Treatment Performance of Domestic Wastewater in a Tropical Constructed Wetland: Efficiency and Reuse Potential

Jonah S Butler*
*Fulbright Scholar, DILG-GTZ Affiliate in Philippines: For Environmental Science Study on Wastewater Treatment.

(Email: Jonahsbutler@gmail.com) Abstract This paper assesses performance efficiency of a tropical hybrid-constructed wetland and discusses the potential for reuse of the treated water in an agricultural setting. The facility treated wastewater from 3,500 inhabitants (677 houses) of a resettled fishing community in the Philippines. The system consisted of a vertical (1,770 m2) and a horizontal (880 m2) subsurface flow cell. Both cells were planted exclusively with a local variety of Phragmites karka. Samples were collected from the influent, the midpoint (between the two cells) and the final effluent. The average E. coli and total coliform reduction was 99.88% or 2.8 log units. On average BOD was reduced 99.4%. Total phosphorous was reduced 77.4%. Total nitrogen reduction was 60%, which was lowest removal efficiency observed. Effluent bacteria levels were significantly higher than various irrigation standards for certain crops; potentially jeopardizing the safety of reuse for gardeners and consumers of those crops. A preliminary study using a biologically-active sand media filter was assessed for further bacterial polishing, which showed an average of 99.87% or an additional 2.5 log reduction in E. coli concentrations. Post treatment of bio-sand filtration, final concentrations of indicator bacteria fell within acceptable ranges of standards for irrigation waters of all crops. The remaining nutrients in the effluent provided an inexpensive organic fertilizing irrigation source for the local garden. Rapidly increasing population combined with lack of proper wastewater treatment in developing countries is leading to ecosystem degradation and many health problems. This method of wastewater treatment has shown to be very effective in this climate and setting; relatively low amounts of energy or maintenance are needed to keep a consistent performance of treatment. Keywords Tropical constructed wetlands; decentralized wastewater effluent reuse; sustainability low-cost wastewater treatment,

INTRODUCTION Affordable and efficient methods of wastewater treatment and effluent recycling are essential to the sustainable growth of developing countries and conservation of natural water resources; constructed wetlands provide an effective method of treatment that have many sustainable characteristics. It is estimated that over 1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water and over 2.5 billion people do not have adequate sanitation; this worldwide lack of access to proper sanitation and to safe-drinking water, is responsible for approximately 3.575 million deaths annually, of which about ~2 million are mortalities of children (Bartlett, 2003; Prss-stn et al., 2008). The Philippines has some of the highest population growth in SE Asia, while less than 1% of all cities and towns have any type of wastewater treatment (Ancheta et al., 2003; UN, 2009;). There is a great need for efficient wastewater treatment to safeguard the health of local

environments and populaces. In tropical climates, constructed wetlands provide effective wastewater treatment and the ability to generate valuable biomass year round; the low overall cost and energy demand, and the reuse potential for irrigation make this technique a sustainable option for developing countries. Constructed treatment wetlands (CWs) have one primary purpose: to improve water quality. The processes that occur in constructed wetlands are similar to those in natural wetlands; these include solar driven plant growth, evapotranspiration, UV degradation and complex systems involving biological, microbial, biochemical, chemical and physical interactions taking place within the media, rhizosphere and plants (Vymazal et al., 2006; Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). The ability to regulate flow rate, retention time, plants/planting schemes, along with media types and depths, give constructed wetlands a higher pollutant removal efficiency than natural wetlands per unit of area (Kadlec & Knight, 1996). These engineered natural ecosystems have certain ideal characteristics over conventional treatment methods; passive treatment techniques lowers the treatment cost through decreased needs for capital, energy, operation and maintenance (Haverson, 2004). The ability to cost effectively and efficiently treat wastewater in many locations, applications and time spans throughout the world has been proven using constructed wetlands; the majority of this research has been in the United States and Europe (Kadlec & Wallace, 2009; Vazmayal, 2011). More recently, CWs in sub-tropical and tropical regions have been built, studied and shown effectiveness, though the research available is limited. (Greenway, 2005; Konnerup et al., 2009; Yeh & Wu, 2009). Tropical climates increase plant and microbial growth and with higher temperatures greater enzymatic activity is possible; these factors have shown to increase certain removal efficiencies (Kadlec, 1999; Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007; Katsenovich et al., 2009; Caselles-Osorio et al., 2011). Effluent waters from constructed wetlands have shown biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pathogens to be more efficiently removed than nitrogen or phosphorous (Rousseau et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2009). Incomplete nitrification and denitrification, along with media that has poor phosphorous sorption capabilities can limit removal efficiency; other processes such as volatilization and plant uptake do effect the removal but not as significantly (Brix & Arias, 2005; Vymazal, 2007; Tuncsiper, 2009). The remaining nutrient value of effluent water provides a potential source of irrigation and fertilizer for agricultural applications (Lipkow & Mnch, 2010). Pathogens and bacteria that remain in effluent water can pose a threat to the health of farmers and consumers; this increases the need for proper monitoring and education of the farmers/gardeners in safe handling methods and correct application technique (WHO, 2006). The land requirements of CWs are greater than conventional mechanical systems; in many developing areas land prices are relatively low, while consistent supplies of energy, highly skilled labor, and replacement parts for complex mechanical systems are less available, supporting the use of low tech options (Massoud et al., 2009). Constructed wetlands provide a low cost option for wastewater treatment, while providing a closed loop irrigation and fertilizer source for its users.

