Macrophytes no 40 july 2012 proof


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Macrophytes no 40 july 2012 proof

  1. 1. Specialist Group onUse of Macrophytes in Water Pollution ControlNewsletter No. 40July 2012 Edited by: Dr Suwasa Kantawanichkul Department of Environmental Engineering Faculty of Engineering Chiang Mai University Chiang Mai 50200 Thailand Email: organisation Chair: Dr Jan Vymazal ( Secretary: Dr Suwasa Kantawanichkul ( Coordinators ASIA: Dr Zhai Jun (; Dr Suwasa Kantwanichkul ( AUSTRALIA: Dr Margaret Greenway ( NEW ZEALAND: Dr Chris C Tanner ( EUROPE: Dr Jan Vymazal ( Professor Reimund Harberl ( Dr Guenter Langergraber ( Professor Brian Shutes ( Dr Fabio Masi ( Mr Heibert Rustige ( MIDDLE EAST: Professor Michal Green ( Dr Tom Headley  NORTH AMERICA: Dr Otto Stein ( SOUTH AMERICA: Dr Gabriela Dotro ( AFRICA Professor Jamidu H.Y.Katima ( Dr Akintunde Babatunde ( This is not a journal, but a Newsletter issued by the IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in WaterPollution Control. Statements made in this Newsletter do not necessarily represent the views of the Specialist Group or thoseof the IWA. The use of information supplied in the Newsletter is at the sole risk of the user, as the Specialist Group and theIWA do not accept any responsibility or liability.____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 1
  2. 2. CONTENTSMessage from the Chair…………………………..............…………………………………………3Interviewing Hans BrixFrank van Dien……………………………………………….....………………………………………4Balancing wetland clogging management and whole-life costs at a UK water utilityG. Dotro, M. Jones, E. Butterworth and B. Jefferson……………………………………………..8New cooperation between BOKU and Ecole de Mines de Nantes on modelling of integratedsludge and wastewater treatment wetlandsGuenter Langergraber and Florent Chazarenc…………………………………………………..12Constructed wetlands and land reclamation in PalestineFabio Masi…………………………………………………………………………………………… 15National urban wetland parks of ChinaJun Zhai and Xi Lu……………………………………………………………………………………17Subsurface flow constructed wetlands as wildlife habitat: a case study in Dar es Salaam,TanzaniaAnne H. Outwater…………………….………………………………………………………………20Announcement: Sustainable Sanitation Practice journal…………………………………………25Updates on IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition, Busan, Korea,16–21 September 2012……………………………………….……………………………………… 2610th IWA Leading Edge Conference on Water and Waste Water Technologies, Bordeaux,France, 3–6 June, 2013……………………………………….……………………………………… 27The IWA Water Wiki!……………………………………….……………………………………… 28New from IWA Publishing………………………………………………………………………… 30___________________________________________________________________________2 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  3. 3. Message from the Chair Dear Group members, I would like to draw your attention to the election of Group Chair and Secretary. As you may know during the conference in India in 2008 we agreed that these two positions should be elected for four years. Therefore, the current officers Jan and Suwasa will finish their term during the conference in Perth in November 2012. The time is passing by and it is time to proceed with the election. The election procedure is described below and we would greatly appreciate if you can participate in the election. Please do not rely on other people and cast your vote. Election of officers At this point we would like to call for candidates for both positions. The procedure is as follows: 1. Each member of the Specialist Group (current active IWA membership mandatory) can propose a candidate for both positions. The proposal should include up to one page Curriculum Vitae of the candidate and this proposal should be supported by another two members of the Group (active IWA membership mandatory). The proposal should include a written statement of the nominee that he/she agrees with the nomination. 2. Deadline for proposals: August 31, 2012. 3. Proposals should be sent to both Jan ( and Suwasa ( 3. The Chair and Secretary will prepare ballots for both positions and the ballots will be sent out to all members by September 15, 2012. The ballots should be returned to Jan and Suwasa. 4. Deadline for voting: November 15, 2012. 5. The results will be announced during the Group meeting at the conference in Perth and the results will be sent to all Group members after the conference. Call for the Group conference in 2014 So far we have not received any proposals for the 2014 conference. The agreed policy is that Institutions (countries) which are willing to host the conference should send the preliminary proposal to the Chair and Secretary by the end of June. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if the interested parties may send the proposals for the first evaluation as soon as possible. Have a great summer and see you in Perth Jan____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 3
  4. 4. Interviewing Hans BrixFrank van DienECOFYT, The NatherlandsProbably most people know you as one of the leading peoplein the Constructed Wetland world. Youve been keynotespeaker on many conferences on wetlands so surely: manypeople have seen your face. And you were involved in thePhDs of several people I know so surely: many people haveworked with you... But maybe its time for even more peopleto find out a little more about you. For starters, I wonder:Where in your life did things definitely turn in thedirection that resulted in your role in the constructedwetlands?During my PhD in the beginning of the eighties, I studiedinternal gas transport and gas-emission in the common reed –Phragmites australis. My supervisor – Prof. Hans-HenrikSchierup – had worked with primary production inPhragmites wetlands, and so we were probably the scientists in Denmark knowing most aboutPhragmites wetlands. Therefore, we were also consulted in the early eighties, when a newnatural technology called the ‘Root Zone Technique’ wasmarketed in Denmark by a small Danish company (Dansk 1955: born in Jerslev, DenmarkRodzoneteknik) that was associated to Prof. Kickuth in 1981: Master degree in Biology 1987: First paper on constructedGermany. The marketing was targeted at municipalities and wetlands publishedcounties that, because of new legislation, had to establish 1988: Establishment of IWAeffective wastewater treatment in all small villages in rural Specialist Group on the Use ofareas. The Root Zone Method was marketed as a Macrophytes in Water Pollutiondecentralised solution capable of removing everything, Control 1989: PhD in Biologyincluding nitrogen and phosphorus, with efficiencies better 2006: Promoted to full professorthan 90%. Furthermore, it was claimed that the costs of at Aarhus Universityestablishment were less than half, and the operating costs lessthan 10%, of that of more conventional treatment options.Hence, the Root Zone Method was a very attractive treatment option for local municipalities.Decision makers and engineers from the municipalities were invited by Prof. Kickuth and hisDanish representative to visit a Phragmites wetland in Othfresen, Germany, that had receiveduntreated domestic wastewater since 1974. Several tourist coaches were filled with localpoliticians and people from the technical offices of the municipalities to visit Germany, wherethey enjoyed wine and music in the Harzen area, and most importantly, watched Prof. Kickuthdrink from the effluent of the Othfresen wetland system. Once back in Denmark, nearlyeverybody was convinced about the proficiency of this new ‘natural’ technology, and duringthe following couple of years, several hundred Root Zone systems were constructed inDenmark.I was of course also very intrigued by this new fantastic technology that was based on ‘my’study plant. Therefore I started to look for scientific documentation for the functioning andperformance of Root Zone Systems. Together with Hans-Henrik Schierup, I visited severalsites and research groups in Europe working with the use of wetlands for wastewatertreatment, including the Lelystad systems in the Netherlands, Max-Planck Institute systems in___________________________________________________________________________4 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  5. 