3.5 4.

Review

Wastewater Treatment Using

Constructed Wetland: Current
Trends and Future Potential

Ikrema Hassan, Saidur R. Chowdhury , Perdana K. Prihartato and Shaikh A Razzak

Special Issue
Wastewater and Waste Treatment: Overview, Challenges and Current Trends
Edited by
Dr. Dimitris Zagklis and Dr. Georgios Bampos

https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9111917
 processes
Review
Wastewater Treatment Using Constructed Wetland: Current
Trends and Future Potential
Ikrema Hassan 1, *, Saidur R. Chowdhury 2,3 , Perdana K. Prihartato 4 and Shaikh A Razzak 5,6

1 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Taibah University, Medina 42353, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University,
Dhahran 34754, Saudi Arabia; schowdhury1@pmu.edu.sa
3 SC Environmental Solutions, Greystone Walk Dr, Toronto, ON M1K 5J3, Canada; saidurc@gmail.com
4 Environmental Scientist, Saudi Arabia Oil Company, Dhahran 34464, Saudi Arabia;
perdana.karim@gmail.com
5 Department of Chemical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals,
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia; srazzak@kfupm.edu.sa
6 Interdisciplinary Research Center for Membranes and Water Security, King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: imohammed@taibahu.edu.sa; Tel.: +966-565-333-757

Abstract: Constructed wetlands (CW) is an environmentally friendly technique for removing pollu-
tants from wastewater and has been applied to municipal wastewater, petroleum refinery wastewater,
agriculture drainage, acid mine drainage, etc. The past decade has seen a remarkable number of
innovations in the exponentially growing field of microbiology. This manuscript covers a critical
review of key aspects of CW, such as various types of CW, the contaminants and their removal mecha-




nisms, degradation pathways, challenges and opportunities, materials, applications, and theory with

 a focus on recent advances in the last three decades. In addition, an attempt has been taken to project
Citation: Hassan, I.; Chowdhury, future advances in the field of CW and facilitate these advances by framing key unsolved problems
S.R.; Prihartato, P.K.; Razzak, S.A. in CW. Guidelines are prepared for the fast-growing CW field through the standardization of key
Wastewater Treatment Using design aspects. This review covers the evaluation of the current state-of-the-art of CW technology
Constructed Wetland: Current Trends and provides definitions and performance metric nomenclature in an effort to unify the fast-growing
and Future Potential. Processes 2021, 9, CW community. It also contains an outlook on the emerging trends in CW and proposes future
1917. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr research and development directions.
9111917

Keywords: constructed wetland; wastewater; plants; microorganisms; remediation; degradation

Academic Editor: Dimitris Zagklis

Received: 7 September 2021

Accepted: 20 October 2021
1. Introduction
Published: 27 October 2021
In the last decade, environmental awareness has increased, and the treatment of
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral environmental pollution and contamination has become the main agenda of concerned
with regard to jurisdictional claims in governmental bodies around the world. Usually, a suitable environmental remediation
published maps and institutional affil- method for a certain type of waste is selected based on the effectiveness of the degra-
iations. dation process and the cost of the method [1–3]. More importantly, the environmental
impact of the selected method is of special concern because in some remediation methods
the daughter product of the degradation process is more toxic than the original contam-
inant. Scientists and researchers believe that there is no single universal remediation
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
method suitable for all types of contaminants and all sources; instead, an effective remedi-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ation program may involve the collective implementation of two or more methods [1,2].
This article is an open access article Wetlands are one of the effective remediation technologies that now attract the environ-
distributed under the terms and mentalist for the treatment of wastewater contaminants [2]. Mother Nature, through
conditions of the Creative Commons natural wetlands, removes contaminants from water resources through different natural
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// processes including biodegradation, sorption, phytostabilization, phytoextraction, and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ rhizofiltration [2,4–7]. Constructed wetlands are developed to mimic the natural processes
4.0/).

Processes 2021, 9, 1917. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9111917 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2021, 9, 1917 2 of 27

in removing/degrading contaminants in wastewater [8,9]. Municipal wastewater, indus-

trial wastewater (particularly petroleum refinery and sour-water treatment wastewater
products), agriculture wastewater, stormwater, textile wastewater, landfill leachates, min-
ing drainage, etc., are examples of contaminated wastewater that can be treated using
wetlands [10–12]. Constructed wetlands use natural processes in degrading contamination;
therefore, it is an environmentally friendly remediation method with minimum adverse
environmental impact [13]. CW is designed to treat wastewater from different sources
similar to common effluent treatment plants [14].
Wetlands are generally defined by the saturation of soil for a long enough period for
anaerobic conditions to develop. There are various types of wetlands including natural
fresh and salt-water wetlands and constructed wetlands [2]. Wetlands constructed for
remediation of contaminants integrate complicated inclusive processes that involve wa-
ter, substrate (soil), plants, animals, microorganisms, and the environment. Constructed
wetlands implemented various remediation methods including biodegradation, phytore-
mediation, and natural attenuation [15]. The main processes that occur in wetlands include
physical processes such as filtration and sedimentation, chemical processes such as ad-
sorption and precipitation, and biological processes such as biodegradation and plant
assimilation [16].
The vast majority of the wetlands are characterized by a high density of vascular plants.
High-density vegetation results in slowing the water flow, creating microenvironments, and
providing sorption sites for contaminants and attachments sites for microorganisms [5]. As
the plants die and fall in the water, the parts of the plants above the water create additional
sorption and exchange sites. In addition, plant debris is a suitable source of organic carbon
and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) for microorganism metabolism. The oxygen
concentration is very low in wetlands due to soil saturation conditions. Therefore, the
vegetation in wetlands is limited to species (vascular plants) that can grow at low oxygen
concentrations [5].
Microorganisms play a dominant role in the contaminant degradation process and in
the transformation of the contamination between the environment and the plant. Usually,
a microbial consortium is involved in contaminant degradation and the transformation
processes [9]. There are specific degradation pathways for each microorganism to degrade
a specific contaminant. The success of the process of contaminant degradation relies on
the existence of microorganisms that are required for the degradation process and suitable
environmental conditions [17,18].
Constructed wetlands have been used all around the world for the treatment of
wastewater. For instance, CWs have been used in Europe since the second half of the last
century; the first country to use CWs in Europe was Germany [16]. Many other countries
including the United Kingdom, Austria, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Denmark have CWs in
operation. Some countries in Africa have been using CWs, such as South Africa, Tanzania,
Kenya, and Seychelles. Some statistics show that the cost of subsurface CWs in Africa for
wastewater treatment is around US $5 per person compared to mechanical wastewater
treatment (i.e., activated sludge system), which costs around US $50 per person [16,17]. A
recent study showed that the total cost (including operation, maintenance, and disposal of
sludge) of wastewater treatment varies between €0.30 to €0.88 per m3 [19]. In China there
are more than 400 CWs [20].
Constructed wetlands are characterized by very slow water flow and shallow water
depth. The slow water flow results in a long retention time that facilitates the settlement of
the sediment and increases the contact time between the wastewater and the components
of the wetland [21]. Thus, in the design, it is critical to choose a suitable flow velocity to
provide enough time for microorganisms to degrade the contaminants. The components
of the constructed wetland affect the degradation processes. For instance, the number
of sorption sites in the soil and the substrate control the bioavailability and degradation
process [21]. There are two schools of thought concerning bioavailability; some scientists
believe that bacteria can degrade contaminants without the need for the contaminants to
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 3 of 27

be desorbed [21]. On the other hand, some researchers believe that the contaminants need
to be desorbed first before bacteria can degrade them. Some types of bacterial strains are
capable of producing biosurfactants to facilitate the desorption process [22]. Therefore,
for constructed wetlands, understanding the capabilities of the available microorganism
consortium is essential for a successful treatment process.
The main functions of CWs are to improve wastewater quality by degradation or
sorption, control the flood by creating storage for the storm rainfall and surface runoff, and
recycle nutrients [4,8,11]. However, the values of wetlands include providing recreational
areas and providing suitable data for research and education. The advantages of CWs
include (i) the low construction cost compared to other remediation methods, (ii) an
environmentally friendly approach that is viewed with favor by the public, (iii) relatively
low maintenance and operation costs, (iv) high flexibility in the landscape design to
provide habitat for wildlife and organisms, and (v) wetlands facilitate the reuse of treated
water. Although they have great advantages, there are some limitations of CWs that
include (i) requiring large land areas compared to the other remediation methods, (ii) the
inconsistency of the treatment compared to the other wastewater treatment methods,
(iii) not suitable to treat if the discharge should meet specific standards, (iv) ammonia and
pesticides have detrimental effects on the plants and microorganisms, and (v) low tolerance
of near-complete drying conditions [9,17]. The local regulations and bylaws directly affect
the selection of the type of flow in constructed wetlands. Some locations have stringent
laws that prohibit surface flow, and the designers have to choose the vertical flow in these
cases [23].

2. Wetland Treatment Systems

Generally, constructed wetlands can be classified according to different criteria such as
hydrology (surface-flow and subsurface-flow), macrophyte types (free-floating, emergent,
and submerged), and flow path (horizontal or vertical) [24]. As mentioned before, there are
many types of constructed wetlands including surface flow (SF) wetlands, subsurface flow
(SSF) wetlands, and hybrid systems, which encompass surface and subsurface flow wet-
lands [25]. The hybrid system is a multistage system in which the treatment is performed
in different units that are designed for specific functions. For instance, for wastewater treat-
ment, some units are designed to promote aerobic reactions, while other units are designed
for anaerobic conditions. A wetland equipped with an air pump connected to a subsurface
network of air distribution pipes is called aerated CW [26]. The air bubbles introduced
by the air pump can increase the oxygen transfer rate in horizontal flow (HF) or vertical
flow (VF) type wetlands and effectively creates aerobic conditions. The estimated oxygen
consumption rate in CW could be 250 g of O2 /m2 /d with air flow rate and distribution to
be ≥0.6 m3 /m2 /h and 30 cm × 30 cm, respectively. Mechanically aerated wetlands can
provide higher oxygen transfer rates (more than 1 m3 /m2 /h). The aerated wetland has
improved nitrification/denitrification capacity as well as better biogeochemical conditions
in the wetland subsurface and the plants [26,27].
In the literature, scientists and engineers use various terms to describe wetlands. For
instance, in free-surface flow (FSF) the surface of the wastewater flow is above the soil
(substrate in the CWs) [2–4]. Alternatively, some scientists use the term SF surface flow to
denote the FSF. Additionally, the term SSF is used for sub-surface flow system in which the
wastewater flows horizontally or vertically such that the water level is below the ground
surface. The abbreviation HSSF is used for horizontal subsurface flow or alternatively SSHF
subsurface horizontal flow [2,4,5,13]. The terms VSSF and SSVF are used for the vertical
subsurface flow or subsurface vertical flow, respectively. Sometimes the abbreviation of
the constructed wetlands CWs is added to the above-mentioned terms. For example, CWs
is added to HF to become HFCWs [1,22]. In an attempt to unify the terms used in the
literature, this article will use the following abbreviations: SF for surface flow, VSSF for
vertical subsurface flow, and HSSF for horizontal subsurface flow.
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 4 of 27

2.1. Surface Flow (SF)

Surface flow wetlands (SF) is where the surface of the wastewater flow is above the
soil (substrate) [28]. The SF is composed of a substrate (clay and sand soil) to support the
roots of the plants and water control structures that maintain a shallow depth of water
above the soil (see Figure 1) [4,5]. The bottom of the soil is sealed to maintain water
within the system. SF wetlands can be used to treat wastewater while supporting wildlife
habitats. In the SF, the concentration of oxygen varies with depth [29]. Depending on
the water level, the top layers (near the water surface) have a high oxygen concentration,
while the bottom layers have a very low (or zero) oxygen concentration [2]. Therefore,
the top layers support aerobic processes (nitrification), and the bottom layer supports
anaerobic (denitrification) processes. SF can be used to treat stormwater, agricultural
runoff, and mining wastewater. SF wetlands require a large area compared with the
subsurface flow wetlands. The advantages of the surface flow wetlands are that their
construction and operational cost are lower than the subsurface flow wetlands, and it
is simple technology compared with the subsurface flow wetlands. The disadvantages
include odor problems and more area required compared to subsurface flow CWs and
other remediation methods [29].

Figure 1. Schematic layout of free surface flow.

2.2. Subsurface Flow (SSF)

Subsurface flow (SSF) wetland substrate is composed of porous soil (rock and gravel)
sealed from the bottom [9,13]. In the SSF, the water level should be below the soil level
all the time (see Figure 2). The flow path in the SSF wetland is either a horizontal or
vertical flow path. SSF wetlands are suitable for the treatment of wastewater, provided
that the solid concentration in the wastewater is low. For high solid concentration in
the wastewater, sedimentation tanks or basins are used to remove the solids from the
wastewater [25,30,31]. The main advantages of SSF wetlands include tolerance of cold
weather, fewer odor problems compared to SF wetlands, greater sorption and exchange
sites compared to SF wetlands, and efficient use of the land compared to SF wetlands.
SSF wetlands can be constructed below public parks because the water level is below the
ground surface. The limitations of SSF wetlands include their higher cost compared to SF
wetlands, used for small flows, and clogging of the pores [26,27].

Figure 2. Schematic layout of horizontal subsurface flow.