This study assessed the performance efficiency of a hybrid-constructed wetland, treating domestic wastewater from a fisherman resettlement village, and the potential of effluent reuse in local gardens. Both cells in the constructed wetland were studied: the vertical flow cell, and the horizontal flow cell. Efficiency was assessed by measuring the average change of biological, physical and chemical parameters, in each cell and as a whole system. The study examines the effectiveness of a hybrid-constructed wetland in a tropical setting and the capacity of effluent reuse as a potentially hazardous but valuable fertilizing irrigation resource for the local community gardeners. MATERIALS AND METHODS Site location This research was conducted in Bayawan City (9 21 49 N, 122 48 4 E) on the island province of Negros Oriental in the Philippines, from December 2008- May 2009. The climate is tropical and has an average temperature of 28 Celsius, a high relative humidity and an average annual rainfall of 187cm. The site of study was a fisherman resettlement village composed of 670 densely clustered homes (in a 7.4 hectare area), with a population of ~3500 inhabitants. The wastewater of this village first enters localized septic tanks, and then flows to a centralized settling tank. After settling, a 2hp centrifugal-pump moves the wastewater to four elevated holding tanks (each with a holding capacity of 15M3). The influent is gravity fed to the wetland once each day during the evening. The wetland has been in operation since September 2006. Wetland Design The hybrid wetland design consisted two wetland cells: a vertical flow cell (VF) (~1770 m2) and a horizontal flow cell (HF) (~880 m2). During the evening time the influent was gravity fed through twelve perforated pipes to the VF cell (Figure 1). The water then flowed to a midway holding area, then distributed to the HF cell and finally collected in the effluent holding tank (Figure 1). Both cells were planted with Phragmites karka, locally know as tambo (Lipkow & Mnch, 2010). The cells were constructed of concrete and the total depth of substrate was 0.75 meters; the substrate was composed of 0.6 meters of sand, 0.05 pea sized gravel, and 0.1 meters of gravel. The average daily treatment was 60 m3. The hydraulic loading rate was calculated to be 226mm d-1. A study using a fluorescent water tracing dye to determine the total hydraulic retention time (HRT) was conducted by a local university, and found the retention time to be ~72 hours. The effluent was either pumped to an elevated header tank where the water gravity fed to the garden irrigation system, or overflowed to an outlet to the sea. Water Sampling Grab samples were taken in 3 places, the elevated header tank of the untreated wastewater influent, the midway point between the vertical flow and horizontal flow cell, and the final effluent after the horizontal cell (Figure 1). All bacteria samples were collected in sterile disposable Whirl Bags. All water samples used for chemical and physical analysis were collected in Nalgene 500ml bottles. Prior to sampling these were soak-washed with non-ionic, anti-bacterial soap, acid washed and finally triple rinsed

with distilled water. All samples were analyzed within 1-12 hours of sampling, if samples were not analyzed within two hours of sampling they were stored at 4C.

Figure 1. Arial diagram of wetland: water flow in cells, media and sample points. Adapted from Bayawan engineering department figure.

Water Analysis All physical and chemical analytical methods were performed directly from the Hach (Loveland, CO, USA) Water Analysis Handbook 5th Edition and following standard techniques for wastewater analysis (APHA, 1999). The biological analyses were performed according to Blue Water Biosciences (Mississauga, ON, Canada) methods for E. coli and Total Coliform enumeration. BOD, DO, and pH were measured using, the Hach HQ40D multi-meter in conjunction with the corresponding probe. pH analysis used Hach calibration standards and the pHC30101 probe. DO and BOD analysis used 300mL Wheaton glass BOD bottles and the HACH LBOD101 luminescent DO probe. The biological oxygen demand (BOD5) was analyzed using a 5-day dilution method; samples were buffered with a solution of distilled water and Hach BOD nutrient buffer pillows. BOD samples, chemicals reagents and standards were all stored in the WTW TS 606-6/2i refrigerator at 20C. The TSS was analyzed using Sartorius Stedim Biotech Glass-Microfiber Discs 55mm for filter media, a 55mm buchner funnel, and a Nalgene hand vacuum pump. Filter media was dried in a Binder oven at 105C for 3 hours. The balance used for all mass analysis was the Denver Instrument SI-234.
All chemical analysis was performed with Hach reagents and standards. Standards were used with ammonia, total nitrogen, total phosphorous, orthophosphate, nitrate and BOD, to ensure proper calibration of equipment, and accuracy of methods. Ammonia (NH3-N) (salicylate method), nitrate (NO3-N) (chromotrophic acid method), nitrite (NO2-N) (diazotization method), total nitrogen (Total N) ( heated acid persulfate digestion and chromotrophic acid method), total phosphorous (Total P) (heated acid persulfate digestion and ascorbic acid method) and orthophosphate (PO43-) (ascorbic acid method) were all colorimetric methods analyzed with the Hach DR 2800 spectrophotometer. Pathogen concentrations were determined by examining the indicator bacterial levels of E. coli and total coliform. The technique used for enumeration analysis was the Blue Water Biosciences Coliplate 400. Coliplate is a defined substrate technology (DST) method using x-gal and 4-methylumbelliferyl -D-glucuronide (MUG) substrate for