5. France, the multistage systems of Dr. Michel Radoux, Belgium, and Root Zone systems inGermany. Subsequently, I investigated in some detail the wetland system in Othfresen, fromwhich Prof. Kickuth drank the effluent to prove the extraordinary efficiency of the Root Zonemethod. And I discovered, that the ‘effluent’ water, that Prof. Kickuth drank, actually wasgroundwater drawn from deep below the wetland, with no relation to the wastewater that wasbeing loaded into the system.Although the scientific documentation for the functioning of Root Zone Systems was non-existing, we ended up with more than 200 systems being constructed in Denmark in theeighties. I started to carry out research particularly on the role of the plants in the systems inrelation to the treatment of wastewater. And in the late eighties I started to cooperate withgroups from other European countries–Paul Cooper, Raimund Haberl, Alain Lienard, amongothers–to exchange experiences.Ho, wait! Did you just say that Prof. Kickuth tricked his entire public? Didn’t any goodcome out of his wetlands? Of course I know all these names, but not this story! Can youtell a little about the results of your findings?Our studies showed, that the soil-based root-zone systems were removing TSS and BODrather efficiently (>80% removal in general), but removal of nitrogen and phosphorus waslow (20–50%) are were mostly related to the removal in sludge in the sedimentation tank andthe bed itself. The systems did not nitrify–which was a problem in many places, as there waseffluent standards for ammonium. Despite the disappointing results, municipalities continuedto build these systems for several years, because the Kickuth related company claimed, that itwould take about five years before the full performance of the system could be expected. Thereeds were supposed, during this five year period, to increase the hydraulic conductivity ofthe soils, and once the conductivity was high, the treatment performance should be as claimed.This, however, never happened. All systems were plagued with surface runoff–wastewaterbypassing the bed and going more or less directly to the effluent.Now 25 years later, many of the soil-based root-zone systems have been closed down oramended with additional technologies for nitrification. Presently, hundreds of vertical flowwetlands and evaporative willow systems are being constructed for single households in thecountryside every year.What do you prefer as a “name”: Constructed Wetland or Treatment Wetland?I do prefer Constructed Wetland for systems established for the treatment of different types ofwastewater as this is the name that has been most widely accepted in both the technical andscientific community. I realise that it maybe would be more correct to use a term related tothe function that the wetland is performing–namely ‘wastewater treatment’–rather than torefer to the fact that the wetland is constructed. However, constructed wetlands and treatmentwetlands are not exactly the same. Constructed wetlands are ‘constructed’, and hence do notinclude natural wetlands; whereas ‘treatment wetlands’ can be constructed, but can also benatural wetlands removing e.g. nutrients from surface and drainage water. In some of theolder literature the term ‘artifical wetlands’ is used, but as ‘artificial’ nowadays has anegative flavour, this term is not used anymore. In the EU expert group we used the name‘Emergent Hydrophyte Treatment Systems’–or EHTS-systems–in order to exclude systemswith submerged plants. However, the name has been a recuring discussion, and actually mostcountries and designing engineers now use their own specific terminology. The nameConstructed Wetland is widely accepted throughout the world, so let’s stick with that.I agree that we’re running towards the end of this discussion, or at least theattractiveness of it, but I liked to hear the first-hand opinion!____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 5
  6. 6. The next question that comes up is: do you see Constructed Wetlands as an ultimatesolution for waste water? And if so, in general or just occasional, i.e. when no sewersystem is available?Constructed wetlands is just one of several available wastewater treatment options that can beused as an onsite solution for wastewater management. In every site a proper selection oftreatment option should be made based on the site-specific conditions. In some cases othersolutions like soil infiltration, sand filters, technical systems or even pumping of thewastewater to a centralised facility may prove to be a more appropriate solution depending onthe specific site-conditions and treatment requirements. Several individuals–and small designcompanies–seem to be religious about the technology they are selling, and will propose aconstructed wetland system in all situations. This is a great mistake, and contributes to theCW treatment technology in general.Ha-ha, being from the small design company corner, I’ll make sure to hide for you allthe second best CW solutions I built! But sure: it is situational but some say: “At thevery much lower energy input CW’s demand, they could be considered a better optionin more cases”. I understand in your answer that you agree with that?Here’s a daring question for you! Do you think the horizontal system is superior to thevertical or is it the other way around or do we simply need them both?The question is not as straight forward as it seems. The constructed wetland technology spansa whole range of systems ranging from relatively ‘passive’ systems like horizontal subsurfaceflow systems that require very little infrastructure and control structures, over vertical flowsystems that have more infrastructure and control but requires less foot-print, to moretechnical systems amended with artificial aeration or tidal water flow. The latter are veryefficient, but resemble conventional technical systems in terms of energy usage andcomplexity of design. The roles of the plants in the systems are largest in the passive systems,while in the intensified systems the plants can probably be omitted (hence, one couldquestion if we are dealing with constructed wetlands in these cases?). I believe that every oneof these technologies has its place as a treatment option. And it will be the site-specificconditions that will dictate which treatment option, or combination of treatment options, isbest fitted to solve the wastewater management problem at the specific site.And if we take it in the greater perspective, what does our own (waste) water worldneed most at the moment?Here it is important to distinguish between developing countries and the more developedwestern world. In many developing countries, a proper disposal and cleaning of wastewater isstill lacking resulting in illness, transfer of pathogens, etc. It is urgent that these regions getbetter wastewater management systems and access to pure water. In the longer term, reuse ofthe treated wastewater must be implemented. In the developed world, removal of nutrientsfrom the wastewater is still an urgent issue in many areas. In the long term, a moresustainable use of resources must be implemented, which will involve a reuse of nutrientsfrom the wastewater as well as reuse of treated effluent water.Is there, to your knowledge, a Constructed Wetland that is an example for us all?There are a few constructed wetland systems that are excellent examples of how constructedwetlands can be used. I would like here to mention ‘the Flower and the Butterfly Wetland’that was established at the tourist island Koh Phi Phi in Thailand after the tsunami in 2004.The treatment facility is designed to resemble a butterfly sitting on a flower with a symbolicreference to the butterfly shaped contour of Koh Phi Phi. The wetland system is designed as a___________________________________________________________________________6 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  7. 7. recovery based closed-loop system where wastewater is collected, treated and reused in anintegrated system. Pumps are powered by solar panels, and the wetland is planted withornamental flowers in a park-like environment that can be used by the people for recreation.This is a case where the concept behind the system as well as the system itself makes sense. Overview picture of the Flower and the Butterfly wastewater management system at Koh Phi Phi in October 2006 when the system was put in operation.Unfortunately, there has been a lot of problems with the system mainly because no key-person or key-authority has taken responsibility for managing the system. But the concept–and the system itself–is a showcase for how constructed wetlands can be fitted into the localcontext and provide the basis for appropriate wastewater management. Information about theproject can be found in the book authored by Laugesen, Fryd, Koottatep and Brix entitled“Sustainable Wastewater Management in Developing Countries” and published by ASCEPress in 2010, and in a paper in Ecological Engineering 37(5): 729–735 published in 2011.Oh yes, I do agree that this is a special wetland! I hope to visit it once!The last question that I have for you is: who would you like to be interviewed the nexttime?I would suggest that your next interviewee should be Bob Kadlec whom I consider one of thebiggest capacities within the constructed wetland science. With his theoretical and practicalengineering background, Bob has managed to place the constructed wetland technology onthe agenda as an attractive alternative option to more conventional technologies for treatingmany kinds of wastewater. His textbook on Treatment Wetlands is the constructed wetland‘bible’ for academics as well as practitioners.These are very solid reasons to ask him to be next! Thank you very much Hans, for yourcontribution!____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 7
