e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng

Anaerobic digesters as a pretreatment

for constructed wetlands

J.A. Alvarez , I. Ruz, M. Soto

Department of Physical Chemistry and Chemical Engineering I, Campus A Zapateira, 15008,
Faculty of Science, University of A Coruna, A Coruna, Spain

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

Article history: The most commonly used pretreatment technologies for constructed wetland (CW) treat-
Received 11 June 2007 ment of domestic sewage are septic tanks (ST) and Imhoff tanks (IT). These technologies
Received in revised form have frequently suffered from failures and even in normal operation they offer insufcient
25 January 2008 removal of solids. As a result, combined ST-CW or IT-CW can experience substrate clogging,
Accepted 17 February 2008 especially when high organic loads are applied. In the last 7 years, the operation of combined
systems using high-rate anaerobic digesters as a pretreatment and CW as a post-treatment
has been reported. A review of the literature indicates that CW in these combined sys-
Keywords: tems operates with a similar organic loading rate (on a chemical oxygen demand basis) but
Anaerobic digesters with a lower total suspended solid (TSS) loading rate. In these combined systems, the TSS
Constructed wetlands loading rate is 3050% less than that applied in CW combined with classical pretreatment
Municipal wastewater technologies. A low TSS loading rate could prevent substrate clogging in CW.
Clogging This work presents the results of different case studies on the treatment of municipal
wastewater with high-rate anaerobic systems. Our interest is focused on the capacity of
these systems for removing suspended solids, and therefore on their potential as an appro-
priate pretreatment to avoid clogging in constructed wetlands and to improve efciency.
Average and 95 percentile TSS concentrations of anaerobic treated wastewater were below
60 and 100 mg/l, respectively, for all congurations. Therefore, the use of high rate anaer-
obic systems as a pretreatment for constructed wetlands could delay gravel bed clogging.
Furthermore, according to the level of organic matter removal, anaerobic pretreatment pro-
vided a 3060% reduction in the required wetland area. Both treatment alternatives can
be combined to develop low-cost, robust, and long-term systems for treating municipal
wastewater.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction structed wetlands are treatment systems with a very small