enumeration; flourogenic and chromogenic reactions in 96 wells was used to quantify the most probable number (MPN) of colony forming-units (cfu) per 100mL sample. Samples were diluted as necessary using serial dilution techniques and then transferred into the wells of the plates and incubated for 24-28 hours at 35C. Total Coliform was analyzed under natural light, while E. coli samples were analyzed under UV light.

Biologically active slow sand filter construction A small biologically active slow sand filter was constructed to test for effectiveness of additional bacterial removal from effluent water. A 200 liter plastic drum (15mm pipe with attached spigot installed at 5 cm above base) was layered with the following materials (starting from base to top): 5 cm of ~15mm gravel, 5 cm of ~10mm gravel, 5 cm of ~5mm gravel, and 65cm of beach sand. All materials were triple washed with effluent water. Filter was inoculated by watering filter with effluent water, for one month as needed to keep media moist but not saturated. After one month, 15L of effluent water was treated and analyzed for pathogen indicators, pre and post bio-sand filtration. Statistics An independent statistician analyzed all statistics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student-Newman-Keuls Test was used to determine if the removal between groups (parameters and cells) was statistically significant; P-values <0.05 were used in all analyses. SAS software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used to perform statistical analysis.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Sample analysis During the 6-month sample period the wetlands performance was analyzed on a weekly basis. This report gives the analysis of the data averages for the given time span. The goal was to have the most accurate representation of wetland performance with the time and resources available. Only two parameters were not sampled for the entire 6-month period; bacteria analysis was sampled over four months, while TSS was sampled for only a two-month period. The bacterial analysis period should provide a sufficient amount of time to give an accurate representation of the wetland performance. The TSS should be used as a reference point to give a small range of where the Total Suspended Solids concentrations lie. Overall the system performance has shown significant difference of all parameters from cell to cell and from influent to effluent; the only exception was NO3N removal from mid to effluent. Parameter Concentrations & Removal efficiency Overview. The system has show high efficiency in removal of key parameters and significant removal of all parameters, except for NO2-N and NO3-N where increases occurred (Table 1). Removal efficiency relates to the percentage of concentration level reduction, relative to parameter (mgL-1 or cfu mpn /100mL). Total nutrient removal efficiency was less substantial than removal of biological and physical parameters, but was still significant (Figure 2). On average the removal rates were 60% or greater.

Physical parameters. Significant changes occurred in pH, DO, TSS and BOD5, in the system as a whole and per cell (Table 1 & 2). The pH changed from slightly basic in the influent to slightly acidic in the effluent. The dissolved oxygen increased 777% from influent to effluent. Total suspended solids were reduced 96.8% from influent (Figure 2 & 3). The remaining TSS concentrations of effluent water were well within the Philippine DENR effluent discharge standards 50 mgL-1 for TSS in recreational and fishery water class (DENR 34 & 35, 1990).

Table 1. Average ( SD) concentrations of wastewater in wetland cells and removal efficiency of total system

Figure 2. Average ( SE) concentration of parameters for influent, mid, and effluent sampling locations

Biological oxygen demand. Removal of BOD5 was reduced 99.4% removal (Table 1, Figure 2 & 3). The high removal efficiency is greater than reported removal rates in many constructed wetland systems in temperate climates, though comparable to other wetlands systems in other tropical settings (Solano et al., 2004; Vymazal, 2005; Dan et al., 2010). Lowered biological activity in colder seasons has been shown to decrease

efficiency of BOD5 removal; supporting that higher BOD5 removal rates can occur in tropical climates (Steer et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2009). The high efficiency of the BOD5 removal of this system puts the effluent quality well within the DENR effluent discharge regulation of 30 mgL-1 (DENR 35, 1990).

