand, nitrogen and copper  !! uptake by lab-scale FWS and SSF constructed wetland cells from primary-treated sewage under tropical conditions. •  Meutia (Meutia, 2001) examined the capability of multi-staged constructed wetlands for treating laboratory wastewater in Indonesia comparing vertical subsurface flow and horizontal subsurface flow.  ! &/!  •  Stott et al. (2003) reported removal of parasite eggs as a function of reedbed length, with 98% removal after 50m and complete removal after 100 m with pilot and field-scale systems in Brazil and Egypt. The constructed wetland system was a gravel bed hydroponic horizontal SSF system planted with reeds with a hydraulic loading of 72 mm/day. They concluded that both waste stabilization pond and constructed wetland can remove intestinal parasite eggs very efficiently and consistently, and suggested that the parasite removal performance may be related to loading rates.  •  Tanaka et al. (2006) evaluated the improvement of primary effluent quality by using an integrated system of emergent plants and submergent plants in a pilot-scale constructed wetland in Sri Lanka.  •  Similar to Konnerup et al. (2009), Trang et al. (2010) assessed the treatment capacity at four hydraulic loading rates on a pilot scale horizontal SSF constructed wetland and estimated the k -values in the  k - C * model but cautioned the readers that the k values should not be ! used for design purposes, citing the potential of high site-specific !!  differences and stochastic variability. •  !  Yeh et al. (2009) investigated pollutant removal efficiencies and mechanisms within field-scaled hybrid constructed wetland systems in Taiwan. The hybrid systems included an oxidation pond, serial surface flow wetlands and a subsurface flow wetland treating secondary dormitory sewage.  ! +*!  The experience in using constructed wetlands for septage treatment is somewhat limited. Relatively few studies were focused on septage treatment with constructed wetlands in the tropics, or even just septage treatment in general. Septage is the semi-liquid material that is accumulated in on-site sanitation systems such as septic tanks. It consists of sludge that has accumulated in the bottom of the tanks over a period of years, the tank liquid and surface scum layers (Kurup et al., 2002). Septage is typically characterized by higher solids and organic content than domestic sewage (Koottatep et al., 2005; Kurup, Kurup, Mathew, & Ho, 2002; J. M. Teal & Peterson, 1991), but the characteristics are highly variable depending on factors such as climatic conditions, frequency of septage removal and sources of septage. Kurup reviewed co-treatment of septage in a municipal sewage treatment pond system and found no adverse impact to the performance of the pond system when septage is introduced due to a reserve capacity of the pond (Kurup et al., 2002). Other studies focused on the use of constructed wetlands or other secondary treatment methods in conjunction of constructed wetland for septage treatment (Hamersley et al., 2001; Koottatep et al., 2005; Shrestha, Haberl, Laber, Manandhar, & Mader, 2001; J. M. Teal & Peterson, 1991; J. M. Teal & Peterson, 1993; Tsalkatidou, Gratziou, & Kotsovinos, 2009). •  Tsalkatidou et al. (2009) examined treatment of septage by a waste stabilization ponds-constructed wetland combination. The project, located in Greece, utilized a vertical flow type constructed wetland and found effluent from the constructed wetland to perform better than  ! +&!  maturation ponds. An unplanted constructed wetland performed better than a planted constructed wetland. They recommended such natural systems as opposed to costly drainage networks in small communities. •  Koottatep et al. (2005), based on the results from seven years of operation of a vertical flow constructed wetland in Thailand for the treatment of septage, reported removal efficiencies of 80-96% for COD, total solids (TS) and total Kjeldhal nitrogen (TKN), and found the biosolids accumulated in the constructed wetland units to contain viable egg concentrations of <6 eggs/g TS and thus the effluent was considered safe for agricultural use.  •  Hamersley et al. (2001) evaluated nitrogen removal in an ecologically engineered wastewater treatment system that combined aeration and activated solids recycling with aquatic and constructed wetland treatment components in treating septage in coastal Massachusetts, USA. Constructed wetlands were employed for polishing treated water, reducing the nitrogen by 51.9% with a hydraulic retention time of 3.5 days. Total retention time of the system was 15 days.  •  Shrestha et al. (2001) discussed the implementation of an existing wastewater treatment system in Nepal consisting of multi-chambered septic tanks, sand and gravel filter beds and vertical flow constructed wetland for septage treatment. The percent removal was reported to range from 34%-95% for BOD, TSS, NH4-N and COD but the treatment  ! ++!  efficiency is yet to be good enough to discharge effluent into the river according to Nepalese standards. •  Teal et al. (1991; 1993) evaluated a pilot solar aquatics treatment system incorporating wetland and aquaculture ecosystems enclosed and concentrated within a greenhouse and found it to be successful in treating septage to the local discharge standard in Harwich, MA, USA. The overall retention time of 11-12 days was reported, and the system achieved removal levels from 90% to over 99% for total dissolved phosphate (TDP), TN, BOD and TSS.  2.3 Capabilities and Limitations of Constructed Wetlands Constructed wetlands are generally not intended to be stand-alone systems for wastewater treatment (Campbell & Ogden, 1999; Kadlec & Wallace, 2009). Like any technology, there are drawbacks and limitations, some of which are highlighted below (Campbell & Ogden, 1999; Sundaravadivel & Vigneswaran, 2001): 1. Large land area requirements, rendering them unsuitable for centralized treatment for large quantities of wastewater such as for large cities. The typical outdoor installation spread over large area makes their performance to be susceptible to environmental conditions; 2. Insects and other pests (e.g., mosquitoes) related problems, particularly in FWS constructed wetland; 3. Relatively expensive if subsurface wetlands are involved due to the cost of media (e.g., crushed rock); ! +'!  4. The need for a period of time for the vegetation to mature before optimal treatment efficiencies are achieved; 5. Performance limitations in terms of removal capacity, especially in nitrogen and phosphorus; 6. Unsuitable for areas with steep topography and/or where water table is close to surface. Some of the limitations can be overcome by design, such as incorporating mosquito predators in FWS constructed wetland, utilizing vertical flow constructed wetland for a smaller footprint, and designing of full-scale systems based on results from pilot systems. 2.4 Wetland Hydrology A wetland is a highly complex ecosystem and therefore requires multi-disciplinary input when designing a wetland system. In particular, the hydraulic factors and hydrologic conditions are critical in determining the success of a constructed wetland. It is therefore necessary to understand what is entering and leaving the wetland. A summary of the components entering and exiting a wetland is illustrated in Equation 1 (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009). The input components are: streamflow, runoff, groundwater discharge and precipitation. In this case, the streamflow is the input from the storage tank, which is a steady inflow. Runoff and groundwater discharge would be nil since the cells are lined and thus considered as impermeable, and with the cells raised above ground, runoff would not enter the cells. The overall mass balance equation is expressed in Equation 1. ! +,!  Qi " Qo + Qc " Qb " Qgw + Qsm + (P # A) " (ET # A) =  dV dt  (Equation 1)!  Where: !  ! ! ! !  Qi = input wastewater flowrate, m3/day Qo = output wastewater flowrate, m3/day Qc = catchment runoff rate, m3/day Qb = bank loss rate, m3/day  Qgw = infiltration to groundwater, m3/day Qsm = snowmelt rate, m3/day  !  P = precipitation rate, m3/day !  A = wetland top surface area, m2 ! ET = evapo-transpiration rate, m3/day ! V = water storage (volume) in wetland, m3 ! T = time, day ! Considering the elimination of the input of runoff and snowmelt and output of  ! infiltration and bank loss in this project, the equation is simplified to:  Qi " Qo + (P # A) " (ET # A) =  dV dt  (Equation 2)  ! ! +(!  By measuring the inputs and outputs over a given time period, the accuracy of the measurements can be tested by performing a water balance as above. In addition, the water balance can be used to estimate a missing value if a measurement of that particular hydrologic component is not available, typically for ET or Qgw (SRWTP, 2000). In a natural wetland, there is a great deal of uncertainty over the hydrologic budgets, whereas in a constructed wetland, although the uncertainty still exists, it is reduced because of a better control of some of the components. Large variations in storage are possible due to the strong diurnal and seasonal difference of evapotranspiration. Similarly, precipitation usually occurs with seasonal cycles. Some of the common design parameters are the HLR and HRT. The HLR, or q is defined as “the rainfall equivalent of whatever flow is under consideration”:  ! Q q= A  !  (Equation 3)  Where:  q = HLR, m/day  A = wetland area (wetted land area), m2 !  Q = water flow rate, m3/day ! The HRT, or " is defined as the wetland water volume involved in flow divided by  !  the volumetric water flow: ! V #hA "= = Q Q  !  (Equation 4)  ! +)!  Where:  " = HRT, day  ! !  " = porosity (fraction of volume occupied by water) h = wetland water depth, m and all of the variables defined above.  ! Application of Equation 4 is not straight forward as suggested by Kadlec (2009), because: • firstly there is ambiguity about the flowrate (inlet or outlet or average); • secondly the measurement of porosity is complicated by stems and litter, and spatial heterogeneity, even in a FWS system; • thirdly, not all the volume of water in a wetland is involved in active flow due to stagnant pockets; • and fourthly, it is challenging to determine the mean water depth ( h ) with a satisfactory degree of accuracy, especially for large wetlands.  ! In this study, the main objective is to evaluate overall treatment efficacy and the removal rates for different HLR. Due to time constraint, only two HLR were tested in this study.  ! +.!  2.5 Summary of Sizing Methods There are several methods involved in the design of constructed wetlands, but three primary principles exist: pollutant and hydraulic loadings, first order removal models, and regression equations (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009). The three approaches can give conflicting design values as one method may have no relation to the other. Design based on first order or k - C * modeling however, is widely accepted as the preferred design approach, and that calibrated first-order model can reasonably !!  describe the trend of the concentration of effluent exiting wetland systems (Campbell & Ogden, 1999; Crites, Reed, & Middlebrooks, 2006; Kadlec & Wallace, 2009; Rousseau, Vanrolleghem, & De Pauw, 2004), even if it doesn’t account for the complex reactions and interactions that occur in wetlands. One version of such model is (Kadlec & Knight, 1996):  ln  Co " C * ky =" Ci " C * q  (Equation 5)  Where k is the first-order area-based removal rate constant (m/day), Co is the  !  outlet concentration (mg/l), C * is the irreducible background wetland concentration !  (mg/l), Ci is the inlet concentration (mg/l), q is the hydraulic loading!rate (m/day) and  !  y is the fractional distance from inlet to outlet ( y = 1.0 at outlet). !  !  ! Because of the variation in wetland characteristics (fractional coverage, media  !  depth, aspect ratio, environmental factors, etc), a distribution of k -values is to be expected and no wetland systems produce identical results. No known model  ! currently exists that is capable of accounting for the inherent random variation of effluent concentration on an hour-to-hour and day-to-day basis. All existing models ! +-!  can only provide a general trend of effluent concentration and not the random variability.  ! +/!  2.6 Summary The key points of this chapter are summarized as follows: • Constructed wetlands are man-made and are specifically designed to mimic the natural processes occurring in natural wetlands and essentially acting as complex bioreactors in removing pollutants from the water. • The advantages of constructed wetlands are low cost in terms of capital and operation, ease of operating and maintenance, ability to handle variable wastewater loadings and enhancement of wildlife habitat. • The applications of constructed wetlands are however, often limited by the land area requirements, insects and pests related problems, cost of substrates in subsurface wetlands, long maturation period, performance limitation and unsuitable sites. • Constructed wetlands have been proposed as a viable technology for wastewater treatment in developing countries based on well-documented results from experimental and operational systems in the developing countries but the actual implementation in the developing countries is slow due to the general preference for more overt technologies and the challenges for the developed world advisors in adapting to the realities and cultures of the developing countries. • Relatively few studies were focused on septage treatment with constructed wetlands in the tropics but several studies have concluded constructed wetlands to be successful in treating septage to the local discharge standard. ! '*!  • HLR and HRT are two key parameters in the design of constructed wetlands. • The preferred design approach in the design of constructed wetlands uses.  ! '&!  3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Site Information The project site is located in Kandal Province, Cambodia, on the compound of a Non-Government Organization called RDI-C (Resource Development InternationalCambodia). Figure 3-1 shows the location of Cambodia with respect to the rest of South East Asia and Figure 3-2 shows a more detailed location of RDI in Kandal Province. RDI is involved in six main areas of work: POU (point of use) ceramic filter production for households; health education; laboratory work for water and soil analysis; studio production for health and sanitation related communication; rain water harvesting tanks and rope pump installation; and agricultural activities. Some relevant facts about Cambodia: • Cambodia has a tropical monsoon climate with distinct rainy and dry seasons. Typical rainfall and temperature are summarized in Figure 3-3. • Principle physical features include the Tonle Sap Lake and the Mekong and Bassac Rivers. Tonle Sap is the largest freshwater lake in South East Asia and it is unusual for two reasons: the flow changes direction twice a year and the portion that forms the lake expands and shrinks dramatically with the seasons. • Cambodia also remains as one of the most heavily forested countries in the region, with continuing deforestation (Sodhi et al., 2010).  ! '+!  RDIC  Figure 3-1 Research site at Cambodia  ! ''!  Mekong River National Highway #1  !  Figure 3-2 Research site at RDIC, Kien Svay, Cambodia !  • The water sources for drinking are: tube wells, dug wells, surface water, bought water, and piped water (Feldman et al., 2007; Shantz & Daniell, 2010). Of these, the largest sources of water for the rural Cambodians are surface water, tube wells and dug wells (Shantz & Daniell, 2010), whereas 40% of the inhabitants in Phnom Penh City are served with piped water from two watertreatment plants (Dany, Visvanathan, & Thanh, 2000). • Agriculture is the most important sector in Cambodia, with around 57.6% of the population relying on agriculture for their livelihood. Rice is the principal ! ',!  crop and 90% of the total agricultural area is used for rice production (Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 2011; Puckridge, 2004). • Agriculture in Cambodia is mostly rainfed, with rainfed lowland rice being the dominant cropping pattern (Chan, 2007). Total irrigated land is about 20% of the total cultivated land and the existing irrigation scheme is in poor condition (Bunthan, 2006).  !  Figure 3-3 Weather / Climate chart - Phnom Penh, Cambodia, based on monthly averages, 1997-2001 (Cramer, 2011)  The pilot-scaled constructed wetland system is designed to treat the toilet waste from the laboratory of about 20 staff and a family of 7 on site.  The current practice ! '(!  for onsite waste disposal at RDI is atypical of the rural setting in Cambodia: septic tanks. To the best of the author’s knowledge and observation, conventional septic systems are not commonly used in Cambodia currently, i.e., the septic tank is not connected to any drain field but is simply a concrete well with an unsealed bottom and a concrete cover for inspection, and acts more like a semi-storage tank. Treatment is presumably through sedimentation, anaerobic digestion and soil percolation. The septic tanks at RDI are composed of a series of cylindrical concrete rings of 1 m diameter and 0.5 m deep, which appears to be the “standard” size for all the septic tank rings on site. It is unclear if RDI follows any particular guidelines on the design and implementation of the septic tanks, such as the consideration of wastewater characterization, and site evaluation, etc. However, the primary concerns during installation are the number of these concrete rings to be installed, presumably based on the estimated wastewater volume to be treated, and that the bottom of the tank should be above the water table, i.e., to allow for sufficient soil percolation or treatment in order to minimize the contamination of groundwater (Hammond & Tyson, 1999). A total of 14 septic tanks are currently installed at the compound where the pilot system is located, but only three were actively in use at the time of this study. Two of the septic tanks (receiving only toilet waste) were chosen initially for the pilot system because of the flow and size of the pilot system considerations. Greywater are separated from these tanks. During the 2nd HLR (Trial 2) experiment, an additional septic tank receiving washing waste from the laboratory was added to the incoming load, due to insufficient flow for the HLR exercise.  ! ')!  The soil characteristics at the project site are considered as sandy loam, poorly developed deltaic soils. Periodically (every 6 months or so), RDI contracts the service of septage pumping due to complaints of odour or evidence of leaching of the wastewater to the ground surface. Groundwater is used heavily on the compound and preliminary analysis of the groundwater shows high levels of ammonia and phosphate, suggesting that there is some contamination by the waste water, likely due to the proximity of the well to the septic tanks, or possibly as a result of overfertilization from the farm within the compound. 3.2 Design Basis and Sizing Consideration The pilot constructed wetland system was designed based on the consideration of the expected influent characteristics, the available land area, the quantity of wastewater available, the desired performance target, and most importantly, the economics. Prior to construction, there was limited information on the influent characteristics, especially for parameters such as BOD, which is one of the main sizing criteria. Hence, an estimated value was used, assuming that the BOD would be higher than the typical municipal wastewater in the tropics. Due to lack of data on the rate constant for the tropical climate, the sizing of the SSF wetland cell area was initially calculated based on a simple first-order equation, using temperature adjusted K t and without consideration on the non-zero background concentration, as  suggested by Campbell & Odgen (1999) for HSSF constructed wetland. !  As =  Q " (lnCo # Ce ) Kt " d " n  (Equation 6)  Where:  ! ! '.!  As = surface area  Q = flow, in m3/day !  ! ! !  Co = influent BOD (mg/l) = 300 Ce = effluent BOD (mg/l) = 45 (based on 85% removal) K t = temperature-dependent rate constant  d = depth of gravel bed = 0.3 m ! n = porosity of gravel = 0.5  ! !  K t was adjusted for temperature based on the following equation (Campbell & Ogden,  1999): ! K t = 1.104 " (1.06)(T #20)  !  (Equation 7)  Where T is the temperature of the water in oC and 20 oC is the reference temperature. In this work, 30oC was used as the temperature and K t was estimated to be as 1.977. Later on, the first-order area-based volumetric equation was used to ! data. calibrate the rate constant based on the influent and effluent  Because of the apparent high solids and organic content of the influent, it appeared that a multistage system would be beneficial. In addition, due to the lack of pre-treatment and odour as well as insect problems, it was initially decided that the system would have the flexibility of running two subsurface cells in series followed by a treated water storage cell. After some consideration of the benefits of a free water  ! '-!  surface cell (i.e., better nitrification, aerobic conditions), the treated water storage cell was converted into a free water surface wetland, as by this stage the water would be partially treated and odour problems would be minimal. Due to site constraints, the available area is limited to an area of approximately 6 m x 2 m. Hence, the subsurface cells were designed to be 2 m x 2 m each, and the free water surface cell to be 1.5 m x 1.5 m. The flowrate into the system was backcalculated to be a maximum of 0.625 m3/day per cell using Equation 6 based on the assumption of 85% removal efficiency, the calculated K t and the area of 4 m2 per cell. However, the design flowrate was subsequently revised to that indicated in Table 3-1 ! based on the assumption that the maximum water level is 30 cm at the outlet.  