Processes 2021, 9, 1917 5 of 27

The complex processes that contribute to purifying the wastewater in wetlands include
sorption, filtration through the substrate, sedimentation, settlement, ion exchange, plant
sorption, and microorganism oxidation [2,4,5]. Constructed wetlands with the subsurface
flow have been used to treat heavy oil-produced water containing asphalt, gelatinoids,
wax, polymers, surfactant, and other artificial products. The constructed wetland has been
approved to be successful in treating heavy oil-produced water. There is no proper design
guideline that specifies the filtration rate; as such, some studies used 0.52 m day−1 [25].
Previous research showed that the removal of COD is highly affected by DO concentration.
The anaerobic conditions and high organic loading rate can reduce the efficiency of COD
removal. There are two types of flows in SSF: the first is the horizontal subsurface flow
(HSSF), and the second type is vertical subsurface flow (VSSF) [32].

2.2.1. Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland (HSSF)

The horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF) is composed of a channel located below the
ground surface [9,13]. The channel is filled with selected types and sizes of gravel and sand.
The channel is planted with a suitable plant. There are certain considerations that should
be taken into account when designing the channel. For instance, the water flow in HSSF
is designed such that the level of the water is below the ground surface. Solids should
also be removed from the wastewater before entering the channel to avoid clogging [13].
A sedimentation tank or filter are usually used to remove the solid particles from the
wastewater. The cross-sectional area of the HSSF plays a dominant role in the efficiency of
the decontamination process. The oxygen level in the HSSF should be enough to promote
the growth and metabolism of aerobic bacteria as well as plants. Many mechanisms
facilitate oxygen transfer to the subsurface environment. Plant roots contribute to the
increase in oxygen in the environment near the roots [5,9,13].

2.2.2. Vertical Subsurface-Flow Constructed Wetlands (VSSF)

Some constructed wetlands are designed to have vertical water flow. In such a
case, it is called vertical subsurface-flow constructed wetlands (VSSF) [30]. Similar to
HSSF, the flow of VSSF should be passed through filter beds before entering the CW
channels (See Figure 3). The flow in VSSF is either by gravity or by pumps. Certain
considerations should be taken into account in the design of VSSF. The time required for
the wastewater to percolate through the vertical channels should be calculated. In most
cases, the flow in VSSF is controlled such that there is a time interval between the loading
events, and intermittence loading is adopted [33]. The plant roots transfer some oxygen
to the subsurface, and dryness periods allow oxygen diffusion to subsurface. Thus, the
oxygen level in VSSF is high, which promotes the growth of aerobic bacteria. Therefore,
VSSF enhances aerobic degradation and is found to be suitable for nitrification and is more
aerobic than HSSF. Previous studies found that VSSF promotes a wide range of degradation
and decontaminations processes including, biodegradation, adsorption, precipitation, and
filtration [34]. It was also found that the VSSF is successful in removing the organic matter
and suspended solids. The VSSF capital cost is less than the HSSF capital cost because the
VSSF needs a smaller area size compared to HSSF [24].

Figure 3. Schematic layout of vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands.

Processes 2021, 9, 1917 6 of 27

2.3. Constructed Wetlands Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance

2.3.1. Design
(a) General design criteria
The design of wetlands contains many components that influence the performance
of wetlands. The performance of CW depends on the location, climate, weather, type of
wastewater, type of runoff, and expected variations during the year [9,32,34]. In general,
constructed wetlands are designed to simulate the natural wetlands with special attention
to the system that leads to the enhancement of the wastewater quality. Researchers,
engineers, and scientists recommended that the design of CWs should be simple. It
is highly recommended to use native and available media as well as environmentally
friendly technologies [9]. The CWs should be designed in such a way that results in low
maintenance and minimizes the use of pumps. The CW design guidelines include the
detention time, size, length, width, depth, etc. More space and a greener environment are
required to build CWs than other technologies [32]. The CWs can be designed on a small
scale to serve a single family or can be designed on a large scale to serve a community [32].
Special consideration should be given to design parameters such as geometry of the CW,
influent quality, media type, microorganisms and plant species, water depth, and hydraulic
retention time. The geometry is basically dependent on the type of the CW. For instance, for
surface flow CW, the basin slope should be between 3:1 and 5:1. Impervious media should
be used at the bottom of the CW. The hydraulic retention time should be between 2 and
3 days. The quality of the influent includes the biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total
suspended solids (TSS). For the BOD and TSS, loading could be between 20 and 30 mg/L
or 45 and 50 kg/ha per day. On the other hand, for subsurface flow, the BOD and TSS
should be around 7–16 g/m2 per day and 20 g/m2 per day, respectively. The recommended
minimum length is 15 m, and the maximum width is 61 m. The hydraulic conductivity
varies in the longitudinal and transversal directions. A previous study showed that the
hydraulic conductivity subsurface flow of CW varies between 1400 and 2800 m/day, and
another study recommended 1000 m/day for the first 30% of the length. However, for
ageing systems, clogging of the soil pores is expected, which can result in reduced porosity
of the system. Pervious studies show, for ageing systems, that the hydraulic conductivity
is between 30 and 107 m/d in the outlet zone [35–38].
For a single family, the general consideration that should be taken in the design of
CWs includes removal of trees and grass, construction of a fence around the selected area
to stop compaction, and use of inorganic fine-grained soil for backfilling. The size of CWs
should be 1 m2 for 30 L (1 m2 /30 L) influent or the detention time of 5 days. Provision
should be taken that the length should be double the width. The wastewater can be
estimated at 210 L/capita/day, and the number of people can be estimated as two persons
per bedroom. Therefore, for a two-bedroom household, the area of CWs should be 28 m2
with dimensions of 7.5 m × 3.75 m [32]. In a previous study, a vertical flow CW of surface
area of 24.4 m2 and depth of 1.3 m was divided into two equal sizes (3.5 × 3.5 × 1.5 m) and
used to treat wastewater from two-family residence of eight persons. The system includes
two settling tanks, a vault tank, zeolite tank, effluent collection tank, and pump to feed the
CW with 150 L wastewater every 3 h. The system was designed to treat 150 L/capita/day.
Coarse gravel (20–40 mm diameter) and fine gravel (2–10 mm diameter) were used as the
porous media. The zeolite tank was used to remove ammonia and phosphorus. Removal
efficiencies were 96.4% for BOD, 94.4% for COD, 90.8% for TKN, 92.8% for ammonia, 61.6%
for OP, and 69.8% for TP [39]. A previous study used HSSF CW for a single family of
four people. The system consisted of two settling tanks (each 1.3 × 1.3 × 1.2 m, width ×
length × depth), CW (10 × 2.5 × 0.5 m), and a zeolite tank (1.6 × 1.3 m). The mean BOD
loading was about 120–150 mg/L, the hydraulic residence time was 7 days, and the flow
rate was 0.6 m3 /d. The mean BOD effluent concentration was about 30 mg/L indicating
87% removal [40].
A septic tank is required to filter the solid or scum before the CWs. It is recommended
to load the CWs by gravity (gravity inflow); however, pumping can be used to load the
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 7 of 27

CWs but avoids large doses [5]. The water depth in the cells should be 600 mm or less
to ensure enough oxygen concentration in CWs to support microorganism metabolism.
Polyvinylchloride (PVC), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), or polypropylene (PPE) of
1.0 mm may be used to prevent leakage from the CWs [5,24,32]. The liner should be free
from pinholes and damage, and provision should be taken during the insulation to prevent
punctures of the lining. The CWs should be filled with gravel of different sizes. Generally,
the CWs can be divided into three sections that should be filled with gravel, including the
inlet and outlet (the far edges), the middle bottom layer, and the middle top layer. Large
gravel size of 38 to 76 mm should be placed near the inlet and outlet (the edges), medium
gravel size of 12.7 to 25.4 mm should be placed at a depth of 18 inches in the middle bottom
layer, and a small size of 9.5 to 12.7 mm should be placed to form the top middle layer. The
design of inflow and outflow is crucial for efficient CWs [5,24,32]. The following equation
can be used to calculate the amount of water in the system:

Qin − Qout + P − ET = dv/dt (1)

where Qin = influent wastewater flow (m3 /s); Qout = effluent wastewater flow (m3 /s);
P= precipitation (m3 /s); ET= evapotranspiration (m3 /s); V= volume of water (m3 ); t = time.
(b) Vertical flow (VF): the inflow in VF is required to be passed through a filtration system
to prevent clogging of the subsurface flow system [13]. Materials with high sorption
sites, such as charcoal and clay, may be used in the filtration system, which can
support the growth of pathogens [30]. Therefore, the selection of suitable materials,
such as gravel and slag, that reduces the growth of microorganisms can contribute
positively to the quality of the effluent and can control the infection. On the other
hand, temperature has a significant effect on the biological treatment of wastewater.
Therefore, the temperature is a very important parameter in the design of CWs. Low
temperature can result in slowing down the degradation process, and as a result,
the retention time should be increased in the design. For example, for an influent of
112 kg/ha, a detention time of 11 days is required for a temperature around 5 ◦ C, and
a detention time of 5 days is required in the summer at higher temperatures [30]. The
detention time is controlled by changing the number of cells in operation and/or by
changing the water depth.
(c) Horizontal flow (HF): the flow in HF can be modelled using Darcy’s Law as follows

q = k. i. A (2)
where: q = average daily flow rate (m3 /d); k = hydraulic conductivity (m/d); i = hydraulic
gradient (m/m); A = cross sectional area (m2 ).
The HF CW system should rely on gravity flow; reduce the amount of filling and
cutting, and consider the time required for the system to be fully functional [41]. In
addition, the design should be performed based on the hydraulic and organic design
criteria; however, other parameters should be measured such as nutrient removal and
pathogen reduction. In HF, the water flow should be designed to maintain water flow
levels above the surface of the bed depending on the type of CW [24,42,43]. In the HF the
degradation in the top surface layer should be designed to support aerobic degradation,
while the deep layers should be designed to support anaerobic degradation [41].

2.3.2. Construction
Wetlands should be constructed to meet regulations and high standards of reliability
and safety. Special consideration and attention should be paid to the compaction and
elevations [41]. Proper compaction is required because compaction controls the infiltration
process, especially in the case of SSF. The elevation is equally important to maintain gravity
flow. Specifications should be prepared based on site conditions and include regulatory
body requirements [32]. In SSF, a sedimentation or filtration tank with suitable retention
time is needed for the removal of solid waste to avoid clogging of the subsurface hydraulic
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 8 of 27

system. Usually, the sedimentation tank is placed to receive the influent. The loading of the
system should also be adequate. Table 1 contains information about the design of different
types of CWs.

Table 1. Design, operation, and maintenance of CWs.

Type of
Design Operation Maintenance
Constructed Wetland
Low operation cost, simple operation
Greatly affected by temperature
Simple, requires a large land area, procedure, high evapotranspiration,
Surface Flow (SF) flocculation, odor and mosquito
uses gravity flow low temperature, affects the
problems, low maintenance cost
microbial activity
Provides more sorption sites than SF,
Complex, needs less area than SF, Greater cold tolerance, less odor and
relatively higher operation cost, flow
Surface Subsurface flow (SSF) needs sedimentation tank, pests. Clogging problems, higher
should be uniform with low solid
needs pumping maintenance cost
concentration, transpiration only
Provides more sorption sites than SF,
Complex, needs less area than SSF, Greater cold tolerance, less odor and
relatively higher operation cost, flow
Vertical Subsurface flow (VSF) needs sedimentation pond, pests. Clogging problems, higher
should be uniform with low solid
needs pumping maintenance cost
concentration, transpiration only

2.3.3. Operation
After construction, the wetland should be tested for the water level. The channeling
and erosion, if any, should be fixed in the trial period [44]. It is preferred to allow a full
growing season before introducing the wastewater that needs to be treated. The water level
should be maintained as per the design because if the wetland were to dry, remobilization
of contaminants may occur. Table 1 contains information about the operation of different
types of CWs [44,45].

2.3.4. Maintenance
A plan and schedule for regular maintenance should be prepared and followed
strictly to ensure that the wetland performance is up to the required level [45,46]. It
is very important to ensure that there is enough contact time between the waste to be
treated and the components of the wetlands (microorganism, soil, and plant). A suitable
environment for microorganisms and plant growth should be maintained all the time to
achieve optimum degradation of contaminants [24,45,46]. Table 1 contains information
about the maintenance of different types of CWs.

3. Types of Contaminants Treated in CW

Over the last two decades, the bioremediation technology of CWs has been shown to
be an efficient natural process method for wastewater treatment. CWs have been proved to
be effective in the treatment of domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial wastewa-
ters [29]. CWs, a promising green technology, are also very effective in treating organic-rich
wastewater [47], toxic metal contaminated water (e.g., Cr (VI), Se) [48], pharmaceuticals
and personal care products (PPCPs) [23], oil refinery wastewater, diesel [41], and agricul-
tural drainage water. In the following subsections of the paper, the use of constructed
wetlands in removal of different contaminants is discussed.