  8. 8. Balancing wetland clogging management and whole-life costs at a UK water utilityG Dotro1,2, M Jones2, E Butterworth1,2 and B Jefferson11 School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Building 39, Cranfield, BedfordshireMK43 0AL, UK. (E-mail: Waste water research and development, Severn Trent Water, 2 St John’s Street, Coventry,CV1 2LZ, UKINTRODUCTIONHorizontal flow wetlands have been successfully used in the UK for the past 20 years forsewage treatment. Severn Trent Water (ST) alone has an asset base of 633 wetlands, withmore than 80% used for tertiary or combined tertiary and storm overflow treatment. The ageof the systems can range from 18- 20 years to a few months old, with the technology has beenthe polishing step of the standard flow sheet for small sewage treatment works serving lessthan 2,000 p.e. since the 1990s (Green and Upton 1995).Treatment wetlands have been extensively researched worldwide, with the majority ofoperations being for treatment of domestic wastewaters but also agricultural runoff andindustrial wastewaters (IWA 2000, Kadlec and Wallace 2009). The main arguments for thetechnology are related to low capital and operational costs when compared againstconventional treatment. To date, whilst numerous wetlands have been successfully installedfor tertiary treatment, limited research has been published on the actual business case fortertiary treatment wetlands and their associated sizing criteria.Subsurface flow systems, where the water level is below the gravel/media layer, have beenreported to suffer from clogging of the bed matrix as they age and accumulate solids, limitingthe hydraulic residence time and associated treatment (Knowles et al. 2011). Severalstrategies have been proposed throughout the years to manage this operational problem,including preventative (e.g., best management practices) and restorative (e.g., completerefurbishment) strategies (Nivala et al. 2011).The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of sizing decisions in terms of theeconomic viability of the technology, using Severn Trent Water as an example. To put this incontext, the use and management of wetlands in Severn Trent was reviewed, including thehistoric performance from selected sites. Whole life cost analysis was used to compareundersized wetlands which require frequent intervention against conventional treatmenttechnologies, as well as a conservative sizing approach to reduce intervention requirements.MATERIALS AND METHODSTertiary treatment wetlands in ST can be used for two purposes, i.e., tertiary-only orcombined tertiary and sewer overflows treatment (Figure 1). Where a separate storm route ispresent, this can be either a dedicated “storm” wetland or a storm storage tank with grosssolids entrapment provided by CopaSacs®.___________________________________________________________________________8 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  9. 9. Figure 1. Flowsheets for wetlands evaluated in this study; top: combined tertiary and sewageoverflow treatment; bottom: tertiary treatment only with separate storm route.Treatment performance analysisThe records from 4 sites where influent and effluent wetland water quality was available wereused for calculating ninety-five percentile effluent values and illustrate process resilienceoffered by treatment wetlands. In this context, resilience is described as the ability of atreatment unit to produce consistent effluent quality under varying influent characteristics.The resilience curve is generated by plotting effluent concentrations against percentiledistributions of the data. For percentile analysis, a minimum of 30 records per wastewaterstream were used. Variances were compared using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)at the 0.05 level of significance.Economic assessment analysisFour sewage work scenarios were considered: 300 pe and 600 pe, each either treating 3 timesthe dry weather flow (3DWF) or 6 DWF. Sizing and costing calculations were performedusing the cost curves developed by ST based on the last 5 years of capital investment andoperational expenditure by the company. The cost of wetland refurbishment corresponded tocurrent ST contracted services cost by two specialised suppliers. Average wetland life wascalculated by dividing the current wetland asset base and rate of refurbishment based on2007–2011.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONWetland performanceTertiary treatment quality was evaluated for effluent suspended solids (Figure 2) and effluent5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5; data not shown). The benefits of employingwetlands as tertiary treatment is illustrated by the significantly higher (p<0.05) effluentvalues observed at the inlet of the systems for suspended solids, corresponding to secondaryeffluent that would otherwise be discharged onto water bodies at sub-standard levels.____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 9
  10. 10. Figure 2. Distribution of effluent concentrations of suspended solids at the inlet (emptymarkers) and outlet (full markers) of selected tertiary wetlands. Curves with greater slopesrepresent more resilience of the treatment.Typical ranges of hydraulic and solids loading rates in Severn Trent systems are 0.1–0.4 m/dand 7-15 gTSS/m2/d, respectively. This is about seven times higher than hydraulic loadingrates employed in other wetlands for secondary treatment (Knowles et al. 2011). Thus, it isexpected that average wetland life is shortened due to the accelerated onset of clogging.Clogging management and economic assessmentRefurbishments are triggered when clogging poses risk to in health and safety (e.g., spillsfrom the bed onto walkways), pollution (e.g., partially treated sewage overflows ontoadjacent land) or effluent quality. To address this, ST has a rolling programme to fundcontracted surveys every other year to every wetland, and the complete refurbishment oftargeted beds per year. Refurbishments consist of removing the plants from the surface,excavating the gravel media, changing the insulating liner, washing the gravel, and replacingit onto the bed. Replanting with common reeds is performed during spring–summer.Based on the current asset base and the number of refurbishments performed per year, theaverage wetland life in ST is 14.5 years. This is longer than the estimated 8 years from theUK water industry survey (UKWIR, 2011) and previously believed life expectancy within ST(Griffin et al. 2008). However, the key question was determining the breakeven point thatwould make wetland technology match the capital and operational costs of conventionaltechnologies. The analysis showed that 12 refurbishments would need to take place at smallerworks (300 pe) before sand filters begin to compete with wetlands with the current sizingcriteria (Figure 3). Notably, sizing a wetland for using the lowest loading rates in theliterature that are believe to provide clogging-free HSSF wetlands for 20–25 years, resulted ina more expensive approach to wetland use being equal to 5 to 7 refurbishments with thecurrent under-sizing approach.___________________________________________________________________________10 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  11. 11. Figure 3. Economic assessment of current wetland sizing and use approach, alternativeconventional treatment and conservative sizing approach for two example sewage works.CONCLUSIONSResults illustrate the importance of whole life costing approaches to be embedded in wetlanddesign and operation guidelines within the field of low energy treatment systems. Under-sizing of the systems has meant that wetlands need to be fully refurbished twice within theirexpected 25-year life at significant cost. The whole life cost assessment showed that thisapproach is 4 to 12 times more economic than conventional treatment alternatives forcombined tertiary and sewage overflow treatment, and 5 to 7 times lower whole life cost thana wetland correctly sized for a theoretically refurbishment-free 25 year life. Cloggingmanagement strategies are being developed to address this model, including on-site gravelwashing, routine maintenance and surveying, and planned refurbishment events based onsurvey results. The results from this work can be used to inform business decisions anddevelop best management guidelines for this application of the technology.REFERENCESGreen, M., Upton, J. 1995.Constructed reed beds: appropriate technology for small communities. Water Science and Technology 32(3), 339–348.Griffin, P., Wilson, L., Cooper, D. 2008. Changes in the use, operation and design of sub-surface flow constructed wetlands in a major UK water utility. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, 1–7 November 2008. Indore, India, 419–426.IWA 2000. Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control: Processes, Performance, Design and Operation. London, UK: IWA Publishing.Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D. 2009. Treatment Wetlands, second edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Knowles, P., Dotro, G., Nivala, J., García, J., 2011. Clogging in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands: occurrence and contributing factors. Ecological Engineering 37(2):99–112.Nivala, J., Knowles, P., Dotro, G., Garcia, J., Wallace, S. 2011. Clogging in subsurface-flow treatment wetlands: measurement, modeling and management. Water Research, 46(6): 1625–40.UKWIR, 2011. The Performance of Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Works Solutions. United Kingdom Water Industry Research (UKWIR): London, United Kingdom____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 11