Nutrients. Total nutrient removal was lowest of all parameters on average; though this trend was to be expected (Table 1, figure 3-5). Ammonia (NH3-N) removal was greatest of all nutrients removed, with 99.5% removed from influent to effluent (Table 1). This very high removal efficiency is greater than the majority of CWs reviewed in literature (Vymazal et al., 2006; Masi & Martinuzzi 2007; Zhang et al., 2009). The high average temperature, the large ratio of sand to gravel, and relative oxygen content (oxygen transfer capacity) of the vertical cell are all likely factors that contributed to the high NH3-N removal efficiency; these aspects increase the favorability of nitrification to occur (Tunc,siper, 2009; Vymazal & Krpfelov, 2011). Nitrite (NO2-N) levels increased significantly in each sector, and Nitrate (NO3-N) increased significantly from influent to mid though no significant change was observed from mid to effluent (Table 1 & 2). Total nitrogen decreased 60% from the influent to effluent; this was the lowest percent decrease of any parameter that underwent removal in the system. Reviewed literature has shown similar results for this removal efficiency (Brix et al. 2003). Low total nitrogen removal is common in many wetlands and is mainly due to incomplete nitrificationdenitrification; this system had excellent nitrification but incomplete denitrification (Vymazal, 2007).

Table 2. Average changes in parameters from cell to cell and the wetland as a whole. (* denotes increase)

Ortho phosphate (PO4-3) was 78.4%, while total phosphorous removal was 77.4%. The removal efficiency is comparable to wetland performance in reviewed literature (Rousseau et al., 2004; Weedon, 2010). In certain wetlands higher phosphorous removal

has been obtained with similar design and similar media selection; the use of sand is a description of media but is very broad since different sand types have shown significantly different sorption and removal capacities and may be a reason for high variation in total p removal in various wetlands reviewed in literature (Arias et al., 2001; Dan et al., 2010). Various media options can be utilized if increased phosphorous removal is necessary (Park, 2009). During the time of this study the wetland had been in use for 2.5 years, it is possible that phosphorous removal efficiency will decrease as the media sorption capacity decreases due to saturation. A multi-year study would be needed to show the changes in wetland media sorption capacity, and optimal timeframe for media replacement.

Figure 3. Average removal efficiency of parameters: displaying the relative percent removal of each cell in terms of total % of concentration per parameter.

Figure 4. Average removal of parameter in each wetland cell, % removal refers to specific cells peformance (VF % =In:Mid ; HF %= Mid-Eff).

Figure 5. Average nitrogen species concentration in sampling points. Influent-Mid displays VF performance and Mid- Final displays HF Performance

Cell Comparison Vertical subsurface flow cell. The vertical cell had the greatest efficiency for removing total nitrogen; on average 49.1% of total nitrogen was removed in this cell. NH3-N made up 88.7% of the total N. The majority of all nitrification occurred in this cell; 90.9% of the total NH3-N was removed or transformed and the majority of NO3-N was produced. Similar trends were observed in reviewed literature that took place in tropical settings. (Konnerup et al., 2009; Konnerup et al., 2011). There is strong evidence to support that the removal mechanism for the total nitrogen was through nitrification-denitrification processes; subtracting the NO3-N produced from the NH3-N removed results in 91.8% of the total N removed in this cell. Figure 5 displays the decreasing trend of NH3-N and total N while N03-N increases within this cell; a similar trend was observed in literature review of Kadlec (1999), which sugguest that conditions were more favorable towards

nitrification than denitrification. This trend was to be expected since nitrification is favorable in aerobic conditions (DO increased 590%), where denitrification occurs more readily in anoxic or anaerobic environments (Vymazal, 2007). Total P and P04-3 removal was 54.7% and 53.2% respectively; the percent removal between cells was not significantly different. Removal of BOD accounted for 88.1% of total BOD in the system. Reduction of indicator bacterial was significantly less efficient in the VF cell than the HF cell, 0.8 log (87.72%) vs. 2 log (99.05%) respectively (Table 2). Percent removal of TSS was not significantly different between cells. Overall this cell removed the gross concentration of parameters analyzed (Figure 3 & 4).