3.1. Domestic and Municipal Wastewater Contaminants

Expansion of urban populations has resulted in an increase in the footprint of domestic
water supply and sewerage, giving a rise to greater quantities of wastewater. Properly
managed municipal wastewater treatment would result in reducing surface water con-
tamination problems [4,5,24]. The process of wastewater treatment not only conserves
valuable water resources, but it also takes advantage of the nutrients contained in sewage
to grow crops. Wastewater is increasingly viewed as an additional source that can provide
a new source of good quality water. However, in many parts of the world, especially
in under-developed countries, the operation cost of the wastewater treatment plant is
an issue [5]. On the other hand, the applications of CWs for the treatment of domestic
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 9 of 27

and municipal wastewater have been rapidly increasing throughout the world because of
their unique advantages of lower operational and maintenance costs. Different types of
contaminants (such as nitrogen, phosphorus, organics, solids, metals, and coliforms) can
be removed from wastewater by CW treatment methods. This method includes a complex
inter-connected system of plants, media, bulk water, and biomass population. The removal
of biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended
solids (TSS), nitrogen and phosphorous pollutants, heavy metals, and different organic
matter (e.g., amino acids, fatty acids, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids) by CW systems have
gained substantial attention in recent years [25,49]. In subsurface flow wetlands, the re-
moval of contaminants depends on a diverse range of co-existing physical, chemical, and
biological routes depending on numerous environmental and operational factors.
Nitrogen, one of the principal pollutants in wastewater, exists in wastewater in both
organic and inorganic forms. The removal of nitrogen through nitrification and denitrifi-
cation can be achieved using constructed wetlands. The design should carefully consider
the parameters that affect the processes such as pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen con-
centration, and ammonia concentration. Other factors that affect the nitrification and
denitrification processes include the plant species and the wetland type [50].
Organic nitrogen presents in amino acids (a form of peptide chain that makes proteins),
urea (dispose of ammonia by mammals when amino acids are used for energy production),
uric acids (produced by birds and insects), and purine and pyrimidines (involved in
DNA making) [25]. The inorganic forms (e.g., ammonium (NH4 + ), nitrite (NO2 − ), nitrate
(NO3 − nitrous oxide (N2 O), and dissolved elemental nitrogen or nitrogen gas (N2 ) as well
as free ammonia (NH3 )) can be removed in subsurface flow wetland systems, and the
removal processes includes biological (i.e., ammonification, nitrification, denitrification,
plant uptake, biomass assimilation, dissimilatory nitrate reduction) and physicochemical
routes (e.g., ammonia volatilization, and adsorption) [25,51,52]. The organic compounds
can be reduced aerobically and anaerobically. The common interactions are as follows:
Aerobic organic degradation:

C6 H12 O6 + 6O2 →6CO2 + 6H2 O (3)

Anaerobic organic degradation:

C6 H12 O6 →2CH3CHOHCOOH (Lactic acid) (4)

C6 H12 O6 →2CH3 CH2 OH (Ethanol) + 2CO2 (5)

The removal routes of nitrogen and organics in CW systems are critically dependent
on different environmental parameters, such as pH, temperature, oxygen and operational
strategies, i.e., presence of organic carbon, hydraulic load, feeding mode, retention time,
pollutant loading, recirculation, and plant harvesting [31,53,54].
Phosphorus removal in the CW systems involves the immobilization/removal of
phosphorus through chemical precipitation, bacterial action, plant uptake and related
physico-chemical pathways, and the adsorptive capacity of the gravel layer. Some studies
reported removal of BOD, COD, NH4 -N and Total Nitrogen (TN) to be as 77%, 78%,
99%, and 100%, respectively [55]. Different substrate media (such as rice husk, organic
wood-mulch, zeolite, aggregates, alum sludge, slag, peat, maert, compost, and shale)
were employed to increase the performance of contaminant removal from wastewater by
different CW methods. In addition, the common media substrates, such as sand, fine to
coarse gravel, limestone, zeolite, calcite, native soil, basic oxygen furnace slag, activated
carbon, lightweight aggregates, etc., are used in VF, FWS (free water surface), and HF
constructed wetland systems to remove TSS, TN, TP, SO4 2− , COD, BOD, and organic
matters from domestic and municipal wastewater [56]. Moreover, free-floating, submerged,
emergent plants, and also microalgae can treat P (>90% of removal) in CWs. Plant species,
hydraulic retention time, temperature, type of CWs, effluent concentration, and seasonal
changes can influence the removal efficiency of P in CWS [57].
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 10 of 27

3.2. Toxic Metals/Metaloids Contaminated Water

Treating industrial wastewater, particularly metal-containing wastewater in wetlands,
has received increased attention [58]. Wetland soils characterized by their reduced condi-
tion and high organic matter content could accumulate heavy metals. Soil and its overlying
water, and vegetation, play a major role to remove the metals within wetlands. Dissolved
or particulate forms of metals are introduced into wetland systems through the wastewa-
ter. The free metal ions are the most biologically available fraction, and sediments in the
wetland systems can serve as sinks and reservoirs for metals [59].
Heavy metals are one of the major pollutants in industrial wastewater and gain special
concern to treat in easiest and less expensive methods [58,59]. Nowadays, the removal of
heavy metals using CWs shows promising results and high efficiency. The heavy metal
removal performance of the wetland treatment system depends on the inflow water quality
and the metal removal mechanisms. Metal mass removal ranges from 27% to 99% within
the wetland. It has been reported that an average of 7.6 kg/ha/year, or 54% of influent
metals loadings, could be sequestered within the internal wetland compartments [60,61].
Table 2 presents the heavy metal removal efficiency from different types of wastewaters
using different types of plants. Previous studies have assessed the removal of some heavy
metals including Cu and Ni from constructed wetlands [49]. For example, the heavy metal
removal performance by a laboratory-scale wetland system treating storm runoff has been
studied. It was found that the heavy metal removal efficiency in CW ranged from 81.7% to
91.8% with the rates of 36.6–372.7 mg/m2 /day for Cu, 75.8–95.3% and 30.8–387 mg/m2
/day for Pb, and 82.8–90.4% and 33.6–362.1 mg/m2 /day for Zn, respectively [49,60–64].
Heavy metals such as Cu, Cd, Zn, Pb, Ni, and Co could be readily removed by constructed
wetland systems, and the metal uptake seems to be influenced by the types of media used
and the types of wastewaters to be treated. The extent of different removal mechanisms
might vary depending on the speciation of inflow metals and physicochemical water
parameters (e.g., redox, pH, and types of wetland systems).

Table 2. Heavy metals removal by CW treatment.

Removal
Metals Types of Waste Media Used in CW Plants Type of WC Sources
Efficiency (%)
Macrophyte
Cu Domestic wastewater Native sediments Myriophyllum Not mentioned >84 [60]
spicatum
Free water
Zn Industrial Wastewater Sediments Macrophyte 55 [62]
surface wetland
Free water
Ni Industrial Wastewater Sediments Macrophyte 69 [62]
surface wetland
Compost-based and Free water
Fe Industrial Wastewater Macrophyte 83 [62]
gravel-based surface wetland
Pb Domestic wastewater Gravel-filled subsurface-flow Typha latifolia Surface flow >75 [49]
Cd Domestic wastewater Gravel-filled subsurface-flow Typha latifolia Surface flow >80 [49]
Ashes-sewage sludge mixture
B Mine tailings waste Macrophyte Not mentioned >70 [64]
with gravel sand
T. Latifolia and
Cr Tannery Wastewater Sediments Not mentioned 82 [65]
P. australis
Macrophyte
Gravel-filled horizontal
Al Domestic wastewater Myriophyllum Not mentioned >84 [60]
subsurface-flow
spicatum
Co Domestic wastewater Gravel-filled subsurface-flow Typha latifolia Surface flow >70 [49]
Ashes-sewage sludge mixture
As Mine tailings waste Macrophyte Not mentioned >70 [64]
with gravel sand
Oil refinery
Se Sand, peat moss Algal species Not mentioned 96% [48]
wastewater
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 11 of 27

3.3. Industrial Wastewater

The discharge of industrial wastewater into the aquatic environment has been one
of the primary threats to the ecosystem. Industrial wastewater management faces high
technical challenges to achieve its effective treatment for the delivery of a high-quality
treated effluent [66]. CWs, especially in developing countries, have been proposed to offer
a low-cost and low maintenance treatment alternative for industrial effluent. The feasibility
of treating industrial wastewater within a pilot-scale wetland in Argentina was studied. It
was found that the average metal removal efficiencies were 83%, 82%, 69%, and 55% for Fe,
Cr, Ni, and Zn, respectively [49,61–65].
Previous study reported significant removal of chemical and microbial parameters
such as COD (68%), BOD (71%), ammoniacal nitrogen (66%), total phosphorus (21.5%), and
total nitrogen (68.5%), and fecal coliforms (47.2%) were achieved in Duckweed-microalgae
constructed wetland (DM-CW) [47]. Constructed wetlands (CWs) using S. grossus plat
could be used to remove diesel from wastewater [41]. The removal of total suspended
solids and chemical oxygen demand (COD) from a 0.1% diesel concentration of wastewater
were 100 and 75.4%, respectively.

3.4. Oilfield Produced Wastewater

The treatment and production processes used in the oil and gas industry have a
significant impact on the environment and contribute to the contamination of natural
ecosystems including surface water [67]. The oil exploration and production processes
result in a substantial amount of highly contaminated water. The wastewater from oilfields
can contain toxic organic and inorganic pollutants. The wastewater from oilfields is usually
stored in large ponds in remote areas. The wastewater from the oilfield can contain
various components, including groundwater, water, and chemical compounds used in the
extraction process. Previous studies showed that the quality of oilfield wastewater can be
improved using a suitable type of CW [68]. Many plants, characterized by high tolerance
to saltwater, can be used to decontaminate oilfields wastewater, including acacia nilotica,
cotton, Brassica napus, and ricinus communis [29].
A recent study showed that CW can be used to decontaminate/treat oilfield wastewa-
ter. The results showed that the contaminant concentration was reduced from 500 mg/L
to 30 mg/L [69]. In addition, the results showed that a substantial amount between
30 and 50% of water was lost in the process due to the evapotranspiration process. It has
been proved that CWs can completely remove nitrogen and phosphorous from petroleum-
contaminated wastewater. The decontamination of petroleum wastewater is known to be a
companied with a 10–12% increase in the pH of the water flow.
Petroleum refinery or oilfield produced wastewater can be treated in vertical surface
flow constructed wetland (VSFCW) systems vegetated with Eichhornia crassipes (water
hyacinth) to meet the compliance permissible limit set by Federal Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (FEPA) and WHO for discharge into surface waters [28]. Bio-treatment of
petroleum wastewater in vertical surface flow constructed wetland resulted in the removal
efficiencies of 91.5% turbidity, 94.6% BOD5 , 80.2% COD, 92.6% TPH, 9 mg 0.4% oil and
grease, 94% cadmium, 92.5% lead, 93% chromium, 94.8% iron, 92.2% nickel, and 57.7%
chloride [28].

3.5. Oil Refinery Wastewater

Large volumes of wastewater during extraction processes are produced as a result of
production, storage, distribution, and processing of petroleum [70]. Oil refinery wastewater
is also generated by accidents due to spills from water/fuel mixtures and leaks from under-
ground storage or water [70]. Oil exploration and exploitation activities generate a variety
of toxic wastewater consisting of different organic compounds and inorganic and heavy
metals, thus leading to pollution of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [71]. Organic
contaminants produced by oil refinery industrial activity include BTEX (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene), PAH, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates chlorinated hydrocarbons,
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 12 of 27

benzene and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), aliphatic and aromatic petroleum hydrocar-
bons consisting of methyl-tetrabutyl ether, phenol, 2,3,5,6-tetramethylphenol, naphthalene,
xylene, tetradecane, 4-chloro-3-methylphenol, and 3-tert-butylphenol at different concen-
trations [72]. Table 3 shows the plants that can be used in CW for oil refinery wastewater.

Table 3. Major contaminant removal from oil refinery wastewater in different wetland systems.

Parameters Methods Plants Removal Efficiency (%) Sources

Electrical conductivity VSF-CW C. alternifolius and C. dactylon, Eichhornia crassipes >75 [29]
Eichhornia crassipes, Cyperus alternifolius and
Turbidity VSF-CW 50–90 [29]
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.
BOD VSF-CW Eichhornia crassipes 94.6 [28,49]
Eichhornia crassipes; P. australis, Typha angustifolia and
COD VSF-CW 80 [28,49]
T. latifolia
Oil and grease VSF-CW Eichhornia crassipes 58–94 [29]
HF-CW, Scirpus grossus (bulrush), Salix spp., Scirpus spp.,
Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), >75 [29,73]
VF-CW Juncus spp. and P. australis
Heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, lead,
VSF-CW Eichhornia crassipes, Typha latifolia 48–92 [29,74]
copper, nickel, zinc, iron and chromium)
Nitrate-nitrogen, sulphate and chloride VSF-CW Cyperus alternifolius, Eichhornia crassipes, Typha Orientalis >58 [29,75]

A previous study reported that refined wastewater has higher toxicity than crude oil
due to the addition of metals and their speciation during the refining processes [28]. Many
heavy metals such as Fe, Cr, Cd, Pb, Hg, Ag, Mo, Cu, Zn, and As from oil exploration
and exploitation activities can be found in petroleum wastewater [71]. Petroleum refinery
secondary wastewater can be treated by vertical surface flow constructed wetland (VSF-
CW) vegetated with Eichhornia crassipes [28]. The wastewater having relatively elevated
levels of turbidity (18.30 NTU), BOD (20.40 mg/L), COD (86 mg/L), TPH (16.6 mg/L), oil
and grease (18.4 mg/L), heavy metals (cadmium (0.034 mg/L), lead (0.12 mg/L), chromium
(0.47 mg/L), iron (1.54 mg/L), nickel (0.09 mg/L)), and chloride (1412 mg/L) can be treated
with the 90% to 95% of removal efficiency by vertical surface flow constructed wetland (VSF-
CW). Plants, with the natural ability to uptake metals, can remove heavy metals in CWs by
microbiota uptake [76], plant uptake, as well as adsorption onto media and sediments in
the system [77]. In CWs, additional processes such as biosorption, bioaccumulation, redox
transformation, dissimilatory sulphate reduction, and precipitation as insoluble salts can
remove heavy metals from wastewater [48,49,51]. A previous study showed that Cu can be
removed using the calcined sludge; therefore, treating different waste at CW can enhance
removal efficiency [78].