  12. 12. New cooperation between BOKU and Ecole de Mines de Nantes on modelling ofintegrated sludge and wastewater treatment wetlandsGuenter LangergraberInstitute of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control, University of NaturalResources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU University), Muthgasse 18, A-1190Vienna, Austria(tel: +43-(0)1-47654-5814; fax: +43-(0)1-47654-5803; ChazarencDepartment of Energy Systems and Environment, Ecole de Mines de Nantes4, rue A. Kastler BP 20722, 44307 Nantes cedex 3, France(tel: +33 2 51 85 86 93; fax: +33 2 51 85 82 99; email: January 2012 BOKU University and Ecole de Mines de Nantes (EMN) started a 2 yearcooperation project entitled “Development of a numerical model for an integrated sludge andwastewater treatment wetland”. The cooperation is granted within the bilateral AMADÉEprogramme which is funded by ÖAD (Austrian agency for international mobility andcooperation in education, science and research) in Austria and Égide (Service Recherche etEntreprises Pôle gestion PHC) in France.The objective of the project is to understand the relevant mechanisms and processes inintegrated sludge and wastewater treatment wetlands and wetlands for treating combinedsewer overflow as a basis for development of a numerical model for these processes. Inparticular it is aimed to develop the basis for models to predict 1) the build-up of the sludgelayer and 2) the transport and deposition of suspended particulate matter. The main outcomeof the project should be a proposal for a larger scale research project.The first meeting of the teams was held from 22 to 25 May 2012 at EMN in Nantes. Besidespresenting the work of the participating teams two field visits were scheduled: 1) the 2-stage“French style” constructed wetland treating raw wastewater in Monnières and which isdesigned for 500 person equivalent and 2) the natural wetland in Guérande which is utilizedfor production of sea salt. The next meeting is planned to be held in Vienna in July 2012.It is also worth to mention that the next and 5th international WETPOL symposium “WetlandPollutants Dynamic and Control–WETPOL 2013” will be held in Nantes organized by Ecoledes Mines de Nantes in October 2013. For its last edition this conference was jointlyorganized with the Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS). It brought together more than 500researchers, scientists, regulators, decision-makers and other professionals from around theworld who shared their knowledge on a variety of topics pertaining to natural and constructedwetlands. More information will be available soon at IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  13. 13. Figure 1: Participants of the meeting at Ecole de Mines de Nantes (from left to right):Cristian Barca (EMN), Raimund Haberl (BOKU), Christina Fuchsluger (BOKU), AlexanderPressl (BOKU), Günter Langergraber (BOKU), Stéphane Prigent (EMN) + FlorentChazarenc (taking picture). Figure 2: Visiting the 2-stage “French style” CW treating raw wastewater in Monnières____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 13
  14. 14. Figure 3: Natural wetland in Guérande used for production of sea salt.___________________________________________________________________________14 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  15. 15. Constructed wetlands and land reclamation in PalestineFabio MasiIRIDRA Srl, Via La Marmora, 51, Florence, Italyfmasi@iridra.comSince 2008 some NGOs operating in the West Bank and in Gaza, started introducing theConstructed Wetland (CW) technology in Palestine, with the main aim of creating a newalternative water source for reducing the water stress typical for that area in the recent yearsand for enhancing the local economy by the increase of the breeding capacity in herdersvillages or of the agricultural productivity (mainly focusing on olive trees cultivations); mostof the projects have been financed by international organizations, like FAO, EC ECHO–FoodSecurity, Foundations, Italian Cooperation, etc.Small CWs for greywater treatment and fodder production in herders villages (HebronGovernorate) - Oxfam ItaliaThe CW systems in some cases are treating mixed wastewater from small groups of houses,in some others greywater only, considering anyway a pro capite consumption ranging from 9to 15 litres per day. The final effluent is then used to drop-irrigate arid pieces of land forfodder production (several kinds of bushes with low water need), because the local economyis mainly based on goats breeding and the water scarcity is one of the most important limitingfactors for its improvement. The CW system are designed in order to minimize the loss ofwater by evapotranspiration and for providing the easiest maintenance, even because thesystems will by managed directly by the village councils, with direct involvement of thecommunity members. Ramadin VF CW system for greywater reuse. Najada HF CW system for a primary school mixed wastewater reuse; on the right the irrigated bushes for fodder production.____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 15
  16. 16. Gaza HF CW system–in the Gaza strip about 10 HF CW systems for single houses and for a school compound are already in operation; also in this case the treated wastewater is completely reused for fertirrigation.Multistage CWs for small towns wastewater treatment and reuse for olive trees irrigation Sarra’s VF CW+HF CW +Pond system design (3500 p.e.) The project “Making wastewater an asset: increasing agricultural production introducing irrigation by non-conventional water sources” is managed by the NGOs GVC, PHG and UAWC and is financed by the EU - DCI-FOOD/2010/254-819. The two villages of Hajja and Sarra, both near Nablus, are going to get in operation the two biggest CW systems for secondary wastewater treatment in the West Bank. While the works started in Hajja in February 2012, Sarra’s CWTP realization will be probably tendered in July–August 2012.All these treatment plants will be monitored, even though rarely with purely scientificapproaches, in order to assess the effective performances and the benefits obtained by thecreation of new alternative sources of water and nutrients on the local economies; all theprojects have been thought for the highest replication choosing representative situations thatare largely diffused in the Palestinian Territories. There is in fact still a considerable numberof small villages as also small towns, with few thousands of inhabitants in each one, both inthe West Bank and in Gaza, that are discharging in the environment untreated sewage,loosing in this way a very important amount of a primary resource as water as also ofnutrients. The first experiences are showing promising good results and a good acceptance ofthe CW technique from the served population and the local authorities and these factorstogether could ensure a spread diffusion of this kind of approach in the next years.___________________________________________________________________________16 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  17. 17. National urban wetland parks of ChinaJun Zhai and Xi LuCollege of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering,Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, P. R., alexandra_lucy@qq.comSince the early 1970s, owing to the rapid growth of population and people’s undue pursuit ofeconomic development, many natural wetlands have been excessively occupied by urbanexpansion, which, unfortunately, has caused serious deterioration of natural environment(especially aquatic environment), sharp decrease in biodiversity and many other severeconsequences in the surrounding area. Gradually, Chinese government and the public beganto recognize the important role of wetland in environmental protection as climate control,biodiversity protection, especially water purification. By the end of 2010s, many actions havebeen taken to protect natural wetlands. One of the many effective ways is the establishmentof National Urban Wetland Parks of China (NUWPs).NUWPs are established on the protection of some natural wetlands which are listed in theurban green space system planning, for the purpose of environmental protection, biodiversityprotection, popularization of science, recreation and relaxation.NUWPs have the following characteristics to distinguish them:  People can enjoy beautiful scenery and have access to a large variety of animals and botany.  Programs about popularization of science can be conducted to spread the knowledge of science and humanities. NUWP has both cultural and scientific value, deserving highly protection.  NUWPs are parks adapted from natural wetlands listed in the urban green space system, covering more than 35 ha of land.  Wetlands of NUWPs are demonstrational and influential.National urban wetland parks (NUWPs) are ratified by Ministry of Housing and Urban-RuralDevelopment. There have been 41 NUWPs in China to date (as at 20 December 2010), aslisted in Table 1.____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 17