3.3 Macrophytes and Biomass Several species of macrophytes were planted in the pilot system, including two different species of sedges, tall grass intended for animal feed, water spinach and water hyacinth. All plants were transplanted from nearby natural wetlands. The diversity of the plants was so rich that it was challenging to identify the plants by genus. It is suspected that one of the two main species of sedges planted was Cyperus odorata (based on personal communication with the professional working with plants) (Andrew & Cook, 2010). Prior to the start of the trials, the plants were harvested, since most plants appeared to have reached their maximum heights, and it was difficult to work around the densely populated wetland system, and in order to estimate the biomass production. The plants were harvested above ground (except for cell three where it  ! '/!  was difficult to remove the plants without removing the roots as well) in a 0.5 m x 0.5 m area. In cells one and cell two, the plants were harvested in two random sections of the cell, whereas in cell three, due to its smaller size, the plants were removed only in one section of the tank. The harvested plants were then air-dried outdoor over several weeks until the weights were constant and weighed to approximate the dry weight of the biomass. 3.4 First Order Modeling To estimate the rate constants with longitudinal concentration data, Equation 8 was used (Kadlec & Knight, 1996), assuming exponential removal to non-zero background wetland concentrations ( C * ). Rate constants were estimated for BOD, COD, TN, TP, PO4, TSS, total organic carbon (TOC) and E. coli and total coliform !  (TC). Fitted values of the rate constants were derived from the following plug-flow k C * model (Kadlec & Knight, 1996):  ! !  ln  Co " C * ky =" Ci " C * q  (Equation 8)  The equation was rearranged to carry out the fitting procedure: ! Co = C * +(Ci " C*)exp"ky / q  !  (Equation 9)  Fittings were carried out using the non-linear regression procedure of the Jump (JMP® 8) statistical analysis software [a division of Statistical Analysis Software (SAS®)] with Ci and k as unknown parameters. Estimates of Ci and k based on averaged inlet and outlet concentrations and Equation 8 were input as the initial  ! ! during!the fitting procedure. The background concentrations ! values of all parameters ! ,*!  were approximated based on the suggestion by Kadlec (2009), with some adjustment where necessary. Where there were no available background concentrations in the literature, the values were estimated based on the trend of effluent data and selected appropriately, i.e., the lowest concentration over the course of the experiment. The background concentration used in the fitting process is summarized in Table 5-1. The fit of Equation 8 of the data was improved if higher values of background concentrations than suggested by Kadlec were used in the model, since the suggested background values are applicable for lower concentration waste, whereas the influent used in this study is of higher concentration waste (septage) in terms of solids and organic content. The high background levels could also be due to decaying roots from the Acclimatization Period (first 6 months of the current study) as the plants were not harvested yet. 3.5 System Description Construction of the pilot system started on April 6, 2010, after finalizing the location of the site and the design of the system. All system components were constructed using locally available material. Gravel of 1.5 – 4 cm was used as the subsurface cells due to cost and availability consideration. The void ratio was determined by filling a known volume of water and gravel and finding the ratio. The process was repeated to provide an average void ratio. A schematic of the pilot system is shown in Figure 3-4. The system was designed such that the two subsurface cells can run either in parallel or in series via manipulation of several valves, and in the event one of the cells needs to be maintained or repaired, the other cell can still continue operating. The recirculation ! ,&!  pump indicated in Figure 3-4 was only used for testing purposes during the Acclimatization Period between September and October and was subsequently dismantled before the HLR trial exercise. Based on the recommendation by Campbell and Odgen (1999), the cells were designed with a square configuration, which is more efficient in settling solids. The system design information is summarized in Table 3-1. To facilitate suspended solids sedimentation, the front bay was loaded with large stones and broken parts from ceramic filter (there is a filter factory on site), where the inlet channel is located (see Figure 3-5, top). Similarly, the effluent collection bay is filled with large stones (high hydraulic conductivity) to facilitate effluent collection (see Figure 3-5, bottom). Figure 3-5 (top) shows an overview of the system after the wetland plants were transplanted. Each of the subsurface cells was installed with four sampling cells (see Figure 3-6, top).  ! ,+!  Figure 3-4 Schematic of the pilot constructed wetland system  ! ,'!  Table 3-1 System design information Type  : Hybrid  Quantity  :1  Configuration  : HSSF-HSSF-FWS (Horizontal Subsurface – Horizontal Subsurface – Free Water Surface)  Dimension  : 2 m x 2 m x 0.66 m (Cell 1) – HSSF1 2 m x 2m x 0.65 m (Cell 2) – HSSF2 1.5 m x 1.5 m x 0.52 m (Cell 3) – FWS  Total Bed Depth  : 0.48 m – HSSF1 0.45 m – HSSF2  Total Capacity  : 6.41 m3  Operating Volume  : 2.2 m3  Void Ratio  : 0.5  Surface Area  : 10.25 m2 (total)  Design flowrate  : 0.1 – 0.42 m3/day  HRT  : 5 – 22 days  HLR  : 10 – 41 mm/day  Liner  : Water proofing paint and plastic tarp  Media  : Large stones – 8 - 15cm (front bay and collection bay) Gravel – 1.5 - 4cm (main)  Inlet distribution  : PVC half pipe  Hole size/spacing  : 5 mm / 5-6 holes per pipe  Outlet collection  : Perforated PVC pipe  Hole size/spacing  : 10 mm / 20 holes per pipe  Level adjustment  : Flexible hose  ! ,,!  Inlet bay of cell 1 (subsurface) with large stones  Bottom of cell was layered with river sand to protect the lining from puncturing  !  Outlet bay of cell 2 (subsurface) with large stones  Figure 3-5 Inlet bay (top), outlet bay (bottom) of the subsurface cells  ! ,(!  Inlet tank  !  Sampling wells for cell 2  Outlet collection perforated pipe in cell 2 !  Figure 3-6 Inlet tank (top), outlet collection bay of the subsurface cells (bottom)  ! ,)!  3.5.1 Challenges with wastewater distribution One of the challenges for the operation of the system was the clogging of the inlet pipe because of the high solids content of the influent. To minimize the energy usage, influent was gravity fed. The inlet tank was seated on the wetland cells providing sufficient head for the influent (see Figure 3-5). The flowrate was controlled by a ball valve and the influent was distributed evenly across the cell by small, drilled holes along the pipe. Due to the low flowrate, the holes could not be too large because that would cause uneven distribution of the flow, even though the general recommendation is a larger hole to handle solids (see Figure 3-6). Even distribution is more important in this case as the clogging can be resolved by frequent inspection by the operator by opening the inlet valve fully to purge the line. In a full-scale system where the flowrate is higher, a horizontal or v-notch weir is often utilized as a flow distribution structure (Campbell & Ogden, 1999). During the Acclimatization Period, wastewater flowed by gravity as mentioned above. Eventually, after the Acclimatization Period and before the flowrate trials began, the inlet pipe was cut into half horizontally to create a weirlike structure, which also increased oxygenation prior to entry into the wetland cell (see Figure 3-7). During the flowrate trials, the wastewater was pumped using a peristaltic pump to the inlet distribution weir to the wetland to ensure consistent flowrate regardless of the water level in the inlet tank.  ! ,.!  Inlet distribution pipe with small holes  !  Modified inlet distribution to weir-like structure  Figure 3-7 Inlet distributions for cell 1 before modification (top), and after modification (bottom)  ! ,-!  3.6 Septage (Influent) Characterization Septage generally has a much higher solids and organic content compared with typical municipal waste in North America (Tchobanoglous, Burton, & Stensel, 2003). In this study, the septage concentration (in terms of solids and organic content) is higher than the typical municipal waste, but somewhat lower than the typical septage as described in the literature (Koottatep et al., 2005; Tchobanoglous et al., 2003; USEPA, 1984; Veenstra, S. and Polprasert, C., 1998). During the Acclimatization Period and Trial 1, septage came from two blackwater (toilet waste) septic tanks. During Trial 2, there was insufficient septage to test the high hydraulic loading, and therefore septage from a third septic tank was included. The third septic tank collected greywater from the laboratory, consisting mainly of washing waste. Table 3-2 summarizes the average influent characteristics in this study.  ! ,/!  Table 3-2 Average influent characterization (mean ± standard deviation, S.D.) and results of one-way ANOVA statistic (F-ratio)  Parameter  Acclimatization Period  Trial 1  Trial 2  F-ratio  (15.5 mm/day)  (27.4 mm/day)  (20.9 mm/day) Inlet  n  Inlet  n  Inlet  n  2629±366a  33  3015±179b  8  1876±506a  9  10.945++  pH  7.64±0.24  31  7.44±0.11  8  7.21±0.18  9  0.624NS  Temperature (oC)  29.3±1.9  32  29.8±0.6  8  28.1± 1.0  9  2.744NS  DO (mg/l)  0.43±0.66  30  0.23±0.13  8  0.14±0.06  9  1.197NS  TSS (mg/l)  No data  -  824±422  4  418±132  4  3.388NS  Turbidity  555±94  5  773±540  4  457±79  4  0.374NS  BOD (mg/l)  118±40  3  150±61  4  92±6  3  0.868NS  COD (mg/l)  937±76  4  1032±539  4  543±86  4  0.862NS  TOC (mg/l)  161±45  4  98±33  4  90±28  4  3.028NS  210±16a  4  136±38b  4  134±10b  4  8.557++  PO4 (mg/l as PO4)  42.8±3.4a  6  36±3a  4  28±6b  4  15.103++  TP (mg/l as PO4)  57.7±4.7a  4  47±12ab  4  40±7b  4  5.981+  NO3 (mg/l as N)  1.8±2.4  7  3.1±2.9  4  1.3±0.7  4  1.245NS  N.D.*  11  N.D.*  4  N.D.*  4  N/A  Physical Conductivity (!s/cm)  Chemical  Nutrients NH4+/NH3 (mg/l as N)  NO2 (mg/l as NO2)  ! (*!  Parameter  Acclimatization Period  Trial 1  Trial 2  F-ratio  (15.5 mm/day)  (27.4 mm/day)  (20.9 mm/day) TKN (mg/l as NO3)  272±23a  4  197±52b  4  160±16b  4  11.614++  TN (mg/l as N)  272±23a  4  198±53b  4  160±16b  4  11.455++  Fe (mg/l)  3.1±4.0  2  0.2±0.1  4  5.1±2.2  4  1.813NS  Mg (mg/l)  22±6  2  15.6±1.5  4  19.2±6.6  4  0.721NS  Ca (mg/l)  -  -  38±2  4  44±13  4  0.780NS!  K (mg/l)  405±219a  2  46±7b  4  42±3b  4  24.788++!  Na (mg/l)  -  -  820±90  4  841±149  4  0.060NS!  B (mg/l)  -  -  0.12±0.02  4  0.1±0.02  4  4.432NS!  Cl (mg/l)  143±15a  6  136±10a  4  95±11b  4  8.154++!  55±4  6  41±9  4  39±10  4  2.490NS!  5.74±0.72  6  6.45±0.48  4  6.49±0.18  4  5.93±0.76  6  6.59±0.46  4  6.69±0.25  4  Metals & Anions  SO4 (mg/l) Microbiological E. coli (log  0.991NS  (CFU/100 mL) TC (log (CFU/100  1.764NS  mL)) * not detected Different subscript letters within rows indicate significant differences based on Tukey HSD test (p<0.05). + ++ +++ p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.0001 * Unable to calculate % removal due to frequent N.D. in the influent. ** Fe, Mg and K concentrations were analyzed with a different method during the Acclimatization Period.  The influent concentration of a number of important parameters ammonia, TKN/TN, phosphate and TP did vary significantly (see Table 3-2). This is most likely due to: 1) seasonal variation (between Acclimatization Period and Trial 1/Trial 2) and  ! (&!  2) the addition of the more diluted septage during Trial 2, which included the greywater source (between Trial 1 and Trial 2). Seasonal variation of the inlet wastewater is shown in Appendix B. There was a significant variation in the influent quality, particularly COD, TSS and turbidity. 3.7 System Operation Since constructed wetland is essentially an ecological system, it requires some time for the system to establish itself before any changes can be introduced to evaluate the impact. There are varying guidance as to the length of acclimatization, ranging from two to six months in the tropical climate (Ahmed, Popov, & Trevedi, 2008; Konnerup et al., 2009; Trang et al., 2010). As one of the objectives of this project is to evaluate the impact of HLR and to determine the kinetic rate constants for the climate conditions, six months from the time it was first loaded with wastewater (April 27 – Oct 26, 2010) would be considered sufficient for acclimatization, assuming the guidance mentioned above holds true. The six-month period is also constrained by the travel plan of the author. During the Acclimatization Period, the system was operated based on the following procedures: • Every two days the operator pumped a fixed volume of wastewater from the two septic tanks to the wastewater storage tank located on the constructed wetland cells. • The wastewater was mixed from two septic tanks at a ratio of 2:1 (lower concentration waste : higher concentration waste) because of the flow and waste concentration consideration. In terms of flow consideration, one septic  ! (+!  tank may not be sufficient based on preliminary calculation of the waste generated. In terms of concentration consideration, to avoid shock to the system due to high strength, higher concentration waste was loaded at a lower quantity compared to the lower concentration waste. • The system was gravity fed from the wastewater storage tank and operated on a flowrate of 300 – 350 L per 48 hours. As the system was gravity fed, the instantaneous flowrate may vary, however. Overall average (daily) flowrate was considered in the data analysis. • The operator monitored and recorded the storage tank level, inlet flowrate, outlet flowrate, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature, carried out visual inspection, and collected samples as scheduled. • Outlet flowrate was measured with a graduated cylinder and a stop watch. • Outlet samples were collected on a weekly basis and inlet samples on a biweekly basis. During the HLR trial period (Oct 27 – Dec 22, 2010), a peristaltic pump was installed to assess the system performance based on HLR. The pump fed the system with a constant flowrate and with a constant water level at the last cell, thus providing a constant HLR and HRT. 3.8 Sampling and Analytical Protocols 3.8.1 Sampling protocols Standard sampling procedures were followed during sample collection. The samples were taken based on the following:  ! ('!  • Grab samples were taken from the inlet storage tank and effluent storage tank using pre-washed 5L high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic containers. These samples taken over time provided the overall removal efficiency of the system. • Intermediate samples between the inlet and outlet in cells one and two were also taken from sampling wells positioned along the flowpath. There were four sampling wells in each of the subsurface wetland cell (see Figure 3-4 for the locations). • Samples drawn from sampling wells one and two, located on the same longitudinal segment (y1), are considered to give the average water quality at the particular longitudinal segment (y1) when mixed together. • Similarly, sampling wells three and four provide the water quality at longitudinal segment y2, five and six for y3, seven and eight for y4 respectively. • Grab samples of each of the paired sampling wells were taken via large syringe with tubing and mixed in pre-washed 1.5L HDPE plastic containers. • The total longitudinal flowpath is considered as Y. yi/Y will give the distance fraction used in the analysis of rate constant when plotting concentration vs. yi/Y.  ! (,!  3.8.2 Analytical protocols Grab samples taken for bacterial analysis were collected and analyzed on the same day. All other water analyses were performed within the recommended holding time by the lab at RDI/UBC, unless otherwise stated. The samples were collected and preserved according to Standard Methods (APHA, 1998), and all laboratory analyses were conducted using the methods and instruments listed under Table 3-3. In addition to sampling and lab analysis, the constructed wetland system was also monitored for daily influent and effluent flowrates as well as water level in the last cell (free surface wetland). Temperature, DO, conductivity and pH were measured in-situ three times a week. During the Acclimatization Period, sampling frequency was set on once a week for effluent and once every two weeks for influent due to budgetary constraints. Each sample was collected around the same day of the week and at the same time. During the HLR trial period, to assess the impact of HLR, inlet and outlet sampling was done five to six times during each trial. Each trial lasted 28 days and the outlet and intermediate location sampling was always done in the last five to six days of the trial, assuming that the system had stabilized and acclimatized to the flowrate by then. The inlet sampling was carried out to coincide with the HRT of each of the outlet samples whenever possible throughout the trial period to get a true representation of what was going into the system.  ! ((!  Table 3-3 Summary of testing analytical methods and water quality standards for parameters tested in this study Parameter  Testing Method  Instrument  Preservation  Conductivity (µs/cm)  Conductivity probe  YSI EC300/Oakton  Within 15 min  pH  pH probe  Hach HQ20/Horiba  Within 15 min  Temperature (oC)  In situ probe  Hach/YSI DO meter  In-situ  DO (mg/l)  In situ probe  Hach/YSI DO meter  In-situ  TSS (mg/l)  Glass fiber membrane and dried at 45oC until constant weight  -  4oC  Turbidity (NTU)  Ratio Nephelometric signal (900C) scatter light ratio to transmitted light  Hach 2100P  4oC  BOD (mg/l)  APHA 5210  Hach/YSI DO meter  4oC  COD (mg/l)  APHA 5520 D  Hach DR 2400  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  NH4+/NH3 (mg/l as N)  APHA 4500-NH3 H  Lachat 8000 Automated Ion Analyzer  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  TKN (mg/l as N)  APHA 4500-Norg D  Lachat Quick Chem 8000  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  TOC (mg/l)  APHA 5310 B  Lachat IL 550 TOC-TN  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  TP (mg/l)  APHA 4500 H  Lachat Quick Chem 8000  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  PO4 (mg/l as PO4)  APHA 4110 B  Metrohm 790  4oC  NO3 (mg/l as NO3)  APHA 4110 B  Metrohm 790  4oC  NO2 (mg/l as NO2)  APHA 4110 B  Metrohm 790  4oC  Fea (mg/l)  APHA 3120  Perkin Elmer Optical Emission Spectrometer Optima 7300 DV  Nitric acid, pH<2, 4oC  ! ()!  Parameter  Testing Method  Instrument  Preservation  Fe (mgl-1)  APHA 3500-Fe B  Palintest 7100 photometer  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  Mga (mg/l)  APHA 3120  Perkin Elmer Optical Emission Spectrometer Optima 7300 DV  Nitric acid, pH<2, 4oC  Mg (mgl-1)  Colorimetric  Palintest 7100 photometer  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  Ka (mg/l)  APHA 3120  Perkin Elmer Optical Emission Spectrometer Optima 7300 DV  Nitric acid, pH<2, 4oC  K (mgl-1)  Colorimetric  Palintest 7100 photometer  Sulfuric acid, pH<2, 4oC  Caa (mg/l)  APHA 3120  Perkin Elmer Optical Emission Spectrometer Optima 7300 DV  Nitric acid, pH<2, 4oC  Naa (mg/l)  APHA 3120  Perkin Elmer Optical Emission Spectrometer Optima 7300 DV  Nitric acid, pH<2, 4oC  Ba (mg/l)  APHA 3120  Perkin Elmer Optical Emission Spectrometer Optima 7300 DV  Nitric acid, pH<2, 4oC  Cl (mg/l)  APHA 4110 B  Metrohm 790  4oC  SO4 (mg/l)  APHA 4110 B  Metrohm 790  4oC  E. coli  Membrane filtration  Millipore membrane  4oC, within 6 hours  Membrane filtration  Millipore membrane  4oC, within 6 hours  (coli/100mL) TC (coli/100mL) a  Analyzed in the Civil Engineering Environmental lab at UBC within 3 months of sample collection.  3.9 Statistical Analysis and Data Analysis All variables were tested for whether they fit a normal distribution and transformed to normal, (i.e., if the data fit a log normal or Weibull distribution) if necessary using JMP® 8 statistical software. Comparisons of inlet and outlet concentrations and removal efficiencies between the Acclimatization Period and the two HLRs were performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Post hoc ! (.!  comparisons using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) were used to identify differences between means at the 5% probability level. The level of significance was != 0.05 in all cases. Removal efficiency is calculated based on the mass removed for each of the inlet and outlet sample pairs, (i.e., assuming the inlet and outlet samples correspond to each other for each time period). The average value reported is calculated based on the average of the removal efficiencies over the specified time period. Alternative calculations were performed based on the mass removed with the average inlet and average outlet concentration for each time period and found similar results (<5% difference). In both analyses, average instantaneous flowrate was used, i.e., flowrate measured over a short (5 – 30 minute) period, instead of calculated flowrate based on drained volume over a 24-hour period. The exceptions in this calculation are the E. coli and TC reduction, whereby the concentration is log-transformed and hence no multiplication of flowrate was considered. Similarly, pH, conductivity, temperature and DO require no flowrate details for the calculation of percent removal or increase. All analyses were based on influent data after June 1, 2010 and effluent data after June 15. This is because 100% of the waste (i.e., no dilution) was loaded after June 1, 2010 and a 2-week waiting period is assumed necessary for the effluent to be representative. The concentrations of inlet samples follow a normal distribution except for those for COD, TOC, Mg which follow a log normal distribution, and TC and E. coli twoparameter Weibull Distribution. Turbidity can be described by a log normal distribution at a 10% tolerance interval. Iron, potassium, nitrate and nitrite could not ! (-!  