3.6. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)

Over the last few decades, the production of a wide array of pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs) has been seen in the world due to unprecedented ad-
vancements in the medicine and cosmetics industry that revolutionized healthcare and
beautification facilities [79]. Biotechnology, a cost-effective and environmentally sound
approach, has gained great interest that uses aquatic macrophytes and microalgae for
wastewater treatment [23,34,80]. Phytoremediation in CW is a well-established and effi-
cient method for decontamination of PPCPs from the environment. Scientists and engineers
from several countries have paid attention to the potential of aquatic macrophytes to treat
and recycle pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater.
The phytoremediation process in CW, one of the methods used to remove PPCPs,
can act as a primary, secondary, or tertiary treatment step [80]. A previous study reported
that caffeine (>99.9%), acetaminophen (99.98%), IBU (99.6%), naproxen (99.4%), and tri-
closan (98%) were up-taken in CW treatment [23]. Another study showed more than
95% removal efficiencies for caffeine, carboxy-ibuprofen, hydrocinnamic acid, hydroxy-
ibuprofen, methyl dihydrojasmonate, oxybenzone, salicylic acid, and IBU, while 70–90%
of naproxen, diclofenac, galaxolide, and tonalide. Treatment of water contaminated with
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 13 of 27

PPCPs such diclofenac, IBU, naproxen, tonalide, and bisphenol using as HSSF planted
with P. australis is promising, and the removal was around 90% [43]. The removal can be at-
tributed to biodegradation as well as biosorption. Various studies show evidence that plant
species including Berulaerecta, Irispseudacorus, Juncus effusus, P. ustralis, and Typha latiflolia
can be used to remove/degrade 90% of IBU and iohexol from wastewater. On the other
hand, it was proven that CWs planted with Scirpus validus can reduce 74% of carba-
mazepine and 98% of naproxen from wastewater in hydroponic conditions [81,82]. Differ-
ent types of plants such as Phragmites australis, Typha Angustifolia, P. australis, Spathiphyllum,
Oryza sativa, Capsicum annuum, Scirpus validus, Populus nigra, Typha angustifolia, P. australis,
Cucumis sativus, etc., were used in HSSF, VF, and SSF type CWs to remove PPCPs (e.g.,
Caffeine, Ibuprofen, Naproxen, Chlortetracycline, Diclofenac, Carbamazepine, Tonalide
and Ketoprofen etc.). The removal of these PPCPs was found to be in the range of 70% to
95% [20,51,52].
In a recent study, five endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), such as Bisphenol
A (BPA), Nonylphenol (NP), Nonylphenol monoethoxylate (NP1EO), Nonylphenol di-
ethoxylate (NP2EO), and Triclosan (TCS), were treated in HSF and VF CWs system. The
removal range was found to be 48% to 99%. The removal mechanisms of these EDCs
were biodegradation under aerobic or/and anaerobic conditions as well as adsorption
onto the organic matter present in the CW substrate. Compared to the VF CW system, HF
CW demonstrated low efficiency in removing BPA. On the other hand, higher removal
efficiencies were achieved for NP1EO and NP2EO in the HF CW system [83].
All PPCPs can be considered as persistent organic pollutants (POPs). In addition
to PPCPs, other chemicals such as aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex,
toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) DDT, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans
were treated with subsurface flow systems (SSF) and free surface flow types constructed
wetland [84,85]. Phytoremediation process in CW can remove most POPs, and nearly
100% efficiency in removing organic compounds from wastewater may be achieved in
such systems. The plants used in CW to treat different POPs were Acorus calamus L., Carex
rostrate Stokes, Phragmites australis, Schoenoplectus lacustris (L.) Palla, and Typha latifolia L.,
Nymphaea alba L., Nuphar lutea Myriophyllum spicatum Lemna minor L., Spirodela polyrhiza L.,
and Eichhornia crassipes [85]. The removal capacity by phytoremediation process in CW were
found to be 66% to 100% when free water surface systems (FWS), subsurface flow systems
(SSF), or vertical subsurface flow (VFS) constructed wetlands were used [85].

3.7. Agricultural Wastewater

Wastewater discharge into natural systems, rivers, lakes, and groundwater can cause a
detrimental impact on the future use or function of these natural aquatic systems. Rainfalls,
floods, and overflow can carry wastewater from livestock and spread contamination [86].
The wastewater from livestock processes needs to be treated to reduce the nutrients concen-
tration, organic matters, and suspended solids [86]. The SF constructed wetlands support
wildlife habitats. On the other hand, the SSF prevents the spread of mosquitoes in CWs,
reduces the bad odor associated with CWs, and results in avoiding human contacts [87].
It has been proven that CW can be used to treat the BOD, TSS, and facial coliforms
from dairy parlour wastewater. CW planted with different macrophytes show 75% to 85%
removal of TSS from agricultural wastewater. The retention time is directly proportional
to the efficiency of the removal process of dissolved humic substance. Results showed
that 7-d retention time resulted in 47% to 75% removal of nitrogen, 37% to 74% removal of
phosphorous, and 99% fecal coliform removal. The selection of suitable plant species is
crucial in the degradation process. For instance, CWs planted with Juncus, Scirpus Typha
and mixed spices resulted in 90%, 92%, 94%, 91%, and 99% removal of BOD5 , TTS, NH3 -N,
TKN, and facial coliforms, respectively [88].
Some other operational challenges include the removal of pesticides. Constructed
wetlands can be used to remove fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides from wastewater
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 14 of 27

mixed with agriculture wastewater. Recent research concluded that the deposit load has an
important effect on the removal of pesticides from the wastewater [89].
A recent study discussed the removal efficiency of boscalid from rinsing water pro-
duced during cleaning of pesticide spraying equipment using two pilot-scale horizontal
subsurface flow (HSSF) constructed wetlands (CWs) [90]. The CWs were planted with
common reeds (Phragnites australis) in fine gravel (code name FG-R) and the other cob-
bles (CO-R). The results showed that the removal in both systems ranged from 49% to
100%, indicating the efficiency of HSSF systems in treating boscalid-polluted agricultural
equipment rinsing water in the agricultural area.
Another study investigated the removal of pesticides using horizontal subsurface
flow (HSSF) CW systems that were operated continuously for a long period of time (one
year). The CWs (containing either Phragmites australis or Typha latifolia) were able to remove
up to 73.7% and 58.4% of pesticides in the system, respectively. High concentrations of
terbuthylazine were detected in roots, leaves, and shoots of both plants of the CWs [91].
In another study, three horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF) constructed wetlands (CWs)
planted with Phragmites australis in fine gravel layers were used to treat fluopyram from
rinsing water produced during the cleaning of pesticide spraying equipment. Higher
fluopyram removal efficiency (>96%) was achieved in the HSSF system. The fluopyram
removal mechanisms were achieved through microbial biodegradation, adsorption on
porous media, and bioaccumulation processes [92].

3.8. Compost and Landfill Leachates

The leachate from landfill facilities can be harmful and can be a real threat to the
environment. CWs can be used as one of the alternatives to treat landfill leachate. For
instance, HSSF CW planted with Vetiver was used to treat leachate from composting facility
in Isfahan, Iran [42]. The study period was five months, during which the results of leachate
treated with CWs were compared to leachate that was not treated. The loading rate used
for the HSSF CW was 24 L/d. The results showed that 75% of the BOD5 was removed.
Although the removal of COD was around 53%, it was considered as an improvement
compared to the removal without the CWs, which was around 26%. The removal of NH3 -N,
NO3 -N, and TN was around 70%, 74%, and 74% respectively. This study showed that a
sub-surface horizontal flow constructed wetland planted with Vetiver has the potential
to be used as a leachate pre-treatment or treatment method to treat highly contaminated
composting leachate [42].

3.9. Mine Drainage

Mining activities use a considerable amount of water in extracting valuable parts from
ores. The process resulted in a highly toxic solution of acid mine drainage (AMD). The
AMD is carcinogenic and has a detrimental effect on the environment. Nevertheless, CW
can be used to treat AMD and reduce the toxicity in the effluent. CW is an environmentally
friendly process that encompasses various processes including biological, chemical, biogeo-
chemical, geochemical, and physical processes to reduce contamination in the wastewater.
Heavy metal compounds are the main component of AMD, which is characterized by
low pH [93]. The mechanisms that are responsible for heavy metal removal from AMD
include sedimentation, sorption, accumulation in the plant, and precipitation. Heavy
metals accumulation in the plant represents part of the removal, but not a high percentage.
It has been proven that a significant amount of heavy metals is removed from AMD in CW
by sedimentation [93].

3.10. Storm Water Runoff

Storm runoff is a highly variable and intermittent feedstock that can be treated by
constructed wetlands. There has been increasing interest in the use of constructed wetlands
to remediate storm runoff, which often contains high levels of metals, mainly including Cu,
Cd, Zn, and Pb [24,58,59]. Previous work investigated the heavy metal removal performance
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 15 of 27

by a laboratory-scale wetland system treating storm runoff. The removal efficiencies and
rates for metals monitored ranged from 81.7% to 91.8% and 36.6–372.7 mg/m2 /day for Cu,
75.8–95.3% and 30.8–387 mg/m2 /day for Pb, and 82.8–90.4% and 33.6–362.1 mg/m2 /day
for Zn, respectively. Stormwater runoff where systems receive low hydraulic and constituent
loads can be treated by constructed wetland systems (CWs). The CWs remove contaminants,
nutrients, and solids from runoff water [49,74].

3.11. Microplastic on CWs

Synthetic organic polymer plastics have been heavily used in different purposes such
as household and personal care products, medical applications, clothing, agricultural (e.g.,
mulching,) engineering materials, infrastructure, and land use practices media [94,95]. The
micro and nano plastics are invisible, and humans are exposed to these products through
the use of personal care products containing microplastics [96,97]. The extensive use of
plastics products (which are very slow biodegradable materials) in human everyday life
has resulted in posing a risk to humans and the ecosystem. The distribution and transport
of microplastics (MPs) in CWs depend on morphological features and the apertures of the
substrate, soil texture, and vegetation coverage [98]. Moreover, macroinvertebrates were
used in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands (as tertiary treatment) to investi-
gate the distribution of MPs in CW and found the potential role of macroinvertebrates in
MPs distribution and removal [99]. Recent study showed that wetland plants, substrate
composition, hydraulic loading rate, hydraulic retention time (HRT), and biofilm in CWs
can influence the migration, transformation, and removal behaviors of MPs [100–102].
Multi-stage constructed wetlands (CWs) played a crucial role in treating the MPs (>89%
of removal) in water. Plant species such as P. australis, Lolium perenne (garden cress),
Sphagnum palustre (peat moss), Vigna radiata (mung bean), Spirodela polyrhiza (great duck-
weed), and Allium cepa (garden onion) were used in CWs to reduce MPs or control MPs
migration [103]. The transformation of toxic MP compounds into nontoxic or less toxic
forms through accumulation by roots or immobilization within plants species is one of the
mechanisms to control MPs migration and distribution in water [20,103]. Previous studies
showed that mangroves can uptake considerable amounts of microplastics [93,97–99]. The
retention of microplastic in the mangrove depends on the paling pattern and density, roots
of the mangrove, as well as the dead plant debris and branches [94]. Another study showed
that the uptake of microplastics by plants depends on particle characteristics such as size
and charge, as well as plant features [103,104]. It was found that microplastic particles
are attracted to the soil organic carbon resulting in an increased stability of microplastic
in the soil sediments [105,106]. A recent study presented evidence of the accumulation
and retention of microplastic particles in freshwater reeds [107]. The average concentra-
tion of microplastics on reeds samples was found be around 4.9 items/individual [107].
Very few studies are available in this area in the current literature; therefore, the numbers
here are not confirmed by other studies [107]. A recent study showed that microplastic
fibers contributed positively on the growth of plant community, and this was attributed
to the reduction in soil bulk density and increase in aeration due to the existence of the
microfibers [108]. Another study showed plastic particles can contribute to an increase in
plant biomass [103]. Some studies reported negative toxic effects of microplastics on plant
germination and root elongation [103,109]. On the other hand, contradicting results have
been reported on the effect of the plastic particles on plant photosynthesis [103].