  18. 18. Table 1. List of National urban wetland parks in ChinaProvince Name of the National urban Land area Main public good of the wetland wetland Park (ha.)Beijing Cuihu National Urban 156.7 Biodiversity, science education Wetland Park, HaidianHeibei Nanhu National Urban 800 Subterranean water utilization, Wetland Park, Tangshan recycled water treatmentHeibei Jumayuan National Urban 600 Supply water for North China, Wetland Park, Laiyuan, improve the water quality of Juma Baoding riverShanxi Changzhi National Urban 740 Climate control, water filtration and Wetland Park, Changzhi purificationLiaoning Lianhuahu National Urban 484 Water purification, science Wetland Park, Tieling popularization, sightseeingJilin Nanhu National Urban 145 Habitat for birds and botany, tourism, Wetland Park, Zhenlai biodiversity protectionHeilongjiang Yuting National Urban 224.62 Science education and recreation Wetland Park, NeheHeilongjiang Qunli National Urban 33 Environmental restoration Wetland Park, HarbinJiangsu Changguangxi National 625 Water purification, vegetation Urban Wetland Park, WuxiJiangsu Shanghu National Urban 2300 Water reserve, climate control, Wetland Park, Changshu pollutant degradationJiangsu Shajiabang National Urban 266.7 Pollution-free aquatic product, bird Wetland Park, Changshu resourceJiangsu Lushuiwan National Urban 1500 Freshwater aquiculture Wetland Park, NanjingJiangsu Kunshan Urban Ecopark 210 Biodiversity protection and tourismJiangsu Guchenghu National Urban 6882 Environmental protection, science Wetland Park, Gaochun, education, recreation NanjingZhejiang Xixi National Urban Wetland 1008 Ecosystem protection, water Park, Hangzhou purification and reserveZhejiang Jinghu National Urban 1600 Vegetation, bird reserve and Wetland Park, Shaoxing sightseeingZhejiang Sanjiang National Urban 481 Species gene banks, cereal reserve, National Wetland Park, water reserve and reduce flood LinhaiZhejiang Jianyanghu National Urban 215.3 Environmental protection, agriculture Wetland Park, Taizhou production, recreationAnhui Nanhu National Urban 370 Environmental and biodiversity Wetland Park, Huaibei protectionAnhui Shijianhu National Urban 1002 Improve self-cleaning capacity, Wetland Park, Huainan impurity filtration and sedimentationFujian Xinglinwan National Urban No data Filtration and sedimentation Wetland Park, Xiamen___________________________________________________________________________18 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  19. 19. Jiangxi Kongmujiang National Urban 1563.9 Biodiversity protection, sightseeing Wetland Park, XinyuShandong Sanggouwan National Urban 1391 Water purification, biodiversity Wetland Park, RongchengShandong Mingyuehu National Urban 70.9 Environmental protection, sightseeing Wetland Park, DongyingShandong Daotunwa National Urban 2466.67 Environmental and biodiversity Wetland Park, Dongping protectionShandong Binhe National Urban 3600 Wastewater treatment Wetland Park, LinyiShandong Xiaohai’erkou National 692 Climate control, water purification Urban Wetland Park, HaiyangShandong Dawenhe National Urban 2000 Filtration and purification Wetland Park, AnqiuShandong Weishui Fengqing National 3250 Science education and water treatment Urban Wetland Park, ChangyiShandong Tuhaihe National Urban 13333.33 Wetland remediation and sightseeing Wetland Park, ZhanhuaShandong Shuangyuehu National Urban 86.67 Environmental protection and Wetland Park, Linyi recreationShandong Bailang Lüzhou National 1000 Sightseeing, biodiversity protection Urban Wetland Park, WeifangHenan Tian’ehu National Urban 590 Water purification Wetland Park, SanmenxiaHenan Baihe National Urban 2450 Filtration and purification Wetland Park, NanyangHenan Pingxihu National Urban 6600 Climate control, aquatic environment Wetland Park, Pingdingshan protectionHenan Bailuzhou National Urban 90 Sightseeing and recreation Wetland Park, PingdingshanHubei Jinyinhu National Urban 77 Environmental protection and tourism Wetland Park, WuhanHunan Xidongtinghu Qingshanhu 35680 Ecosystem protection and water National Urban Wetland treatment Park, ChangdeGuangdong Lutanghe National Urban 34.1 Biodiversity and water purification Wetland Park, ZhanjiangGuizhou Huaxi National Urban 460 Retain water, runoff reduction, climate Wetland Park, Guiyang controlGansu Chengbei National Urban 168.4 Climate control, water filtration and Wetland Park, Zhangye reserve____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 19
  20. 20. Subsurface flow constructed wetlands as wildlife habitat:a case study in Dar es Salaam, TanzaniaAnne H. Outwater (PhD, RN)Muhimbili University of Health and Allied SciencesPO Box 65004, Dar es Salaam, Tanzaniaanneoutwater@yahoo.comIntroductionConstructed wetland technology provides a cost-effective method for improving water qualitywhile providing valuable wetland habitat (Gelt, 1997). Even though it is rarely the primarygoal in the creation of such systems, constructed wetlands can be highly valued as wildlifehabitat (Ghermandi, van den Berg, Brander, de Groot, Nunes, 2009; Knight, 2001;Oglethorpe & Miliadou, 2000). This becomes increasingly significant as Nature’s wetlandsare continuing to be lost globally and locally to urbanization.Ghermandi et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the economic value of 186 wetlands;water quality, non-consumptive recreation and provision of natural habitat and biodiversitywere valued as important and beneficial. For example Oglethorpe and Miliadou (2000)surveyed 250 residents of Macedonia Greece, living within 80 kilometres of the artificialLake Kerkini created in 1932 by the construction of a dam. It was found that the mostimportant non-use (non-market, intangible) values arose from the very existence of the Lakeand from the function it provided for conserving wildlife habitats; these values, according tothe respondents, surpassed the Lake’s value in terms of fishing, research, recreation,irrigation, and education.Much of the literature concerning constructed wetlands and wildlife habitat are descriptionsof large surface flow facilities, many of which use a diversity of native wetland plant species(e.g. Knight, 2001; Gelt, 1997). For example, in areas where soils are not suitable for a drainfield, the effluent of the constructed wetland flows by gravity to a wildlife habitat pond usedfor final “polishing”. A well documented example is the arid metropolitan Show Low facilityin Arizona, USA (Knight, 2001; Gelt, 1997). In 1970 municipal waste water discharge into acreek was halted, and diverted into a natural depression called Telephone Lake. As a result ofincreasing population and increasing effluent flows, the facility has developed into a complexmade up of several lakes and marshes, covering 201 acres that is handling 1.42 milliongallons of wastewater daily. The success of the facility is partly measured by the number ofwildlife attracted to the area. In Show Low facility more than 125 species of birds, includingten that are endangered or threatened, amphibians and large mammals such as elk, deer, blackbears, and raccoons can be found. Many human visitors come to see the animals and schoolgroups use the wetlands for environment field trips.However there are gaps in the literature about small residential constructed wetlands,especially subsurface flow systems, which are commonly viewed as less hospitable forwildlife than surface flow. The purpose of reporting the following case study observations isto describe changing wildlife usage when soakaway pits were replaced with a constructedwetland.___________________________________________________________________________20 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  21. 21. MethodsThe researcher’s actions in the case study method include recording, constructing andpresenting a chronicle of empirical facts (Zucker, 2001). In this prospective case study,written and photographic observations have been collected annually since 2005 with thepurpose of describing the evolution of a residential constructed wetland in coastal, equatorialEast Africa.SettingIn Tanzania, 5.5 kilometres north of Dar es Salaam city centre, 0.5 metres above sea level,low, medium, and high density plots were demarcated in the 1980’s; this new ward wasnamed Mikocheni B. Until the mid 1990’s there was a substantial wetland on the floodplainbetween Mikocheni and the Indian Ocean; the dominant plant was the reed Phragmitesmauritianus. The wetland has given way to the large houses and office buildings of coastalurbanization until now, only a few fragments remain.On two adjacent medium density plots of 30′ by 90′ each, three houses were built. One housewas connected to its own septic tank where solids settled, and a soakaway pit to whicheffluent flowed. The other two houses shared a septic tank and a soakaway pit.The plots were swarming with Culex mosquitoes which, while not transmitting malaria, arenevertheless very bothersome and make outdoor life uncomfortable. In trying to figure outfrom where the mosquitoes were coming, it was a long time before the covers of thesoakaway pits were lifted. When the pits were uncovered, the walls were found to becrowded with cockroaches and the fluid was roiling with mosquito larvae. The soak-awaypits were massive breeding pools for mosquitoes which crept in and out through unsealedcracks between the cement cover and the cement pit.InterventionIn 2005, a wetland to accommodate the sewage needs of the three houses (about ten people)year round, was constructed to replace the soakaway pits. It is 4 by 1.5 metres, a subsurfacehorizontal flow design, placed along the boundary line of the two properties. The substrate isgravel. There is no outflow from the constructed wetland (see Fig. 1).This wetland is a monoculture of Phragmites mauritanus, an indigenous locally commonplant that has been shown to have high treatment efficacy (Njau et al., 2010). Other positiveattributes are the structural stability of the plant, they do not drop a lot of debris and aretolerant of both dry and wet conditions. In Tanzania almost all constructed wetlands areplanted with Phragmites. As is becoming standard practice (Interagency Workgroup onConstructed Wetlands, 2000) globally, native plants were harvested from nearby wetlandswithout damaging the original wetland. Maintenance of the constructed wetland has largelybeen annual trimming of dry or collapsing plants; a heavy pruning was not conducted until2011, when it was uniformly cut to about one metre.____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 21