be described by any distribution. The concentrations of the outlet samples follow a normal distribution except for turbidity, COD, TOC, Ca, total hardness, which follow a log normal distribution. The concentrations of PO4 and conductivity follow a normal distribution if the tolerance level is lowered to 10% instead of 5%. Similarly, BOD and Cl can be described by log normal distributions if the tolerance level is lowered to 10%. Iron, potassium, nitrate and nitrite could not be described by any distribution. Three inlet samples were deemed to be un-representative, and are treated as outliers. These were the samples taken on November 11, December 1, and December 8, 2010. The basis for this decision came about when it was discovered that the inlet sampling location was where a sludge blanket had built up over time in the storage tank of the septage prior to pumping into the wetland system. The sampling location was since changed to the peristaltic pump outlet, based on the observation that the sampled water near the bottom of the tank, and what was pumping out from the pump, were quite different. The data after the sampling location was changed were compared to the remaining data set (after removing the three samples as outliers) and there were no significant differences between these and thus they maybe considered as representative. Earlier samples were considered reasonable and representative likely because it took time for the sludge blanket to build up and the samples removed were done so in the later stage of the study.  ! (/!  3.10 Summary The key points of this chapter are summarized as follows: • This study was carried out at RDIC, Kien Svay, Cambodia, and septage from two black water septic tanks and a grey water septic tank were treated with a field-based pilot-scale constructed wetland system utilizing both SSF and FWS cells. • The constructed wetland cells were designed based on the first-order removal model equation and the system was acclimatized for six months prior to the assessment of impact on treatment efficacy with two different HLRs. • Macrophytes used in the sytem were transplanted from local natural wetlands and the vicinity of the study site • An areal-based first-order plug-flow k - C * model was used to describe the longitudinal concentration profile and to estimate the kinetic rate  !! constants ( k ) of key pollutants.  !  !  ! )*!  4.0 EVALUATION OF TREATMENT EFFICACY OF THE PILOT SYSTEM 4.1 Operating Conditions Table 4-1 summarizes the operating conditions of the system in this study. The operating conditions during the Acclimatization Period are provided for reference purposes only, since conditions such as hydraulic loading rate and hydraulic retention time were not held constant (i.e., gravity fed instead of constant flowrate fed). The HLR of Trial 2 was approximately 1.7 times higher than that of Trial 1 by increasing the flowrate similarly, whereas the HRT of Trial 2 was approximately 1.8 times less than that of Trial 1 on average. The slight difference between the ratios was due to the slight changes of the water level at the outlet. Although the water level was held constant, at times it was difficult to keep the same water level. The water level was also lowered gradually in the first few days of Trial 1 in order to accommodate the operating flowrate of the peristaltic pump available and the wastewater generated on-site.  ! )&!  Table 4-1 Summary of operating conditions (mean ± S.D.)  Description  Acclimatization Period (20.9 mm/day)  Trial 2  (15.5 mm/day)  (27.4 mm/day)  HLR (mm/day)  20.9±6.5  15.5±3.9  27.4±8.0  HRT (days)  12.4±7.6  14.0±3.8  7.7±1.9  Qin (l/h)  8.9±2.8  6.6±1.7  11.7±3.4  Qout (l/h)  6.8±3.2  5.9±1.7  8.0±1.0  "Q (instantaneous)  7.4±5.4  1.8±1.2  7.5±1.2  Water level at the outlet (cm)  27.9±1.9  26.2±2.1  25.3±0.3  Difference in influent/effluent flowratea  N/A  N/A  15.7±9.0  Operating period  Apr 28 -Oct 26, 2010  Oct 27 - Nov 23, 2010  Nov 24 - Dec 21, 2010  182  28  28  Temperature  28.5±1.4  27.0±0.9  26.5±1.3  Min Temperature  27.3±2.0  26.8±0.9  26.3±1.3  Max Temperature  29.8±2.8  27.2±0.9  26.7±1.3  Total Rainfall (mm)  1086.6  68.4  56  No. of raining days  101  11  10  Average rainfall (mm/day)  6.0  2.4  2.0  No. of days  a  Trial 1  Measured over a 48-hour period to approximate for ET rate.  It is interesting to note that the average flowrate difference between the influent and effluent was much higher in Trial 2, which was of a higher flowrate than Trial 1. This implies a high ET rate. The difference in influent and effluent flowrate was measured during Trial 2 over a 48-hr cycle to be 0.7 mm/h (see Figure 4-1). Since the ! )+!  wetland cells were lined and thus impermeable and precipitation input was zero during the 48-hour cycle, this difference is considered to be an approximation of the ET rate. The flowrate difference for Trial 2 is significantly higher than the typical evaporation rate of about 0.21 – 0.25 mm/h (Nobuhiro et al., 2007) for Cambodia, but is similar to the findings of Konnerup et al. (2009) who found a peak ET rate of 0.33 – 1.2 mm/h, based on systems planted with Heliconia and Canna and under similar climatic conditions. The same flowrate difference check rate was not carried out during Trial 1 since the ET rate was assumed to not vary significantly over the duration of the two-month period, but based on the daily influent and effluent fowrate data, the approximated ET rate was 0.12 – 0.70 mm/h. The same flowrate difference measurement conducted over a 3-hour cycle in October yielded an estimated ET rate of 0.11 mm/h in the morning, which was considerably lower than that measured during Trial 2. One major contribution to the error of flowrate difference could be due to the uncertainty of inflow measurement. The instantaneous inlet flowrate was not measured the same way as the outlet flow, but by calculating the flowrate from the change in water level in the septage storage tank over time and the diameter of the tank. Significant error could arise because it was difficult to obtain the precise level measurement at the low flowrate used in the experiment, i.e., the level change was relatively small over time. There was a tendency to over-estimate the level difference within the time frame of flowrate measurement (e.g., the level change within a 10 minute wait for the flowrate, which typically was between 0.2 – 0.5 cm). Infiltration was considered to be negligible since all cells were lined with impermeable coating.  ! )'!  Another possible reason for the difference of flowrate difference between Trial 1 and Trial 2 could be due to the higher growth rate of the plants in Trial 2. The plants were growing very slowly following harvesting which was carried out just before the start of Trial 1, which indicated the possibility of retarded growth of plants caused by harvesting as indicated by a sudden drop of DO across the wetland cells. Subsequently the plant growth appeared to improve after about a month during Trial 2.  !  Figure 4-1 Diurnal variation in difference in inlet and outlet flowrate of the pilot constructed wetland system measured during a 48h period. Flowrate difference in mm/hour was divided by the total surface area to arrive at mm/h to provide an approximation of ET rate.!  ! ),!  4.2 Summary of Treatment Efficacy Average treatment efficacy and average influent and effluent concentrations for all three periods (Acclimatization Period, Trial 1 and Trial 2) are summarized in Table 4-2. Overall, the pilot constructed wetland system demonstrated significant reduction of the major pollutant indicators from the septage, even during the Acclimatization Period (p < 0.05). Major reduction of TSS, turbidity, COD, TOC, and log cycle reduction of E. coli and TC was observed (> 60% removal). In contrast, moderate reduction was observed for BOD, NH3/NH4+, TKN/TN, PO4 and TP (< 60% removal). While there is a significant difference between influent and effluent concentration overall, there is virtually no difference in removal efficiency of the major pollutant indicators between Trial 1 and Trial 2 (p > 0.05). It was expected that Trial 1 should perform better in terms of treatment efficacy but this was not observed. The difference between the two trials is minimal (between 2% – 10% in most cases) and since it is based on mass loading (except for conductivity, pH, temperature, DO, turbidity and pathogens), the error in flowrate measurement could have contributed to the small difference (the influent/effluent flowrate difference in Trial 2 is more than four times higher than that of Trial 1.  ! )(!  Table 4-2 Summary of influent concentration, effluent concentration and % removal for Acclimatization, Trial 1 and Trial 2 (mean ± S.D., except for E. coli and TC which are in log units or log reduction units ± S.D.) and results of one-way ANOVA statistic (F-ratio). Parameter  Conductivity (!s/cm) pH Temperature o ( C) DO (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) BOD (mg/l) COD (mg/l) TOC (mg/l)  +  NH4 /NH3 (mg/l) PO4 (mg/l as PO4) TP (mg/l as PO4)  Acclimatization (20.9 mm/day) In n Out n % (Removal) /Increase 2629 ±366 7.64 ±0.24 29.3 ±1.9 0.43 ±0.66 No data 555 ±94  33  118 ±40 937 ±76 161 ±45  3  210 ±16 42.8 ±3.4 57.7 ±4.7  4  31 32 30 5  4 4  6 4  1597 ±271 8.21 ±0.30 28.0 ±1.5 7.59 ±5.53 No data 111 ±64  33  11  (80) a ±11  55 ±16 475 ±104 53 ±11  6  (61) ±18 (61) a ±10 (75) a ±6  150 ±61 1032 ±539 98 ±33  4  36.5 ±1.3 4 84 ±12 4 23.3 ±3.4 Nutrients  5  (63) a ±7 (58) a ±8 (58) ±4  136 ±38 36 ±3 47 ±12  4  5  102 ±19 23.3 ±4.7 31.9 ±2.2  31 32 30 -  9 10  10 11 9  (39) a ±8 7.4 ±3.3 (4.4) a ±3.8 3108 a ±3275 N/A  Trial 1 (16. 7 mm/day) n Out n % (Removal) /Increase Physical 3015 8 1375 8 (54) b ±179 ±64 ±4 7.44 8 7.96 8 7.0 ±0.11 ±0.16 ±1.3 29.8 8 27.8 8 (6.7) ab ±0.6 ±0.4 ±1.9 0.23 8 1.56 30 951 ab ±0.13 ±1.54 ±1205 824 4 30.9 5 (96) ±422 ±7.7 ±2 773 4 20.1 5 (97) b ±540 ±3.2 ±1 Chemical In  4 4  73.0 ±11.8 23.0 ±5.3 24.6 ±3.8  5 5  5 5  In  Trial 2 (36.2 mm/day) n Out n % (Removal) /Increase  1876 ±506 7.21 ±0.18 28.1 ± 1.0 0.14 ±0.06 418 ±132 457 ±79  9  (79) ±13 (90) b ±4 (76) ab ±12  92 ±6 543 ±86 90 ±28  3  (50) b ±13 (40) b ±19 (52) ±11  134 ±10 28 ±6 40 ±7  4  9 9 9 4 4  4 4  4 4  1450 ±100 7.63 ±0.10 25.9 ±1.3 0.17 ±0.10 13.8 ±10.7 35.4 ±9.9  9  29 ±5 95 ±21 17.6 ±3.1  6  84.2 ±9.2 24.7 ±2.9 25.4 ±4.1  6  9 9 9 6 6  6 6  6 6  F-ratio  +++  (19) c ±17 5.9 ±3.4 (7.8) b ±4.2 36 b ±106 (98) ±1 (92) b ±3  28.1  (78) ±4 (88) b ±3 (86) b ±4  2.45  (57) ab ±6 (37) b ±16 (56) ±11  0.77  NS  3.63 5.43 1.40  ++  NS  8.26  33.8  ++  NS  +++  4.87  3.55  0.82  +  NS  14.3  ! ""!  +  ++  NS  Parameter  NO3 (mg/l as NO3) NO2 (mg/l as NO2) TKN (mg/l as N) TN (mg/l as N) Fe** (mg/l)  Acclimatization (20.9 mm/day) In n Out n % (Removal) /Increase 1.8 7 0.98 12 N/A* ±2.4 ±1.5 N.D.* 11 16 12 N/A* ±29 272 4 123 9 (66) ±23 ±22 ±6 272 4 124 9 (66) ±23 ±23 ±2 3.1 ±4.0 22 ±6 -  2  405 ±219 -  2  B (mg/l) Cl (mg/l)  3.1 ±2.9 N.D.* 197 ±52 198 ±53  0.18 ±0.14 15 ±11 -  5  5  -  229 ±105 -  -  (54) a ±26 N/A  -  -  -  -  N/A  143 ±15 55 ±4  6  125 ±26 31 ±6  12  (40) ±16 (54) a ±19  0.2 ±0.1 15.6 ±1.5 38 ±2 46 ±7 820 ±90 0.12 ±0.02 136 ±10 41 ±9  E. Coli (log Coli/100mL)  5.74 ±0.72  6  3.85 ±0.72  12  1.89 ±0.96  6.45 ±0.48  TC (log coli/100mL)  5.93 ±0.76  6  5.44 ±0.62  12  0.49 ±0.25  6.59 ±0.46  Mg** (mg/l) Ca (mg/l) K** (mg/l) Na (mg/l)  SO4 (mg/l)  2 -  6  5 -  12  (89) a ±14 (43) ±46 N/A  In  Trial 1 (16. 7 mm/day) n Out n % (Removal) /Increase 4 20.0 5 1841 ±3.3 ±1856 4 3.0 5 N/A* ±1.8 4 79 5 (63) ±15 ±10 4 85 5 (60) ±14 ±10 Metals & Anions 5 21 5 9733 b ±24 ±7367 5 19 5 9 ±6 ±25 5 54 5 (26) ±27 ±64 5 42 5 (14) b ±5 ±13 5 801 5 (13) ±91 ±6 5 0.13 5 (4) ±0.01 ±15 5 92.9 5 (38) ±8.5 ±6 5 32.5 5 (33) b ±3.2 ±15 Microbiological 4 3.60 5 2.25 ±0.81 ±0.83 4  5.59 ±4  5  0.79 ±0.45  In 1.3 ±0.7 N.D.* 160 ±16 160 ±16  Trial 2 (36.2 mm/day) n Out n % (Removal) /Increase 4 1.4± 6 (14) 0.6 ±74 4 8.8 6 N/A* ±10 4 96 6 (59) b ±20 ±11 4 99 6 (57) ±18 ±10  5.1 ±2.2 19.2 ±6.6 44 ±13 42 ±3 841 ±149 0.1 ±0.02 95 ±11 39 ±10  6  6.49 ±0.18 6.69 ±0.25  6.12  +  N/A 1.36  NS  1.90  NS  6  4  4.93 ±0.22  6  1.56 ±0.14  0.91  NS  4  5.88 ±0.2  6  0.81 ±0.11  0.58  NS  6 6 6 6 6 6  6 6 6 6 6 6 6  9.87  ++  0.4 ±0.1 17.7 ±4.6 40.7 ±8.9 40.0 ±2.8 776 ±148 0.57 ±0.46 88.5 ±8.6 26.8 ±8.6  6  (35) a ±92 (23) ±34 (31) ±24 (31) ab ±11 (36) ±15 294 ±280 (36) ±8 (49) ab ±10  F-ratio  2.64  NS  4.17  NS  6.50  +  10.3  +  5.56  +  2.37  NS  2.97  Note: Removal is shown by (); N.D.: Not detected; NS: Not significant. Different subscript letters within rows indicate significant differences based on Tukey HSD test (p<0.05). + ++ +++ p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.0001 * Unable to calculate % removal due to frequent N.D. in the influent. ** Fe, Mg and K concentrations were analyzed with a different method during the Acclimatization Period.  ! "#!  +  4.3 Particulates Removal The pilot system provided excellent removal for turbidity and suspended solids, with up to 97% and 98% removal efficiency, respectively (see Table 4-2). The reduction of turbidity is similar throughout the eight months, with the lowest reduction rate at 80% during the Acclimatization Period and the highest at 97% during Trial 1. The improvement could be due to the better filtration capability provided by the developed roots over time (Figure 4-2). The slightly lower reduction in Trial 2 is likely due to the increase of HLR. In general, it appears that the system produced relatively stable effluent in terms of turbidity at about 20 – 30 NTU, regardless of the inlet turbidity. In a constructed wetland, the main mechanism for suspended solids removal is through sedimentation and filtration. From the analysis of TSS vs. distance fraction (Figure 4-3), it is evident that the majority of the reduction occurred within the first 10% of the system flowpath, i.e., most of the solids are deposited in the front bay. This is probably due to the fact that the design of the SSF cells were square instead of long and narrow, giving the solids more area to deposit. Even when there was a spike of inlet turbidity, or when the flowrate increased, the outlet effluent remained stable, except during the Acclimatization Period, which suggests that the system has a high capacity in handling relatively high solids loads (Figure B-3 and Figure B-4). However, one should be mindful of the fact that eventually the solids accumulated in a constructed wetland system have to be removed, even if some of the solids are digested. Previous studies show that the solids accumulation is 33-150 years (Campbell & Ogden, 1999) before the gravel would have to be replaced, depending on the solids loading rate. Bavor and Schultz (1993) hypothesized that gravel-based  ! "#!  macrophyte systems, operated within suggested loadings (on the order of 40 g/m2/day), should remain porous for a number of decades. In comparison, the pilot constructed wetland system in this study was applied with a solids loading of 14.7 – 16.3 g/m2/day on average. Very few constructed wetland systems currently in operation have been serviced for solids removal (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009). In general, there was a good correlation between turbidity and total TSS for the data in this study with an r2 value of 0.91 for TSS above 40 mg/l (Figure 4-4). Measuring turbidity is much easier compared with TSS and hence turbidity can be used to gauge the TSS in the effluent. For data with TSS values less than 40 mg/l however, the correlation is poor.  1200  1000  Turbidity (NTU)  800  600  400 200  0 Acclimatization (20.9 Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) mm/day)  Stage  Inlet  Outlet  !  Figure 4-2 Inlet and outlet turbidity (± standard error, S.E.)  ! "#!  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-3 Longitudinal concentration profile of TSS through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 5 measurements for each fractional distance (except for inlet which was 4) in each of the two hydraulic loading rates. A typical C * of 5 mg/l for TSS was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  7000  6000  Turbidity (NTU)  5000  y = 0.7448x + 124.54 R 2 = 0.9087  4000  3000  2000  1000  0 0  1000  2000  3000 4000 TSS (mg/L)  5000  6000  7000  #  Figure 4-4 Relationship between turbidity and TSS (for TSS above 40 mg/l)  4.4 BOD, COD and TOC Removal BOD/COD/TOC reductions were all high at more than 61% and as high as 90% on average (Table 4-2). The removal rate also increased from the Acclimatization Period to Trial 1 (Figure 4-5 to Figure 4-7) except for TOC. Similar to the TSS removal trend, most of the removal occurred in the first 10% of the flowpath (Figure 4-8 to Figure 4-10). Trial 2 of BOD shows a slightly different curve, which could be due to the low resolution as there was a problem with processing the samples for BOD in Trial 2 and thus only samples from one intermediate location could be processed. This suggests that most of the BOD/COD/TOC is associated with the solids and if most of the solids are removed in the early stage, there is little treatment !"#  of BOD in the remaining flowpath. This has practical implications on the design of the system, i.e., the system need not be designed with longer retention times or longer flowpaths than that which are necessary, if BOD or COD or TOC or TSS removal is the only concern. Another mechanism of BOD/COD/TOC removal is likely to be microbial digestion.  1400 1200  COD (mg/l)  1000 800 600 400 200 0 Acclimatization (20.9 Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) mm/day)  Stage  Inlet  Outlet  #  Figure 4-5 Inlet and outlet concentration of COD (± S.E.)  !"#  200 180 160  BOD (mg/l)  140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Acclimatization (20.9 Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) mm/day)  Stage  Inlet  Outlet  #  Figure 4-6 Inlet and outlet concentration of BOD (± S.E.)  200 180  TOC (mg/l)  160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Acclimatization (20.9 mm/day)  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Stage  Inlet  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Outlet  #  Figure 4-7 Inlet and outlet concentration of TOC (± S.E.) !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-8 Longitudinal concentration profile of COD through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 5 measurements for each fractional distance (except for inlet which was 4) in each of the two hydraulic loading rates. A typical C * of 70 mg/l for COD was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-9 Longitudinal concentration profile of BOD through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 1-3 measurements for each fractional distance in each of the two hydraulic loading rates. Data for y1, y2 and y4 were not available for HLR 2 due to lab capacity. A typical C * of 20 mg/l for BOD was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-10 Longitudinal concentration profile of TOC through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 5 measurements for each fractional distance (except for inlet which was 4) in each of the two hydraulic loading rates. A typical C * of 15 mg/l for TOC was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  4.5 Nitrogen Removal Ammoniacal-N, TKN and TN reduction was significant at 50% – 66% (Table 4-2). In contrast, the highest removal occurred in the Acclimatization Period and not in Trial 1 or Trial 2 as expected. When comparing Trial 1 and Trial 2, there was no strong relationship between the removal rates and HLR as the difference between the removal rates is statistically insignificant (Figure 4-11). In contrast to the TSS/Turbidity/BOD/COD/TOC removal trend, the removal did not reach a plateau and exhibited a poor correlation in the attempt of first order modeling (Figure 4-12), and there was considerable scatter in the data. Nitrogen removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands involve complex interaction between adsorption, plant uptake, microbial assimilation, ammonia volatization and coupled nitrification-denitrification (Lee, Fletcher, & Sun, 2009). Lee et al. (2009) proposed that nitrogen removal through adsorption, volatization and plant uptake is limited compared with the contribution by nitrification-denitrification. Higher nitrogen reduction during the Acclimatization Period was observed based on the physical observation of plant growth; plant growth during the Acclimatization Period is significantly higher compared with that of Trials 1 and 2. This implies higher plant uptake during the Acclimatization Period, which suggests that nitrogen removal by plant uptake could play a significant role in this study. Plants grow all year round in the tropics, so it is unclear why Trials 1 and 2 experienced lower growth rates, other than the reasons offered in Section 4.1.  !!"  300 250  TN (mg/l as N)  200 150 100 50 0 Acclimatization (20.9 Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) mm/day)  Stage Inlet  Outlet  Figure 4-11 Inlet and outlet concentration of TN (± S.E.)  !