4. Microorganisms Used in the Wetland

The design of wetland components includes the substrate (the soil matrix), the hy-
drology (water flow and water control structures), and the plants. However, important
components of wetlands such as communities of microbes and invertebrates are developed
naturally [51,110]. Bacteria play a dominant role in contaminant degradation and in the
transformation of contaminants between the environment and the plant. Different types
of heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria contribute to contaminant degradation. Het-
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 16 of 27

erotrophic bacteria utilize organic carbon for their metabolism; therefore, they are active in
the degradation of organic pollutants such as petroleum hydrocarbon. On the other hand,
autotrophic bacteria use carbon dioxide for cell growth [111].
In aerobic digestion, the organic pollutant serves as electron donor and oxygen serves
as electron acceptor. In this process, the pollutant is decomposed to CO2 through a
certain pathway, which involves the production of daughter products of the original
contaminant [23,73,112]. It is very important to mention that in some cases some daughter
products of these processes are more toxic than the original pollutant. Therefore, it is very
important to ensure that degradation happens at the end of the processes (i.e., produce
CO2 and H2 O). The shallow surface of the surface flow constructed wetlands and the top
layers of the subsurface flow constructed wetlands provide a suitable environment (i.e.,
oxygen concentration) for aerobic degradation of contaminants [23].
In anaerobic digestion, the organic pollutant serves as electron donor and CO2 serves
as electron acceptor. Some other chemical compounds serve as electron acceptors including
nitrate, nitrite, sulphate, and carbonate. In denitrification, nitrate and nitrite serve as
electron acceptors, and the organic pollutant serves as the electron donor [13,23]. Table 4
shows various types of bacteria that contribute to nitrification and denitrification processes

Table 4. Bacterial strains involved in nitrification and denitrification in constructed wetlands.

Bacteria Porous Media Process Reference

Brown soil (0–4 mm diameter), Sludge (5–10 mm
1 Pseudomonas falva WD-3 Denitrification [113]
diameter) and Gravel (40–50 mm diameter)
Heterotrophic nitrification
2 Alcaligenes faecalis strain WT14 Sediments [114]
and aerobic denitrification
Rough sand (1–2 mm diameter), garvel (10–20 mm
3 Albidiferax Nitrification [115]
diameter) and Gravel (30–50 mm diameter)
Quartz sand (5–10 mm diameter), cativated carbon
4 Candidatus Nitrosotenuis Nitrification [116]
(2–5 mm diameter) and Cobble (15–30 mm diameter)
Quartz sand (5–10 mm diameter), cativated carbon
5 Nitrosomonas Nitrification [116]
(2–5 mm diameter) and Cobble (15–30 mm diameter)
Quartz sand (5–10 mm diameter), cativated carbon
6 Nitrosopumilus Nitrification [116]
(2–5 mm diameter) and Cobble (15–30 mm diameter)

The metabolism of each type of bacteria is optimum under specific environmen-

tal conditions including pH, temperature, oxygen concentration, and sunlight. In gen-
eral, pH around 6–7 is suitable for most types of bacteria. A temperature around 28–30
is suitable for most types of bacteria. However, thermophilic bacterial strains survive
under very high temperatures, such as Sulfolobus Solfataricus, Bacillus licheniformis, and
Thermomonas hydrothermalis [110].
Temperature has an effect on the microbial activity in the wetlands; therefore, the
temperature can directly affect the success of the treatment process. Low temperatures
slow down the microbial activities, while very high temperatures have detrimental effects
on the microorganisms. Sorption and sedimentation processes are also affected by the
temperature. Temperature directly affects the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the
water and the oxidation-reduction potential. High temperatures cause low dissolved
oxygen environments. Temperatures between 20 and 30 ◦ C are suitable for the growth of
plants as well as bacterial growth [11,23].
There are several aspects concerning microorganisms in enhancing the outcome of
constructed wetlands through prolonging the survival of the microorganisms or improving
bacterial viability and persistence in the wastewater environment. This can be divided
into two main factors: the wetland environment and the characteristics of microorganisms.
Survival and persistence of bacteria in the wetlands are affected by changes in soil pH, nu-
trients, electron acceptors, osmotic stress, temperature (cold or hot weather), UV exposure,
and chemicals [117]. In addition to the wetland environment, the characteristics of the
microorganisms play a significant role in their existence; for example, some bacteria form
biofilms that protect themselves from external stresses. Another mechanism for bacteria to
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 17 of 27

survive is to produce spores [118]. In the event of severe weather and nutrient deprivation,
bacteria will die, eventually producing endospores which have a very hard shell and
protect them [119]. Typically, under extremely poor living conditions, endospores are in a
state of dormancy (sleeping condition); once the environmental conditions improve, the
spore will germinate and outgrow [1].
Alga contributes to removal of contaminants in constructed wetlands. For instance,
Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus obliquus strains can remove selenium from river water
when treated with a wetlands system by volatilization and accumulation [48]. Plants and
microorganisms can contribute to the volatilization of selenium. The volatilization of
selenium has been approved to be dependent on nutrients (N and P). Previous studies
showed that the volatilization of selenium is more sensitive to increase in P than the
increase in N [120].

5. Phytoremediation and Bacteria Interaction

Phytoremediation in constructed wetlands includes phytoextraction, phytovolatiliza-
tion, phytodegradation, rhizodegradation, and phytostabilization [15]. Different plants,
as well as phytoplankton, are used in wetlands [121]. The most common plants used
in constructed wetlands are P. australis (35.29%), T. latifolia (17.65%), J. effusus (8.82%),
P. arundinacea (7.84%), and Z. latifolia (5.88%). Other plants also are used in the wet-
lands [1,79,81]. Cattails (Typha latifolua) and reed (Phragmites australis) are common on most
wetlands. Some of these plants are vascular and some are non-vascular plants. The main
role of the plants in the wetlands is to provide sorption sites and exchange mediums for
microorganisms and the pollutant [121]. The plants provide an organic carbon source for
microorganisms and slow down the flow of water, therefore enhancing the sedimentation
and pollutant settlement. Moreover, plants provide means for soil stabilization, and the
roots increase the soil permeability. The plants are important elements in the aesthetic
value of the wetland. Not all plants can tolerate high concentrations of wastewater or
pollutants [122]. The selection is made based on which plant can grow better. For instance,
Acorus calamus tolerates an acidic environment, Iris versicolor can tolerate high nutrient
concentrations, Scripus validus is effective in contaminant removal, and Scirpus pungens can
remove heavy metals [123].
The contaminant concentration in the wetlands can affect the growth of the plants. In
some cases, the above-water parts of the plants are not affected by the contaminant, but the
length of the roots is affected [4,5,24]. This can be attributed to the fact that the roots are in
direct contact with the contaminated water. Depending on plant tolerance to the specific
contaminant, the stem height, as well as the root length, can be affected with physiological
toxicity at certain contaminant concentrations [73,121].

5.1. Conventional Contaminant Removal Mechanisms

The conventional processes in the constructed wetlands include physical, chemical,
geochemical, and biological processes. Figure 4 shows the removal mechanisms of different
wastewaters in CW. The biodegradation processes are initiated as the contaminated water
flows through various components of the wetlands including substrate (gravel and/or
sand), plants, and microorganisms [4,5,24]. The pollutants are removed/degraded by
different mechanisms such as filtration and sedimentation of suspended particles [124].
Other mechanisms also contribute to the removal of pollutants such as sorption, photolysis,
precipitation, volatilization, and plant uptake [124–126]. The mechanisms by which plants
can degrade contaminants include metabolic and hydraulic processes. The plants grow
rapidly and transfer the contaminant from the environment around the roots to the leaves.
The indigenous microorganisms in the vicinity of the roots play a dominant role in the
removal process. Microorganisms facilitate the following processes: phytotransformation,
rhizosphere bioremediation, phytostabilization, phytoextraction, or rizofiltration [122].
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 18 of 27

Figure 4. Remediation mechanisms in CW for different wastewaters.

Various plants show not only high potential in removing organic contaminants from
wastewater but also transforming the contaminant into harmless by-products [122]. The
pollutants are degraded due to the process of releasing certain enzymes, roots exudates,
and also the accumulation of organic carbon in the soil. For example, rizofiltration is the
process through which the dissolved heavy metals are removed from the water to the roots
and the to the plant leaves [82]. On the other hand, organic matters are degraded/ removed
from wastewaters through various mechanisms that contribute positively to decreasing
the concentration of pollutants. Volatilization, photochemical oxidation, sedimentation,
sorption, microbial degradation, fermentation, and aerobic and anaerobic respiration are
mechanisms that are involved in the degradation of organic pollutants [76,82]. Nitrifi-
cation denitrification, plant uptake, volatilization, and adsorption are the mechanisms
through which the concentrations of various types of nitrogen, organic and inorganic,
are reduced [112]. Phosphorous, a major component of the storm runoff and agriculture
wastewater, is removed from wastewater through adsorption, precipitation, and plant
uptake [112].

5.2. Kinetics of Biotreatment in CW

Researchers have investigated the use of various kinetics modeling approaches in-
cluding first-order kinetics, the constant stirred tank reactor (CSTR), Monod kinetics, and
Monod-CSTR kinetics to describe the degradation process in the CW. For instance, a
previous study investigated the removal rates of BOD5 , COD, TPH, and NO3 -N from
wastewater using CW planted with Eichhornia crassipes [29]. The results showed that the
removal constant rates R2 were around 0.89 to 0.99 for BOD5 , COD, NO3 -N, and TPH [127].
For BOD5 removal, in vegetated VSF-CW, the estimated area-based first-order (K-C) and
the first-order (K-C *) removal rate constants of BOD5 (kA ) were 0.12 and 0.16 md−1 , respec-
tively [29,52]. The area-based first-order (K-C)-CSTR removal rate constant is 0.57 m day−1
while the Monod-CSTR kinetics maximum removal rate (Kmax ) and multiple Monod-CSTR
kinetics (Kmax ) were 3.27 and 3.47 gm−2 d−1 , respectively, in the vegetated VSF-CW. For
the COD removal in the vegetated VSF-CW, the kA (first-order K-C) and kA (first-order K-C
*) for COD were 0.07 and 0.11 mday−1 , respectively, while the kA (first-order CSTR flow),
Kmax (Monod-CSTR), and Kmax (multiple Monod-CSTR) were 0.21 m day−1 , 4.12 gm−2
day−1 , and 4.35 gm−2 day−1 , respectively. Previous studies showed that the first-order
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 19 of 27

CSTR model is not precise enough to describe the BOD5 and NO3 -N removal. On the other
hand, Monod CSTR model showed high match between the model and the test results [52].
The contaminant removal can be described by the mathematical model (J = k.C).
The rate (k) is dependent on area of wetland, volume of flow, and temperature. The rate
coefficient represents the contaminant degradation speed [52]. The relation between the
degradation and constructed wetland inflow and out flow is described by the second
equation in Table 5. The water flow in the constructed wetland cannot be described
by Plug Flow (PF) nor Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR). The best model found
to describe the constructed wet lands is the Tank-in-Series (TIS) model, which it takes
into consideration background concentration and the time effect on the process [127]. A
single equation can be formed using a combination of non-ideal flow and background
concentration to describe the contaminant removal in the wetlands [52]. This equation can
be denoted by P-k-C* , where P is the pollutant weathering, k is the first-order kinetic, and
C* is the non-zero background concentration [127]. Monod kinetics can be combined with
CSTR to form a model describing the relation between the inlet and outlet concentrations
through the half saturation constant of the limiting substrate and maximum pollutant rates.
Multiple Monod kinetics, which assumes more than one substrate that limits the rate of
contaminant degradation, can be used to express the reactions in the constructed wetlands.
Table 5 below contains kinetics equations that can be used in the design of constructed
wetlands [127].

Table 5. Kinetics equations that are used in CWs.

Equation Parameters Description

J: Is the contaminant removal per unit
area g·m−2 ·d−1
J = k·C _
C: Contaminant concentration (g·m−3 )
k: Rate coefficient m·d−1

(−
kA
) q: is the hydraulic loading rate (m/d)
Cout
=e First-order equation
kA: the decomposition constant in m·d−1
q
Cin

Kv: Account for time

Cout First-order equation (uses the hydraulic
= e(−kv t) Cout: effluent concentration
Cin residence time (HRT,t)
Cin: influent concentration
Combination of non-ideal flow and
C: effluent concentration
background concentration (Pollutant
(C − C ∗ )/(Ci − C∗ ) = e(−kt) Ci: influent concentration
weathering, first-order kinetics and
C*: background concentration
non-zero background concentration)
τ: hydraulic retention time
Cin −Cout

Cout
 Chalf : half saturation constant of Combination of Continuous Stirred Tank
τ = −Kmax Chal f + Cout limiting substrate Reactor (CSTR) and Monod kinetics
Kmax: maximum pollutant removal rates
K3: maximum areal pollutant removal
rate K3, g·m−2 ·d−1
q(Cin −Cout )(Cout1 +Chal f 1 )(Cout2 +Chal f 2 ) Chalf 1, Chalf 2: half saturation constant of
K3 = _
Cout1 Cout2 limiting substrates
Cout1, Cout2: the outlet concentrations of
limiting substrates

6. Economical Evaluation and Challenges in the Field

In general, there are variations in the construction cost of SSF CW compared to
the construction cost of SF CW [2,4]. However, there are common items that should be
considered in the calculation of the cost of both approaches. The cost can be divided into
two stages: the acquisition and design stage and the construction and commissioning
stage [5,19]. The first stage includes land acquisition, geotechnical investigation, and
system design. The construction and commissioning stage includes site mobilization
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 20 of 27