  22. 22. Fig. 1: A small residential subsurface flow constructed Fig. 2: Yellow-headed Dwarf Geckos in coastalwetland using Phragmites reeds, at five years, in Dar es Tanzania quickly move to permanently inhabit aSalaam, Tanzania. constructed wetland.ResultsAs soon as the soakaway pits were decommissioned, the mosquito population plummeted.The first creatures to inhabit the wetland were Yellow-headed Dwarf Geckos (Lygodactylusluteopicturatus) (see Fig. 2). As shown in Table 1, these beautiful geckos are globally rare,endemic only to Tanzania’s narrow coastal strip (Spawls et al., 2002). Until now, they seemto be the only visible permanent residents.For several years the reeds were too small to structurally support birds’ nests or to hide themfrom heavy predation by Indian House Crows (Corvus splendens, an introduced pest). Butwhen the Phragmites had grown to almost five metres, the first birds to build nests in thewetland appeared. Black-headed Weavers (Ploceus cucullatus) wove their long stemmedballs hanging off the reed stems. After that, three other Ploceidae species attempted to buildnests in the wetland: Spectacled Weavers (P. ocularis suahelicus), African Golden Weavers(P. subaureus aureoflavius), and Zanzibar Red Bishop Birds(Euplectes nigroventris) (Figs 3and 4).Fig. 3: A female Zanzibar Red Bishop bird examining a Fig. 4: Male Zanzibar Bishop bird in the Phragmites,nest which has been prepared for her by a male. distracting nest predatorsThe Spectacled Weavers were heavily predated on by the House Crows while nesting in theconstructed wetland. They were able to find alternative places in the garden, on tree brancheshanging near the constructed wetland. The only species that consistently has been able toraise one or two broods to adulthood every year in the wetland are Zanzibar Red Bishop___________________________________________________________________________22 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  23. 23. Birds. They are the smallest of the world’s 117 species of weaver birds, found only in Kenya, Mozambique and Tanzania (Animal Demography Unit, 2012). It seems that that this small constructed wetland is adequate breeding habitat for one pair of the smallest weavers. Patterns were found in the relationship between residence in the wetland and rain. The Bishop Birds quietly inhabit the constructed wetland from about November to March: courting, building nests and raising their young. When the fledglings fly from the nest, they all disperse through the dry season. Then, as noted 27 October 2011, “It has been raining again. Strong new stalks of Phragmites are pushing out of the gravel of the constructed wetland. The Bishop Birds and Spectacled Weavers have returned! The Bishop Birds are building in the constructed wetland; three pairs of Spectacled Weavers are building their nests on various drooping tree branches nearby.” Most species use the constructed wetland only part of the time. For example Speckled Lipped Skinks(Mabuya maculilabris) can often be found during the dry season; Marbled Snout- burrower frogs (Hemismus marmoratus) are only seen during the wet season. The constructed wetland supports other wildlife as well, as shown in Table 1. Table 1.Wildlife found in a small residential constructed wetland in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Species names Native habitat Habitat used Comment BirdsZanzibar Red Bishop Coastal Kenya and Breeding Has been permanently Tanzania. displaced from most of DSM by destruction of original wetlands.Speckled Mousebirds, Purple- Various parts of East Safe resting These birds are endemic only tobanded Sunbirds, Scarlet-chested Africa including coast. place, East Africa, except for theSunbirds, Grey-headed Sparrows, temporary latter, which is also found inSpectacled Weaver, African shelter southern Africa.Golden Weaver, Black-headedWeaver, Red-billed Firefinch,Blue-capped Condon Bleu, BronzeMannikin, Yellow-fronted Canary,Green-backed Cameroptera, ReptilesYellow-headed Dwarf Gecko Narrow coastal strip from Globally rare; southern Kenya to northern Permanent locally common MozambiqueSpeckle-lipped Skink Africa, south of the Sahara Seasonal, May be a colour variation, as it Desert to Angola and dry season is very bronze-y. MozambiqueAmphibiansMarbled Snout-burrower Eastern Africa Seasonal, Globally unusual; wet season locally fairly common Discussion As two mosquito and cockroach ridden soakaway pits were decommissioned and replaced with a subsurface flow constructed wetland, the population of these pests dramatically decreased. In addition, locally threatened, globally rare birds and reptiles found refuge in the new habitat. Even during drought, the constructed wetland remains ever green; it is attractive and interesting enough to be considered a garden ornamental and an educational tool. The productivity of the habitat multiplies as the size of the constructed wetland increases. This is evident when comparing the small residential wetland described here with the much larger subsurface flow wetlands draining the stabilization ponds at nearby University of Dar ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 23
  24. 24. es Salaam. There the Phragmites grows to over 7 metres. The same species inhabit both thesecoastal constructed wetlands, but they appear more confident – noisier and livelier – in thelarger area. For example all the Plocidae that tried and failed to build productive nests at thesmaller wetland are able to thrive in the larger one. Many Yellow headed Dwarf Geckos areliving there as well.Enhancement of natural habitat and biodiversity is increasingly being viewed as importantcomponents of their total economic value (Ghermandi et al., 2009). The data reported heresuggest that (re-)construction of wetlands (even subsurface flow), using endemic plants, canhave a significant role in terms of local biodiversity enhancement in an increasinglyurbanized metropolis.The effect of the wetland extends beyond its visual outline. For example the SpectacledWeavers, who are known for building nests at swamp edges (Zimmerman et al., 1996), havebuilt their nests hanging nearby. This constructed wetland provides evidence for theimportance of using local flora in constructed wetland technology. These data also provideguidance on the time of year to prune the coastal wetland in East Africa, and that would beafter the Bishop Birds have completed their breeding cycle, in late March.ConclusionConstructed wetlands are multi use. An increasingly significant function, as natural wetlandscontinue to be destroyed and threatened with destruction, is that of a wildlife refuge. Whilethey cannot replace Nature’s complicated ecosystems, and the biodiversity typically will beless, even residential-sized subsurface flow constructed wetlands, can provide importanthabitat to wildlife in ways that are also appreciated by and beneficial to human beings.ReferencesGelt, J. (1997).Constructed wetlands: using human ingenuity, natural processes to treat water, build habitat. Arroyo, 9(4).Ghermandil, A., van den Bergh, J. C.J.M., Brander, L. M., de Groot, H. L.F., Nunes, P. A.L.D. (2009). The Values of Natural and Constructed Wetlands: A Meta-Analysis. Netherlands: Tinburgen Institute. Accessed 5 June 2012, at RL (1997) Wildlife habitat and public use benefits of treatment wetlands. Water Science & Technology 35(5), 35–43.Knight RL, Clarke Jr RA, Bastian RK (2001) Surface flow (SF) treatment wetlands as a habitat for wildlife and humans. Water Science & Technology 44(11–12): 27–37.Interagency Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands, (2000).Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat. United States of America Environmental Protection Agency: Wetlands DivisionNjau, K., Mwegoha,W., &Mahenge, A. (2009). Operation and Maintenance Manual for Constructed Wetlands. Tanzania: Waste Stabilization Ponds and Constructed Wetland Research Group, University of Dar es Salaam.Oglethorpe, D.R., Miliadou, D. (2000). Economic valuation of the non-use attributes of a wetland: a case-study for Lake Kerkini. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43:755–767.Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R., Ashe, J. (2002). A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa. London: Academic Press.Animal Demography Unit. Weaver Watch: Monitoring the Weavers of the World. South Africa: University of Cape Town. Accessed 20 May 2012 at, D.A., Turner, D., Pearson, D.J. (1996). Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.Zucker, D.M. (2001). Using case study methodology in nursing research. The Qualitative Report, 6(2). Accessed 6September 2008 at IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  25. 25. Announcement: Sustainable Sanitation Practice journalSustainable Sanitation Practice – Issue 12 on “Treatment wetlands” The journal Sustainable Sanitation Practice (SSP) is published by the Austrian NGO EcoSan Club with the aim to make available high quality information on practical experiences with available sustainable sanitation systems. SSP should fill a gap that we have identified in the last few years in which sustainable sanitation has become an important issue that is discussed among many disciplines. For SSP a sanitation system is sustainable when it is not only economically viable, socially acceptable and technically and institutionally appropriate, but it should also protect the environment and the natural resources. SSP is therefore fully in line with SuSanA, the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance ( 12 of SSP on “Treatment Wetlands” includes six contributions: 1. The Austrian experience with single-stage sand and gravel based vertical flow systems with intermittent loading (the Austrian type is for treating mechanically pre-treated wastewater). 2. The French experiences with two-stage vertical flow systems treating raw wastewater. 3. Ecosan Club’s experiences with TWs in Uganda. 4. Results from multi-stage TW treating raw wastewater in Morocco. 5. Results from horizontal flow experimental systems from Egypt. 6. Experiences from Denmark and UK on reed beds treating excess sludge from activated sludge plants.SSP is available online from the journal homepage at the EcoSan Club website( for free. The thematic topic of SSPs next issue will be "Faecal sludgemanagement" (issue 13, October 2012). Information on further issues planned is availablefrom the journal homepage. We would like to encourage readers and potential contributorsfor further issues to suggest possible contributions and topics of high interest to the SSPeditorial office ( Also, we would like to invite you to contact the editorialoffice if you volunteer to act as a reviewer for the journal.Additionally, we also invite you to visit SSP and EcoSan Club on Facebook(, respectively).Günter Langergraber, Markus Lechner, Elke Müllegger(SSP journal editors)____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 25