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-12 Longitudinal concentration profile of TN through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 5 measurements for each fractional distance (except for inlet which was 4) in each of the two hydraulic loading rates. A typical C * of 2 mg/l for TN was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  Although the system was designed to increase nitrification by the inclusion of the FWS cell at the end, it was evident that the nitrification was incomplete based on the high nitrite concentration in the effluent, which implies that the designed retention time was insufficient. Nitrite is usually unstable and quickly converted to nitrate. Based on the nitrite and nitrate concentration data (Table A-11 and Table A-12), it is clear that there was some nitrification occurring in the SSF cells as some nitrite was produced, but more nitrite continued to be produced in the FWS cell, when most of the nitrites should have been converted to nitrate in the FWS cell. The question then becomes whether it was better to design the system with the FWS cell first followed by SSF cells. Concerns about using the FWS technology are odour and public health as it is located in proximity to residents on site. An improved design might consist of a SSF cell as pre-treatment to remove the majority of the suspended solids, BOD, COD and TOC, followed by a larger FWS cell for nitrification, and finally a SSF cell for denitrification. Further study is necessary to address this question. 4.6 TP and PO4 Removal TP reduction was significant in all three periods at more than 52% on average and as high as 58% during the Acclimatization Period, but the differences between the removals were not significant (see Table 4-2). The removal trend over the flowpath is similar to nitrogen removal but at a lower rate (see Figures 4-15 and 4-16). Dissolved PO4, which consists mainly of orthophosphate, was removed at a lower efficiency at 37% - 58%. Interestingly, the lowest removal of TP occurred in Trial 1 but not for PO4. The lowest removal of PO4 occurred in Trial 2 at 37%. The removal rates of TP across the three periods were similar but the removal rates of PO4 in Trial !"#  1 and Trial 2 were different from that of Acclimatization Period (see Table 4-2). The decreasing trend of PO4 removal (see Figure 4-14) suggests that some of the PO4 are being re-released back into the system, in addition to the impact of HLR change. The highest removal of both TP and PO4 occurred during Acclimatization Period (Table 4-2 and Figure 4-13), with TP removal being consistently higher than PO4, which is reasonable, since TP measurement includes orthophosphate.  The  difference between influent TP and PO4 is significantly higher than the difference between effluent TP and phosphate, which implies that most of the phosphorus associated with the suspended solids form was removed, with the remaining form of the phosphorus predominantly in the dissolved form (orthophosphate). This is due to the high suspended solids removal in the initial part of the wetland. Phosphorus removal processes occur through three principal categories in wetlands: sorption, plant uptake, and storage as newly created, refractory residuals (accretion) (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009), with the first two mechanisms having finite phosphorus retention capacities and the last being a sustainable process. Phosphorus removal can also occur through particle settling, chemical precipitation and movement among storage compartments within the wetland which affects availability and mobility of phosphorus. In general, however, phosphorus removal in constructed wetlands is area intensive compared with conventional technologies.  !"#  70 60  TP (mg/l as PO4)  50 40 30 20 10 0 Acclimatization (20.9 mm/day)  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Stage Inlet  Outlet  Figure 4-13 Inlet and outlet concentration of TP (± S.E.)  50  PO4 (mg/l as PO4)  45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Acclimatization (20.9 Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) mm/day)  Stage  Inlet  Outlet  Figure 4-14 Inlet and outlet concentration of PO4 (± S.E.) !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-15 Longitudinal concentration profile of TP through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 5 measurements for each fractional distance (except for inlet which was 4) in each of the two hydraulic loading rates. A typical C * of 0.2 mg/l for TP was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-16 Longitudinal concentration profile of PO4 through the pilot constructed wetland system at HLR 1 (15.5 mm/day) and HLR 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 5 measurements for each fractional distance (except for inlet which was 4) in each of the two hydraulic loading rates. A typical C * of 0 mg/l for PO4 was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  4.7 Pathogen Removal Pathogen removal processes involved in wetlands include solar disinfection, predation, settling and filtration and natural die-off (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009). E. coli reduction was significant in all three periods with as high as 2.25 log reduction achieved in Trial 1. In comparison, TC reduction is lower at 0.73 – 0.81 log reduction. The difference between E. coli and TC is that TC bacteria consist of environmental and faecal types, whereas E. coli is a species of coliform bacteria that is directly linked to faecal contamination by the waste of warm-blooded animals, including humans. Most of the TCs are not considered as pathogens under normal conditions. The removal trend for both E. coli and TC over the flowpath is similar to TSS removal (see Figures 4-19 and 4-20). Although the log reduction cycle of E. coli is lower in Trial 2, increasing HLR did not affect the removal rates of pathogens significantly (see Table 4-2, Figures 4-17 and 4-18). The small difference of pathogen removal (both E. coli and TC) between Trial 1 and Trial 2 could mean that HLR alone, which is closely related to the pathogen die-off rate, is not the main factor in determining the pathogen removal. Kadlec (2009) has pointed out in his book that there is a danger in designing based on plug-flow equivalent formulations as these can potentially create large over-estimates of removal efficiencies.  !"#  8.00  E. Coli (log CFU/100 ml)  7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Acclimatization (20.9 mm/day)  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Stage  Inlet  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Outlet  Total Coliform (log CFU/100 ml)  Figure 4-17 Inlet and outlet concentration (log units) of E. coli (± S.E.)  8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Acclimatization (20.9 Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) mm/day)  Stage  Inlet  Outlet  Figure 4-18 Inlet and outlet concentration (log units) of TC (± S.E.) !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-19 Longitudinal concentration profile of E. coli through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 4 measurements for each fractional distance in Trial 1, and 5 measurements in Trial 2 (except for inlet which was 4). A typical C * of 0.5 log units for E. coli was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !"#  Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  Figure 4-20 Longitudinal concentration profile of TC through the pilot constructed wetland system at Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day) and Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day) The fitted curves are based on the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9). Data points comprise 4 measurements for each fractional distance in Trial 1, and 5 measurements in Trial 2 (except for inlet which was 4). A typical C * of 1.6 log units for TC was used to fit the model. ! ! !  !!"  4.8 Dissolved Oxygen There was an overall increase of DO at the outlet, which is most likely due to the photosynthesis activity and some surface exchange in the last cell, which is a FWS planted mainly with water hyacinth, as well as algal activity, releasing oxygen in the process during the daytime. The outlet DO during Trial 2 was not consistently higher than the previous periods. It was interesting that the increase of DO was distinctly higher during Acclimatization, but much less in Trial 1 and Trial 2. The most obvious change that could have caused such a difference is the harvesting which occurred just before Trial 1, which was carried out for the reasons stated in Section 3.8. Although the plants were harvested above ground in the SSF cells, some plants had roots above ground so those plants may have been completely removed during harvesting. Subsequently, there were signs of plant re-growth that was not as rigorous as expected, and therefore additional plants were transplanted during Trial 1 on November 3, 2010, about a week after harvesting. The lower productivity caused by harvesting could potentially lead to lower removal or uptake rate such as PO4, which is observed in other study as well (Kim & Geary, 2001). The harvesting may have also caused stress to the system which re-released some nutrients back into the system, as implied by the spike of Fe concentration in the effluent (see Table A-15 and Figure 5-6), contrary to other studies which found no effect of harvesting on the removal of heavy metals (Maddison, Soosaar, Mauring, & Mander, 2009). 4.9 Biomass Production The biomass production is represented by the dry weight of the harvested plants. This represents the biomass produced by the pilot constructed wetland system from !"#  May 3, 2010 to Oct 26, 2010 (about 5 ! months). The results are compared with literature and summarized in Table 4-3. The nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium (NPK) ratio is summarized in Table 4-4. Figure 4-21 shows the plant growth progress. Table 4-3 Biomass production (kg dry weight/m2) during the Acclimatization period Location  This studya  (Adcock & (Vymazal, Kröpfelová, (Jinadasa b Svehla, & Stíchová, al., 2008)d Ganf, 1994) 2010)  Tank 1  5.3e  Tank 2  1.9f  Tank 3  0.8g  2.1h / 0.8i / 1.8j  et  c  2.27  a  Harvested after 5 ! months of initial planting.  b  It was unclear when in the growing season the crops were harvested.  1.39k / 0.79l  c  Based on single harvest of Phalaris during peak standing crop (estimated to be about 3 – 4 months after planting). d  Based on average of repeated harvesting at 3-month interval.  e  Based on harvest of a mixture of sedges (one of which is possibly Cyperus Oderata), tall grass and local macrophytes f  Based on harvest local sedges and other macrophytes  g  Based on harvest of water hyacinth  h  Based on harvest of Baumea  i  Based on harvest of Phragmites  j  Based on harvest of Triglochin  k  Based on harvest of S. grossus  l  Based on harvest of T. angustifolia  !"#  Table 4-4 NPK ratio (average) Description  N:P:K*  Trial 1  8.5 : 1.8 : 5.1  Tank 2  9.9 : 1.9 : 4.8  !"#$%#&'$()*#  !"#  May 3  Jul 4  Sep 30  June 10  Aug 16  Oct 26  Figure 4-21 Plant growth, May - October, 2010  !"#  4.10 Summary The key points of this chapter are summarized as follows: • The pilot constructed wetland system achieved effective particulates removal (up to 97%) based on results of TSS and turbidity. • Significant removal was also achieved for all other key pollutants including COD, BOD, TOC, TN and TP (52% – 90%). • There is a significant difference in the influent characteristics between those of Acclimatization Period and those of Trial 1/Trial 2. • The highest removal of pollutants associated with particulates occurred in the first 10% of the flowpath of the system (TSS, turbidity, COD, BOD and TOC) with little removal occurring thereafter. • Nitrogen and phosphorous compounds were removed at a lower rate and the system exhibited signs of decreasing PO4 removal rate over time. • Harvesting may have a negative impact to the system based on results of Fe in the effluent and the DO levels. • The biomass production rate is comparable to other studies.  !"#  5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 Estimated Removal Kinetics One of the objectives in this study is to estimate the removal rate constants for some of the key pollutants using the first-order area-based k - C * model (Equation 9), since there is a lack of performance data for calibration of the k - C * model to tropical  !! climatic conditions (Konnerup et al., 2009). This is of interest to the designers of !! constructed wetlands in the region under similar operating conditions for the proper sizing of a full-scale system with similar configuration. For the data in this study, there are no apparent relationships between HLR and the rate constants, k . Almost all of the parameters had higher k values at the higher HLR (Trial 2) and these included: TSS, COD, TOC, TP, TN E. coli and TC. Only BOD  ! ! and PO4 had lower k values at the higher HLR. The rate constants differed by a factor of 1.0 – 2.0 between the two trials for all parameters, except for BOD, which  ! had the highest difference at a factor of 4.7. This difference could be due to the lower resolution in terms of distance fraction in Trial 2. The first order model does not fit the TN (both trials), TP (Trial 2), PO4 (both trials) and pathogens (Trial 1) data very well (Table 5-1), where the R2 is low (< 0.5). Based on the comparison of k values of Trial 1 and Trial 2 including error bars (see Figures 5-1 to 5-5), all of the parameters with the exception of TOC have  ! overlapping error bars between the two trials due to larger standard errors, i.e., the difference between the k values is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). For TOC, it  !  !"#  is unclear if the difference is statistically significant even though the error bars do not overlap. More data (i.e., repeating Trial 1 and Trial 2) are required to assess if the difference is statistically significant. Care must be exercised when comparing the results of the current study with previous work, because of the differences in the operating conditions. Nonetheless, the k values for TSS and COD found in the current study are almost ten times larger than that found by Trang et al. (2010) and the COD rate constants are almost two  !  times larger than those found by Konnerup et al. (2009) (Table 5-1). The lack of relationships between the removal rate constants and the HLRs could explain the lack of difference in the removal efficiencies as seen in Table 4-2. For example, in the case of nitrogen, the removal rates between the two periods were almost the same (60% vs. 57%), compared with the rate constants (3.8 m/year vs. 3.98 m/year) (see Tables 4-2 and 5-1). Similarly for TSS, COD, TP, E. coli and TC. The exceptions are TOC and PO4; higher removal rate constant in Trial 2 correlated with higher removal efficiency of TOC, and lower removal rate constant in Trial 2 correlated with lower removal efficiency of PO4. The dispersion of the rate constants shows that the rate constant is rather specific and applicable only to the particular situation. High ET rates, different inlet characteristics, unmet assumptions of steady state of the wetland, all contribute to the seemingly contradicting results of higher rate constant but lower or no change of removal rates.  !"#  One concern is variation in the influent quality and its effect on the removal rates and the removal rate constants. As mentioned in Section 3.6, the influent during the Acclimatization Period is significantly different (p < 0.05) as compared to that of Trials 1 and 2. Since this study was conducted at an actual residential/business facility, it was not possible to closely control the influent quality. Hence, it is not possible to conclude the effect of varying influent on the removal rates. The removal rate constants were not estimated for the Acclimatization Period, nor was this study designed to estimate such since the operating conditions were different, and the system presumably was establishing itself and hence the rate constants would not be representative.  !"#  Table 5-1 Summary of estimated rate constants, k (m/year), for the pilot constructed wetland system and comparison with other literature (± approximate S.E.)  (mg/l)  k, (Trang et al., 2010) (31 mm/day)  (mg/l)  k, (Konnerup et al., 2009) (55-440 mm/day)  0.91  0  31 ± 4  -  -  29.0 ± 4.5  0.84  5  37 ± 6  -  -  0.76  205 ± 27  0.93  10  21 ± 2  28  99-103  94 ± 21  0.82  213 ± 44  0.86  -  -  -  -  0  2.1 ± 0.6  0.33  1.2 ± 0.7  0.03  -  -  -  -  TP  0.2  3.2 ± 0.5  0.60  4.0 ± 1.0  0.33  0  40 ± 6  0  2.5-5.4  TN  2  3.8 ± 0.9  0.44  3.98 ± 0.86  0.41  1.5  12 ± 1  1.5  3.4-5.8  E. coli  0.5  106 ± 83*  0.34  112 ± 30**  0.69  -  -  -  -  TC  1.6  51 ± 36  0.29  98 ± 33**  0.57  -  -  -  -  Parameter  C* (mg/l)  k, Trial 1 (15.5 mm/day)  R2  k, Trial 2 (27.4 mm/day)  R2  TSS  5  214 ± 192  0.80  400 ± 223  BOD  20  135 ± 138  0.79  COD  70  195 ± 151  TOC  15  PO4  C*  C*  $#%&'()*&+#,-,*',.'/#&+'0#1*)2#2*32/4#5&+-/43/+)#34,6*/+)#54*)/4*,#78#9:;<#5&=>,4/6#)&#)2/#?),+6,46#54*)/4*,#&@#ABCD# $$#%&'()*&+#,-,*',.'/#&+'0#1*)2#2*32/4#5&+-/43/+)#34,6*/+)#54*)/4*,#78#E;<#5&=>,4/6#)&#)2/#?),+6,46#54*)/4*,#&@#ABCD# # #  !"#  #  #  Figure 5-1 Estimated k values for TSS (top) and BOD (bottom) ± S.E. #  !"#  "  "  Figure 5-2 Estimated k values for COD (top) and TOC (bottom) ± S.E. "  !!"  #  #  Figure 5-3 Estimated k values for PO4 (top) and TP (bottom) ± S.E. #  !""#  #  #  Figure 5-4 Estimated k values for TN (top) and E. coli (bottom) ± S.E. #  !"!#  $  Figure 5-5 Estimated k values for TC ± S.E. $  5.2 Effects of HLR on Treatment Efficacy The impact of almost doubling the hydraulic loading rate or reducing the hydraulic retention time did not have a significant impact on the water quality of the treated effluent as expected (Table 4-2). In the comparison of the rates of removal of BOD, COD, TOC, TP, PO4, TKN, TN, turbidity, E. coli and TC, the differences in removal efficiency were all statistically insignificant. The results suggest that under these operating conditions, increasing HLR does not have a significant impact on the removal efficiency of the major pollutants. Although there was some increase/decrease (-22% to + 10%) in removal efficiency when the HLR was increased from 15.5 mm/day to 27.4 mm/day, none of the  !"#$  changes were statistically significant (p > 0.05). The only parameters with significant change in removal efficiency are: • conductivity, with a removal efficiency of 54% in Trial 1 to 19% in Trial 2 (p < 0.0001), • Fe, with a percentage increase of 9733% in Trial 1 to percentage removal of 35% in Trial 2 (p < 0.01), • Na, with a removal efficiency of 13% in Trial 1 to 36% in Trial 2 (p < 0.05), • and B, with a percentage removal of 4% in Trial 1 to percentage increase of 294% in Trial 2 (p < 0.05). One possible reason for the lack of significant difference between the two trials could be because the wetland system has a large buffer capacity and hence changes in the inlet condition (flowrate, water quality, etc.) do not have a significant impact on the treated water quality. However, because of the lack of long term monitoring results and the change of influent quality, this observation remains inconclusive. An interesting observation was made from the Fe data, where the results from Trial 1 showed an increase of Fe in the effluent, when the reverse was expected (Table 4-2). In addition, there was a spike of Fe in the effluent (more than a 120-fold increase on average) but also a decreasing trend over the time of sample collection period, suggesting that the system was flushing out Fe (Figure 5-1) after plant harvesting. If the results were a true reflection of the system performance, then this suggests that the harvesting had disrupted the ecosystem balance of the system.  !"#$  Spike observed in effluent iron concentration  Trial 2 started on Nov 23 Plants harvested and Trial 1 started on Oct 27  $  $  Figure 5-6 Influent and effluent Fe concentration (mg/l) $  5.3 Suitability of Effluent for Irrigation Application The  suitability  of  the  effluent  for  irrigation  is  assessed  based  on  recommendations by WHO (2006) and FAO (Ayers & Westcot, 1989; Westcot, 1997) in terms of the water quality from the perspective of public health and crop health. The relevant parameters are summarized in Table 5-2, along with values from this study.  !"#$  Table 5-2 Comparison of effluent quality against recommendation by WHO and FAO (Ayers & Westcot, 1989; Mara, 2004; Westcot, 1997) Recommendation  a  E. Coli  !105 (option C irrigation) or !106 (option G and H irrigation)  103.6 – 104.93  Helminth Egg  ! 1 per litre (arithmetic mean) for all types of irrigation except for localized irrigation of high growing crops  No data  Parameter  Effluent from current study  Public Health Concern  No recommendation (for localized irrigation of high growing crops) Crop Health Concern pH Conductivity/Salinity!  6.5 – 8.5 < 75 ms/cm$  7.67 – 7.9 1.42 – 1.59 ms/cm  SAR (Sodium Absorption Ratio)!  < 18$  13.2 – 14  TN!  30 mg/l$  85 – 99 mg/l  Boron  < 1 mg/l  0.13 – 0.57 mg/l  a  Based on the average for Acclimatization, Trial 1 and Trial 2  5.3.1 Public health concerns The treated effluent is suitable for option C in unrestricted irrigation, option G and H in restricted irrigation (see Table 5-2). Restricted irrigation refers to irrigation of all crops except salad crops and vegetables consumed raw. Option C unrestricted irrigation is based on drip irrigation of high growing crops (i.e. those with their harvested parts not in contact with the soil), with a recommended verification monitoring level of !105 CFU/100mL for E. coli. Option G irrigation is  !"#$  intended for highly mechanized agriculture with a recommended verification monitoring level of !105 CFU/100mL for E. coli, whereas option H irrigation has the lowest irrigation with a recommended verification monitoring level of !106 CFU/100mL for E. coli. Option G is probably not applicable in the rural setting as highly mechanized agriculture is not common, hence option C and H type irrigation is recommended in this case. In the case of option H irrigation, if the treated wastewater is used to irrigate low-growing crops (i.e., those in contact with the soils), the microbial reduction target of !1 helminth egg per liter should also be applied based on the WHO recommendation. Due to lack of capacity at the site, nematode helminth egg analysis was not performed. However, studies involving septage treatment show that subsurface constructed wetlands (planted gravel beds) are effective in removing helminth eggs and that both the effluent and accumulated biosolids are expected to be low in viable helminth eggs for such cases (Koottatep et al., 2005; Paruch, 2010; Rivera et al., 1995). There is a concern however, regarding the consistency of effluent quality in this case. Based on all the treated effluent samples collected over the entire course of the experiment (starting from the time the system is considered stable), the effluent E. coli was below the guideline 79% of the time (based on arithmetic mean). Breaking down the data, the effluent was considered as “safe” (below the guideline) 100% of the time during Trial 1 but only 50% of the time during Trial 2. This suggests that by increasing the HLR, the risk of having a higher E. coli level could increase, even if the level is below the guideline on average.  !"#$  A potential concern for the public in effluent reuse is groundwater contamination with nitrogen. Even though the effluent is still high in nitrogen content and can potentially being leached and pollute the groundwater, this is substantially less than the nitrogen content in the original septage, and there should not necessarily be additional groundwater contamination risk caused by effluent reuse. In addition, the nitrate-N concentration was less than 30 mg/l (as N) at all times and should not cause additional groundwater contamination associated with nitrate. 5.3.2 Crop health concerns The treated effluent falls within the recommended guidelines for crop health listed in Table 5-2, except for TN. Boron was below 1 mg/l most of the time although on occasion it exceeded the guideline, which implies that the effluent may not be suitable for irrigation of crops sensitive to boron (Table A-20). The high nitrogen content on the other hand does not mean that the effluent cannot be used for irrigation but rather, the crops have to be chosen carefully so that the nitrogen content does not damage the particular crop. Since most crops can tolerate up to 30 mg/l of N (Mara, 2004), severe restriction has to be imposed on the application of the effluent at higher nitrogen concentrations. Excess nitrogen can reduce crop yields or cause crop damage (Mara, 2004). The average N:P:K ratio of 8.5:1.8:5.1 and 9.9:1.9:4.8 obtained in the current study (see Table 4-5) may not be ideal for most crops due to the high nitrogen content, where the typical recommended N:P:K ratio is 1:1:1 to 3:1:2 for vegetables. With rising concern on global food security, nutrient management !"#$  including application of optimum fertilizer N:P:K rate is the subject of several studies (Bhat, Dogra, Pandey, Sharma, & Jamwal, 2010; Dilshad et al., 2010; Hazarika & Ansari, 2009; Kumar, Singh, Singh, & Singh, 2009; Selim, 2008). Ideally, it would make sense to choose the crops based on effluent quality but that is challenging in rural areas if the farmers have no access to the effluent quality information. 5.4 Summary The key points of this chapter are summarized as follows: • There are no apparent relationships between HLR and the rate constants as well as the removal rates of key pollutants. Large scatter in the data may have produced rate constants with high standard error for most of the parameters assessed. • There is no significant difference in removal rates of key pollutants between Trial 1 and Trial 2. • The first-order removal model did not describe the TN, TP, PO4 and pathogen data very well in this study. • The treated effluent from this study would be suitable for reuse for agricultural purpose based on localized irrigation of selected highgrowing crops with a high tolerance for nitrogen. Diluting the effluent to lower the nitrogen content would increase the potential for reuse for a wider selection of crops.  !"#$  6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This research has demonstrated the potential of constructed wetlands for treatment of septage under field conditions in developing countries. Consistent and significant reduction of TSS, turbidity, conductivity, BOD, COD, TOC, NH3/NH4+, TKN/TN, TP, E. coli and TC was achieved. Most of the BOD, COD, TOC are associated with the solids phase for which removal was particularly effective with removal occurring near the inlet of the system. Due to certain uncontrollable factors such as variation in influent concentration, possible unsteady state condition of the system during sample collection, de-stabilization of the eco-system following macrophyte harvesting, it was not clear whether consistent removal (or increase) of metals (Fe, K, Mg, Ca, Na) and anions (Cl, SO4, PO4) was achieved. De-nitrification and nitrification is evident, but the system exhibited signs of incomplete de-nitrification, which is attributed to the insufficient contact time in the FWS cell. Decreasing reduction of dissolved PO4 suggests that the sorption capacity for phosphorus could have been exceeded or the dissolved PO4 was re-released back into the system from the plant litter, in addition to the impact of increasing HLR. Overall, the results from this research suggest that in comparing the two HLRs, increasing HLR caused little or no impact on the treatment efficacy of key pollutants (BOD, COD, TOC, turbidity, conductivity, TSS, TKN, TN, NH3/NH4+, TP, PO4, E. coli, TC), except for conductivity. There are however, more differences in the treatment efficacy when the comparison includes the Acclimatization Period. The results also showed no apparent relationships between HLR and the estimated rate constants based on the k - C * model, although this remains tentative as many !"#$  ! !  factors could have affected the results, including the changing influent quality, flowrate measurement, and the possibility of unsteady state conditions when the samples were collected. Such conditions are frequently encountered in field-based research. From a treatment efficacy perspective, the system is surprisingly resilient, since the effluent quality did not change appreciably in most of the water quality indicators, even with varying influent quality and flowrate. The estimated rate constants can potentially provide a good reference point in designing of a full-scale system under the same operating conditions. Recommendations based on the results of this study are: •  A longer-term water quality monitoring is necessary in assessing the performance of the constructed wetland system against the year-round seasonal changes. Currently this study is limited to the operation of eight months of the year, which did not include the driest period. Due to the time constraints, the pilot system may not have reached a relatively steady-state condition after changing the flowrate. Hence it would be recommended to have a longer acclimatization period after changing the flowrate prior to assessing the water quality.  •  The effluent can potentially be re-used for irrigation, provided the conditions for re-use are met and care in crop selection is applied. Further study based on health risks of effluent reuse is necessary to progress further.  •  Due to the signs of incomplete nitrification in this study, further studies based on different configurations such as a larger FWS cell, or a FWS cell after pre-  !!"#  treatment before the subsurface cell, or the addition of a solar powered aeration device in the FWS cell to improve the treatment efficacy. •  Conduct further study in examining the implementation of specific macrophytes in targeting high nutrient removal in the tropics, due to the high nutrient content in septage and the climate for year-round growing macrophytes in the tropics. Studies should also include the economics of incorporating harvest of suitable macrophytes for income generation in local communities, and examine the sustainability of repeated harvesting as well as the impact of harvesting on the treatment performance. The economics involved is of paramount concern in the developing countries.  "  !!!"  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Adcock, P. W., & Ganf, G. G. (1994). Growth characteristics of three macrophyte species growing in a natural and constructed wetland system. Water Science & Technology[WATER SCI.TECHNOL.]., 29(4) Ahmed, S., Popov, V., & Trevedi, R. C. (2008). Constructed wetland as tertiary treatment for municipal wastewater. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Waste and Resource Management, 161(2), 77-84. Andrew, W., & Cook, C. (2010). In Chiew H. (Ed.), APHA, A. (1998). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, Asano, T. (2007). Water reuse: Issues, technologies, and applications McGraw-Hill Professional. Ascuntar Rios, D., Toro Velez, A. F., Pena, M. R., & Madera Parra, C. A. (2009). Changes of flow patterns in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland treating domestic wastewater in tropical regions. Ecological Engineering, 35(2), 274-280. Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1989). Water quality for agriculture. FAO irrigation and drainage paper Nº 29. FAO.Roma, 174  !!"#  Bavor, H. J., & Schulz, T. J. (1993). Sustainable suspended solids and nutrient removal in large-scale, solid matrix, constructed wetland systems. Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, , 219. Bhat, D. J., Dogra, S., Pandey, R. K., Sharma, J. P., & Jamwal, S. (2010). Influence of integrated nutrient management on growth, flowering and yield of african marigold cv pusa narangi. Environment and Ecology, 28(1) Brix, H. (1994). Use of constructed wetlands in water pollution control: Historical development, present status, and future perspectives. Part 8, July 24, 1994 - July 30, , 30(8) 209-223. Brundtland, G. H., & Khalid, M. (1987). Our common futureOxford University Press, Oxford, GB. Bunthan, N. (2006). A review of the current situation for water resources management and the role of agricultural education in cambodia. Journal of Developments in Sustainable Agriculture, 1(1), 25-33. Campbell, C. S., & Ogden, M. (1999). Constructed wetlands in the sustainable landscape. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2011). The world factbook- east & southeast asia:Cambodia. Retrieved April 16, 2011, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html  !!"#  Chan, S. (2007). Country papers: Large rice-based irrigation systems in cambodia. The future of large rice-based irrigation system in southeast asia - proceedings of the regional workshop on the future of large rice-based irrigation systems in southeast asia (2007/28 ed., ) Cramer, K. (2011). Cambodia: Climate in cambodia. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.canbypublications.com/cambodia/climate.htm Crites, R. W., Reed, S. C., & Middlebrooks, E. J. (2006). Natural wastewater treatment systems CRC. Dany, V., Visvanathan, C., & Thanh, N. C. (2000). Evaluation of water supply systems in phnom penh city: A review of the present status and future prospects. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 16(4), 677-689. Degan, G. (2007). Lack of adequate sanitation triggers child health concern in cambodia. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cambodia_39558.html Denny, P. (1997). Implementation of constructed wetlands in developing countries. Water Science and Technology, 35(5), 27-34. Diaz, J., & Barkdoll, B. (2006). Comparison of wastewater treatment in developed and developing countries. Paper presented at the World Environmental and Water Resoruce Congress 2006: Examining the Confluence of Environmental and Water Concerns, Omaha, Nebraska. doi:10.1061/40856(200)370  !!"#  Dilshad, M. D., Lone, M. I., Jilani, G., Malik, M. A., Yousaf, M., Khalid, R., et al. (2010). Integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) on maize under rainfed condition. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 9(9), 896-901. Feldman, P. R., Rosenboom, J., Saray, M., Navuth, P., Samnang, C., & Iddings, S. (2007). Assessment of the chemical quality of drinking water in cambodia. Journal of Water and Health, 5(1), 101-116. Grau, P. (1996). Low cost wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology, 33(8), 39-46. Haberl, R. (1999). Constructed wetlands: A chance to solve wastewater problems in developing countries. Proceedings of the 1998 6th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, September 27, 1998 - October 2, , 40(3) 11-17. Hamersley, M. R., Howes, B. L., White, D. S., Johnke, S., Young, D., Peterson, S. B., et al. (2001). Nitrogen balance and cycling in an ecologically engineered septage treatment system. Ecological Engineering, 18(1), 61-75. Hammer, D. A. (1989). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: Municipal, industrial, and agricultural CRC. Hammond, C., & Tyson, T. (1999). Septic tank design and construction. Department of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia,  !!"#  Hazarika, B. N., & Ansari, S. (2009). Influence of integrated nutrient management on shelf life extension and crown rot in banana cv jahaji. Environment and Ecology, 27(2), 565567. IMF. (2010). World economic outlook - recovery, risk, and rebalancing (Surveys. Washington, DC: IMF. Jinadasa, K. B. S. N., Tanaka, N., Sasikala, S., Werellagama, D. R. I. B., Mowjood, M. I. M., & Ng, W. J. (2008). Impact of harvesting on constructed wetlands performance - A comparison between scirpus grossus and typha angustifolia. Journal of Environmental Science and Health - Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 43(6), 671-678. Kadlec, R. H., & Knight, R. L. (1996). Treatment wetlands. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Kadlec, R. H., & Wallace, S. (2009). Treatment wetlands CRC. Kantawanichkul, S., Neamkam, P., & Shutes, R. B. E. (2001). Nitrogen removal in a combined system: Vertical vegetated bed over horizontal flow sand bed. , 44(11-12) 137142. Kantawanichkul, S., Pilaila, S., Tanapiyawanich, W., Tikampornpittaya, W., & Kamkrua, S. (1999). Wastewater treatment by tropical plants in vertical-flow constructed wetlands. Proceedings of the 1998 6th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, September 27, 1998 - October 2, , 40(3) 173-178.  !!"#  Kantawanichkul, S., Somprasert, S., Aekasin, U., & Shutes, R. B. E. (2003). Treatment of agricultural wastewater in two experimental combined constructed wetland systems in a tropical climate. Water Science and Technology, 48(5), 199-205. Katsenovich, Y. P., Hummel-Batista, A., Ravinet, A. J., & Miller, J. F. (2009). Performance evaluation of constructed wetlands in a tropical region. Ecological Engineering, 35(10), 1529-1537. Kim, S. Y., & Geary, P. M. (2001). The impact of biomass harvesting on phosphorus uptake by wetland plants. , 44(11-12) 61-67. Kivaisi, A. K. (2001). The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: A review. Ecological Engineering, 16(4), 545-560. Konnerup, D., Koottatep, T., & Brix, H. (2009). Treatment of domestic wastewater in tropical, subsurface flow constructed wetlands planted with canna and heliconia. Ecological Engineering, 35(2), 248-257. Koottatep, T., Surinkul, N., Polprasert, C., Kamal, A. S. M., Kone, D., Montangero, A., et al. (2005). Treatment of septage in constructed wetlands in tropical climate: Lessons learnt from seven years of operation. Water Science and Technology, 51(9), 119-126. Kumar, R., Singh, N. D., Singh, M., & Singh, K. (2009). Effect of integrated nutrient management on tuber yield and economics of autumn potato (solanum tuberosum L). Indian J.Ecol, 36(2), 135-138.  !!"#  Kurup, B., Kurup, R., Mathew, K., & Ho, G. (2002). Co-treatment of septage in a municipal sewage treatment pond system. , 46(9) 315-321. Lee, C., Fletcher, T. D., & Sun, G. (2009). Nitrogen removal in constructed wetland systems. Engineering in Life Sciences, 9(1), 11-22. Lim, P. E., Wong, T. F., & Lim, D. V. (2001). Oxygen demand, nitrogen and copper removal by free-water-surface and subsurface-flow constructed wetlands under tropical conditions. Environment International, 26(5-6), 425-431. Maddison, M., Soosaar, K., Mauring, T., & Mander, U. (2009). The biomass and nutrient and heavy metal content of cattails and reeds in wastewater treatment wetlands for the production of construction material in estonia. Desalination, 246(1-3), 120-128. Mara, D. D. (2004). Domestic wastewater treatment in developing countries Earthscan/James & James. Massoud, M. A., Tarhini, A., & Nasr, J. A. (2009). Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 652-659. Meutia, A. A. (2001). Treatment of laboratory wastewater in a tropical constructed wetland comparing surface and subsurface flow. Water Science and Technology, 44(11-12), 499506. Moshiri, G. A. (1993). Constructed wetlands for water quality improvement CRC.  !!"#  Muga, H. E., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2008). Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(3), 437-447. Murray, C. J. L., & Lopez, A. D. (Eds.). (1996). The global burden of disease concept. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nobuhiro, T., Shimizu, A., Kabeya, N., Tsuboyama, Y., Kubota, T., Abe, T., et al. (2007). Year-round observation of evapotranspiration in an evergreen broadleaf forest in cambodia. Forest Environments in the Mekong River Basin, , 75-86. Paruch, A. M. (2010). Possible scenarios of environmental transport, occurrence and fate of helminth eggs in light weight aggregate wastewater treatment systems. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 9(1), 51-58. Pries, J. (2002). Treatment wetlands for water quality improvement. Puckridge, D. (2004). The burning of the rice: A cambodian success story Sid Harta Pub. Rivera, F., Warren, A., Ramirez, E., Decamp, O., Bonilla, P., Gallegos, E., et al. (1995). Removal of pathogens from wastewaters by the root zone method (RZM). Proceedings of the 1994 4th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, November 6, 1994 - November 10, , 32(3) 211-218. Rousseau, D. P. L., Vanrolleghem, P. A., & De Pauw, N. (2004). Model-based design of horizontal subsurface flow constructed treatment wetlands: A review. Water Research, 38(6), 1484-1493.  !!"#  Selim, M. M. (2008). Evaluation of the re-use of treated wastewater for irrigation. Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 56(4), 477-484. Seshimo, K., & Chen, M. (2005). Infrastructure assessment in the context of rapid urbanization: The case of cambodia. Shantz, A., & Daniell, B. (2010). Arsenic mitigation in cambodia: What next? Unpublished manuscript. Shrestha, R. R., Haberl, R., Laber, J., Manandhar, R., & Mader, J. (2001). Application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in nepal. , 44(11-12) 381-386. Sodhi, N. S., Posa, M. R. C., Lee, T. M., Bickford, D., Koh, L. P., & Brook, B. W. (2010). The state and conservation of southeast asian biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(2), 317-328. SRWTP. (2000). Sacramento regional wastewater treatment plant (SRWTP), 2000. sacramento constructed wetlands demonstration project, executive summary. five year summary report 1994–1998. 13 pp. Stott, R., May, E., & Mara, D. D. (2003). Parasite removal by natural wastewater treatment systems: Performance of waste stabilisation ponds and constructed wetlands. , 48(2) 97-104. Sundaravadivel, M., & Vigneswaran, S. (2001). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 31(4), 351-409.  !"#$  Tanaka, N., Jinadasa, K. B. S. N., Werellagama, D. R. I. B., Mowjood, M. I. M., & Ng, W. J. (2006). Constructed tropical wetlands with integrated submergent-emergent plants for sustainable water quality management. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 41(10), 2221-2236. Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F., & Stensel, H. D. (2003). Metcalf & eddy wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse McGraw Hill, NY. Teal, J. M., & Peterson, S. B. (1991). The next generation of septage treatment. Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 63(1), 84-89. Teal, J. M., & Peterson, S. B. (1993). A solar aquatic system septage treatment plant. Environmental Science and Technology, 27(1), 34-37. Trang, N. T. D., Konnerup, D., Schierup, H., Chiem, N. H., Tuan, L. A., & Brix, H. (2010). Kinetics of pollutant removal from domestic wastewater in a tropical horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland system: Effects of hydraulic loading rate. Ecological Engineering, 36(4), 527-535. Tsalkatidou, M., Gratziou, M., & Kotsovinos, N. (2009). Combined stabilization pondsconstructed wetland system. Desalination, 248(1-3), 988-997. UNICEF. (2006). Cambodia - background. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cambodia_2190.html USDA. (2009). USDA GDP data. Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://gsociology.icaap.org/data/ersallcombine.xls !"!#  USEPA. (1984). Handbook of septage treatment and disposal No. EPA-625/6-84-009). Cincinnati, OH.: Center for Environmental Research Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA. (1997). Response to congress on use of onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Washington, DC: Office of Wastewater Management and Office of Water. Veenstra, S. and Polprasert, C. (1998). Wastewater treatment – part 2. The Netherlands: IHE Delft. Vymazal, J., Kröpfelová, L., Svehla, J., & Stíchová, J. (2010). Can multiple harvest of aboveground biomass enhance removal of trace elements in constructed wetlands receiving municipal sewage? Ecological Engineering, 36(7), 939-945. Westcot, D. W. (1997). Quality control of wastewater for irrigated crop production (water reports-10). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, WHO. (2006). Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater - 3rd edition. Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO/UNICEF. (2010). Progress on sanitation and drinking-water 2010 update. France: WHO. Wolverton, B. C. (1982). Hybrid wastewater treatment system using anaerobic microorganisms and reed (phragmites communis). Economic Botany, 36(4), 373-380.  !""#  Wood, A. (1995). Constructed wetlands in water pollution control: Fundamentals to their understanding. Proceedings of the 1994 4th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, November 6, 1994 - November 10, , 32(3) 21-29. World Bank. (2011). World development indicators. CD-ROM, World Bank. Yeh, T. Y., & Wu, C. H. (2009). Pollutant removal within hybrid constructed wetland systems in tropical regions. Water Science and Technology, 59(2), 233-240.  !"#$  APPENDICES  !"#$  Appendix A Field and Raw Data  Table A!1 pH, conductivity, DO and temperature in the pilot constructed wetland system, April – Dec, 2010 (Inlet = inlet tank; W1-W4 = sampling wells in subsurface cell 1; W5-W8 = samping wells in subsurface cell 2; Tank 3 inlet = inlet to FWS cell; Tank 3 outlet = final effluent) pH Date"  Inlet"  W1"  W2"  W3"  W4"  W5"  W6"  W7"  W8"  Tank 3 inlet"  Tank 3 Outlet"  27-Apr-10$ 28-Apr-10$ 29-Apr-10$ 30-Apr-10$ 3-May-10$ 4-May-10$ 5-May-10$ 6-May-10$ 7-May-10$ 10-May-10$ 10-May-10$ 11-May-10$ 12-May-10$ 12-May-10$ 13-May-10$ 17-May-10$ 19-May-10$ 21-May-10$ 24-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 28-May-10$ 31-May-10$ 2-Jun-10$ 4-Jun-10$ 7-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 22-Jun-10$ 28-Jun-10$ 1-Jul-10$  7.67$ 7.43$ 7.4$ 7.83$ $ $ 7.12$ 7.11$ 7.48$ 8.07$ 8.17$ 8.13$ 7.14$ 7.11$ 7.54$ 7.11$ 7.09$ 7.2$ 7.27$ 7.27$ 7.22$ 7.59$ 7.45$ 7.46$ 7.46$ 7.2$ 7.65$ 7.47$ 7.31$  8$ 8.13$ 8.13$ 7.89$ 7.64$ 7.5$ 7.61$ 7.62$ 7.44$ 7.72$ 7.85$ 7.3$ 7.78$ 7.62$ 7.85$ 7.71$ 7.81$ 7.8$ 7.76$ 7.83$ 7.75$ 7.79$ 7.8$ 7.23$ 7.84$ 7.77$ 7.77$ 7.62$ 7.85$  8.15$ 8.19$ 8.25$ 7.98$ 7.94$ 7.99$ 7.91$ 8.16$ 8.02$ 7.95$ 8.12$ 7.79$ 8.07$ 7.72$ 7.92$ 7.8$ 7.89$ 7.74$ 7.73$ 7.88$ 7.85$ 7.79$ 7.89$ 7.83$ 7.92$ 7.9$ 8.08$ 7.86$ 7.91$  7.91$ 7.78$ 7.96$ 8.08$ 7.65$ 7.63$ 7.83$ 8.01$ 7.72$ 8.01$ 8.15$ 8.06$ 7.43$ 7.58$ 7.73$ 7.77$ 7.85$ 7.76$ 7.78$ 7.89$ 7.83$ 7.73$ 7.83$ 7.87$ 7.89$ 7.92$ 7.87$ 7.78$ 7.83$  8.13$ 8.14$ 8.19$ 8.03$ 7.77$ 7.67$ 7.88$ 7.95$ 7.8$ 7.65$ 7.93$ 8.04$ 7.68$ 7.66$ 7.74$ 7.76$ 7.8$ 7.75$ 7.76$ 7.81$ 7.83$ 7.7$ 7.92$ 7.89$ 7.93$ 7.9$ 7.88$ 7.91$ 7.99$  7.62$ 7.6$ 7.82$ 7.81$ 7.09$ 7.13$ 7.66$ 7.7$ 7.63$ 8.03$ 8.21$ 7.68$ 7.69$ 7.67$ 7.71$ 7.98$ 7.85$ 7.73$ 7.78$ 7.88$ 7.81$ 7.76$ 7.86$ 7.87$ 7.81$ 7.78$ 7.84$ 7.81$ 7.9$  7.82$ 7.72$ 7.85$ 7.78$ 7.53$ 7.66$ 7.2$ 8.01$ 8.24$ 7.99$ 8.18$ 8.18$ 8.04$ 7.64$ 7.79$ 7.96$ 7.8$ 7.68$ 7.79$ 7.87$ 7.85$ 7.79$ 7.87$ 7.82$ 7.79$ 7.89$ 7.95$ 7.99$ 8.08$  7.61$ 7.61$ 7.93$ 7.85$ 7.99$ 7.91$ 7.69$ 8.03$ 8.07$ 8.03$ 8.26$ 8.02$ 7.82$ 7.68$ 7.79$ 7.88$ 7.78$ 7.63$ 7.69$ 7.86$ 7.84$ 7.8$ 7.82$ 7.86$ 7.81$ 7.75$ 7.79$ 7.87$ 8.01$  7.67$ 7.47$ 7.97$ 7.95$ 8.04$ 7.83$ 7.88$ 8.19$ 7.56$ 8.1$ 8.28$ 8.25$ 7.96$ 7.69$ 7.76$ 7.88$ 7.74$ 7.68$ 7.71$ 7.82$ 8.83$ 7.77$ 7.86$ 7.79$ 7.79$ 7.99$ 7.86$ 7.94$ 8.03$  6.92$ 7.48$ 7.57$ 7.82$ $ $ 7.13$ 7.33$ 7.15$ 8.03$ 8.82$ 8.03$ 7.85$ 8.06$ 7.97$ 8.44$ 8.19$ 8.33$ 8.43$ 7.84$ 7.78$ 7.95$  6.9$ $ $ 7.85$ $ $ $ 7.4$ $ 8.12$ 8.13$ 8.13$ 7.72$ 8$ 8.09$ 8.4$ 8.18$ 8.3$ 8.27$ 7.89$ 7.81$ 7.97$ 8.02$ 8.15$ 8.01$ 8.58$ 8.11$ 8.08$ 8.18$  7.96$ 8.12$ 9.32$ 8.47$ 8.16$ 8.11$ 8.28$  !"#$  Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  5-Jul-10$ 7-Jul-10$ 9-Jul-10$ 12-Jul-10$ 14-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 19-Jul-10$ 21-Jul-10$ 23-Jul-10$ 26-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$  7.86$ 7.75$ 8.01$ 7.94$ 7.78$ 7.88$ 7.63$ 7.68$ 7.87$ 7.93$ 8.06$  8.01$ 8.01$ 8.1$ 8.01$ 7.97$ 7.95$ 8$ 7.99$ 7.98$ 8.03$ 7.78$  8.04$ 8.05$ 8.11$ 8.07$ 8.02$ 7.99$ 7.99$ 8.07$ 8.02$ 7.93$ 7.99$  7.89$ 8.02$ 8.01$ 7.91$ 8$ 7.94$ 8.05$ 7.94$ 7.97$ 7.92$ 7.9$  8.06$ 8.08$ 8.07$ 8.03$ 8$ 8.03$ 8.09$ 7.96$ 8$ 7.93$ 7.94$  7.92$ 8.05$ 8.06$ 7.94$ 8.01$ 7.99$ 8.03$ 7.96$ 7.99$ 7.93$ 7.92$  8.04$ 8.14$ 8.19$ 8.06$ 8.04$ 8.02$ 8.07$ 8.02$ 8.05$ 8.08$ 8.11$  7.95$ 8.13$ 8.16$ 8.02$ 8.04$ 8.05$ 8$ 7.99$ 8.1$ 7.98$ 7.97$  7.99$ 8.13$ 8.18$ 8.01$ 8.03$ 8.05$ 8.06$ 8.03$ 8.07$ 7.96$ 8.05$  2-Aug-10$ 4-Aug-10$ 6-Aug-10$ 9-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 13-Aug-10$ 16-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 20-Aug-10$ 23-Aug-10$ 25-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 30-Aug-10 1-Sep-10 6-Sep-10 8-Sep-10 13-Sep-10 15-Sep-10 17-Sep-10 20-Sep-10 22-Sep-10 24-Sep-10 27-Sep-10 29-Sep-10 1-Oct-10 4-Oct-10 5-Oct-10 13-Oct-10 15-Oct-10 20-Oct-10 22-Oct-10 25-Oct-10 27-Oct-10  7.59$ 7.65$ 7.68$ 7.68$ 7.82$ 7.87$ 7.49$ 7.68$ 7.61$ 7.68$ 7.56$ 7.47$ 7.31 7.48 7.04 7.28 7.35 7.43 7.53 7.28 7.37 7.63 7.27 7.45 7.33 7.25 7.77 6.89 7.93 7.17 7.45 7.12 7.45  7.94$ 7.86$ 7.68$ 7.91$ 7.97$ 8.01$ 7.75$ 7.83$ 7.79$ 7.89$ 7.66$ 7.6$ 7.47 7.33 7.31 7.25 7.31 7.42 7.53 7.46 7.31 7.5 7.69 7.44 7.45 7.23 7.65 7.05 7.56 7.43 7.32 7.34 7.87  7.92$ 7.91$ 7.89$ 8.15$ 7.89$ 8.03$ 7.7$ 7.87$ 7.89$ 7.87$ 7.77$ 7.76$ 7.56 7.57 7.37 7.45 7.4 7.7 7.64 7.62 7.44 7.81 7.7 7.53 7.41 7.33 7.66 6.99 7.52 7.35 7.47 7.32 8.01  7.9$ 7.81$ 7.82$ 7.84$ 7.8$ 7.97$ 7.52$ 7.6$ 7.7$ 7.97$ 7.73$ 7.52$ 7.54 7.33 7.41 7.29 7.33 7.58 7.48 7.46 7.31 7.63 7.62 7.4 7.4 7.23 7.46 6.86 7.45 7.42 7.29 7.4 7.86  7.96$ 7.84$ 7.85$ 7.91$ 7.88$ 8$ 7.56$ 7.61$ 7.72$ 7.93$ 7.71$ 7.59$ 7.47 7.39 7.42 7.35 7.36 7.64 7.53 7.48 7.38 7.73 7.51 7.46 7.33 7.26 7.49 6.83 7.47 7.4 7.25 7.31 7.92  8.02$ 7.82$ 7.88$ 7.79$ 7.88$ 7.97$ 7.48$ 7.59$ 7.74$ 8.02$ 7.73$ 7.52$ 7.45 7.35 7.34 7.27 7.37 7.55 7.49 7.4 7.43 7.7 7.45 7.41 7.29 7.25 7.46 6.76 7.41 7.18 7.22 7.24 7.87  8.08$ 7.98$ 7.93$ 8.04$ 8.04$ 8.15$ 7.67$ 7.79$ 7.87$ 8.02$ 7.76$ 7.67$ 7.62 7.61 7.48 7.4 7.43 7.49 7.49 7.43 7.35 7.64 7.44 7.42 7.3 7.25 7.49 6.76 7.39 7.16 7.15 7.3 7.87  8.03$ 7.96$ 8.02$ 7.87$ 7.93$ 8$ 7.53$ 7.53$ 7.67$ 7.94$ 7.82$ 7.63$ 7.46 7.53 7.55 7.5 7.41 7.51 7.57 7.47 7.38 7.57 7.5 7.47 7.34 7.31 7.48 6.78 7.33 7.14 7.18 7.23 7.8  8.05$ 7.91$ 7.97$ 8.04$ 8.01$ 8.07$ 7.7$ 7.7$ 7.72$ 7.96$ 7.84$ 7.65 7.56 7.63 7.41 7.33 7.43 7.49 7.51 7.43 7.33 7.59 7.49 7.5 7.34 7.26 7.42 6.84 7.3 7.09 7.19 7.22 7.91  Tank 3 inlet! 8.51$ 8.27$ 8.37$ 8.31$ 8.3$ 8.22$ 8.14$ 8.32$ 8.25$ 8.35$ 8.25$ 8.51$ 8.19$ 8.18$ 8.4$ 8.4$ 8.47$ 7.9$ 8.21$ 8.22$ 8.13$ 7.87$ 7.94 7.97 7.94 7.45 7.4 7.48 7.49 7.54 7.41 7.39 7.58 7.47 7.53 7.41 7.31 7.36 6.76 7.21 6.71 6.74 6.95 7.44  Tank 3 Outlet! 8.55$ 8.27$ 8.44$ 8.3$ 8.15$ 8.23$ 8.12$ 8.3$ 8.35$ 8.65$ 8.27$ 8.52$ 8.27$ 8.2$ 8.47$ 8.57$ 8.52$ 8.14$ 8.22$ 8.24$ 8.18$ 7.97$ 7.92 7.98 7.73 7.49 7.36 7.44 7.5 7.56 7.45 7.37 7.62 7.47 7.49 7.38 7.32 7.42 6.76 7.25 6.67 6.79 6.95 7.5  !"#$  Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  Tank 3 inlet!  Tank 3 Outlet!  28-Oct-10 29-Oct-10 1-Nov-10 2-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 4-Nov-10 5-Nov-10 8-Nov-10 10-Nov-10 11-Nov-10 12-Nov-10 15-Nov-10 16-Nov-10 17-Nov-10 18-Nov-10 19-Nov-10 24-Nov-10 25-Nov-10 26-Nov-10 29-Nov-10 1-Dec-10 2-Dec-10 3-Dec-10 6-Dec-10 7-Dec-10 8-Dec-10 9-Dec-10 13-Dec-10 14-Dec-10 15-Dec-10 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10 20-Dec-10  7.66 7.74 7.22 7.27 7.43 7.55 7.65 7.45 7.58 7.45 7.47 7.52 7.47 7.44 7.4 7.22 7.22 7.38 7.42 7.19 7.28 6.86 7.58 7.26 7.2 7.36 7.16 6.88 7.07 7.34 7.13 7.48 7.26  7.13 7.67 7.57 7.61 7.64 7.66 7.7 7.88 8.01 7.89 8.07 8.09 7.52 7.91 7.8 7.72 7.59 7.7 7.67 8.09 7.55 7.69 7.86 7.79 7.79 7.59 7.51 7.43 7.67 7.52 7.42 7.43 7.4  7.71 7.88 7.89 7.85 7.89 7.87 7.83 7.96 7.95 7.86 8.12 8.31 7.79 8.02 8.04 7.96 7.81 8.02 7.87 8.1 7.74 7.83 8.06 8.02 7.97 7.78 7.77 7.95 7.88 7.76 7.58 7.62 7.56  7.51 7.59 7.6 7.61 7.67 7.62 7.64 7.84 8.05 7.88 8.08 8.1 7.89 7.78 7.76 7.71 7.62 7.68 7.64 7.72 7.65 7.56 7.68 7.65 7.59 7.52 7.57 7.59 7.64 7.69 7.53 7.64 7.44  7.81 7.87 7.94 7.94 8 8.02 8.02 8.06 8.07 7.98 8.07 8.14 7.84 7.97 7.77 7.73 7.81 8 7.72 8.05 8.1 7.92 7.9 7.88 7.87 7.56 7.52 7.83 7.87 7.67 7.48 7.58 7.57  7.73 7.74 7.6 7.64 7.74 7.71 7.73 7.84 8 7.95 8.03 8.05 7.87 7.97 7.81 7.75 7.78 7.73 7.66 7.77 7.83 7.82 7.89 7.85 7.72 7.59 7.55 7.72 7.87 7.75 7.61 7.6 7.52  7.74 7.87 7.85 7.84 7.96 7.96 7.96 7.99 8.03 8.02 8.04 8.08 7.84 7.97 7.98 7.97 7.95 7.96 7.93 8 8 7.93 7.95 7.99 7.92 7.89 7.74 7.76 7.92 7.81 7.65 7.69 7.55  7.71 7.82 7.63 7.64 7.78 7.71 7.7 7.92 7.94 7.87 7.94 7.97 7.88 7.92 7.99 7.93 7.88 7.8 7.7 7.78 7.78 7.73 7.79 7.75 7.73 7.63 7.52 7.87 7.91 7.75 7.67 7.61 7.5  7.78 7.85 7.87 7.87 7.93 7.92 7.93 8 8.02 7.98 8.07 8.06 7.82 7.94 8 7.99 7.94 7.96 7.87 7.96 8.03 7.99 7.79 7.83 7.79 7.72 7.62 7.86 7.95 7.79 7.64 7.54 7.47  7.49 7.65 7.72 7.76 7.82 7.83 7.82 7.87 8.03 8.01 7.9 7.93 7.79 7.96 7.81 7.78 7.8 7.74 7.71 7.71 7.74 7.7 7.71 7.7 7.71 7.69 7.63 7.68 7.68 7.7 7.62 7.53 7.44  7.47 7.67 7.78 7.78 7.91 7.93 7.97 7.95 8.14 8.08 8.02 7.99 8.12 7.84 7.8 7.7 7.72 7.69 7.71 7.69 7.75 7.7 7.72 7.69 7.72 7.7 7.66 7.67 7.7 7.65 7.65 7.53 7.41  $  !"#$  Conductivity (µs/cm) Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  Tank 3 Inlet!  Tank 3 Outlet!  27-Apr-10$ 28-Apr-10$ 29-Apr-10$ 30-Apr-10$ 3-May-10$ 4-May-10$ 5-May-10$ 6-May-10$ 7-May-10$ 10-May-10$ 10-May-10$ 11-May-10$ 12-May-10$ 12-May-10$ 13-May-10$ 17-May-10$ 19-May-10$ 21-May-10$ 24-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 28-May-10$ 31-May-10$ 2-Jun-10$ 4-Jun-10$ 7-Jun-10$ 14-Jun-10$ 16-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 22-Jun-10$ 28-Jun-10$ 1-Jul-10$ 5-Jul-10$ 7-Jul-10$ 9-Jul-10$ 12-Jul-10$ 14-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 19-Jul-10$ 21-Jul-10$ 23-Jul-10$ 26-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$  1232$ 1480$ 1786$ 1353$ N/A$ N/A$ 1644$ 1626$ 1645$ 1571$ 2480$ 1812$ 1697$ 1698$ 1877$ 1632$ 2026$ 2153$ 1975$ 2022$ 2658$ 2401$ 2497$ 2835$ 2758$ 2505$ 2705$ 2385$ 2285$ 2261$ 2376$ 2398$ 2443$ 2386$ 2723$ 2892$ 2731$ 3154$ 2818$ 2653$ 2538$ 2488$  1121$ 1046$ 1182$ 659$ 612$ 625$ 634$ 628$ 644$ 661$ 671$ 671$ 877$ 1508$ 1442$ 1540$ 1528$ 1801$ 1527$ 1449$ 1508$ 1380$ 1499$ 1518$ 1901$ 2075$ 2490$ 2281$ 1875$ 2103$ 2080$ 2025$ 2214$ 2256$ 2427$ 2533$ 2261$ 2785$ 2654$ 2305$ 2451$ 2292$  902$ 819$ 861$ 751$ 689$ 706$ 737$ 738$ 763$ 1100$ 1115$ 1137$ 1060$ 1430$ 1482$ 1560$ 1548$ 1905$ 1578$ 1478$ 1534$ 1391$ 1510$ 1580$ 1938$ 2090$ 2179$ 2231$ 1804$ 1884$ 1887$ 1840$ 1867$ 2165$ 2218$ 2150$ 2161$ 2512$ 2570$ 2510$ 2426$ 2391$  1137$ 1069$ 1125$ 1048$ 956$ 969$ 966$ 932$ 982$ 1140$ 1156$ 1153$ 1619$ 1670$ 1581$ 1581$ 1542$ 1774$ 1535$ 1449$ 1501$ 1370$ 1549$ 1698$ 2958$ 2113$ 2072$ 2190$ 2132$ 2134$ 2142$ 2124$ 2120$ 2246$ 2416$ 2402$ 2230$ 2455$ 2812$ 2461$ 2457$ 2385$  987$ 897$ 945$ 800$ 776$ 762$ 784$ 827$ 872$ 886$ 900$ 884$ 894$ 1447$ 1506$ 1575$ 1553$ 1792$ 1526$ 1461$ 1542$ 1382$ 1539$ 1650$ 3004$ 2001$ 2062$ 2152$ 2031$ 2024$ 1978$ 1923$ 2047$ 2147$ 2149$ 2391$ 2152$ 2426$ 2757$ 2534$ 2509$ 2379$  1185$ 1058$ 1088$ 1028$ 1090$ 1082$ 1116$ 1054$ 1099$ 1094$ 1405$ 1074$ 1359$ 1586$ 1547$ 1609$ 1730$ 1761$ 1491$ 1437$ 1515$ 1392$ 1548$ 1560$ 1630$ 1879$ 2074$ 2161$ 2033$ 2062$ 2075$ 1996$ 2014$ 2132$ 2104$ 2190$ 2063$ 2347$ 2645$ 2213$ 2112$ 2283$  1167$ 1057$ 1062$ 900$ 842$ 835$ 851$ 847$ 901$ 1033$ 1071$ 1087$ 1004$ 1528$ 1479$ 1541$ 1710$ 1794$ 1507$ 1452$ 1527$ 1395$ 1532$ 1525$ 1635$ 1596$ 1632$ 1821$ 1804$ 1806$ 1747$ 1749$ 1842$ 1963$ 1973$ 1968$ 1941$ 2199$ 2353$ 2125$ 2026$ 2017$  1101$ 1020$ 1040$ 945$ 937$ 907$ 950$ 908$ 960$ 1049$ 1054$ 1077$ 1312$ 1516$ 1532$ 1550$ 1749$ 1982$ 1596$ 1458$ 1534$ 1402$ 1575$ 1876$ 1654$ 1917$ 2109$ 2143$ 2008$ 2005$ 1887$ 1881$ 1990$ 2059$ 2070$ 2110$ 2071$ 2305$ 2553$ 2254$ 2265$ 2216$  1162$ 1026$ 1033$ 929$ 849$ 851$ 880$ 868$ 908$ 886$ 912$ 870$ 828$ 1378$ 1452$ 1546$ 1765$ 1991$ 1522$ 1456$ 1521$ 1405$ 1528$ 1871$ 1635$ 1900$ 2005$ 2026$ 2025$ 1838$ 1831$ 1730$ 1841$ 1945$ 2015$ 2067$ 1922$ 2148$ 2398$ 2138$ 2154$ 2070$  1294$ 1150$ 1192$ 1107$ N/A$ N/A$ 1195$ 1188$ 1215$ 1154$ 1025$ 1215$ 1294$ 1292$ 1349$ 1334$ 1401$ 1508$ 1375$ 1431$ 1494$ 1352$  N/A$ N/A$ N/A$ 1127$ N/A$ N/A$ N/A$ 1169$ 1201$ 1143$ 1161$ 1179$ 1311$ 1274$ 1334$ 1334$ 1399$ 1532$ 1423$ 1433$ 1487$ 1346$ 1472$ 1481$ 1430$ 1097$ 1420$ 1402$ 1560$ 1588$ 1523$ 1220$ 1427$ 1520$ 1482$ 1581$ 1640$ 1841$  1502$ 1482$ 1105$ 1155$ 1172$ 1441$ 1562$ 1562$ 1440$ 1230$ 1438$ 1600$ 1487$ 1539$ 1542$ 1705$ 1840$ 1690$ 1555$ 1615$  1846$ 1649$ 1430$ 1678$  !"#$  Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  Tank 3 Inlet!  2-Aug-10$ 4-Aug-10$ 6-Aug-10$ 9-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 13-Aug-10$ 16-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 20-Aug-10$ 23-Aug-10$ 25-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 30-Aug-10$ 1-Sep-10$ 6-Sep-10$ 8-Sep-10 13-Sep-10 15-Sep-10 17-Sep-10 20-Sep-10 22-Sep-10 24-Sep-10 27-Sep-10 29-Sep-10 1-Oct-10 4-Oct-10 5-Oct-10 13-Oct-10 15-Oct-10 20-Oct-10 22-Oct-10 25-Oct-10 27-Oct-10 28-Oct-10 29-Oct-10 1-Nov-10 2-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 4-Nov-10 5-Nov-10 8-Nov-10 10-Nov-10 11-Nov-10 12-Nov-10  3847$ 2976$ 2874$ 2896$ 2815$ 2695$ 2735$ 2686$ 2768$ 2576$ 3042$ 2456$ 2673$ 2236$ 1876$ 1872 2358 2358 2430 2104 2215 2264 2695 2320 2089 2203 2129 807 1304 1987 2212 2316 2960 2970 2840 2820 2820 2970 3020 3310 3480 2690 2940 2990  2321$ 3201$ 3064$ 2845$ 2833$ 2729$ 2666$ 2606$ 2619$ 2527$ 2860$ 2415$ 2327$ 1969$ 1363$ 1613 1637 1681 1610 1587 1643 1562 1828 1642 1570 1168 1568 682 696 1667 1675 1981 1684 1784 1895 2810 2750 2750 2890 2870 1568 1492 1827 1821  2415$ 3028$ 3058$ 2750$ 3011$ 2941$ 2807$ 2654$ 2631$ 2485$ 2692$ 2402$ 2398$ 2014$ 1390$ 1461 1426 1421 1387 1278 1474 1442 1592 1502 1490 1220 1452 562 647 1316 1571 1842 1197 1239 1295 1331 1322 1369 1337 1389 1281 1345 1984 2630  2616$ 3113$ 3010$ 2977$ 2945$ 2786$ 2952$ 2544$ 2581$ 2538$ 2504$ 2736$ 2324$ 2001$ 1201$ 1146 1131 1333 1268 1113 1366 1278 1618 1373 1462 1215 1366 497 692 1529 1649 1901 1755 2700 2600 2660 2690 2720 2670 2730 1681 1680 1757 1816  2530$ 3061$ 3062$ 2894$ 2910$ 2861$ 3037$ 2797$ 2697$ 2670$ 2616$ 2767$ 2535$ 2337$ 1187$ 1047 1061 1175 1228 1108 1256 1256 1382 1314 1218 1203 1332 460 660 1486 1625 1834 1302 1410 1524 1661 1657 1693 1739 1814 1425 1552 1597 1594  2351$ 2858$ 2667$ 2719$ 2553$ 2705$ 2781$ 2575$ 2512$ 2546$ 2425$ 2573$ 2253$ 1998$ 1026$ 1067 1074 1182 1269 1096 1195 1244 1355 1390 1172 1219 1329 475 574 1016 1324 1733 1350 1502 1760 1860 2660 2660 2720 2650 1797 1737 1632 1696  2180$ 2465$ 2566$ 2403$ 2567$ 2532$ 2477$ 2472$ 1406$ 2254$ 2267$ 2229$ 2042$ 1865$ 1134$ 1070 1072 1176 1256 1109 1228 1282 1351 1379 1174 1206 1335 453 544 940 1235 1503 940 1065 1160 1424 1455 1488 1526 1582 1297 1477 1518 1639  2416$ 2614$ 2646$ 2681$ 2718$ 2690$ 2597$ 2534$ 2502$ 2458$ 2458$ 2457$ 2224$ 1980$ 1276 1102 1073 1163 1250 1104 1216 1289 1346 1381 1161 1211 1322 443 489 842 1255 1421 1092 1159 1374 1884 1908 1923 1955 1986 971 1064 1129 1182  2260$ 2507$ 2474$ 2459$ 2642$ 2531$ 2405$ 2425$ 2456$ 2388$ 2365$ 2250$ 2081$ 1890$ 1083 1048 1076 1162 1259 1119 1223 1290 1360 1384 1155 1204 1362 469 526 864 1248 1458 1070 1128 1248 1510 1532 1584 1566 1670 1580 1392 1425 1445  1532$ 1859$ 2004$ 1905$ 1946$ 1984$ 1883$ 1817$ 1850$ 1938$ 2154$ 1775$ 1567$ 1176$ 1002 1018 1050 1146 1241 1112 1202 1277 1326 1360 1136 1205 1359 492 493 557 737 886 1015 1349 1478 1533 1543 1586 1558 1534 1466 1480 1455 1486  Tank 3 Outlet! 1522$ 1779$ 1955$ 1875$ 1891$ 1938$ 1816$ 1815$ 1802$ 1895$ 1949$ 1780$ 1535$ 1234$ 994 1016 1048 1153 1247 1104 1204 1272 1323 1370 1110 1209 1363 495 485 544 741 891 986 1333 1440 1521 1497 1575 1557 1533 1467 1437 1427 1435  !"#$  Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  Tank 3 Inlet!  Tank 3 Outlet!  15-Nov-10 16-Nov-10 17-Nov-10 18-Nov-10 19-Nov-10 24-Nov-10 25-Nov-10 26-Nov-10 29-Nov-10 1-Dec-10 2-Dec-10 3-Dec-10 6-Dec-10 7-Dec-10 8-Dec-10 9-Dec-10 13-Dec-10 14-Dec-10 15-Dec-10 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10 20-Dec-10  3240 3220 2950 2960 3130 3110 2940 2950 3040 1535 1718 2780 1806 1671 1486 1666 2750 2750 1577 1784 1723 1477  1858 662 1567 2640 2760 3050 2930 2820 2710 1606 1504 1519 1543 1531 1519 1533 2100 1568 1745 1719 598 1341  1921 1835 1890 2630 2680 2970 2950 2890 2840 1574 1574 1598 1488 1456 1482 1434 1760 1371 1608 1707 1580 1282  1910 1912 1963 1971 2620 2930 2970 2810 2960 1538 1675 1797 1718 1678 1616 1499 2090 1568 1532 1649 1188 1371  1695 1726 2760 2930 2880 2930 2880 2890 2650 1886 1947 2650 1855 1746 1706 1609 1970 1491 1803 2650 1123 1313  1761 1817 1867 2700 2670 2840 2900 2820 2860 2720 2660 1885 1788 1674 1703 1593 2070 1547 1651 1737 1548 1384  1605 1642 1735 2330 1850 1971 2670 2670 2670 1157 1252 1360 1405 1401 1467 1485 1553 1504 1595 1713 1389 1424  1218 1588 1614 2370 1831 2660 2860 2900 2790 2690 2670 1824 1810 1677 1663 1628 1545 1472 1529 1722 1443 1398  1432 1379 1685 2330 1743 1962 2540 2630 2680 1531 1606 1634 1632 1591 1660 1622 1540 1497 1518 1730 1428 1402  1450 1342 1362 1392 1407 1530 1718 1820 1917 1907 1847 1740 1638 1563 1591 1530 1531 1483 1508 1515 1304 1297  1417 1324 1291 1291 1377 1514 1634 1804 1874 1904 1854 1719 1621 1534 1568 1484 1506 1434 1412 1513 1349 1254  Tank 3 Inlet! 1.78 3.88 2.96 N/A N/A 0.20 0.06 0.07 1.26 3.03 1.85 1.99 6.33 17.04 19.41 5.19  Tank 3 Outlet! N/A N/A 2.63 N/A N/A N/A 0.05 0.06 1.33 1.72 1.36 1.80 5.46 12.90 14.67 3.88  $  DO (mg/l) Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  27-Apr-10 29-Apr-10 30-Apr-10 3-May-10 4-May-10 5-May-10 6-May-10 7-May-10 10-May-10 10-May-10 11-May-10 12-May-10 19-May-10 21-May-10 24-May-10 26-May-10  0.40 0.28 0.85 N/A N/A 0.33 0.13 0.27 0.31 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.31 0.20 0.21 0.16  4.41 3.43 2.57 0.42 0.78 0.62 0.26 0.25 2.60 2.34 2.32 0.12 0.40 0.76 0.41 0.34  5.97 5.40 3.88 2.62 1.47 2.64 3.53 3.69 0.50 0.97 0.69 0.48 0.60 0.68 0.88 0.50  3.81 2.79 3.27 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.56 0.34 0.48 0.55 0.58 0.10 0.22 0.62 1.02 1.19  5.59 4.52 3.55 0.52 1.03 0.54 0.16 0.53 0.94 0.57 0.82 0.99 0.66 0.58 0.91 0.36  0.86 0.47 0.31 0.16 0.20 0.19 0.07 0.08 0.62 0.55 0.41 0.09 0.33 0.61 0.85 0.32  N/A 0.22 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.42 0.57 0.33 0.52 0.30 0.61 0.73 0.49  1.74 2.24 2.63 0.19 0.42 0.79 0.35 0.26 0.50 0.44 0.35 0.36 0.56 0.16 1.22 0.25  N/A 3.07 3.26 0.35 0.39 0.72 0.46 1.10 2.56 2.31 2.01 0.73 0.24 0.16 1.46 0.25  !"#$  Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  28-May-10 31-May-10 2-Jun-10 4-Jun-10 7-Jun-10  0.33 0.13 0.25 0.18 0.22  1.80 1.09 0.90 0.66 1.60  1.44 0.92 0.77 0.60 1.48  1.52 1.08 0.80 0.72 1.56  1.01 0.86 0.61 0.78 1.59  0.65 0.30 0.64 1.05 1.21  0.38 1.08 0.66 0.62 1.11  0.42 0.87 0.79 0.92 1.28  0.69 0.65 0.47 0.54 1.27  14-Jun-10  0.20  3.20  3.20  3.90  3.20  4.50  1.90  4.00  3.90  16-Jun-10  0.20  0.40  1.50  2.90  3.10  3.30  1.90  3.40  3.60  18-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 23-Jun-10 28-Jun-10 5-Jul-10 7-Jul-10 9-Jul-10 14-Jul-10 16-Jul-10 19-Jul-10 21-Jul-10 23-Jul-10 26-Jul-10 30-Jul-10 2-Aug-10  0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.10 3.74 0.31 0.26 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20  1.10 0.40 0.80 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.69 0.28 0.21 0.14 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.10  0.80 0.60 2.50 1.20 0.70 0.20 0.40 0.88 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.20  2.80 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.85 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 0.10  2.30 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.20 0.50 0.99 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.30  2.90 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.10 0.10 2.78 0.19 0.18 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20  1.30 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.10 0.40 1.50 0.18 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.60 0.70 1.30  3.80 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.10 1.62 0.18 0.20 0.13 1.30 1.70 0.30 0.60  3.50 0.20 0.80 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.20 1.44 0.35 0.23 0.14 0.50 0.70 0.50 0.70  Tank 3 Inlet! 4.23 8.14 8.68 12.54 over range over range over range 12.10 0.60 16.50 1.40 17.50 0.70 0.10 10.58 2.28 0.91 10.44 4.70 5.40 3.70 18.00  4-Aug-10 6-Aug-10 9-Aug-10 11-Aug-10 13-Aug-10 16-Aug-10 18-Aug-10 20-Aug-10 23-Aug-10 25-Aug-10 27-Aug-10 30-Aug-10 1-Sep-10 6-Sep-10 8-Sep-10 13-Sep-10 15-Sep-10 22-Sep-10 24-Sep-10  0.40 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.20 0.40 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.70 0.40 0.10 0.30 0.60 0.30  0.40 0.10 0.40 0.50 0.40 1.10 0.40 0.40 1.40 0.40 0.60 0.30 0.30 1.10 0.90 1.50 0.30 1.50 2.90  0.40 0.20 0.60 0.40 0.70 0.40 1.00 0.40 1.10 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.40 1.50 0.70 2.50 1.00 2.30 2.70  0.30 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.20 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.20 1.70 2.90 3.30 1.40 3.30 3.60  0.30 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.10 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.90 2.50 3.60 3.50 2.60 3.40 3.20  0.20 0.20 0.50 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.70 0.80 3.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 2.30 2.30 3.20 3.70 2.00 4.00 3.00  0.20 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 1.70 1.00 2.20 4.00 0.60 0.90 0.60 1.30 2.60 3.30 3.60 2.30 3.60 3.20  0.20 0.30 0.20 0.80 0.20 1.90 1.50 2.40 3.40 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.90 2.00 3.30 3.20 2.40 3.70 2.80  0.30 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.30 1.00 1.40 1.60 2.80 0.80 0.30 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.60 4.10 2.60 3.50 3.10  3.90 0.70 12.90 11.10 9.20 5.00 16.50 10.60 5.20 1.70 8.60 5.70 9.10 2.70 4.00 2.60 3.60 4.70 3.60  Tank 3 Outlet! 4.42 8.32 8.75 12.90 over range over range 17.10 16.30 0.40 2.30 0.20 10.90 0.60 0.10 8.81 5.48 1.19 9.37 10.70 17.10 6.70 Over range 6.30 2.90 13.50 15.50 9.90 8.70 17.70 10.10 9.00 1.80 7.80 5.80 3.50 4.00 3.90 3.20 3.70 3.60 5.00  !"!#  Date!  Inlet!  W1!  W2!  W3!  W4!  W5!  W6!  W7!  W8!  