(site office, fence and access road), construction activities (plastic liners, filtration, media,
vegetation, flow system, hydraulic structures), supervision fees, and commissioning (trial
period) [24]. Special consideration should be taken in the cost regarding the availability of
water and additional area if required.
The cost of CW is mainly dependent on the specification and the design components,
which vary from one system to another. The costs of media, plant species (vegetation),
hydraulic structures, pumps, and filtration systems are considered as the main design
components that contribute to the majority of the total cost [19]. The selection of suitable
components for the wastewater to be treated is crucial for the maintenance and operating
costs. Economical CW systems should have low maintenance and operation cost. In most
cases, the selection of remediation method is made based on the efficiency of the method
(output/cost) [128]. The operation and maintenance costs include the personnel need to
run the facility, the energy cost, facility infrastructure maintenance, plant replacement
and disposal, cleaning, pumps and tools replacement, and maintenance quality control
(sampling and analysis cost) [24].
The challenges facing constructed wetlands include methane production. It has
been observed that an increase in the concentration of CH4 in the air is associated with
constructed wetlands used to treat sewer wastewater [126]. Methane is considered one
of the important contributors (greenhouse gases) to ozone destruction. There are specific
types of plants that when used in constructed wetlands produce high CH4 , for instance,
Z. latifolia, J. effusus, and P. australis. On the other hand, some plants including P. arundinacea,
C. papyrus, and T. latifolia produce less CH4 in the air compared to the aforementioned
types. Not only the types of plants affect the production of CH4 but also the intensity and
the combination of the plants have a significant effect on the emission of CH4 [44]. Potential
for development and challenges in biogas (e.g., CH4 ) as an energy resource is one of the
alternative options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the constructed wetland [129].
Wetland biomass as a cooking fuel can offset some of the demand for unsustainable and
unhealthy solid fuels (such as charcoals). The potential to employ proven small-scale biogas
technologies in CW can be utilized as an energy source in the community. Depending on
the plant type selected, wetland biomass can yield energy for a 200-person community
ranging from about 12–150 GJ/year [129]. Thus, biomass replacing wood can reduce stress
on ecosystems. Moreover, biomass can also replace manure as a fuel source; this organic
matter can be used as fertilizer in agricultural activities, thus offsetting some of the needs
for artificial fertilizers [129].

7. Conclusions, Innovations, and New Directions

CWs have unique characteristics, as they are not only a simple and environmentally
friendly treatment method but also continuously evolving to contribute to the global
ecosystem. CWs are a home for native and migratory wildlife and create a balance between
the land development and the need for green cover [130]. The new innovations and
directions in the CW are as follows:
(I) Potential use of wetlands to sustain food source
Recent discussion in the scientific community and in engineering societies landed on
some potential uses for CWs in the near future. CWs can be utilized in agriculture schemes.
CWs can result in increasing fertility of the soil, creating a belt to protect the agriculture
schemes from storm runoff, and providing shade from wind. It is highly recommended for
the stakeholder representing governments to increase the uses of CWs.
The agricultural schemes use fertilizers (phosphate), and an excess amount of these
fertilizers is usually flashed with storm runoff and contaminates the nearby water bodies.
High phosphorus concentration promotes the growth of algae. Thus, covering the surface
of water bodies results in low oxygen concentration and decreases the quality of water.
The watershed conservation authorities in many parts of the world are responsible for
management of the storm runoff, which in many cases is associated with agriculture
wastewater. These governmental bodies strive to develop regulations to protect the public
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 21 of 27

interest in water bodies. However, the framers are usually in conflict with these government
bodies regarding the regulation and operation of the agricultural schemes. The runoff from
agriculture schemes contributes negatively to the quality of the receiving water bodies. The
negative effect in the receiving waters can occur as change in salinity or excess nutrients.
Constructed wetlands can be used as a receiving water body that contributes to reducing
the nutrients in the runoff and decreases the erosion effect. CWs can provide a shade for
the agricultural schemes and minimize the adverse effect of the foods. Nevertheless, CWs
host birds and can be used as a source of timber and wood.
(II) Wetlands as mitigation and adaptation to the climate change
In the last decade, the greenhouse gas effect in climate change has gained increasing
interest in the scientific community. Constructed wetlands and natural wetlands can play
a dominant role in reducing the adverse effect of the greenhouse gases. The plants can
contribute and utilize the carbon, which is a major components of greenhouse gases. On
the other hand, recent studies showed that certain microorganisms can be used in carbon
fixation. CWs, as a part of the global ecosystem, can also be affected by the phenomena
resulting from greenhouse gases such as sea level rise and the groundwater level. It has
been recognized that the CWs can store large amount of carbon; however, CWs can release
CO2 , CH4 , and NO when subjected to disturbance. Therefore, it is essential for a sustainable
environment to keep the CWs running and increase the area covered with the CWs.
(III) Wetland Wildlife Considerations
The CWs support a diversity of microorganisms, birds, and plants. The environment
in CWs is suitable for other wildlife species. Microorganisms can be introduced to the CWs
or can form colonies naturally. The vegetation in the CWs plus the microorganism colonies
form a suitable habitat for a wide range of species. Various types of plants and animals have
the capability to grow in contaminated water, including air-breathing invertebrates such as
water beetles, bugs, water snails, etc. These species can contribute to the ecological cycles.
(IV) Biomass and Renewable Energy Source
Constructed wetlands (CWs) are a biological technology, require optimum mainte-
nance, and are effective in treating wastewater under the ambient environment. Biomass,
as a source of renewable energy, harvested from CW can be used as a renewable energy
source. The CW-treated effluent can also be used in the agricultural field. For example,
plants such as Phragmites spp., Typha spp., A. donax, and C. papyrus used in CW can yield
about 1500 g to 6000 g/m2 of dry mass per square meter (g/m2 ) [129]. Methane yields
vary from about 170 to 360 L of methane per kilogram of dry mass (LN/kg). They further
reported that an average of 110 MJ through direct combustion or 1660 L of methane from
biogas can be generated from 1 m2 of CW planted with A. donax. Thus, bioenergy pro-
duction from CW can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and has the potential to offset energy
and irrigation needs in different regions. The microbial fuel cell (MFC), which is used to
generate energy from wastewater, is characterized by anaerobic conditions at the anode and
aerobic environment at the vicinity of the anode. Similar conditions naturally exist in CW,
where a high concentration of oxygen presents at the water surface and anoxic conditions
at the bottom of the CW. Therefore, MFC can be integrated into CW to promote the use of
CW as powerful tool for treatment of wastewater and generation of energy [131,132]. The
basic concept of the MCF is the use of anerobic digestion of high-strength wastewater to
produce biogas. The fact that CWs require low energy for operation and low maintenance
costs, plus the integration of MFC, could make the CW the best choice for the authorities
and policy makers [132,133]. From the current state, it is obvious that the technology has
the potential to provide sustainable wastewater management as well as a bioenergy source
without creating any burden on water resources.
(V) The removal of POPs and microplastics on CW
The current knowledge is limited about the accumulation and retention of microplas-
tics in plant. There is a potential to advance the understanding of the interactions between
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 22 of 27

micro- and nanoplastics on plants and macrophytes. The is a gap in knowledge that needs
to be addressed including the discussion about plant exposure conditions, the uptake
mechanisms, and the toxic effect of the microplastic on the plants. It was reported that
83–89% of MPs are removed using integrated vertical flow CW systems, and 27–60% are
removed by surface flow constructed wetlands; however, more studies are required to
address the gap of knowledge [100].
POPs such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) can be removed in CW systems. The removal capacity by phytoremediation
processes in CW were found to be between 66 to 100%. A recent study showed that five
endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) were removed with different percentages of 48%
to 99% in HSF and VF CW systems [83]. The removal mechanisms include plant uptake,
adsorption to the bottom sediments (in the SF system) or substrate of the beds (in the SSF
systems), as well as adsorption to suspended solids, followed by sedimentation. Although
POPs can be removed in CW, there are some limitations that need to be addressed including
the effect of changes of temperature from season to season, and the uptake pathways need
to be investigated to determine the contribution of each uptake mechanism.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.H. and S.R.C.; methodology, I.H. and P.K.P.; formal
analysis, S.A.R. and I.H.; investigation, I.H. and S.R.C.; resources, S.A.R.; data curation, I.H. and
S.R.C.; writing—original draft preparation, I.H. and S.R.C.; writing—review and editing, I.H., S.R.C.,
P.K.P. and S.A.R.; visualization, P.K.P. and S.A.R.; supervision, S.A.R.; funding acquisition, S.A.R. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The support received from Interdisciplinary Research Center for Membranes and Water
Security, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, with funding grant
and financial support for this work through project No. INMW2105.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available in all tables and figures
of this article.
Acknowledgments: Authors would like to acknowledge the support received from Interdisciplinary
Research Center for Membranes and Water Security, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, with funding grant and financial support for this work through project No.
INMW2105. Authors highly appreciate for the continuous support and contribution received from the
Department of Civil Engineering at Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University and Taibah University
during the collection and preparation of all necessary data and information for this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest, and the funders had no role in the
decision to publish the results.

References
1. Santos, M.; Melo, V.F.; Serrat, B.M.; Bonfleur, E.; Araújo, E.M.; Cherobim, V.F. Hybrid technologies for remediation of highly Pb
contaminated soil: Sewage sludge application and phytoremediation. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2021, 23, 328–335. [CrossRef]
2. Omondi, D.O.; Navalia, A.C. Constructed Wetlands in Wastewater Treatment and Challenges of Emerging Resistant Genes Filtration and
Reloading; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020.
3. Ji, Z.; Tang, W.; Pei, Y. Constructed wetland substrates: A review on development, function mechanisms, and application in
contaminants removal. Chemosphere 2021, 286, 131564. [CrossRef]
4. Donde, O.O. Wastewater Management Techniques: A Review of Advancement on the Appropriate Wastewater Treatment
Principles for Sustainability. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 6, 40–58. [CrossRef]
5. Thorslund, J.; Jarsjo, J.; Jaramillo, F.; Jawitz, J.W.; Manzoni, S.; Basu, N.B.; Chalov, S.R.; Cohen, M.J.; Creed, I.F.; Goldenberg, R.;
et al. Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: Status and challenges for research, engineering and management. Ecol. Eng.
2017, 108, 489–497. [CrossRef]
6. Mustafa, H.M.; Hayder, G. Recent studies on applications of aquatic weed plants in phytoremediation of wastewater: A review
article. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 355–365. [CrossRef]
7. Can an Integrated Constructed Wetland in Norfolk Reduce Nutrient Concentrations and Promote In Situ Bird Species Richness?
Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-019-01247-7 (accessed on 21 September 2021).
8. Almuktar, S.A.A.A.N.; Abed, S.N.; Scholz, M. Wetlands for wastewater treatment and subsequent recycling of treated effluent: A
review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 23595–23623. [CrossRef]
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 23 of 27