  26. 26. Updates on IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition,Busan, Korea, 16–21 September 2012The IWA World Water Congress & Exhibition 2012 Busan is a high-profile event that attracts 5,000water professionals, companies and institutions from across the globe. It is a biennial event organisedby the International Water Association (IWA).The event is a valuable and unique opportunity for the community of world-leading waterprofessionals to meet, exchange ideas, explore the state of the art and debate the key issuesunderlying the science and practice of water. It is also where the entire water community congregatesonce every two years and where IWA specialist groups showcase their work and plan for futureactivities.Ramp up your networking opportunitiesWe know that many of you come along to the congress to renew and create professional links,business leads, and interdisciplinary collaborations.Increase your reach and effectiveness this year by linking with other delegates and organisationsonline.Connect via the congress’s LinkedIn group, Facebook group and Twitter stream.Want a hand getting into the conversation?IWA Specialist Groups’ activitiesSpecialist Groups are the core of our association. Their members are engaged in many activities -organising conferences, seminars, workshops, or writing books, reports, newsletters and journalpapers. Through task or working groups, they also produce scientific and technical reports, manualsof best practice or position papers.Group meetingsMany specialist groups will have open meetings during the congress, which you are all welcome toattend. These meetings are mostly hosted during lunch breaks in one of the session rooms. All theCongress delegates are invited to join the meetings. Please take this great opportunity to meet like-minded people and to know more about the groups you are interested in.IWA Specialist Groups Hub”IWA SG Hub” – a dedicated space for specialist groups - will be located in the exhibition hall todisplay group materials and resources and allow introductions and meetings with group leaders. Thegroups and members can present, meet, network and showcase their upcoming activities at the SGHub. Please feel free to always pass by this area and you will be amazed by the information andactivities you can find here.Groups ReceptionA reception will be hosted at 17.00-18.00 on Tuesday at IWA Specialist Groups Hub on behalf of allthe specialist groups and will feature the IWA Sustainability Specialist Group Prizes ceremony.Get involvedThe groups are an exceptionally effective means of international networking, sharing information andskills and making good professional and business contacts. If you’re an IWA member, you can joinany specialist group and with over 50 groups — we know you’ll find a niche.More InformationFor details and of group meetings and other relevant SG activities see the congress website orcontact Hong Li ( IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  27. 27. 10th IWA Leading Edge Conference on Water and Waste WaterTechnologies, Bordeaux, France, 3–6 June, 2013www.let2013.orgWe would like to urge water professionals around the world to attend IWA’s Leading EdgeTechnology Conference 2013 ( conference is being held in the city of Bordeaux, the economic hub in southwestern Franceconstitutes the sixth-largest urban area in France. Bordeaux as a port city on the Garonne River has astrong link with water and environment.The conference program will attract leading water researchers from all over the world. Parallel tracksoffering a wide range of multidisciplinary presentations will provide ample opportunities to learn andnetwork with professionals in your fields of interest. Technical tours are also being planned todemonstrate local applications of advanced water, wastewater and stormwater technologies andmanagement.In addition the city of Bordeaux and its surrounding area offer great opportunities for recreation. Thehistoric part of the city of Bordeaux is on the UNESCO World Heritage List as "an outstanding urbanand architectural ensemble" of the 18th century. Bordeaux has more than 350 classified buildings andbuildings listed as Historic Monuments, including 3 religious World Heritage buildings since 1998 aspart of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France. Bordeaux is although well known as aworlds major wine industry capital.Key date: Deadline for paper submission: 15 October.____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 27
  28. 28. The IWA Water Wiki!Invitation to Participate www.iwawaterwiki.orgThe WaterWiki is a website providing a place for the water community to interact, shareknowledge and disseminate information.The WaterWiki is THE online resource for all areas of water, wastewater and environmental scienceand management. We currently host over 1000 open-access materials, either as web articles ordownloadable pdfs.Since the site was launched, we have been working with IWA Specialist Groups, offering them theopportunity to set up their own group work spaces on the WaterWiki – we now have over 20 Groupsusing the site to communicate and network online.Want to get involved? We would like to invite members of the Use of Macrophytes in WaterPollution Control Specialist Group to set up their own private Group Space on the Wiki.WaterWiki Group Spaces – Why participate?A Group Space on the WaterWiki is excellent way to share information within your group. You can: - Include contact details of key members in the group - Upload PDFS, Word documents, presentations etc. - Circulate minutes from meetings, events, conferences etc. - Plan up coming events and webinars - Discuss research developments and group activitiesOnce you have established your group space on the Wiki, members can add, remove, or editcontent at anytime – and we have a dedicated support team on hand to answer any technicalqueries.If you are a member of the Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control IWA Specialist Groupand would like more information on creating and using a dedicated Group Space on the WaterWikiplease contact Chloe Parker ( free to use the wiki as your online reference point for all things water-related! Some of thematerial that may be of interest to you can be found here:Executive Summary of Arsenic Contamination in the World, Waterborne Pathogens,Water policy and health, Methodology, Control systems, Data Analysis, Instrumentation, etc.We are always looking to add new material to the WaterWiki in your subject area. If you are able towrite on any of the above subjects (about 600-1000 words), please do submit an article.New Wiki Software LaunchMarch 2012 saw the launch of our new-version wiki software which has been designed to meet thedemands of the established WaterWiki community.___________________________________________________________________________28 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  29. 29. Users will notice that the WaterWiki homepage has undergone a colourful facelift and now has aslightly different layout. The homepage has been designed with WaterWiki members in mind toprovide ease of navigation between the different sections of the site.The upgrade has not just been cosmetic – there are several new software features which will makethe IWA WaterWiki even more of a valuable interactive resource for the water community.All the new WaterWiki features are backwards-compatible meaning that all existing content willremain the same while wiki members will also be able to take advantage of great new sitefunctions including: 1. Increased browser compatibility: the WaterWiki is now optimised for use in Safari, Internet Explorer version 7 or above, and Google Chrome web browsers. 2. Improvements to the WYSIWYG/Rich Text editing software for easier formatting, better image positioning and the facility to upload larger file attachments. 3. More manageable Group Spaces which put you in control of your dedicated community space. The new WaterWiki group spaces allow group leaders to create and manage spaces. You can decide what your space will contain and who will have access to the materials and keep your members up to date with group activity using your own dedicated group blog. 4. Increased file hosting capacity. Many users may have noticed that any large files they uploaded would disappear from the wiki after a few days – this was a particular problem for Specialist Groups wishing to exchange work documents on the WaterWiki. This problem has been corrected with the new software. 5. Easier article navigation using the improved tagging system. A finite list of possible tags for articles means that content is now grouped by subject category making it much easier to search for related content. 6. Increased connectivity between you and the content you care about – your watchlist emails will now contain active links to the content that you follow and you can now share articles via email at the touch of a button. 7. Instant WaterWiki news: keep up to date with the most popular articles and active users using up-to-the-minute RSS feeds of top users and most-read articles.For more information on how to get started with the new features visit the Wiki Help section.As always, please feel free to contact me ( with any questions.Chloe ParkerIWA WaterWiki Community Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 29