Horizontal subsurface flow cell. Relative percent removal of BOD was higher in this cell than the VF, with a 94.9% efficiency (Figure 4). Initial (Mid) NH3-N concentrations were relatively low in the HF cell 12.3 ( 5.9) mgL-1 though removal was considerably efficient (95%). Percent removal of total nitrogen was the lowest any parameter that underwent removal in the in the HF cell, only 21.5% was removed. The minimum amount of organic matter or C:N ratio (measured by BOD and total N), lack of anaerobic conditions (measured by DO), and high removal of NH3-N, gives evidence that this cell did not have optimal conditions important for denitrification processes (Vymazal & Krpfelov, 2008). In future designs, if higher denitrification is required, a trench filled with waste shredded or carbonized wood material, coconut shells, rice hull or other locally available organic matter could be installed directly after the vertical cell; research has shown that high denitrification can occur in organic-carbon based media beds which provide more suitable environmental conditions for denitrification of nitrates (Cameron & Schipper, 2010; Moorman et al., 2010). An immediate option for increased denitrification in this wetland, would be recycling the effluent back to the main sump; recycling of nitrate-rich effluent water back to a septic tank has shown to produce a favorable environment for denitrification (Arias et al., 2005). Pathogen removal. Removal rates of pathogen indicator bacteria were highest of all parameters. E. coli and total coliform had a 2.8 log reduction or 99.88% (Table 1; Figure 6 ). These removal rates are comparable to other constructed wetlands in reviewed literature (Laber et al, 1999; Thurston et al., 2001; Steer et. al., 2002; Ghermandi et al., 2007; Barros et al., 2008). Two studies, Masi & Martinuzzi (2007) & Laber et al. (1999), showed significantly higher removal rates of 99.93%-99.99% (<3log) for indicator bacteria of a hybrid wetland with a HF-VF design; the HF-VF design may provide higher bacterial removal, as the loading rates were also significantly higher than in the current study. HF cells may be more effective in pathogen removal as the HF cell in this study showed significantly higher removal efficiency than the VF cell (2 log vs. 0.8 log respectively). The lower bacterial removal efficiency of the CW in this study, when compared to studies with greater efficacy, could be due to higher bacteria growth rates in cells as a result of the warmer tropical climate (Thurston et al. 2001; Zdragas et al., 2002). Higher treatment efficiency of indicator bacteria may be possible with the selection of smaller sand particle sizes and lower HLR. Sleytr et al. (2007) observed 4.35 log removal of E. coli when using small sand sizes (.006mm-4mm) and a low HLR (60mm/d) of similar bacterial concentrations in pilot scale VF wetlands; efficiency was significantly reduced (>2.5 log removal) when larger sand particles (1-4mm) were used

with a higher HLR (240mm/d). Due to the concentrated nature of E. coli and total coliform in influent water, relatively high effluent concentrations were observed, even though removal efficiencies were very high. The remaining effluent concentrations of total coliform was significantly lower than DENR standards (3x106 MPN/100mL) for effluent discharge into receiving waters (DENR 35, 1990).

Reuse potential and human-risk exposure mitigation The reuse of wastewater effluent provides the ability for a closed loop agricultural system; the main problem with effluent reuse is the safety concerning farmers and consumers health. Effluent standards for pathogen indicator concentrations are not set in stone; this makes data interpretation a challenge when assessing the optimal application for reuse. The DENR standards for irrigation of fruit and vegetable crops that may be eaten raw, is < 500 cfu/100mL fecal coliforms, placing the E. coli effluent concentration in this study, significantly (1.3 log) above this reuse standard (DENR 35, 1990). The WHO (2006) described a variation of effluent guidelines for irrigation with wastewater effluents; the total acceptable removal depended on: the crop being irrigated, the method of irrigation (e.g. drip irrigation), the farming practices being used and the implementation and proper education of farmers and consumers using safe handling techniques (e.g. proper hand and vegetable washing). Salgot et al. (2006) indicated more solidified ranges of standards for various applications of wastewater effluent reuse; for irrigation of raw-consumed crops, E. coli should be <1,000 cfu/100mL while not rawconsumed crops, pastureland, or tree nurseries should have E. coli <10,000 cfu/100mL. Using any of these standards would clearly indicate that the use of this effluent for rawconsumed crops is not advisable. Thurston et al. (2001) found that Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts were removed effectively (87.8% & 64.2& respectively) but not completely in HF CWs. This evidence, coupled with the variation in wetland performance (assessed by standard deviation of E. coli in effluent), furthers the need for proper precautionary measures when reusing domestic wastewater effluent. Education of both farmers and consumers on proper handling, irrigation, and washing techniques to minimize exposure is important to the success of safe reuse. If the education process is difficult to perform effectively, further treatment may be necessary to ensure the proper safety of effluent reuse.

Figure 6. Average (SD) indicator bacteria removal in wetland cells and biosand filter.

Biologically active slow sand filter

The need for further reduction of pathogen indicators in effluent water being reused, became apparent when education of the community was slow to implement and take effect. A low cost, low energy, and simple to operate method of filtration was investigated. Slow sand filtration is a passive filtration method that has been effective in removing pathogens from contaminated drinking water; minimal technical inputs were required to bring water quality within acceptable WHO drinking standards (Mahmood et al., 2011). It was hypothesized that effective additional pathogen removal in wastewater effluent could be observed through utilization of this low technology treatment method. A preliminary experiment was conducted to investigate the efficacy of bio-sand filtration on wastewater effluents. The removal of total coliform and E coli in this precursory trial was significant (n=5), 99.39% & 99.93% respectively (Figure 6). These removal rates are comparable the slow sand filters reviewed in literature (Eliot et al., 2008). The final concentration of E. coli was <30 mpn cfu/100mL while total coliforms were <100 mpn cfu/100mL, well within the range of all reviewed irrigation guidelines for raw-consumed crops. More comprehensive pilot-scale and full-scale examinations should be conducted to prove the effectiveness of this pathogen removal method over a longer term and with a higher treatment volume.