9. Brovelli, A.; Carranza-Diaz, O.; Rossi, L.; Barry, D.A. Design methodology accounting for the effects of porous medium
heterogeneity on hydraulic residence time and biodegradation in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng.
2011, 37, 758–770. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, J.; Liu, Y.-S.; Su, H.-C.; Ying, G.-G.; Liu, F.; Liu, S.-S.; He, L.-Y.; Chen, Z.-F.; Yang, Y.-Q.; Chen, F.-R. Removal of antibiotics
and antibiotic resistance genes in rural wastewater by an integrated constructed wetland. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22,
1794–1803. [CrossRef]
11. Christofilopoulos, S.; Kaliakatsos, A.; Triantafyllou, K.; Gounaki, I.; Venieri, D.; Kalogerakis, N. Evaluation of a constructed
wetland for wastewater treatment: Addressing emerging organic contaminants and antibiotic resistant bacteria. New Biotechnol.
2019, 52, 94–103. [CrossRef]
12. Vymazal, J.; Zhao, Y.; Mander, Ü. Recent research challenges in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: A review. Ecol.
Eng. 2021, 169, 106318. [CrossRef]
13. Dan, T.H.; Quang, L.N.; Chiem, N.H.; Brix, H. Treatment of high-strength wastewater in tropical constructed wetlands planted
with Sesbania sesban: Horizontal subsurface flow versus vertical downflow. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 711–720. [CrossRef]
14. Padalkar, A.V. Rakesh Kumar Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP): Reliability Analysis and Performance Evaluation. Water
Sci. Eng. 2018, 11, 205–213. [CrossRef]
15. Truu, J.; Truu, M.; Espenberg, M.; Nõlvak, H.; Juhanson, J. Phytoremediation and Plant-Assisted Bioremediation in Soil and
Treatment Wetlands: A Review. Open Biotechnol. J. 2015, 9, 85–92. [CrossRef]
16. Barik, D. Energy from Toxic Organic Waste for Heat and Power Generation, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018.
Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/books/energy-from-toxic-organic-waste-for-heat-and-power-generation/barik/
978-0-08-102528-4 (accessed on 29 August 2021).
17. Azubuike, C.C.; Chikere, C.B.; Okpokwasili, G.C. Bioremediation techniques–classification based on site of application: Principles,
advantages, limitations and prospects. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 32, 1–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Bruch, I.; Fritsche, J.; Bänninger, D.; Alewell, U.; Sendelov, M.; Hürlimann, H.; Hasselbach, R.; Alewell, C. Improving the treatment
efficiency of constructed wetlands with zeolite-containing filter sands. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 937–941. [CrossRef]
19. Pajares, E.M.; Valero, L.G.; Sánchez, I.M.R. Cost of Urban Wastewater Treatment and Ecotaxes: Evidence from Municipalities in
Southern Europe. Water 2019, 11, 423. [CrossRef]
20. Rezania, S.; Park, J.; Rupani, P.F.; Darajeh, N.; Xu, X.; Shahrokhishahraki, R. Phytoremediation potential and control of Phragmites
australis as a green phytomass: An overview. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 7428–7441. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Ortega-Calvo, J.-J.; Harmsen, J.; Parsons, J.R.; Semple, K.T.; Aitken, M.D.; Ajao, C.; Eadsforth, C.; Galay-Burgos, M.; Naidu, R.;
Oliver, R.; et al. From Bioavailability Science to Regulation of Organic Chemicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 10255–10264.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Biosurfactants-Types, Sources and Applications. Available online: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=jm.2015.181.192 (accessed
on 29 August 2021).
23. Nguyen, P.M.; Afzal, M.; Ullah, I.; Shahid, N.; Baqar, M.; Arslan, M. Removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products
using constructed wetlands: Effective plant-bacteria synergism may enhance degradation efficiency. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2019, 26, 21109–21126. [CrossRef]
24. Vymazal, J. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Five Decades of Experience. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 61–69.
[CrossRef]
25. Saeed, T.; Sun, G. A review on nitrogen and organics removal mechanisms in subsurface flow constructed wetlands: Dependency
on environmental parameters, operating conditions and supporting media. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 112, 429–448. [CrossRef]
26. Boog, J.; Nivala, J.; Aubron, T.; Wallace, S.; Sullivan, C.; Van Afferden, M.; Müller, R.A. Treatment Wetland Aeration without
Electricity? Lessons Learned from the First Experiment Using a Wind-Driven Air Pump. Water 2016, 8, 502. [CrossRef]
27. Gunter, L.; Gabriela, D.; Jaime, N.; Anacleto, R.S. Wetland Technology: Practical Information on the Design and Application of Treatment
Wetlands; Langergraber, G., Dotro, G., Nivala, J., Rizzo, A., Stein, O.R., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2020.
28. Adewuyi, G.O.; Olowu, R. Assessment of Oil and Grease, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Some Heavy Metals in Surface and
Groundwater within the Vicinity of NNPC Oil Depot in Apata, Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria. Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci. 2012, 13,
166–174.
29. Agarry, S.E.; Oghenejoboh, K.M.; Latinwo, G.K.; Owabor, C.N. Biotreatment of petroleum refinery wastewater in vertical
surface-flow constructed wetland vegetated with Eichhornia crassipes: Lab-scale experimental and kinetic modelling. Environ.
Technol. 2018, 41, 1793–1813. [CrossRef]
30. Perdana, M.C.; Sutanto, H.B.; Prihatmo, G. Vertical Subsurface Flow (VSSF) constructed wetland for domestic wastewater
treatment. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 148, 012025. [CrossRef]
31. Zhao, Y.J.; Hui, Z.; Chao, X.; Nie, E.; Li, H.J.; He, J.; Zheng, Z. Efficiency of two-stage combinations of subsurface vertical
down-flow and up-flow constructed wetland systems for treating variation in influent C/N ratios of domestic wastewater. Ecol.
Eng. 2011, 37, 1546–1554. [CrossRef]
32. Nivala, J.; Headley, T.; Wallace, S.; Bernhard, K.; Brix, H.; van Afferden, M.; Müller, R.A. Comparative analysis of constructed
wetlands: The design and construction of the ecotechnology research facility in Langenreichenbach, Germany. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61,
527–543. [CrossRef]
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 24 of 27

33. Hoffmann, A.A.; Montgomery, B.L.; Popovici, J.; Iturbeormaetxe, I.; Johnson, P.H.; Muzzi, F.; Greenfield, M.; Durkan, M.; Leong,
Y.S.; Dong, Y.; et al. Successful establishment of Wolbachia in Aedes populations to suppress dengue transmission. Nature 2011,
476, 454–457. [CrossRef]
34. Hijosa-Valsero, M.; Matamoros, V.; Sidrach-Cardona, R.; Martín-Villacorta, J.; Bécares, E.; Bayona, J.M. Comprehensive assessment
of the design configuration of constructed wetlands for the removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products from urban
wastewaters. Water Res. 2010, 44, 3669–3678. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Critical Design Parameters for Constructed Wetlands Natural Wastewater Treatment Systems. Available online: https://www.
natsci.upit.ro/issues/2017/volume-6-issue-12/critical-design-parameters-for-constructed-wetlands-natural-wastewater-
treatment-systems/ (accessed on 2 October 2021).
36. Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Document Display NEPIS US EPA. Available online: https:
//nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/200053ND.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=
&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=
&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%
5CTxt%5C00000001%5C200053ND.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=
1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&
Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL (accessed on 22 Septem-
ber 2021).
37. Ávila, C.; Nivala, J.; Olsson, L.; Kassa, K.; Headley, T.; Mueller, R.A.; Bayona, J.M.; García, J. Emerging organic contaminants in
vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands: Influence of media size, loading frequency and use of active aeration. Sci. Total
Environ. 2014, 494–495, 211–217. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Baptestini, G.C.F.; Matos, A.T.; Martinez, M.A.; Borges, A.C. Hydraulic Conductivity Variability in Horizontal Subsurface Flow
Constructed Wetlands. Eng. Agríc. 2017, 37, 333–342. [CrossRef]
39. Gikas, G.D.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. A small-size vertical flow constructed wetland for on-site treatment of household wastewater. Ecol.
Eng. 2012, 44, 337–343. [CrossRef]
40. Gikas, G.D.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. On-site treatment of domestic wastewater using a small-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed
wetland. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 62, 603–614. [CrossRef]
41. Al-Baldawi, I.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Anuar, N.; Suja, F.; Idris, M. Performance assessment of pilot horizontal sub-surface flow
constructed wetlands for removal of diesel from wastewater by Scirpus grossus. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68, 2271–2278.
[CrossRef]
42. Bakhshoodeh, R.; Alavi, N.; Majlesi, M.; Paydary, P. Compost leachate treatment by a pilot-scale subsurface horizontal flow
constructed wetland. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 105, 7–14. [CrossRef]
43. Ávila, C.; Pedescoll, A.; Matamoros, V.; Bayona, J.M.; García, J. Capacity of a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland
system for the removal of emerging pollutants: An injection experiment. Chemosphere 2010, 81, 1137–1142. [CrossRef]
44. Wu, H.; Zhang, J.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.; Hu, Z.; Liang, S.; Fan, J.; Liu, H. A review on the sustainability of constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment: Design and operation. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 175, 594–601. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Beharrell, M. Chapter 19—Operation and Maintenance for Constructed Wetlands. In Wetlands Ecosystems in Asia; Wong, M.H.,
Ed.; Developments in Ecosystems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 1, pp. 347–359.
46. Gunes, K.; Tuncsiper, B.; Masi, F.; Ayaz, S.; Leszczynska, D.; Hecan, N.F.; Ahmad, H. Construction and maintenance cost analyzing
of constructed wetland systems. Water Pract. Technol. 2011, 6, wpt2011043. [CrossRef]
47. Bouali, M.; Zrafi, I.; Mouna, F.; Bakhrouf, A. Pilot study of constructed wetlands for tertiary wastewater treatment using duckweed
and immobilized microalgae. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2012, 6, 6066–6074. [CrossRef]
48. Huang, J.-C.; Suárez, M.C.; Yang, S.I.; Lin, Z.-Q.; Terry, N. Development of a Constructed Wetland Water Treatment System for
Selenium Removal: Incorporation of an Algal Treatment Component. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 10518–10525. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
49. Lim, P.E.; Tay, M.G.; Mak, K.Y.; Mohamed, N. The effect of heavy metals on nitrogen and oxygen demand removal in constructed
wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 301, 13–21. [CrossRef]
50. Zhi, W.; Yuan, L.; Ji, G.; He, C. Enhanced Long-Term Nitrogen Removal and Its Quantitative Molecular Mechanism in Tidal Flow
Constructed Wetlands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 4575–4583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Schmidt, I.; Sliekers, O.; Schmid, M.; Cirpus, I.; Strous, M.; Bock, E.; Kuenen, J.G.; Jetten, M.S.M. Aerobic and anaerobic ammonia
oxidizing bacteria – competitors or natural partners? FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2002, 39, 175–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Saeed, T.; Sun, G. Kinetic modelling of nitrogen and organics removal in vertical and horizontal flow wetlands. Water Res. 2011,
45, 3137–3152. [CrossRef]
53. Ong, S.-A.; Uchiyama, K.; Inadama, D.; Ishida, Y.; Yamagiwa, K. Performance evaluation of laboratory scale up-flow constructed
wetlands with different designs and emergent plants. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 7239–7244. [CrossRef]
54. Lavrova, S.; Koumanova, B. Influence of recirculation in a lab-scale vertical flow constructed wetland on the treatment efficiency
of landfill leachate. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 1756–1761. [CrossRef]
55. Tee, H.-C.; Lim, P.-E.; Seng, C.-E.; Nawi, M.-A.M. Newly developed baffled subsurface-flow constructed wetland for the
enhancement of nitrogen removal. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 104, 235–242. [CrossRef]
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 25 of 27

56. Kumar, S.; Dutta, V. Efficiency of Constructed Wetland Microcosms (CWMs) for the Treatment of Domestic Wastewater Using
Aquatic Macrophytes. In Environmental Biotechnology: For Sustainable Future; Sobti, R.C., Arora, N.K., Kothari, R., Eds.; Springer:
Singapore, 2019; pp. 287–307.
57. Rezania, S.; Kamyab, H.; Rupani, P.F.; Park, J.; Nawrot, N.; Wojciechowska, E.; Yadav, K.K.; Ghahroud, M.L.; Mohammadi, A.A.;
Thirugnana, S.T.; et al. Recent advances on the removal of phosphorus in aquatic plant-based systems. Environ. Technol. Innov.
2021, 24, 101933. [CrossRef]
58. Liu, M.; Li, X.; He, Y.; Li, H. Aquatic toxicity of heavy metal-containing wastewater effluent treated using vertical flow constructed
wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138616. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Zhang, C.; Yu, Z.; Zeng, G.; Jiang, M.; Yang, Z.; Cui, F.; Zhu, M.; Shen, L.; Hu, L. Effects of sediment geochemical properties on
heavy metal bioavailability. Environ. Int. 2014, 73, 270–281. [CrossRef]
60. Lesage, E.; Mundia, C.; Rousseau, D.P.L.; Van De Moortel, A.M.K.; Du Laing, G.; Meers, E.; Tack, F.M.G.; De Pauw, N.; Verloo,
M.G. Sorption of Co, Cu, Ni and Zn from industrial effluents by the submerged aquatic macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum L.
Ecol. Eng. 2007, 30, 320–325. [CrossRef]
61. Removal of Metals in Constructed Wetlands: Review. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management.
Available online: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291090-025X%282008%2912%3A2%2896%29 (accessed on
21 September 2021).
62. Hadad, H.R.; Maine, M.A.; Bonetto, C.A. Macrophyte growth in a pilot-scale constructed wetland for industrial wastewater
treatment. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 1744–1753. [CrossRef]
63. Huang, Y.-C.; Rao, A.; Huang, S.-J.; Chang, C.-Y.; Drechsler, M.; Knaus, J.; Chan, J.C.C.; Raiteri, P.; Gale, J.D.; Gebauer, D.
Uncovering the Role of Bicarbonate in Calcium Carbonate Formation at Near-Neutral pH. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2021, 60,
16707–16713. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Stoltz, E.; Greger, M. Influences of wetland plants on weathered acidic mine tailings. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 144, 689–694.
[CrossRef]
65. Calheiros, C.S.C.; Rangel, A.O.S.S.; Castro, P.M.L. Constructed wetland systems vegetated with different plants applied to the
treatment of tannery wastewater. Water Res. 2007, 41, 1790–1798. [CrossRef]
66. Stefanakis, A.; Akratos, C.S.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands—Eco-Engineering Systems for Wastewater and Sludge
Treatment; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; p. 392.
67. Stefanakis, A.I.; Prigent, S.; Breuer, R. Integrated Produced Water Management in a Desert Oilfield Using Wetland Technology
and Innovative Reuse Practices. In Constructed Wetlands for Industrial Wastewater Treatment; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2018; pp. 23–42.
68. Biological Treatment of Petrochemical Wastewater. Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/62888 (accessed on
22 September 2021).
69. Stefanakis, A.; Akratos, C.S.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Chapter 3—VFCW Types. In Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands; Stefanakis, A.,
Akratos, C.S., Tsihrintzis, V.A., Eds.; Elsevier: Boston, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 27–38.
70. Jain, M.; Majumder, A.; Ghosal, P.S.; Gupta, A.K. A review on treatment of petroleum refinery and petrochemical plant wastewater:
A special emphasis on constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 272, 111057. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Mustapha, H.I. Treatment of Petroleum Refinery Wastewater with Constructed Wetlands; CRC Press: London, UK, 2018; ISBN
978-0-429-45092-1.
72. Saien, J.; Shahrezaei, F. Organic Pollutants Removal from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater with Nanotitania Photocatalyst and UV
Light Emission. Int. J. Photoenergy 2012, 2012, e703074. [CrossRef]
73. Khan, S.; Afzal, M.; Iqbal, S.; Khan, Q.M. Plant-bacteria partnerships for the remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils.
Chemosphere 2013, 90, 1317–1332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Qasaimeh, A.; AlSharie, H.; Masoud, T. A Review on Constructed Wetlands Components and Heavy Metal Removal from
Wastewater. J. Environ. Prot. 2015, 6, 710–718. [CrossRef]
75. Shahin, S.A.; Mossad, M.; Fouad, M. Evaluation of copper removal efficiency using water treatment sludge. Water Sci. Eng. 2019,
12, 37–44. [CrossRef]
76. Haberl, H.; Wackernagel, M.; Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.-H.; Monfreda, C. Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net
primary production: A comparison. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 279–288. [CrossRef]
77. Aslam, M.M.; Malik, M.; Baig, M.A.; Qazi, I.A.; Iqbal, J. Treatment performances of compost-based and gravel-based vertical flow
wetlands operated identically for refinery wastewater treatment in Pakistan. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 30, 34–42. [CrossRef]
78. Tony, M.A.; Purcell, P.J.; Zhao, Y. Oil refinery wastewater treatment using physicochemical, Fenton and Photo-Fenton oxidation
processes. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2012, 47, 435–440. [CrossRef]
79. Carvalho, P.N.; Basto, M.C.P.; Almeida, C.M.R.; Brix, H. A review of plant-pharmaceutical interactions: From uptake and effects
in crop plants to phytoremediation in constructed wetlands. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 11729–11763. [CrossRef]
80. Verlicchi, P.; Zambello, E. How efficient are constructed wetlands in removing pharmaceuticals from untreated and treated urban
wastewaters? A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 470–471, 1281–1306. [CrossRef]
81. Ferreira, A.R.; Ribeiro, A.; Couto, N. Remediation of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in Constructed
Wetlands: Applicability and New Perspectives. In Phytoremediation: Management of Environmental Contaminants; Ansari, A.A., Gill,
S.S., Lanza, G.R., Newman, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 5, pp. 277–292.
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 26 of 27