  30. 30. New from IWA PublishingBest Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water ISBN: 9781843393856 Pre-order (August 2013) • 120 pages • Paperback IWA Members price: £ 45.00 / US$ 81.00 / € 60.75 Best Practice Guide on the Control of Arsenic in Drinking Water arises from the knowledgecollected by the European Research Network COST Action 637 involving 27 European countries andthe USA. Besides the large number of important papers, reports and reviews already available onvarious aspects of arsenic occurrence in environment, water and food and related human exposure,this book fills a gap in the field concerning assessment of risks, implications, challenges, andactions required by public health managers.It focuses only on the key aspects of risk assessment, management and communication relevant tohigher levels of arsenic in drinking water, which are geological factors, the extent of arsenicoccurrence, total exposure of arsenic and the role of drinking water, including regulatory aspectsas well as technical (treatment) issues.-----Arsenic Contamination in the WorldAn International Sourcebook Susan Murcott ISBN: 9781780400389 • June 2012 • 500 pages • Paperback IWA members price: £ 94.50 / US$ 170.10 / € 127.58 Contamination in the World: An International Sourcebook provides a global compendiumof cited arsenic incidences in drinking-water. This book details arsenic contamination by source,region and arsenic-affected country.Arsenic is identified in 105 countries and territories, representing a larger database than anyprevious published work. Sources of arsenic contamination are categorized as: Anthropogenic,Geogenic, Volcanogenic, Coal, Mining and Petroleum-related. National, regional and internationalmaps locate the affected areas and populations. A synthesis of critical country information includesan estimate of the exposed population of over 178 million people worldwide.--------------___________________________________________________________________________30 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  31. 31. Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon ISBN: 9781843393443 • April 2012 • 460 pages • Paperback IWA members price: £ 82.50 / US$ 148.50 / € 111.38 Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge has been developed fromthe RECLAIM WATER project supported by the European Commission under Thematic Priority GlobalChange and Ecosystems of the Sixth Framework Programme. Its strategic objective is to develophazard mitigation technologies for water reclamation providing safe and cost effective routes formanaged aquifer recharge.Different treatment applications in terms of behaviour of key microbial and chemical contaminantsare assessed. Engineered as well as natural treatment trains are investigated to provide guidancefor sustainable MAR schemes using alternative sources such as effluent and stormwater. Thetechnologies considered are also well suited to the needs of developing countries, which have agrowing need of supplementation of freshwater resources. A broad range of international full-scalecase studies enables insights into long-term system behaviour, operational aspects, and fate of acomprehensive number of compounds and contaminants, especially organic micropollutants andbulk organics.-----____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 31
  32. 32. Groundwater Set Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon; Harvey Wood; C.G.E.M. (Kees) van Beek; Milan Dimkic, Heinz-Jurgen Brauch and Michael Kavanaugh; Philip E. LaMoreaux, et al.; M Brown, B Barley, H Wood ISBN: 9781780404493 • May 2012 IWA members price: £ 400.00 / US$ 720.00 / € 540.00 Offer: Groundwater SetPurchase all six books together and save over 30% on buying separately.Includes:  Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge Edited by Christian Kazner, Thomas Wintgens, Peter Dillon April 2012 • ISBN: 9781843393443  Disasters and Minewater Good Practice and Prevention Harvey Wood January 2012 • ISBN: 9781780400068  Cause and Prevention of Clogging of Wells Abstracting Groundwater from Unconsolidated Aquifers C.G.E.M. (Kees) van Beek October 2011 • ISBN: 9781780400242  Groundwater Management in Large River Basins Edited by Milan Dimkic, Heinz-Jurgen Brauch and Michael Kavanaugh November 2008 • ISBN: 9781843391906  Environmental Hydrogeology Second Edition Philip E. LaMoreaux, Mostafa M. Soliman, Bashir A. Memon, James W. LaMoreaux & Fakhry A. Assaad November 2008 • ISBN: 9781843392286  Minewater Treatment Technology, Application and Policy M Brown, B Barley, H Wood April 2002 • ISBN: 9781843390046-----___________________________________________________________________________32 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  33. 33. Water and EnergyThreats and Opportunities Gustaf Olsson ISBN: 9781780400266 • June 2012 • 320 pages • Hardback IWA members price: £ 51.75 / US$ 93.15 / € 69.86 and Energy – Threats and Opportunities creates an awareness of the important couplingsbetween water and energy. It shows how energy is used in all the various water cycle operationsand demonstrates how water is used – and misused – in all kinds of energy production andgeneration.Population increase, climate change and an increasing competition between food and fuelproduction create enormous pressures on both water and energy availability. Since there is noreplacement for water, water security looks more crucial than energy security. This is true not onlyin developing countries but also in the most advanced countries. The western parts of the USAsuffer from water scarcity that provides a real security threat.The book does not aim to show “how to design” or to solve some of the very intricate conflictsbetween water and energy. Instead it systematically lists ideas, possibilities and a number ofresults. There are a few more technical chapters that act as entry points to more detailed technicalliterature.-----Disasters and MinewaterGood Practice and Prevention Harvey Wood ISBN: 9781780400068 • January 2012 • 160 pages • Hardback IWA members price: £ 59.25 / US$ 106.65 / € 79.99 and Minewater: Good Practice and Prevention draws together all of the majorminewater catastrophes that have occurred over the last half century. It examines incidents to finduseful and positive information of great value that could prevent future disasters. Practicalexperience provides many lessons in respect of the causes of minewater incidents where lack ofadhesion to good practice is principally to blame.____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 33
  34. 34. Disasters and Minewater: Good Practice and Prevention is of particular interest to students ofmining, civil engineering and environmental engineering. It is an invaluable resource for miningengineers, geotechnical engineers, environmental engineers and disaster relief professionals andconsultants.-----SELECTED RESEARCH REPORTSDiagnostic Tools to Evaluate Impacts of Trace Organic CompoundsCEC5R08Author(s): Jerry DiamondPublication Date: 30 Jun 2011 • ISBN: 9781843395478Pages: 120 • PaperbackIWA members price: £ 77.25 / US$ 139.05 / € 104.29 Century Water Municipal Issues and Concerns: Literature ReviewINFR5SG09aAuthor(s): Neil WeinsteinPublication Date: 30 Jun 2012 • ISBN: 9781780400150Pages: 20 • eBook onlyIWA members price: £ 77.25 / US$ 139.05 / € 104.29 more information on IWA Publishing products or to buy online visit www.iwapublishing.comOr contact one of IWA Publishings distributors:UK, Europe and Rest of World: North America:Portland Customer Services BookMasters, Inc.Commerce Way P.O. Box 388Colchester AshlandCO2 8HP, UK OH 44805, USATel: +44 (0)1206 796 351 Tel: +1 800 247-6553Fax: +44 (0)1206 799 331 (+1 419 281-1802 from Canada)Email: Fax: +1 419 281-6883 Email: order@bookmasters.com___________________________________________________________________________34 IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40
  35. 35. IWA Head Office: IWA Global Operational Office: Alliance House Koningin Julianaplein 2 (7th floor) 12 Caxton Street 2595 AA the Hague London SW1H 0QS The Netherlands UK Tel: +44 207 654 5500 Tel: +31 (70) 31 50 792 Fax: +44 207 654 5555 Fax: +31 (70) 34 77 005 Web site: Web Site: General e-mail: General e-mail: Membership e-mail: members@iwahq.orgCompany registered in England No. 3597005 Registered Charity (England) No. 1076690____________________________________________________________________________________________________IWA Specialist Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control: Newsletter No. 40 35