Sustainability: costs, energy, increasing productivity and community education Cost and energy use. Economics heavily impact the decision-making process and usually affect the viability and long-term sustainability of treatment systems in developing countries. The per-house cost of capital construction was estimated at 340-195USD; GTZ estimated the total cost was 230,000 USD (including consultancy) while the Bayawan government estimated the cost at 132,000 USD (no consultancy costs) (Lipkow & Mnch, 2010). Annual operation, maintenance and energy costs were 5,500 USD (4,400 USD for O&M, 1,100 USD for energy); due to the cost of local labor this was considerably low as there were 3, 8-hour watch duties daily. The annual operational costs per house were 8.5 USD. Total annual energy consumption for operating two pumps was estimated at 6,900 kWh or 115 kWh /treated m3 year-1. The annual per house consumption is 10.2 kWh; a current day comparison of this energy use is ~8 times less than running a wireless internet router continuously for 1 year. The energy usage for this wetland is estimated to be about 10 times less than with the energy consumed for a conventional wastewater treatment system (1179 kWh / treated m3 year-1) reported in Middlebrooks & Middlebrooks (1979). The low capital, O&M and energy costs make this treatment option considerably less than conventional methods, and support the application of sustainable treatment systems in developing countries (Muga & Mehelcic, 2008). Increased productivity. Increased productivity and cost recovery is important when usable plant based materials can be harvested and utilized effectively; this potential is greater in areas where local labor costs are lower. Ideal plant candidates for constructed wetlands are those that have great production of biomass; selection of tropical plants, thats biomass is a valuable material resource, increases the potential for cost recovery. Sustainable materials produced from wetland plants have a considerable range of application and value; building materials for native handicrafts, agricultural applications

for fodder and soil amendments, and as potential biofuel sources are some examples where wetland plants have been utilized ( Verma et al., 2007; Koonerup et al., 2009; Zwane et al., 2011). Optimal selection of macrophytes coupled with the year-round growth in tropical settings increases the potential for the removal of various parameters; the ability for substantial removal of can increase with multiple harvests of biomass annually (Koottatep & Polprasert, 1997; Vymazal, 2005; Greenway, 2006; Katsenovich et al. 2009; Konnerup et al., 2009). Continued research on optimization of plant selection and design types in tropical settings is important to fully utilize the potential of these systems as a treatment method that can produce usable plant materials, water for irrigation and improve water quality.

CONCLUSIONS
Rapidly increasing population combined with lack of proper wastewater treatment in developing countries is leading to many health problems and ecosystem degradation; there is a great need for efficient and affordable methods of wastewater treatment and water recycling. This study has shown the hybrid constructed wetland provided an effective option for wastewater treatment in a tropical setting. Reuse of effluent water is feasible when proper education, irrigation and crop selection is employed. The bacterial state of the effluent water indicates that irrigation would be ideal for non-raw consumed crops, tree nurseries, and landscaping. Additional research is needed to prove full-scale and long-term efficacy of biologically active slow sand filtration as a means of further pathogen removal for irrigation with domestic wastewater effluent ; however the preliminary study did show promising results of a low-tech method for further reducing pathogen indicators. Efficient removal of various parameters, coupled with low-cost and low energy use, makes this system a sustainable option for wastewater treatment in developing countries. Future studies are needed to identify plant species that provide efficient removal combined with a high production of valuable biomass in constructed wetlands; cost recovery and increased productivity will play an important role to increase the sustainability of engineered natural ecosystem treatment methods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the following organizations for their support in this study: Fulbright Foundation for fuding, DILG-GTZ for affiliation, and logistical assistance, Bayawan water department for use of laboratory and lab assistance, CENRO for technical wetland assistance, Bayawan City Government & Engineering Department for support and use of facilities. My deepest appreciation goes to the following individuals for their support and assistance with this project and my academic research : Ulrike Lipkow, Jouke Boorsma, Dr. Margaret Greenway, Alma Alabastro, Dr. Robert Knight, Dr. Sandra Gilchrist, Dr. Lee Newman, and Dr. Aaron Ellison. Without their assistance this study would not have been possible.