82. Zhang, D.Q.; Hua, T.; Gersberg, R.M.; Zhu, J.; Ng, W.J.; Tan, S.K. Carbamazepine and naproxen: Fate in wetland mesocosms
planted with Scirpus validus. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 14–21. [CrossRef]
83. Papaevangelou, V.A.; Gikas, G.D.; Tsihrintzis, V.A.; Antonopoulou, M.; Konstantinou, I.K. Removal of Endocrine Disrupting
Chemicals in HSF and VF pilot-scale constructed wetlands. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 294, 146–156. [CrossRef]
84. Wojciechowska, E. Removal of persistent organic pollutants from landfill leachates treated in three constructed wetland systems.
Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68, 1164–1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Polińska, W.; Kotowska, U.; Kiejza, D.; Karpińska, J. Insights into the Use of Phytoremediation Processes for the Removal of
Organic Micropollutants from Water and Wastewater; A Review. Water 2021, 13, 2065. [CrossRef]
86. Nan, X.; Lavrnić, S.; Toscano, A. Potential of constructed wetland treatment systems for agricultural wastewater reuse under the
EU framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 275, 111219. [CrossRef]
87. Wang, M.; Zhang, D.; Dong, J.; Tan, S.K. Application of constructed wetlands for treating agricultural runoff and agro-industrial
wastewater: A review. Hydrobiologia 2018, 805, 1–31. [CrossRef]
88. Cronk, J.K. Constructed wetlands to treat wastewater from dairy and swine operations: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1996,
58, 97–114. [CrossRef]
89. Ignatowicz, K. Removal of Pesticides from Wastewater by the Use of Constructed Wetlands. J. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 21, 219–223.
[CrossRef]
90. Papaevangelou, V.A.; Gikas, G.D.; Vryzas, Z.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Treatment of agricultural equipment rinsing water containing a
fungicide in pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 101, 193–200. [CrossRef]
91. Gikas, G.D.; Pérez-Villanueva, M.E.; Tsioras, M.; Alexoudis, C.; Pérez-Rojas, G.; Masís-Mora, M.; Lizano-Fallas, V.; Rodríguez-
Rodríguez, C.E.; Vryzas, Z.; Tsihrintzis, V.A. Low-cost approaches for the removal of terbuthylazine from agricultural wastewater:
Constructed wetlands and biopurification system. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 335, 647–656. [CrossRef]
92. Parlakidis, P.; Mavropoulos, T.; Vryzas, Z.; Gikas, G.D. Fluopyram removal from agricultural equipment rinsing water using HSF
pilot-scale constructed wetlands. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 1–13. [CrossRef]
93. Pat-Espadas, A.M.; Portales, R.L.; Amabilis-Sosa, L.E.; Gómez, G.; Vidal, G. Review of Constructed Wetlands for Acid Mine
Drainage Treatment. Water 2018, 10, 1685. [CrossRef]
94. Kumar, R.; Sharma, P.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Evidence of microplastics in wetlands: Extraction and quantification in Freshwater
and coastal ecosystems. J. Water Process. Eng. 2021, 40, 101966. [CrossRef]
95. Horton, A.A.; Walton, A.; Spurgeon, D.J.; Lahive, E.; Svendsen, C. Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments:
Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586,
127–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96. Duis, K.; Coors, A. Microplastics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment: Sources (with a specific focus on personal care
products), fate and effects. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2016, 28, 1–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. Helcoski, R.; Yonkos, L.T.; Sanchez, A.; Baldwin, A.H. Wetland soil microplastics are negatively related to vegetation cover and
stem density. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 256, 113391. [CrossRef]
98. Chen, Y.; Li, T.; Hu, H.; Ao, H.; Xiong, X.; Shi, H.; Wu, C. Transport and fate of microplastics in constructed wetlands: A
microcosm study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 415, 125615. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Wang, Q.; Hernández-Crespo, C.; Santoni, M.; Van Hulle, S.; Rousseau, D.P.L. Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands
as tertiary treatment: Can they be an efficient barrier for microplastics pollution? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 721, 137785. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
100. Zhou, X.; Zhao, Y.; Pang, G.; Jia, X.; Song, Y.; Guo, A.; Wang, A.; Zhang, S.; Ji, M. Microplastic abundance, characteristics and
removal in large-scale multi-stage constructed wetlands for effluent polishing in northern China. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 430, 132752.
[CrossRef]
101. Zou, Y.; Ye, C.; Pan, Y. Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent: A case
study of Guangzhou, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 11572–11585. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
102. Long, Z.; Pan, Z.; Wang, W.; Ren, J.; Yu, X.; Lin, L.; Lin, H.; Chen, H.; Jin, X. Microplastic abundance, characteristics, and removal
in wastewater treatment plants in a coastal city of China. Water Res. 2019, 155, 255–265. [CrossRef]
103. Mateos-Cárdenas, A.; van Pelt, F.N.A.M.; O’Halloran, J.; Jansen, M.A.K. Adsorption, uptake and toxicity of micro- and nanoplas-
tics: Effects on terrestrial plants and aquatic macrophytes. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 284, 117183. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, K.; Yang, R.; Li, R.; Li, Y. Characterization, source, and retention of microplastic in sandy beaches and
mangrove wetlands of the Qinzhou Bay, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 136, 401–406. [CrossRef]
105. Nor, N.H.M.; Obbard, J.P. Microplastics in Singapore’s coastal mangrove ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 79, 278–283.
[CrossRef]
106. Li, R.; Yu, L.; Chai, M.; Wu, H.; Zhu, X. The distribution, characteristics and ecological risks of microplastics in the mangroves of
Southern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 708, 135025. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
107. Yin, L.; Wen, X.; Huang, D.; Zeng, G.; Deng, R.; Liu, R.; Zhou, Z.; Tao, J.; Xiao, R.; Pan, H. Microplastics retention by reeds in
freshwater environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Lozano, Y.M.; Rillig, M.C. Effects of Microplastic Fibers and Drought on Plant Communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54,
6166–6173. [CrossRef]
Processes 2021, 9, 1917 27 of 27

109. Pflugmacher, S.; Sulek, A.; Mader, H.; Heo, J.; Noh, J.H.; Penttinen, O.-P.; Kim, Y.; Kim, S.; Esterhuizen, M. The Influence of New
and Artificial Aged Microplastic and Leachates on the Germination of Lepidium sativum L. Plants 2020, 9, 339. [CrossRef]
110. Mohammad, B.T.; Al Daghistani, H.I.; Jaouani, A.; Abdel-Latif, S.; Kennes, C. Isolation and Characterization of Thermophilic
Bacteria from Jordanian Hot Springs: Bacillus licheniformis and Thermomonas hydrothermalis Isolates as Potential Producers of
Thermostable Enzymes. Int. J. Microbiol. 2017, 2017, e6943952. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. Stefanakis, A.I. Constructed Wetlands for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment in Hot and Arid Climates: Opportunities, Challenges
and Case Studies in the Middle East. Water 2020, 12, 1665. [CrossRef]
112. Rani, M.U.; Appaiah, A. Optimization of culture conditions for bacterial cellulose production from Gluconacetobacter hansenii
UAC09. Ann. Microbiol. 2011, 61, 781–787. [CrossRef]
113. Tang, M.; Zhang, F.; Yao, S.; Liu, Y.; Chen, J. Application ofPseudomonas flavaWD-3 for sewage treatment in constructed wetland
in winter. Environ. Technol. 2014, 36, 1205–1211. [CrossRef]
114. Chen, J.; Xu, J.; Zhang, S.; Liu, F.; Peng, J.; Peng, Y.; Wu, J. Nitrogen removal characteristics of a novel heterotrophic nitrification
and aerobic denitrification bacteria, Alcaligenes faecalis strain WT14. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 282, 111961. [CrossRef]
115. Wang, P.; Zhang, H.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, D.; Zou, X.; Zhu, Z.; Jeelani, N.; Leng, X.; An, S. A Hardy Plant Facilitates Nitrogen Removal
via Microbial Communities in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands in Winter. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 33600. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
116. Wang, L.; Pang, Q.; Peng, F.; Zhang, A.; Zhou, Y.; Lian, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, F.; Zhu, Y.; Ding, C.; et al. Response Characteristics of
Nitrifying Bacteria and Archaea Community Involved in Nitrogen Removal and Bioelectricity Generation in Integrated Tidal
Flow Constructed Wetland-Microbial Fuel Cell. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1385. [CrossRef]
117. Locatelli, A.; Spor, A.; Jolivet, C.; Piveteau, P.; Hartmann, A. Biotic and Abiotic Soil Properties Influence Survival of Listeria
monocytogenes in Soil. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e75969. [CrossRef]
118. Maldonado, L.A.; Quintana, E.T. Unexpected Properties of Micromonosporae from Marine Origin. Adv. Microbiol. 2015, 05,
452–456. [CrossRef]
119. McKenney, P.T.; Driks, A.; Eichenberger, P. The Bacillus subtilis endospore: Assembly and functions of the multilayered coat. Nat.
Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 33–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
120. Gupta, M.; Gupta, S. An Overview of Selenium Uptake, Metabolism, and Toxicity in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 7, 2074.
[CrossRef]
121. Wang, J.; Liu, X.; Zhang, X.; Liang, X.; Zhang, W. Growth Response and Phytoremediation Ability of Reed for Diesel Contaminant.
Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 8, 68–74. [CrossRef]
122. Zhang, B.Y.; Zheng, J.S.; Sharp, R.G. Phytoremediation in Engineered Wetlands: Mechanisms and Applications. Procedia Environ.
Sci. 2010, 2, 1315–1325. [CrossRef]
123. Moshiri, G.A. Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020.
124. Shelef, O.; Gross, A.; Rachmilevitch, S. Role of Plants in a Constructed Wetland: Current and New Perspectives. Water 2013, 5,
405–419. [CrossRef]
125. Zhang, C.-B.; Liu, W.-L.; Wang, J.; Ge, Y.; Ge, Y.; Chang, S.X.; Chang, J. Effects of monocot and dicot types and species richness in
mesocosm constructed wetlands on removal of pollutants from wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 10260–10265. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
126. Vymazal, J.; Březinová, T. Accumulation of heavy metals in aboveground biomass of Phragmites australis in horizontal flow
constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 290, 232–242. [CrossRef]
127. Gajewska, M.; Skrzypiec, K. Kinetics of nitrogen removal processes in constructed wetlands. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 26, 1. [CrossRef]
128. Allen, E.W. Process water treatment in Canada’s oil sands industry: I. Target pollutants and treatment objectives. J. Environ. Eng.
Sci. 2008, 7, 123–138. [CrossRef]
129. Avellán, T.; Gremillion, P. Constructed wetlands for resource recovery in developing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019,
99, 42–57. [CrossRef]
130. Zhi, W.; Ji, G. Constructed wetlands, 1991–2011: A review of research development, current trends, and future directions. Sci.
Total Environ. 2012, 441, 19–27. [CrossRef]
131. Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, L.; Wang, W.; Doherty, L.; Tang, C.; Ren, B.; Zhao, J. Constructed wetland integrated microbial fuel cell
system: Looking back, moving forward. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 471–477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Srivastava, P.; Yadav, A.K.; Mishra, B.K. The effects of microbial fuel cell integration into constructed wetland on the performance
of constructed wetland. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 195, 223–230. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133. Doherty, L.; Zhao, X.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, W. The effects of electrode spacing and flow direction on the performance of microbial fuel
cell-constructed wetland. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 79, 8–14. [CrossRef]