27-Sep-10 29-Sep-10 1-Oct-10 4-Oct-10 13-Oct-10 22-Oct-10 25-Oct-10 27-Oct-10 28-Oct-10 29-Oct-10 1-Nov-10 2-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 4-Nov-10 5-Nov-10 8-Nov-10 10-Nov-10 11-Nov-10 12-Nov-10 15-Nov-10 16-Nov-10 17-Nov-10 18-Nov-10 19-Nov-10 24-Nov-10 25-Nov-10 26-Nov-10 29-Nov-10 1-Dec-10 2-Dec-10 3-Dec-10 6-Dec-10 7-Dec-10 8-Dec-10 9-Dec-10 13-Dec-10 14-Dec-10 15-Dec-10 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10 20-Dec-10  0.40 0.40 0.50 0.50 1.90 0.50 0.40 0.41 0.17 0.22 0.45 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.28 0.15 0.17 0.52 0.28 0.23 0.10 0.20 0.14 0.27 0.11 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.10 0.15 0.26 0.16 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.11  2.80 1.30 2.00 3.20 1.70 0.50 0.30 0.22  3.10 2.50 2.30 3.60 2.90 1.20 0.30 0.25 0.12 0.19 0.27 0.25 0.31 0.21 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.07 0.14 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.08  3.20 4.10 2.30 3.50 3.90 1.40 0.30 0.16 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.22 0.07 0.07 0.22 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.08  3.90 3.70 3.70 3.90 3.90 1.60 0.30 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.63 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.33 0.24 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.27 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.38 0.09  3.30 3.40 3.80 3.10 3.20 1.70 0.30 0.23 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.18 0.07 0.12 0.28 0.24 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.15 0.08  4.00 3.20 3.60 3.50 3.40 1.10 0.30 0.34 0.18 0.13 0.70 0.20 0.26 0.18 0.46 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.21 0.24 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.18 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.14 0.07  3.80 3.50 4.30 3.00 3.60 2.00 0.40 0.15 0.42 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.37 0.06 0.96 0.23 0.33 0.07 0.25 0.22 0.11 0.21 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.26 0.06  3.90 4.20 4.30 2.80 3.80 1.50 0.30 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.28 0.15 0.19 0.32 0.24 0.14 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.24 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.15 0.07  0.09 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.05 0.18 0.24 0.10 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.33 0.09  Tank 3 Inlet! 4.50 4.20 5.10 3.60 3.80 4.40 0.20 0.17 0.56 0.28 0.08 1.12 0.17 4.12 1.24 0.52 4.34 1.47 0.06 0.31 1.02 0.25 0.13 0.22 0.45 0.27 0.22 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.07 0.26 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.08 1.34 0.06  Tank 3 Outlet! 4.10 4.10 4.70 3.60 4.10 3.80 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.32 2.39 0.97 0.63 5.38 2.26 1.44 3.68 4.22 0.87 0.43 1.67 0.89 0.38 0.33 0.95 0.46 1.16 0.12 0.34 0.17 0.19 0.25 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.19 0.07 0.05 0.36 0.27 0.09  $  !"#$  Temperature (oC) Date  Inlet  W1  W2  W3  W4  W5  W6  W7  W8  Tank 3 Inlet  Tank 3 Outlet  27-Apr-10 29-Apr-10 30-Apr-10 3-May-10 4-May-10 5-May-10 6-May-10 7-May-10 10-May-10 10-May-10 11-May-10 12-May-10 19-May-10 21-May-10 24-May-10 26-May-10 28-May-10 31-May-10 2-Jun-10 4-Jun-10 7-Jun-10 14-Jun-10 16-Jun-10 18-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 23-Jun-10 28-Jun-10 5-Jul-10 7-Jul-10 9-Jul-10 14-Jul-10 16-Jul-10 19-Jul-10 21-Jul-10 23-Jul-10 26-Jul-10 30-Jul-10 2-Aug-10 4-Aug-10 6-Aug-10 9-Aug-10 11-Aug-10  37.8 33.2 28.7 N/A N/A 33.1 37.5 34.4 33.3 38.0 35.2 33.9 37.3 37.8 36.8 35.1 33.5 38.7 36.4 34.1 35.6 31.5 30.2 30.1 29.4 29.6 31.5 33.4 34.0 30.5 27.5 30.9 27.5 27.7 29.6 28.0 26.5 26.3 31.1 28.2 30.7 27.8  31.8 31.6 28.2 30.3 29.8 30.8 32.5 30.8 32.5 33.9 32.4 31.3 33.4 33.8 33.2 32.0 32.5 33.7 31.8 31.1 32.0 30.0 30.0 28.7 28.6 28.6 29.2 28.3 29.2 29.2 27.6 29.8 28.7 27.0 28.4 27.4 27.8 26.5 29.3 28.2 28.5 28.5  32.7 31.5 28.8 30.0 29.9 30.6 32.3 30.9 32.0 33.9 32.1 31.3 33.2 33.3 32.7 31.8 32.5 33.7 31.4 30.9 32.2 30.1 29.6 29.1 28.6 28.7 29.3 28.4 29.2 29.3 26.5 29.5 29.1 27.2 28.0 27.1 27.8 26.6 29.1 27.9 28.6 28.6  31.3 31.2 28.8 29.6 29.6 30.2 32.0 30.4 31.8 33.5 32.0 31.2 32.7 33.0 33.1 31.7 31.6 32.9 31.9 31.0 31.4 31.4 29.4 28.5 28.7 28.8 29.2 28.4 28.8 29.0 26.2 29.2 28.8 27.5 27.5 27.3 27.6 26.9 28.6 28.0 27.8 28.3  32.5 31.2 29.0 29.6 29.8 30.2 32.4 30.4 31.6 33.5 31.9 31.5 32.5 32.8 32.9 31.4 31.4 32.3 31.6 30.9 30.9 31.2 29.9 28.4 28.7 28.6 29.1 28.3 28.7 29.0 25.9 29.0 28.6 27.1 27.8 27.1 27.5 26.7 28.4 27.7 27.8 28.4  32.1 31.1 28.6 31.1 29.8 30.9 32.2 30.3 31.7 33.7 31.8 31.1 32.8 33.4 33.1 31.6 31.0 32.2 31.9 31.1 31.2 30.0 29.3 28.3 28.5 28.5 29.2 28.7 28.8 29.1 25.6 28.7 28.6 27.2 27.8 27.0 27.3 27.0 28.3 27.6 27.7 28.1  32.3 32.5 28.8 30.3 30.0 30.6 32.8 30.5 31.8 33.8 31.9 31.2 33.2 33.4 32.9 31.7 30.9 32.9 31.8 31.0 31.1 29.7 29.4 28.1 28.4 28.4 29.0 28.2 28.6 28.9 26.1 28.6 28.2 27.7 27.6 26.3 26.9 26.6 27.9 27.2 27.7 28.0  32.6 31.8 29.0 30.1 30.2 30.8 32.2 30.7 32.1 33.8 32.2 31.6 33.4 33.4 33.2 31.8 30.9 32.7 31.8 31.6 31.6 30.1 29.5 28.2 28.6 28.6 29.4 28.5 29.0 29.3 25.8 28.7 28.2 28.0 27.5 27.2 26.7 26.8 27.9 27.9 27.5 27.9  32.5 31.9 29.2 30.1 30.2 30.6 32.5 30.7 32.1 34.2 32.1 31.8 33.1 33.4 33.1 31.9 31.0 32.5 31.9 31.5 31.4 30.1 29.6 28.3 28.6 28.6 29.4 28.5 29.0 29.3 25.7 28.3 27.8 28.0 27.4 26.7 26.5 27.0 27.8 27.5 27.2 27.6  34.1 32.5 28.7 N/A N/A 31.4 34.1 31.2 31.6 34.6 32.0 31.6 34.3 35.3 34.7 32.7 32.3 34.5  32.3 N/A 28.7 N/A N/A N/A 34.1 31.4 31.9 35.3 32.0 31.6 34.2 34.8 34.5 32.5 32.4 34.7 33.2 33.9 33.3 30.4 30.5 28.2 28.6 29.6 29.4 31.8 30.4 28.9 25.5 29.7 27.7  33.2 33.7 33.6 30.4 30.1 28.0 28.4 32.1 32.1 31.2 30.0 28.8 25.7 28.7 28.0 28.8 27.5 26.5 26.2 26.9 27.5 27.3 27.3 27.3  28.0 27.9 26.2 26.5 27.0 27.0 27.2 27.3 27.5  !""#  Date  Inlet  W1  W2  W3  W4  W5  W6  W7  W8  Tank 3 Inlet  13-Aug-10 16-Aug-10 18-Aug-10 20-Aug-10 23-Aug-10 25-Aug-10 27-Aug-10 30-Aug-10 1-Sep-10 6-Sep-10 8-Sep-10 13-Sep-10 15-Sep-10 17-Sep-10 20-Sep-10 22-Sep-10 24-Sep-10 27-Sep-10 29-Sep-10 1-Oct-10 4-Oct-10 5-Oct-10 13-Oct-10 15-Oct-10 20-Oct-10 22-Oct-10 25-Oct-10 27-Oct-10 28-Oct-10 29-Oct-10 1-Nov-10 2-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 4-Nov-10 5-Nov-10 8-Nov-10 10-Nov-10 11-Nov-10 12-Nov-10 15-Nov-10 16-Nov-10 17-Nov-10 18-Nov-10 19-Nov-10  29.8 30.2 30.4 30.5 26.3 28.5 27.2 29.1 27.7 28.6 28.2 29.1 29.0 28.4 29.2 28.6 28.6 30.1 28.9 28.5 30.3 28.0 26.5 26.7 27.9 28.4 30.0 31.3 28.8 29.2 25.9 26.9 28.1 27.8 28.8 28.5 29.8 29.4 30.7 29.9 29.5 29.9 30.1 28.8  29.7 27.9 28.9 29.5 26.7 28.7 27.8 28.7 28.4 27.6 28.7 29.5 29.3 28.7 29.5 29.7 29.3 29.6 29.1 27.9 29.1 28.0 26.7 26.9 27.6 27.2 28.4 28.0 N/A 27.7 25.3 25.7 26.6 26.6 26.9 26.9 27.7 28.1 28.6 28.6 27.2 28.4 28.7 28.2  29.5 28.1 29.1 29.2 26.6 28.4 28.2 28.4 28.6 27.5 28.5 29.1 29.0 28.7 29.3 29.5 29.3 29.3 29.1 27.8 29.0 27.5 26.6 27.0 27.6 27.4 28.5 28.1 28.1 27.6 25.3 25.7 26.7 26.7 27.0 27.2 27.9 28.5 28.8 29.0 27.7 28.7 28.8 28.4  29.1 27.6 28.7 29.0 26.7 28.8 27.9 27.9 28.1 27.5 28.6 29.0 28.5 28.3 29.3 29.3 29.4 29.3 28.9 27.9 28.8 27.4 26.6 26.7 27.2 26.8 27.8 27.7 28.0 27.3 25.1 25.7 26.4 26.3 26.6 27.0 27.5 27.9 28.2 28.6 27.8 28.2 28.5 28.1  29.1 28.1 28.6 28.8 26.7 28.2 27.6 28.0 27.9 27.3 28.2 28.9 28.7 28.4 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.2 28.7 27.9 28.8 27.5 26.5 26.8 27.0 27.2 28.2 27.9 28.1 27.8 25.3 25.7 26.6 26.6 26.9 27.5 28.0 28.3 28.7 29.1 28.3 28.7 28.9 28.4  28.9 27.7 28.2 28.4 26.6 28.0 26.9 27.6 27.5 27.1 28.2 28.6 28.1 28.3 29.1 29.0 29.1 29.1 28.7 28.0 28.3 27.5 26.5 26.7 26.8 26.5 27.4 27.3 27.4 27.1 24.8 25.3 26.1 26.0 26.4 26.9 27.2 27.5 27.9 28.4 27.8 28.1 28.3 27.9  28.6 27.0 28.2 28.4 26.3 28.0 26.7 27.9 27.5 27.2 27.8 28.5 28.5 28.0 28.6 28.7 28.8 29.0 28.6 27.9 28.7 27.1 26.2 26.5 26.0 26.6 27.6 27.5 27.5 27.0 24.6 25.2 26.1 25.9 26.3 26.9 27.0 27.6 27.9 28.4 27.8 28.0 28.3 27.9  28.6 26.5 28.1 28.4 26.1 28.1 25.8 27.5 27.3 27.2 28.0 28.0 27.7 27.7 28.6 28.8 28.5 28.8 28.8 27.9 28.5 26.8 26.3 26.5 26.2 26.1 27.6 27.4 27.5 27.3 25.3 25.8 26.2 26.2 26.9 26.8 27.2 27.7 28.0 28.5 27.6 28.1 28.4 28.0  28.4 26.9 27.8 28.6 26.4 27.7 26.0 27.6 27.2 26.9 27.9 27.8 27.9 27.9 28.7 28.7 28.5 28.9 28.5 28.0 28.5 26.8 26.3 26.5 26.1 26.1 27.9 27.6 27.7 27.4 25.3 25.8 26.3 26.3 26.7 26.9 27.4 28.0 28.3 28.8 27.8 28.4 28.6 28.1  28.7 26.6 28.1 28.3 25.6 27.5 25.9 27.4 27.0 27.2 27.7 27.8 27.6 28.4 28.5 28.4 28.3 28.7 28.8 27.9 28.4 26.8 26.1 26.6 25.7 26.1 27.9 28.1 27.6 27.3 24.7 25.5 26.3 25.1 25.8 26.7 27.2 28.0 27.7 28.3 27.5 28.3 28.2 27.5  Tank 3 Outlet 28.6 26.8 28.5 28.4 25.6 27.5 25.6 27.7 27.2 27.2 27.7 28.2 27.0 28.0 28.7 28.5 28.3 28.9 28.7 28.2 28.5 26.8 26.1 26.3 25.7 26.2 28.0 28.1 27.6 27.3 23.9 25.3 26.2 25.1 25.7 26.8 27.1 28.1 27.7 28.1 27.5 28.1 28.0 27.5  !"#$  Date  Inlet  W1  W2  W3  W4  W5  W6  W7  W8  Tank 3 Inlet  Tank 3 Outlet  24-Nov-10 25-Nov-10 26-Nov-10 29-Nov-10 1-Dec-10 2-Dec-10 3-Dec-10 6-Dec-10 7-Dec-10 8-Dec-10 9-Dec-10 13-Dec-10 14-Dec-10 15-Dec-10 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10 20-Dec-10  30.5 29.3 28.6 30.4 29.6 29.4 28.4 28.5 28.1 29.1 28.7 28.8 28.7 27.3 28.6 26.4 26.9  28.8 28.3 27.6 28.2 27.7 27.6 27.6 27.5 27.3 27.3 27.1 27.7 28.1 29.2 27.5 25.9 25.4  29.0 28.7 27.8 28.7 27.7 27.8 27.6 27.6 27.7 27.4 27.4 28.1 28.3 28.0 27.7 26.5 25.9  28.5 28.4 27.5 28.1 27.3 27.5 27.5 27.4 27.3 27.0 26.9 27.6 27.7 28.1 27.2 26.0 25.4  28.7 28.9 28.2 28.6 28.0 27.9 27.9 27.8 27.8 27.5 27.3 27.9 28.0 27.7 27.7 26.9 25.4  28.2 28.1 27.5 28.0 27.4 27.3 27.3 27.4 27.3 27.0 26.7 27.4 27.6 28.0 27.3 26.4 25.2  28.2 28.9 27.3 27.9 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.2 27.2 26.8 26.6 27.3 27.6 27.6 27.3 26.4 25.1  28.3 28.0 27.4 27.9 27.2 27.2 27.1 27.2 27.2 26.9 26.7 27.1 27.8 27.6 27.3 26.3 25.3  28.7 28.3 27.8 28.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.2 27.2 27.1 26.9 27.4 27.3 27.5 27.4 26.2 25.4  27.3 27.1 25.7 27.4 27.4 25.9 25.6 27.0 26.4 25.2 24.9 27.0 27.3 27.6 26.7 24.4 24.3  27.3 26.9 25.5 27.4 27.4 25.9 25.6 27.0 26.4 25.2 24.9 27.0 27.3 27.2 26.6 24.2 24.1  Table A!2 Water level, flow, HLR and HRT data, April – Dec 2010 Date"  1-Jun-10 2-Jun-10 4-Jun-10 7-Jun-10 14-Jun-10 15-Jun-10 17-Jun-10 18-Jun-10 21-Jun-10 21-Jun-10 22-Jun-10 23-Jun-10 25-Jun-10 28-Jun-10 29-Jun-10 30-Jun-10 5-Jul-10 12-Jul-10 16-Jul-10 19-Jul-10  Inlet Flowrate (L/hr)"  Effluent Tank Water Level (cm)"  Effluent Flowrate (L/hr)"  HLR (mm/day)"  HLR (days)"  Difference in flowrate (L/hr)"  Difference in flowrate (mm/day)"  6.3 5.3 6.3 6.3 12.7 15.8 12.7 12.7 9.5 15.8 7.9 7.9 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0  26.0 26.0 25.7 26.5 27.0 27.0 26.2 26.0 27.0 27.0 26.9 26.0 25.6 26.5 26.2 26.8 26.4 27.8 25.3 26.4  4.8 5.0 3.9 5.3 9.7 8.0 7.0 1.2 7.1 7.1 4.8 1.4 0.8 7.0 N/A 17.8 14.6 19.0 4.6 5.8  14.8 12.4 14.8 14.8 29.7 37.1 29.7 29.7 22.3 37.1 18.5 18.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5  14.7 17.7 14.7 14.7 7.4 5.9 7.4 7.4 9.8 5.9 11.8 11.8 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9  1.5 0.2 2.4 1.0 3.0 7.8 5.7 11.5 2.4 8.8 3.1 6.5 5.6 12.1 N/A 1.3 4.4 0.1 14.5 13.3  3.6 0.6 5.7 2.3 6.9 18.3 13.4 26.9 5.7 20.5 7.3 15.2 13.0 28.2 N/A 2.9 10.2 0.1 33.8 31.0  !"#$  Date!  Inlet Flowrate (L/hr)!  Effluent Tank Water Level (cm)!  Effluent Flowrate (L/hr)!  HLR (mm/day)!  HLR (days)!  Difference in flowrate (L/hr)!  Difference in flowrate (mm/day)!  21-Jul-10 22-Jul-10 23-Jul-10 26-Jul-10 27-Jul-10 28-Jul-10 29-Jul-10 29-Jul-10  19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0  26.0 25.9 26.5 26.8 25.7 25.8 24.9 26.4  5.0 5.5 6.2 7.4 3.6 5.0 2.8 7.4  44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5  4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9  14.0 0.8 12.8 11.6 15.4 14.0 3.6 11.6  32.7 1.9 29.9 27.1 36.1 32.7 8.4 27.1  2-Aug-10 3-Aug-10 4-Aug-10  19.0 6.3 19.0  25.8 26.5 26.8  5.2 5.5 6.2  44.5 14.8 44.5  4.9 14.7 4.9  13.9 0.8 12.8  32.4 1.9 29.9  5-Aug-10 6-Aug-10 9-Aug-10 10-Aug-10 11-Aug-10 12-Aug-10 13-Aug-10 16-Aug-10 17-Aug-10 18-Aug-10 19-Aug-10 20-Aug-10 23-Aug-10 24-Aug-10 25-Aug-10 27-Aug-10 30-Aug-10 3-Sep-10 6-Sep-10 7-Sep-10 8-Sep-10 9-Sep-10 13-Sep-10 14-Sep-10 15-Sep-10 16-Sep-10 17-Sep-10 20-Sep-10 21-Sep-10 22-Sep-10 23-Sep-10 24-Sep-10  6.3 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0  26.4 26.5 26.2 26.3 26.8 26.2 c 26.5 26.4 25.5 26.7 25.0 25.6 28.5 28.2 30.5 28.8 31.5 30.0 30.5 30.0 30.8 30.0 29.8 30.0 30.5 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0  5.8 6.1 5.0 5.5 7.6 5.5 6.7 5.6 4.3 4.2 4.1 5.0 10.1 5.2 19.0 6.1 18.2 7.1 11.0 3.5 13.2 4.2 4.6 5.2 6.1 4.6 6.7 6.7 5.8 6.8 5.5 7.2  14.8 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5  14.7 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9  0.6 12.9 14.0 0.8 11.5 0.8 12.3 13.4 2.0 14.8 2.3 14.0 8.9 1.2 0.1 12.9 0.8 11.9 8.0 2.9 5.8 2.1 14.5 1.1 12.9 1.8 12.3 12.3 0.6 12.2 0.8 11.8  1.4 30.2 32.7 1.9 26.8 1.9 28.8 31.4 4.7 34.7 5.3 32.7 20.9 2.8 0.1 30.2 1.8 27.9 18.7 6.7 13.6 5.0 33.8 2.6 30.2 4.2 28.8 28.8 1.4 28.5 1.9 27.7  !"#$  Date!  27-Sep-10 28-Sep-10 29-Sep-10 30-Sep-10 1-Oct-10 4-Oct-10 5-Oct-10 6-Oct-10 11-Oct-10 12-Oct-10 13-Oct-10 14-Oct-10 15-Oct-10 20-Oct-10 22-Oct-10 26-Oct-10 27-Oct-10 28-Oct-10 29-Oct-10 1-Nov-10 2-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 4-Nov-10 5-Nov-10 8-Nov-10 10-Nov-10 11-Nov-10 12-Nov-10 15-Nov-10 19-Nov-10 24-Nov-10 25-Nov-10 26-Nov-10 29-Nov-10 30-Nov-10 1-Dec-10 2-Dec-10 3-Dec-10 6-Dec-10 7-Dec-10 8-Dec-10 9-Dec-10  Inlet Flowrate (L/hr)!  Effluent Tank Water Level (cm)!  Effluent Flowrate (L/hr)!  HLR (mm/day)!  HLR (days)!  Difference in flowrate (L/hr)!  Difference in flowrate (mm/day)!  19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 6.3 19.0 19.0 19.0 6.3 19.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 7.9 9.5 7.9 7.9 7.3 5.1 7.3 4.8 6.3 5.4 17.1 15.8 15.8 15.8 13.0 15.8 15.2 15.8 14.9 15.8 15.8 15.8  30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 28.5 28.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 24.8 24.8 25.0 25.0 25.0 24.7 24.7 25.0 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.7 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5  7.7 5.4 6.2 4.4 7.4 7.7 5.3 7.9  44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 14.8 44.5 44.5 44.5 14.8 44.5 22.3 22.3 22.3 22.3 18.5 22.3 18.5 18.5 17.1 11.9 17.1 11.1 14.8 12.6 40.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 30.4 37.1 35.6 37.1 34.9 37.1 37.1 37.1  4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 14.7 4.9 14.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 13.8 4.6 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 11.0 9.2 11.0 11.0 12.0 17.3 12.0 18.4 13.8 16.2 4.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 6.5 5.3 5.6 5.3 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.3  11.3 0.9 12.8 1.9 11.6 11.3 1.0 11.1 N/A 1.3 12.3 1.2 12.5 11.3 11.1 N/A 7.5 0.4 0.5 2.4 3.0 1.7 3.1 2.5 4.2 1.8 0.0 1.2 1.0 2.1 0.7 10.4 8.8 8.4 9.2 6.3 6.8 6.3 6.8 7.5 6.4 6.7 7.2  26.5 2.2 29.9 4.4 27.1 26.5 2.3 26.0 N/A 3.0 28.8 2.8 29.3 26.5 26.0 N/A 17.5 0.9 1.2 5.7 7.1 3.9 7.4 5.9 9.8 4.1 0.1 2.9 2.4 5.0 1.7 24.3 20.5 19.7 21.6 14.7 16.0 14.8 16.0 17.5 14.9 15.7 16.9  5.0 6.7 5.2 6.5 7.7 7.9 N/A 11.5 9.1 9.0 7.1 6.5 6.2 6.4 5.4 3.7 5.5 5.0 6.1 3.7 4.2 4.7 6.7 7.1 7.4 6.6 6.7 9.0 8.9 9.0 7.4 9.5 9.1 8.6  !"#$  Date!  13-Dec-10 14-Dec-10 15-Dec-10 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10 20-Dec-10  Inlet Flowrate (L/hr)!  Effluent Tank Water Level (cm)!  Effluent Flowrate (L/hr)!  HLR (mm/day)!  HLR (days)!  Difference in flowrate (L/hr)!  Difference in flowrate (mm/day)!  15.8 13.9 15.8 17.4 15.8 12.7  25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.0 25.4  8.3 7.4 8.3 9.2 7.4 6.7  37.1 32.6 37.1 40.8 37.1 29.7  5.3 6.1 5.3 4.9 5.3 6.7  7.6 6.5 7.6 8.2 8.4 6.0  17.7 15.2 17.7 19.2 19.7 13.9  $  Table A"3 Turbidity (NTU) in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 (y0 = inlet, y1 = sampling wells W1 and W2, y2 = sampling wells W3 and W4, y3 = sampling wells W5 and W6, y4 = sampling wells W7 and W8, y5 = effluent outlet) Sampling Date! 11-May-10 20-May-10 26-May-10 3-Jun-10 11-Jun-10 18-Jun-10 24-Jun-10 30-Jun-10 8-Jul-10 16-Jul-10 22-Jul-10 30-Jul-10 5-Aug-10 11-Aug-10 18-Aug-10 27-Aug-10 3-Sep-10 9-Sep-10 16-Sep-10 22-Sep-10 1-Oct-10 5-Oct-10 14-Oct-10 21-Oct-10 29-Oct-10 1-Nov-10  Location! y0!  y1!  y2!  y3!  184.0 223.0 189.0 80.3 18.9 243.0 549.0 469.0 482.0 573.0 26.3 703.0 243.0 406.0 2205.0 1178.0 426.0 619.0  y4!  y5! 6.0 9.6 6.3 8.3 28.8 160.0 88.8 47.4 60.6 60.6 56.8 108.0 162.0 187.0 252.0 110.0 93.0 159.0 10.1 7.1 8.0 9.1 3.4 2.7  !"#$  Sampling Date! 3-Nov-10 8-Nov-10 15-Nov-10 16-Nov-10 17-Nov-10 18-Nov-10 23-Nov-10 9-Dec-10 13-Dec-10 14-Dec-10 15-Dec-10 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10 20-Dec-10 21-Dec-10  Location! y0! 473.0 1574.0  y1!  y2!  y3!  y4!  y5!  24.1 24.7 90.3 111.0 89.9  78.5 52.6 106.0 71.4 73.5  64.5 24.0 76.9 78.9 72.5  73.7 19.2 80.6 115.0 107.0  17.3 16.2 21.8 21.6 23.7  96.5 110.0 45.5 51.7 120.0 79.9  121.0 91.7 122.0 27.9 110.0 81.6  108.0 78.2 35.6 23.5 131.0 99.2  42.7 99.6 61.5 16.1 132.0 109.0  33.0 38.5 52.7 22.7 33.7 32.0  394.0 570.0 451.0 412.0  $  Table A"4 TSS (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 1-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! $ 397$ 743$ 750$ 1406$ $ $ $ $ $ 276$ 570$ $ 478$ 346$ $ $ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ 21.0$ 27.0$ 26.0$ 30.0$ 14.7$ $ $ 14.0$ 10.0$ 9.3$ 34.7$ 2.7$ 4.7$  y2! $ $ $ $ $ 18.0$ 24.0$ 28.0$ 37.0$ 14.7$ $ $ 10.6$ 6.0$ 7.3$ 14.7$ 5.3$ 4.7$  y3! $ $ $ $ $ 28.0$ 23.0$ 29.0$ 29.0$ 14.0$ $ $ 9.3$ 10.0$ 2.0$ 21.3$ 5.3$ 5.3$  y4! $ $ $ $ $ 18.0$ 26.0$ 24.0$ 79.0$ 11.3$ $ $ 8.0$ 0.7$ 13.3$ 18.7$ 2.7$ 2.0$  y5! 305$ $ $ $ $ 35.0$ 33.0$ 36.0$ 33.0$ 17.3$ $ $ 20.0$ 18.0$ 10.7$ 29.3$ 2.7$ 2.0$  $  !"#$  Table A-5 BOD (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 30-Apr-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! $ 72$ $ 72$ $ 140$ 143$ $ 94$ 194$ 145$ 92$ 213$ $ $ $ 96$ 88$ $ $ $ $ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 31$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 31$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y3! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 27$ 26$ 25$ $ $ $ $ $ 34$ 31$  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 24$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y5! 44$ 29$ 42$ 36$ 68$ 78$ 51$ 53$ $ $ $ $ $ 37$ 35$ 38$ $ $ 23$ 31$ 33$ 33$ 26$  Table A"6 COD (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-May-10$ 20-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$  Location! y0! 150$ 237$ 257$ 254$ $ 290$  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $  y3! $ $ $ $ 66$ $  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $  y5! 82$ 46$ 42$ 51$ 109$ 100$  !"#$  Sampling Date! 24-Jun-10# 30-Jun-10# 8-Jul-10# 16-Jul-10# 22-Jul-10# 30-Jul-10# 5-Aug-10# 11-Aug-10# 18-Aug-10# 27-Aug-10# 3-Sep-10# 9-Sep-10# 16-Sep-10# 22-Sep-10# 1-Oct-10# 5-Oct-10# 14-Oct-10# 21-Oct-10# 29-Oct-10# 1-Nov-10# 3-Nov-10# 8-Nov-10# 15-Nov-10# 16-Nov-10# 17-Nov-10# 18-Nov-10# 23-Nov-10# 9-Dec-10# 13-Dec-10# 14-Dec-10# 15-Dec-10# 16-Dec-10# 17-Dec-10# 20-Dec-10# 21-Dec-10#  Location! y0! # 107# # 942# # 957# # 833# # 1015# # 687# # 1025# # 2440# # 1354# 689# 970# 655# 1812# # # # # # 521# 492# # 670# 490# # # #  y1! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 84# 100# 112# 118# 137# # # 140# 131# 108# 130# 138# 125#  y2! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 98# 127# 111# 122# 133# # # 132# 127# 102# 82# 99# 90#  y3! # # # # # # # # 360# # # # # # # # # # # # # # 89# 90# 95# 110# 106# # # 111# 119# 74# 87# 97# 97#  y4! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 71# 102# 81# 96# 109# # # 87# 142# 100# 99# 100# 98#  y5! 60# 88# 271# 474# 397# 530# 532# 517# 645# 433# 477# 210# 184# 247# 147# 158# 10# 100# # # # # 107# 75# 97# 119# 110# # # 113# 123# 100# 70# 86# 77#  #  !"!#  Table A-7 TOC (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date!  !!%&'(%!)$ #"%&'(%!)$ ,%&'-%!)$ !.%&'-%!)$ ##%&'-%!)$ *)%&'-%!)$ /%0'1%!)$ !!%0'1%!)$ !,%0'1%!)$ #2%0'1%!)$ *%345%!)$ +%345%!)$ !.%345%!)$ ##%345%!)$ !%678%!)$ /%678%!)$ !"%678%!)$ #!%678%!)$ #+%678%!)$ !%9:;%!)$ *%9:;%!)$ ,%9:;%!)$ !/%9:;%!)$ !.%9:;%!)$ !2%9:;%!)$ !,%9:;%!)$ #*%9:;%!)$ +%<47%!)$ !*%<47%!)$ !"%<47%!)$ !/%<47%!)$ !.%<47%!)$ !2%<47%!)$ #)%<47%!)$ #!%<47%!)$  Location! y0!  y1!  y2!  y3!  y4!  y5!  $ $ $  $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  **$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  !+$  $ $  $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  $ $ $ $ $  36 21 28 33 31  20 18 24 27 30  14 19 22 23 23  10 11 16 17 20  25 18 25 26 23  92 75  $ $  $ $  $ $  $ $  $ $  $  30 25 21 18 25 23  29 23 19 19 16 21  22 17 19 21 17 17  18 20 15 15 12 16  20 22 16 17 14 16  166  $ 182  $ 198  $ 97  $ $ $ 79  $ 182  $ 359 121 120 51 102  129 66  $ $ $  28  49 40 45 48 58 64 68 69 42 49 20 20 17 14 14 6 12  $ $ $ $  $  !"#$  Table A!8 NH3/NH4+ (mg/l as N) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date" 11-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location" y0" $ $ $ 217 $ 214 $ 223 $ 187 $ $ $ 182 $ 174 $ 152 133 191 114 107 $ $ $ $ $ 127 147 $ 127 136 $ $ $  y1" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 131 109 168 174 187 $ $ 134 128 117 106 98 102  y2" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 160 100 176 179 180 $ $ 121 136 132 112 94 97  y3" 161$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 195 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 100 146 157 166 172 $ $ 121 122 116 100 90 93  y4" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 81 84 149 157 165 $ $ 109 123 119 96 91 90  y5" 44$ 82 110 114 103 94 125 106 97 128 64 67 70 66 84 63 22 14 $ $ $ $ 66 63 71 72 93 $ $ 91 92 94 79 76 73  $  !"#$  Table A!9 TKN (mg/l as N) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date" 11-Jun-10# 24-Jun-10# 8-Jul-10# 16-Jul-10# 22-Jul-10# 30-Jul-10# 5-Aug-10# 11-Aug-10# 18-Aug-10# 27-Aug-10# 3-Sep-10# 9-Sep-10# 16-Sep-10# 22-Sep-10# 1-Oct-10# 5-Oct-10# 14-Oct-10# 21-Oct-10# 29-Oct-10# 1-Nov-10# 3-Nov-10# 8-Nov-10# 15-Nov-10# 16-Nov-10# 17-Nov-10# 18-Nov-10# 23-Nov-10# 9-Dec-10# 13-Dec-10# 14-Dec-10# 15-Dec-10# 16-Dec-10# 17-Dec-10# 20-Dec-10# 21-Dec-10#  Location" y0" # # # 275 # 274 # 297 # 241 # # # 226 # 238 # 241 186 273 156 173 # # # # # 146 182 # 161 152 # # #  y1" # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 143 113 189 195 210 # # 149 136 129 117 106 110  y2" # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 179 99 193 198 199 # # 147 143 147 119 104 105  y3" 115# # # # # # # # 208 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 108 152 170 182 191 # # 130 132 133 109 94 98  y4" # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 84 89 160 172 180 # # 119 134 128 103 95 97  y5" 42# 86 132 112 139 119 146 134 120 132 72 67 72 75 65 79 22 24 # # # # 70 70 75 77 106 # # 98 100 133 86 79 80  #  !""