References APHA-AWWA-WEF. (1999). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed., APHA-AWWA-WEF, Washington, DC. USA. Ancheta, C., Hiroyama, M., Illangovan,P., Lorenz, J., Mingoa, Y., Porras, A., Shah J., Sy, J., Tavares, L. C., Tuyor, J., Verzola, E., Verzosa,D. G., & Villaluz, M. G. (2003). Philippine Environmental monitor. The World Bank Group Document # 28297. Arias, C. A., Del Bubba, M., & Brix, H. (2001). Phosphorous removal by sands for use as meida in subsurface flow constructed reed beds. Water Res., 35.5, 1158-1168. Arias, C.A., Brix, H. & Marti, E. (2005). Recycling of treated effluents enhances removal of total nitrogen in vertical flow constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A., 40.6-7, 1441-1443. Barros, P., Ruiz, I., & Soto M. (2008). Performance of an anaerobic digester-constructed wetland system for a small community. Ecol. Eng, 33, 142-149. Bartlett S. (2003). Water, sanitation and urban children: the need to go beyond ''improved'' provision. Environ. Urbanizat., 15.2, 57-70 Brix, H., & Arias, C. A. (2005). The use of vertical ow constructed wetlands for on-site treatment of domestic wastewater: New Danish guidelines. Ecol. Eng., 25, 491500. Cameron, S. G., & Schipper, L. A. (2010). Nitrate removal and hydraulic performance of organic carbon for use in denitrification beds. Ecol. Eng., 36, 1588-1595. Caselles-Osorio, A.,Villafae, P., Caballero, V., & Manzano Y. (2011). Efficiency of mesocosm-scale constructed wetland systems for treatment of sanitary wastewater under tropical conditions. Wat. Air Soil Pollut., article in press DOI 10.1007/s11270-011-0743-7. Chen, T. Y., Kao, C. M., Yeh, T. Y., Chien H. Y., & Chao, A. C. (2006). Application of a constructed wetland for industrial wastewater treatment: A pilot-scale study. Chemosphere., 64, 497-502. Dan, T. H., Quang, L. N., Chiem, & Brix. (2010). Treatment of high-strength wastewater in tropical constructed wetlands planted with Sesbania sesban: Horizontal subsurface flow versus vertical downflow. Ecol. Eng., article in press DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.07.030. DENR ,34. (1990). Revised water usage and classification/water quality criteria amending section nos. 68 and 69, chapter III of the 1978 NRCC rules and regulations. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines. Administrative Order No. 34. DENR, 35. (1990). Revised effluent regulations of 1990, revisiing and amending the effluent regulations of 1982. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines. Administrative Order No. 35. Elliot, M.A., Stauber, C. E., Koksal, F., DiGiano, F. A., & Sobsey, M.D. (2008). Reductions of E. coli, echovirus type 12 and bacteriophages in an intermittently operated household-scale slow sand filter. Wat. Res., 42, 2662 2670. Ghermandi, A., Bixio, D., Traverso, P., Cersosimo, I., & Thoeye, C. (2007). The removal of pathogens in surface-flow constructed wetlands and its implications for water reuse. Wat. Sci. Tech., 55.3, 207-216. Greenway, M. (2005). The role of constructed wetlands in secondary effluent treatment and water reuse in subtropical and arid Australia. Ecol. Eng., 25.5, 501-509.

Greenway, M. (2006). The Role of Macrophytes in Nutrient Removal Using Constructed Wetlands. In: Environmental Bioremediation Technologies. Singh S.N. and Tripathi R.D (eds). Publisher Springer, Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg Halverson, V. N. (2004) Review of Constructed Subsurface Flow vs. Surface Flow Wetlands. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract Number DE-AC09-96SR18500 Document number WSRCTR-2004-00509. Kadlec, R. H. (1999). Chemical, physical and biological cycles in treatment wetlands. Wat. Sci. Tech., 40.3, 37-44. Kadlec R. H. & Knight, R. L., (1996). Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, New York, New York. Kadlec, R. H., & Wallace, D. S. (2009). Treatment Wetlands 2nd Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Katsenovich, Y. P., Hummel-Batista, A., Ravinet, A. J., & Miller J. F. (2009). Performance evaluation of constructed wetlands in a tropical region. Ecol. Eng., 35, 15291537. Kivaisi, K. A. (2001). The Potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: a review. Ecol. Eng., 16, 545-560. Konnerup, A., Koottatep, T., Brix, H. (2009). Treatment of domestic wastewater in tropical, subsurface flow constructed wetlands planted with Canna and Heliconia. Ecol. Eng., 35, 248257. Konnerup, A., Nhan, D.K., & Brix, H. (2011). Treatment of fishpond water by recirculating horizontal and vertical flow constructed wetlands in the tropics. Aquacult., 313, 57-64. Koottatep, T. & Polprasert, C. (1997). Role of plant uptake on nitrogen removal in constructed wetlands located in the tropics, Wat. Sci. Tech., 36.12, 1-8 Laber, J., Haberl, R., & Shrestha, R. (1999). Two-stage constructed wetland for treating hospital wastewater in Nepal. Wat. Sci. Tech., 40(3), 317-324. Lipkow, U., Mnch, V. (2010). Constructed wetland for peri-urban housing area, Bayawan City, Philippines. Sustainable Sanitiation Alliance www.susana.org. Mahmood, Q., Baig, S. A., Nawab, B., Shafqat, M. N., Pervez, A., & Zeb, B. S. (2011). Development of low cost household drinking water treatment system for the earthquake affected communities in Northern Pakistan. Desalin., 273, 316-320. Masi, F., & Martinuzzi, N. (2007). Constructed wetlands for the Mediterranean countries: hybrid systems for water reuse and sustainable sanitation. Desalin., 215, 4455. Massoud, M. A., Tarhini, A., & Nasr, J. A. (2009). Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environ. Manag., 90, 652659. Mitsch W. J., & Gosselink J. G. (2007). Wetlands 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey. Moorman, T. B., Parkin, T. B., Kaspar, T. C., & Jaynes, D. B. (2010). Denitrification activity, wood loss, and N2O emissions over 9 years from a wood chip bioreactor. Ecol. Eng., 36, 1567-1574. Middlebrooks, E.J., Middlebrooks, C.H., (1979). Energy requirements for small flow wastewater treatment systems; Special Report 79-7 Corp of Engineers. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory:Hanover, New Hampshire. EPA DOC (MCD-60).

Muga, H. E., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2008). Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies. Journ. Environ. Manag., 88, 437447. Park, W. H. (2009). Integrated constructed wetland systems employing alum sludge and oyster shells as a filter media for P removal. Ecol. Eng. 35, 1275-1282. Prss-stn N. A., Bos, R., Gore, F., Bartram, J. (2008). Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. World Health Organization, Geneva. Rousseau, D. P. L., Vanrolleghem, P. A., & Pauw, N. D. (2004). Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis. Ecol. Eng., 23, 151163. Salgot, M., Huertas, E., Weber, S., Dott, W., & Hollender, J. (2006) . Wastewater reuse and risk: definition of key objectives. Desalin., 187, 29-40. Sleytr, K., Tietz, A., Langergraber, G., & Haberl R. (2007). Investigation of bacterial removal during the filtration process in constructed wetlands. Sci. Tot. Enivron., 380, 173-180. Solano, M. L., Soriano, P., Ciria, M. P. (2004). Constructed Wetlands as a Sustainable Solution for Wastewater Treatment in Small Villages. Biosystems Eng., 87.1, 109-118. Steer, D., Fraser, L., Boddy, J., & Siebert, B. (2002). Efficiency of small constructed wetlands for subsurface treatment of single-family domestic effluent. Ecol. Eng., 18, 429-440. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. (2011). Current world fertilizer trends and outlook to 2011/12. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. The United Nations (UN). (2008). World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision The Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DOE&SA) of the United Nations Secretariat. United Nations, New York City, USA. The United Nations (UN). (2009). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, Highlights, Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.210. United Nations, New York City, USA. Thurston, J. A., Gerba, C. P., Foster, K. E., Piscak, M., (2001). Fate of indicator microorganisms, Giardia and Cryptosporidium in subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Wat. Res., 35.6, 1547-1551. Tunc,siper, B. (2009). Nitrogen removal in combined vertical and horizontal subsurface-flow constructed wetland system. Desalin., 247, 46-475. Verma, V. K., Singh, Y. P., & Rai, J. P. N. (2007). Biogas production from plant biomass used for phytoremediation of industrial wastes. Bioresourse Tech., 98, 1664-1669 Vymazal, J. (2005). Horizontal sub-surface flow and hybrid constructed wetlands systems for wastewater treatment. Ecol. Eng., 25, 478-490. Vymazal, J. (2007). Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci. of the Total Enviro., 380, 48-65 . Vymazal, J., Greenway, M., Tonderski, K., Brix H., & Mander U. (2006). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Ecological Studies, Wetlands and Natural Resource Management Vol. 90.5, 69-96. Spring- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Vymazal, J. & Krpfelov, L. (2008). Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal

Sub-Surface Flow. Environmental Pollution 14. Springer New York, New York. Vymazal, J. & Krpfelov, L. (2009). Removal of Nitrogen in Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal SubSurface Flow: A Review. Wetlands, 29(4),1114-1124. Vymazal, J. & Krpfelov, L. (2011). A three-stage experimental constructed wetland for treatment of domestic sewage: First 2 years of operation. Ecol. Eng., 37, 90-98. Weedon, C. M. (2010). A decade of compact vertical flow constructed wetlands. Wat. Sci. Tech., 62.12, 2790-2800. WHO. (2006). Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta, and grey water. Volme 2: Wastewate use in agriculture. World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. Yeh, T. Y., & Wu, C. H. (2009). Pollutant removal within hybrid constructed wetland systems in tropical regions. Wat. Sci. Tech., 59.2, 233-240. Zdragas, A., Zalidis, G. C., Takavakoglou, V., Katsavouni, S., Anastasiadis, E. T., Eskridge, K., & Panoras, A. (2002) The effect of environmental conditions on the ability of a constructed wetland to disinfect municipal wastewaters. Environ. Manag., 29.4, 510-515. Zhang, D. Q., Tan, S. K., Gersberg, & Keat, T. S. (2009). Constructed Wetlands in China. Ecol. Eng., 35, 1367-1378. Zwane, P. E., Masarirambi, M. T., Seyoum, T., & Nkosi, B. S. (2011), Natural fiber plant rescources of economic value for wetlands in Swaziland: A review. African Journ. Agri. Resear., 6.4, 774-779