#  Table A-10 TN (mg/l as N) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date!  Location!  24-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$  y0! $ $ 275 $ 275 $ 297 $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  243 $ $ $ 226 $ 238 $ 241 187 274 156 173 $ $ $ $ $ 147 182 $ 161 152 $ $ $  $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 143 113 189 195 210 $ $ 150 136 129 119 106 111  $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 179 100 193 198 200 $ $ 147 143 147 122 105 106  y3! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 209 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 108 153 171 182 192 $ $ 131 132 133 113 96 99  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y5! 106 142 112 139 119 147 134 121  $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 84 89 160 173 181 $ $ 119 134 133 110 95 97  132 72 70 75 82 68 87 24 31 $ $ $ $ 76 75 82 82 110 $ $ 98 100 133 91 87 85  $  !"#$  Table A-11 NO2 (mg/l as NO2) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-May-10$ 20-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 30-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ $ $ $ $ $ 0.0$ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ 0.0$ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.4$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ $ $ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 5.8$  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ $ $ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 9.7$  y3! $ $ $ $ 1.8$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.0$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ $ $ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 13.3$  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.0$ 1.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 1.3$ $ $ 0.0$ 0.4$ 13.1$ 20.9$  y5! 0.0$ 8.8$ 6.1$ 11.6$ 0.0$ 84.1$ 61.1$ 14.4$ 32.7$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.4$ 9.5$ 23.9$ 9.3$ 26.0$ 5.7$ 18.2$ $ $ $ $ 4.8$ 4.7$ 2.7$ 2.6$ 0.4$ $ $ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 14.3$  !"#$  Sampling Date! 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! $ $  y1! 0.0$ 0.0$  y2! 0.0$ 0.0$  y3! 5.6$ 1.1$  y4! 0.0$ 0.0$  y5! 23.7$ 14.4$  $  Table A"12 NO3 (mg/l as NO3) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-May-10$ 20-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 30-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$  Location! y0! 0.5$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 5.4$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 1.0$ $ 1.4$ $ 5.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.0$ $ 0.2$ $ 0.4$ 5.5$ 5.7$ 0.5$ 0.5$ $ $ $ $ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.7$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 3.2$  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.7$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 3.7$  y3! $ $ $ $ 1.4$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.5$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.5$ 1.3$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 3.7$  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.5$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 3.5$ 3.5$  y5! 0.3$ 84.5$ 2.0$ 42.1$ 37.7$ 0.0$ 5.2$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 1.7$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 1.6$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 1.2$ 8.3$ $ $ $ $ 20.1$ 16.3$ 24.3$ 21.8$ 17.2$  !"#$  Sampling Date! 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 2.3$ 0.6$ $ 1.1$ 1.1$ $ $ $  y1! $ $ 0.6$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 2.0$ 1.9$ 1.9$  y2! $ $ 0.6$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 2.1$ 2.0$ 1.9$  y3! $ $ 0.6$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 2.0$ 1.9$ 1.9$  y4! $ $ 0.6$ 1.1$ 2.0$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 1.9$  y5! $ $ 0.6$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.9$ 2.0$ 1.8$  $  Table A-13 TP (mg/l as PO4) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$  Location! y0! $ $ $ $ 56.5$ $ 58.1$ $ 63.7$ $ 52.4$ $ $ $ 48.7$ $ 56.9$ $ 67.3$ 41.7 64.7 37.6 45.7 $ $ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39.4 34.6 39.5 42.2  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39.0 36.4 39.8 42.2  y3! 14.4$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 42.7 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 36.7 32.4 35.8 38.1  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 33.7 28.9 33.4 35.6  y5! 6.2$ $ 32.2 33.7$ 30.7$ 31.8 30.4 34.7 32.6 31.2 34.2 27.5 22.3 26.1 22.4 15.6 19.9 9.8 14.6 $ $ $ $ 22.7 21.2 23.3 24.8  !"#$  Sampling Date! 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! $ 34.4$ 47.7$ $ 44.6$ 34.8$ $ $ $  y1! 47.6 $ $ 36.2 33.2 31.7 25.9 25.6 26.3  y2! 44.8 $ $ 36.0 33.7 34.6 33.7 22.5 25.0  y3! 41.9 $ $ 30.0 30.9 30.2 25.3 22.5 23.3  y4! 40.2 $ $ 26.5 30.9 30.6 23.6 22.6 23.5  y5! 31.1 $ $ 28.1 29.4 28.9 19.2 22.7 24.0  $  Table A-14 PO4 (mg/l as PO4) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-May-10$ 20-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 30-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$  Location! y0! 20.4$ 31.3$ 16.6$ 42.7$ $ 44.8$ $ 42.9$ $ 42.2$ $ 37.0$ $ 47.2$ $ 42.4$ $ 35.7$ $ 42.5$ $ 37.1$ $ 38.6$ 38.1$ 39.1$  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y3! $ $ $ $ 37.3$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39.6$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y5! 8.8$ 12.0$ 3.2$ 8.9$ 7.4$ 6.6$ 26.4$ 28.1$ 28.4$ 25.2$ 24.1$ 19.0$ 16.2$ 23.2$ 14.6$ 24.8$ 26.7$ 24.1$ 28.6$ 23.2$ 16.2$ 18.9$ 3.6$ 39.4$ $ $  !"#$  Sampling Date! 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 34.9$ 31.7$ $ $ $ $ $ 26.4$ 35.2$ $ 29.7$ 20.5$ $ $ $  y1! $ $ 30.7$ 35.2$ 41.0$ 41.2$ 46.4$ $ $ 36.5$ 32.5$ 23.7$ 25.7$ 26.3$ 28.4$  y2! $ $ 29.0$ 38.7$ 41.7$ 43.4$ 44.8$ $ $ 36.6$ 32.3$ 29.0$ 32.2$ 26.6$ 27.2$  y3! $ $ 27.0$ 32.9$ 36.3$ 39.6$ 43.2$ $ $ 31.4$ 30.6$ 23.6$ 28.0$ 26.9$ 26.6$  y4! $ $ 27.1$ 29.1$ 35.2$ 37.6$ 40.9$ $ $ 26.3$ 33.0$ 32.1$ 25.8$ 26.9$ 25.9$  y5! $ $ 16.2$ 20.9$ 23.2$ 24.2$ 30.7$ $ $ 26.4$ 28.5$ 22.0$ 20.8$ 24.6$ 25.9$  $  Table A-15 Fe (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 22-Aug-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 0.24$ $ $ 5.95$ $ 2.98$ 21.7$ 0.25$ 0.16$ 0.13$ 0.14$ $ $ $ $ $ 3.46$ 4.27$ $ 8.42$  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 12.46$ 0.30$ 3.76$ 0.16$ 0.17$  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.19$ 0.17$ 0.23$ 0.20$ 0.16$  y3! $ 0.41$ $ $ 0.24$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.29$ 0.23$ 0.25$ 0.19$ 0.36$  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.24$ 0.24$ 0.17$ 0.18$ 0.25$  0.11$ 0.16$ 0.33$ 0$ 0.32$ 0.94$ 2.7$ $ $ $ $ 62.96$ 10.02$ 12.50$ 13.80$ 6.27$  $ $ 0.25$  $ $ 0.35$ 0.23$  $ $ 0.20$ 0.23$  $ $ 0.19$ 0.16$  $ $ 0.29$ 0.31$  $  y5!  !"#$  Sampling Date! 16-Dec-10# 17-Dec-10# 20-Dec-10# 21-Dec-10#  Location! y0! 4.36# # # #  y1! 0.29# 0.27# 0.25# 0.31#  y2! 0.19# 0.22# 0.15# 0.14#  y3! 0.19# 0.19# 0.17# 0.17#  y4! 0.15# 0.12# 0.15# 0.39#  y5! 0.32# 0.60# 0.32# 0.31#  Table A-16 Mg (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 3-Jun-10# 11-Jun-10# 22-Jul-10# 11-Aug-10# 18-Aug-10# 22-Aug-10# 21-Oct-10# 29-Oct-10# 1-Nov-10# 3-Nov-10# 8-Nov-10# 15-Nov-10# 16-Nov-10# 17-Nov-10# 18-Nov-10# 23-Nov-10# 9-Dec-10# 13-Dec-10# 14-Dec-10# 15-Dec-10# 16-Dec-10# 17-Dec-10# 20-Dec-10# 21-Dec-10#  Location! y0! 17# # # 26# # 18# 15# 16# 17# 16# 13# # # # # # 14# 27# # 21# 14# # # #  y1! # # # # # # # # # # # 18# 9# 11# 13# 14#  y2! # # # # # # # # # # # 16# 18# 20# 15# 13#  y3! # 0# # # 11# # # # # # # 13# 18# 16# 18# 18#  y4! # # # # # # # # # # # 13# 14# 18# 22# 22#  28# 0# 16# 23# 8# 11# 14# # # # # 28# 19# 19# 14# 14#  # # 14#  # # 15# 18# 16# 16# 11# 16#  # # 19# 16# 16# 12# 17# 18#  # # 17# 18# 17# 17# 19# 17#  # # 22# 14# 14# 14# 20# 23#  # 15# 15# 17# 16#  y5!  #  !"!#  Table A!17 Ca (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date" 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location" y0" 38$ 39$ 40$ 37$ $ $ $ $ $ 33$ 60$ $ 51$ 34$ $ $ $  y1" $ $ $ $ 51$ 32$ 30$ 31$ 33$  y2" $ $ $ $ 39$ 41$ 46$ 36$ 31$  y3" $ $ $ $ 32$ 42$ 39$ 43$ 42$  y4" $ $ $ $ 32$ 35$ 41$ 50$ 49$  y5" $ $ $ $ 101$ 47$ 46$ 39$ 37$  $ $ 39$  $ $ 38$ 44$ 51$ 41$ 37$ 43$  $ $ 44$ 40$ 40$ 37$ 43$ 41$  $ $ 41$ 42$ 40$ 41$ 43$ 39$  $ $ 50$ 32$ 33$ 34$ 45$ 51$  $ 48$ 40$ 50$ 40$  $  Table A-18 K (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date" 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 22-Aug-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$  Location" y0" 560$ $ $ 250$ $ 540$ 340$ 48$ 54$ 45$ 37$ $ $  y1" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 48$ 24$  y2" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34$ 38$  y3" $ 182$ $ $ 500$ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34$ 38$  y4" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 37$ 38$  y5" 130$ 110$ 340$ 250$ 315$ 195$ 42$ $ $ $ $ 44$ 40$  !"#$  Sampling Date! 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! $ $ $ 39$ 44$ $ 40$ 44$ $ $ $  y1! 35$ 32$ 33$  y2! 42$ 37$ 34$  y3! 35$ 39$ 40$  y4! 39$ 40$ 41$  y5! 50$ 35$ 41$  $ $ 31$  $ $ 37$ 48$ 45$ 45$ 27$ 46$  $ $ 50$ 44$ 45$ 31$ 47$ 48$  $ $ 50$ 50$ 49$ 57$ 54$ 49$  $ $ 42$ 37$ 39$ 36$ 41$ 43$  $ 32$ 32$ 39$ 39$  $  Table A-19 Na (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 854$ 913$ 813$ 700$ $ $ $ $ $ 716$ 1056$ 815$ 780$ $ $ $ $  y1! $ $ $ $ 924$ 548$ 659$ 603$ 621$ $ $ 646$ 671$ 687$ 793$ 776$ $  y2! $ $ $ $ 680$ 798$ 891$ 743$ 619$ $ $ 800$ 915$ 820$ 811$ 504$ 878$  y3! $ $ $ $ 623$ 699$ 804$ 816$ 808$ $ $ 940$ 831$ 812$ 540$ 895$ 868$  y4! $ $ $ $ 634$ 651$ 791$ 926$ 917$ $ $ 913$ 910$ 861$ 923$ 984$ 896$  y5! $ $ $ $ 826$ 847$ 889$ 651$ 792$ $ $ 949$ 642$ 633$ 668$ 820$ 943$  $  !"#$  Table A-20 B (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date 29-Oct-10 1-Nov-10 3-Nov-10 8-Nov-10 15-Nov-10 16-Nov-10 17-Nov-10 18-Nov-10 23-Nov-10 9-Dec-10 13-Dec-10 14-Dec-10 15-Dec-10 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10 20-Dec-10 21-Dec-10  Location y0 0.145 0.116 0.11 0.125  0.103 0.108 0.088 0.068  y1  y2  y3  y4  y5  0.19 0.653 0.116 0.099 0.079  0.077 0.076 0.082 0.063 0.093  1.343 0.441 1.288 0.201 1.155  1.035 0.176 0.079 1.016 1.147  0.14 0.106 0.139 0.122 0.129  0.469 0.395 0.374 0.193 0.372 0.469  0.152 0.393 0.189 0.102 0.112 0.135  0.117 0.116 0.128 0.097 0.142 0.11  0.112 0.11 0.137 0.13 0.004 0.121  1.132 1.12 0.173 0.093 0.516 0.373  $  Table A-21 Cl (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-May-10$ 20-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 30-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$  Location! y0! 88.6$ 112.2$ 46.1$ 142.5$ $ 126.0$ $ 125.5$ $ 158.8$ $ 144.0$ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y3! $ $ $ $ 127.0$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  y5! 69.0$ 97.7$ 40.6$ 112.8$ 65.1$ 121.4$ 107.6$ 103.8$ 99.0$ 121.5$ 121.2$ 119.5$ 126.2$  !"#$  Sampling Date! 11-Aug-10# 18-Aug-10# 27-Aug-10# 3-Sep-10# 9-Sep-10# 16-Sep-10# 22-Sep-10# 1-Oct-10# 5-Oct-10# 14-Oct-10# 21-Oct-10# 29-Oct-10# 1-Nov-10# 3-Nov-10# 8-Nov-10# 15-Nov-10# 16-Nov-10# 17-Nov-10# 18-Nov-10# 23-Nov-10# 9-Dec-10# 13-Dec-10# 14-Dec-10# 15-Dec-10# 16-Dec-10# 17-Dec-10# 20-Dec-10# 21-Dec-10#  Location! y0! 158.2# # 147.2# # 89.3# # 126.2# # 125.4# # 119.0# 143.0# 135.1# 143.7# 121.5# # # # # # 98.1# 106.6# # 93.9# 80.9# # # #  y1! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 96.9# 97.5# 112.1# 110.6# 126.5# # # 100.5# 92.9# 68.8# 84.3# 79.7# 84.2#  y2! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 94.2# 112.9# 115.2# 115.1# 127.5# # # 99.7# 90.3# 81.3# 93.3# 81.8# 79.6#  y3! # 166.0# # # # # # # # # # # # # # 85.0# 99.2# 103.7# 105.7# 122.4# # # 98.5# 89.7# 70.7# 87.5# 79.5# 80.4#  y4! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 85.4# 89.3# 101.9# 104.7# 116.9# # # 92.5# 97.7# 95.2# 84.2# 78.9# 79.3#  y5! 167.6# 178.6# 137.4# 95.8# 66.1# 90.8# 83.7# 85.3# 96.0# 10.8# 96.3# # # # # 85.9# 86.2# 92.1# 93.6# 106.9# # # 96.4# 101.0# 77.6# 87.1# 85.2# 83.9#  #  Table A-22 SO4 (mg/l) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-May-10# 20-May-10# 26-May-10# 3-Jun-10# 11-Jun-10# 18-Jun-10# 24-Jun-10#  Location! y0! 37.4# 62.6# 20.8# 68.2# # 55.7# #  y1! # # # # # # #  y2! # # # # # # #  y3! # # # # 40.2# # #  y4! # # # # # # #  y5! 14.5# 53.7# 35.3# 98.2# 36.4# 25.9# 22.6#  !""#  Sampling Date! 30-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 23-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 52.4$ $ 54.5$ $ 62.6$ $ 52.7$ $ 52.8$ $ 43.8$ $ 51.4$ $ 50.5$ $ 19.1$ 31.4$ 38.3$ 52.4$ 40.4$ $ $ $ $ $ 27.3$ 49.4$ $ 42.5$ 35.1$ $ $ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 40.2$ 44.4$ 33.1$ 26.6$ 23.5$ $ $ 36.0$ 40.5$ 32.7$ 45.7$ 37.3$ 34.5$  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 27.0$ 41.4$ 18.2$ 9.3$ 22.2$ $ $ 22.3$ 33.6$ 26.8$ 38.7$ 31.9$ 34.3$  y3! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 31.7$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 23.4$ 45.9$ 26.7$ 16.4$ 22.5$ $ $ 25.2$ 33.6$ 29.1$ 47.3$ 34.5$ 32.8$  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 23.5$ 37.7$ 30.2$ 44.5$ 14.6$ $ $ 33.4$ 33.1$ 40.7$ 48.1$ 32.4$ 30.1$  y5! 29.0$ 26.7$ 28.6$ 40.4$ 35.9$ 34.4$ 35.6$ 26.4$ 40.3$ 26.0$ 18.6$ 24.8$ 27.2$ 43.7$ 45.3$ 6.1$ 26.4$ $ $ $ $ 27.8$ 31.0$ 34.2$ 36.2$ 33.5$ $ $ 22.8$ 21.8$ 15.4$ 39.7$ 32.2$ 28.8$  $  !"#$  Table A!23 E. coli (coli/100mL) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date" 27-Apr-10$ 11-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 30-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$ 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$  Location" y0" 1.67E+05$ 3.90E+05$ 7.80E+05$ 1.19E+06$ $ 5.70E+04$ $ 2.27E+06$ $ 3.90E+05$ $ 1.22E+05$ $ 1.31E+06$ $ 3.43E+06$ $ 4.32E+05$ $ 2.89E+06$ $ 4.28E+06$ $ 4.07E+06$ 1.23E+07$ 2.45E+06$ 8.50E+05$ 2.42E+06$ $ $ $ $ 3.44E+06$ 5.21E+06$ $ 2.27E+06$ 2.20E+06$ $ $  y1" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.67E+05$ 4.73E+05$ 1.69E+06$ 2.26E+06$ $ $ 1.81E+06$ 1.81E+06$ 4.04E+05$ 1.15E+06$ 2.90E+04$  y2" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.30E+04$ 4.30E+05$ 2.87E+05$ 1.39E+06$ $ $ 1.66E+06$ 5.10E+05$ 1.48E+05$ 2.40E+05$ 2.00E+05$  y3" $ $ $ $ 1.41E+05$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3.00E+04$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.70E+04$ 3.07E+05$ 2.37E+05$ 5.89E+05$ $ $ 8.50E+05$ 5.00E+05$ 2.65E+05$ 3.85E+05$ 1.32E+05$  y4" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.10E+04$ 1.93E+05$ 1.85E+05$ 2.56E+05$ $ $ 1.37E+05$ 2.71E+05$ 1.81E+05$ 2.83E+05$ 1.15E+05$  y5" 3.09E+05$ 4.00E+04$ 1.20E+03$ 1.13E+04$ 5.00E+03$ 9.20E+03$ 1.00E+04$ 9.70E+04$ 4.86E+04$ 1.10E+04$ 3.40E+03$ 7.00E+02$ 4.06E+04$ 3.50E+03$ 3.00E+02$ 5.50E+03$ 6.80E+03$ 5.62E+04$ 4.99E+05$ 3.98E+04$ 1.84E+05$ 1.90E+05$ 3.80E+04$ 2.13E+04$ $ $ $ $ 8.00E+02$ 1.43E+04$ 2.69E+04$ 2.86E+04$ $ $ 7.85E+04$ 1.24E+05$ 1.27E+05$ 1.13E+05$ 7.20E+04$  !"#$  Sampling Date! 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! $  y1! y2! y3! y4! 1.99E+05$ 9.85E+04$ 7.50E+04$ 5.50E+04$  y5! 3.92E+04$  $  Table A-24 TC (coli/100mL) concentration in the pilot constructed wetland system, May – Dec, 2010 Sampling Date! 11-May-10$ 26-May-10$ 3-Jun-10$ 11-Jun-10$ 18-Jun-10$ 24-Jun-10$ 30-Jun-10$ 8-Jul-10$ 16-Jul-10$ 22-Jul-10$ 30-Jul-10$ 5-Aug-10$ 11-Aug-10$ 18-Aug-10$ 27-Aug-10$ 3-Sep-10$ 9-Sep-10$ 16-Sep-10$ 22-Sep-10$ 1-Oct-10$ 5-Oct-10$ 14-Oct-10$ 21-Oct-10$ 29-Oct-10$ 1-Nov-10$ 3-Nov-10$ 8-Nov-10$ 15-Nov-10$ 16-Nov-10$ 17-Nov-10$ 18-Nov-10$ 9-Dec-10$ 13-Dec-10$ 14-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 5.03E+05$ 1.16E+05$ 2.01E+06$ $ 7.90E+04$ $ 3.21E+06$ $ 5.06E+05$ $ 1.93E+05$ $ 2.02E+06$ $ 7.40E+06$ $ 2.67E+06$ $ 6.70E+06$ $ 8.40E+06$ $ 7.40E+06$ 1.63E+07$ 3.37E+06$ 1.24E+06$ 3.50E+06$ $ $ $ $ 7.20E+06$ 8.85E+06$ $  y1! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5.08E+05$ 8.20E+05$ 2.75E+06$ 4.04E+06$ $ $ 3.25E+06$  y2! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4.30E+04$ 1.33E+06$ 6.00E+05$ 2.10E+06$ $ $ 2.79E+06$  y3! $ $ $ 2.60E+05$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4.40E+04$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5.00E+04$ 7.00E+05$ 4.90E+05$ 1.36E+06$ $ $ 1.29E+06$  y4! $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5.20E+04$ 4.58E+05$ 1.85E+05$ 4.40E+05$ $ $ 2.09E+05$  y5! 1.21E+05$ 9.28E+04$ 3.95E+05$ 2.83E+05$ 3.17E+04$ 2.20E+05$ 9.90E+05$ 3.36E+06$ 2.94E+06$ 1.33E+05$ 5.20E+05$ 1.81E+05$ 1.34E+05$ 8.80E+04$ 8.58E+04$ 2.08E+05$ 6.50E+05$ 1.45E+06$ 1.23E+05$ 7.08E+05$ 5.82E+05$ 1.24E+05$ 2.92E+05$ $ $ $ $ 1.20E+05$ 2.36E+05$ 9.05E+05$ 9.33E+05$ $ $ 6.40E+05$  !"#$  Sampling Date! 15-Dec-10$ 16-Dec-10$ 17-Dec-10$ 20-Dec-10$ 21-Dec-10$  Location! y0! 2.51E+06$ 3.76E+06$ $ $ $  y1! 2.52E+06$ 9.40E+05$ 2.37E+06$ 4.05E+05$ 4.16E+05$  y2! 9.90E+05$ 3.67E+05$ 8.00E+05$ 3.90E+05$ 4.12E+05$  y3! 7.70E+05$ 6.00E+05$ 1.12E+06$ 2.59E+05$ 1.59E+05$  y4! 6.00E+05$ 4.10E+05$ 8.55E+05$ 2.51E+05$ 9.40E+04$  y5! 6.25E+05$ 1.01E+06$ 1.90E+06$ 5.22E+05$ 4.81E+05$  $ $  !"#$  Appendix B Seasonal Variability In Pilot System Performance (Inlet and Outlet) 10000  COD (mg/l)  1000  100  10  1 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-1 COD concentration vs. time 300  250  BOD (mg/l)  200  150  100  50  0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-2 BOD concentration vs. time $ !"#$  10000  Turbidity (NTU)  1000  100  10  1 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  #  Figure B-3 Turbidity concentration vs. time 10000  TSS (mg/l)  1000  100  10  1 21-Sep  11-Oct  31-Oct  20-Nov  10-Dec  30-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  #  Figure B-4 TSS concentration vs. time # !"!#  400 350  TOC (mg/l)  300 250 200 150 100 50 0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-5 TOC concentration vs. time 250  NH3/NH4+ (mg/l as N)  200  150  100  50  0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-6 NH3/NH4+ concentration vs. time  !"#$  350  300  TKN (mg/l as N)  250  200  150  100  50  0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-7 TKN concentration vs. Time 350  300  TN (mg/l as N)  250  200  150  100  50  0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-8 TN concentration vs. time $  !"#$  50 45 40  PO4 (mg/l as PO 4)  35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-9 PO4 concentration vs. time 80 70  TP (mg/l as PO 4)  60 50 40 30 20 10 0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-10 TP concentration vs. time $ !"#$  200 180 160 140  Cl (mg/l)  120 100 80 60 40 20 0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-11 Cl concentration vs. time 120  100  SO4 (mg/l)  80  60  40  20  0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-12 SO4 concentration vs. time $ !"#$  1.0E+08 1.0E+07  E. Coli (coli / 100 mL)  1.0E+06 1.0E+05 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  #  Figure B-13 E. coli (log units) vs. time 1.0E+08  Total Coliform (coli / 100 mL)  1.0E+07 1.0E+06 1.0E+05 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  #  Figure B-14 TC (log units) vs. time #  !""#  70 60  Fe (mg/l)  50 40 30 20 10 0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  Figure B-15 Fe concentration vs. time  30  25  Mg (mg/l)  20  15  10  5  0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-16 Mg concentration vs. time $  !"#$  600  500  K (mg/l)  400  300  200  100  0 24-Apr  24-May  23-Jun  23-Jul  22-Aug  21-Sep  21-Oct  20-Nov  20-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-17 K concentration vs. time  120  100  Ca (mg/l)  80  60  40  20  0 21-Oct  31-Oct  10-Nov  20-Nov  30-Nov  10-Dec  20-Dec  30-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B-18 Ca concentration vs. time $ !"#$  1200  1000  Na (mg/l)  800  600  400  200  0 21-Oct  31-Oct  10-Nov  20-Nov  30-Nov  10-Dec  20-Dec  30-Dec  19-Dec  29-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  Figure B-19 Na concentration vs. time  1  1  B (mg/l)  1  1  0  0  0 20-Oct  30-Oct  09-Nov  19-Nov  29-Nov  09-Dec  Date Influent  Effluent  $  Figure B!20 B concentration vs. time !"#$  Appendix C Precipitation and Temperature Data  160 140  Rainfall (mm)  120 100 80 60 40 20  17-Dec  07-Dec  27-Nov  17-Nov  07-Nov  28-Oct  18-Oct  08-Oct  28-Sep  18-Sep  08-Sep  29-Aug  19-Aug  09-Aug  30-Jul  20-Jul  10-Jul  30-Jun  20-Jun  10-Jun  31-May  21-May  11-May  01-May  0  Date $  Figure C!1 Precipitation data for May 2010 - December 2010 from weather station on site. !"#$  35 30  Rainfall (mm)  25 20 15 10 5  21-Dec  16-Dec  11-Dec  06-Dec  01-Dec  26-Nov  21-Nov  16-Nov  11-Nov  06-Nov  01-Nov  27-Oct  0  Date #  Figure C!2 Zoomed in precipitation data for Trial 1 and Trial 2 (October 27 - December 21, 2010).  !"!#  Avg Temp Max Temp  17-Dec  07-Dec  27-Nov  17-Nov  07-Nov  28-Oct  18-Oct  08-Oct  28-Sep  18-Sep  08-Sep  29-Aug  19-Aug  09-Aug  30-Jul  20-Jul  10-Jul  30-Jun  20-Jun  10-Jun  31-May  21-May  11-May  01-May  Temperature (C) 40  38  36  34  32  30  28  26  24  22  20  Date  Min Temp $  Figure C!3 Temperature data for May 2010 - December 2010 from the weather station on site.  !"#$  40 38 36  Temperature (C)  34 32 30 28 26 24 22  21-Dec  16-Dec  11-Dec  06-Dec  01-Dec  26-Nov  21-Nov  16-Nov  11-Nov  06-Nov  01-Nov  27-Oct  20  Date Avg Temp  Max Temp  Min Temp $  Figure C!4 Zoomed in temperature data for Trial 1 and Trial 2 (October 27 - December 21, 2010).  !"#$  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0063030/manifest

Comment

Related Items