Sustainability of sanitation systems should be related to low
cost and low energy consumption and, in some situations,
low mechanical technology requirements. Decentralised and
low-cost processes are considered to be a better choice for
rural areas (Lens et al., 2001). Anaerobic digesters and con-
energy input, low operational cost, and low surplus sludge
generation (Sperling, 1996; Kadlec et al., 2000; Lens et al.,
2001; Hoffmann et al., 2002). These characteristics, together
with low technological requirements, make them particu-
larly suitable for decentralised wastewater treatment in rural
areas.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 981 563100x16016; fax: +34 981528050.
E-mail address: alvarezr@usc.es (J.A. Alvarez).
0925-8574/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.02.001
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
The costs of construction, installation, and operation of
anaerobic digesters are lower than those of conventional aero-
bic units because anaerobic digesters do not require expensive
equipment for process maintenance and control. In fact, if the
environmental conditions inside the digester are adequate,
anaerobic processes are mainly self-controlled. Additionally,
the production of excess sludge is minimal, and energy bal-
ances are quite favourable, even when heating is required, due
to the production of methane (Foresti, 2002).
The disadvantage of anaerobic digesters is that additional
treatment is necessary to polish and lower the pollution load.
Even in tropical regions (Sousa et al., 2001), and mainly in cool
to temperate climate regions (Alvarez et al., 2003), the efuent
of UASB (up ow anaerobic sludge blanket) systems requires
an efuent post-treatment to reduce organic mater, nutri-
ents, and pathogenic microorganisms. In the case of operating
temperatures below 20 C, UASB systems are good at remov-
ing suspended solids; however, acetic acid accumulation in
the efuent reduces the COD (chemical oxygen demand) and
BOD (biological oxygen demand) removal efciencies (Alvarez,
2004; Alvarez et al., 2006).
It is of great interest to combine wetland systems with
anaerobic digesters in order to obtain sufcient treatment ef-
ciency. The most commonly used anaerobic technology for
municipal wastewater treatment is the UASB (Lettinga, 2001;
Foresti et al., 2006; Van Haandel et al., 2006). There are sev-
eral studies of systems combining anaerobic pretreatment and
constructed wetlands, which are assessed in Section 4. UASB
reactors are the referent pretreatment anaerobic technology
used in these combined systems. However, other anaerobic
technologies may be used as sewage pretreatment for con-
structed wetlands. The hydrolytic upow sludge bed reactor
(HUSB) is a promising alternative.
However, constructed wetlands (CW) are land-intensive
treatment systems. The use of an appropriate anaerobic pre-
treatment before constructed wetland treatment can reduce
the construction cost by about 3640%, due to the fact that
anaerobic treatment reduces the inuent organic matter and
therefore the area required for CW is decreased (Barros and
Soto, 2002). Both anaerobic and wetland treatment approaches
are characterized by low construction and operation costs, low
excess sludge, and low energy demand. Therefore, both treat-
ment technologies are complementary and highly sustainable.
Limited organic removal efciency in anaerobic digesters
is compensated by high efciency in CW, while anaerobic
digesters present minimal area requirements, generally less
than 0.1 m2 /p.e. for UASB (Kivaisi, 2001).
Studies have shown that one of the most important oper-
ational handicaps of constructed wetlands is gravel bed
clogging; this may occur after several years, resulting from
the treatment of raw or poorly pretreated urban wastewa-
ter. Suspended solids that are not removed in a pretreatment
system are effectively removed by ltration and settlement
within the rst few metres beyond the inlet zone. Thus, a
high level of total suspended solid (TSS) removal in anaer-
obic pretreatment would contribute to avoiding or reducing
wetland clogging problems, reinforcing constructed wetland
sustainability (Vymazal, 2005; Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007).
The aim of this work is to analyse and discuss the poten-
tial of high-rate anaerobic digesters as a pretreatment for
55
municipal wastewater that will later be treated in constructed
wetlands. First, a brief analysis of clogging phenomena in CW
is presented, and the pretreatment technologies most often
used in combination with CW are discussed, focusing on their
potential for reducing the quantity of suspended solids intro-
duced into constructed wetlands. Next, the authors review
the literature on systems combining anaerobic digesters and
CW. Finally, detailed case studies on anaerobic pretreatment
of municipal wastewater are presented, focusing on the ef-
ciency of suspended solid removal and the potential of anaer-
obic digesters for preventing clogging and reducing CW area.
2. Substrate clogging in constructed
wetlands
Substrate clogging encompasses several processes that lead to
a reduction of the inltration capacity of the gravel bed after
several years of operation. In horizontal ow (HF) wetlands,
apparent clogging and subsequent ponding near the inlet
of the treatment cells dampen the remarkable performance
of the system. This may occur after few years of operation
(Dahab and Surampalli, 2001; Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007). In
vertical ow (VF) wetlands, clogging of the substrate matrix
critically hinders the oxygen transport and therefore results
in an extremely rapid failure of the systems ability to treat
wastewater (Langergraber et al., 2003).
The main parameters that inuence the substrate clogging
process are the organic load and the suspended solid load.
Besides these main factors, the clogging risk is also controlled
by gravel size, since large gravel prevents or delays clogging
phenomena (Chazarenc and Merlin, 2005; Zhao et al., 2004).
Organic load is an indirect parameter leading to sludge pro-
duction derived from bacterial growth. Both inuent sludge
and sludge generated in situ will accumulate in the gravel
bed. Literature values for the maximal acceptable organic
load fall within a wide range. For example, Winter and Goetz
(2003) indicated the area of VF constructed wetlands should
be designed for a maximum loading rate of 20 gCOD/m2 d to
avoid the clogging process. So, the clogging risk becomes a
limitation of wetland performance.
On the other hand, one of the major parameters inuenc-
ing clogging is the suspended solid load (Batchelor and Loots,
1997; Dahab and Surampalli, 2001; Winter and Goetz, 2003;
Langergraber et al., 2003). Little information is available con-
cerning the maximum acceptable TSS loading rates. Values
given are only valid for one special type of substrate and can-
not be used as a general guideline. For example, Dahab and
Surampalli (2001) found clogging in a subsurface horizontal
ow constructed wetland system after 3.5 years of treating
wastewater with a load of 1.44 gTSS/m2 d. Winter and Goetz
(2003) showed that in order to avoid clogging processes in
a vertically constructed wetland, the average concentration
of TSS in the inow should not exceed 100 mg/l, while the
suspended solid load should not exceed 5 gTSS/m2 d. These
authors thought that growth of biomass has only a minor
effect on clogging compared to the accumulation of inuent
TSS.
Green et al. (2006) compared two types of pretreatments:
a UASB system and a primary decanter. They indicated that
56 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
by using UASB efuent as feeding water for a VF CW a higher
removal rate could be achieved than by using primary decanter
efuent, as a consequence of the relatively low TSS loading
rate resulting from the higher removal of TSS in the UASB.
These authors found that the total TSS removed in each active
cycle (until clogging occurred) was similar for the VF CW that
received either pre-settled domestic wastewater or UASB efu-
ent, while the total COD removed was about three times higher
for the VF CW receiving UASB efuent. Therefore, it seems
that the TSS loading rate was the most inuential parameter
affecting the rate of bed clogging in VF CW (Green et al., 2006).
Caselles-Osorio and Garcia (2007) compared the physico-
chemical pretreatment and primary settling for constructed
wetlands. Physico-chemical pretreatment reduced the COD to
48% and turbidity to 17% that of primary settled wastewater.
After 8 months of operation at similar hydraulic loading rates,
it was observed that the hydraulic conductivity decreased
by 20% in the subsurface ow (SSF) CW fed with settled
wastewater. The authors estimated that the physico-chemical
pretreatment extended the lifespan of the constructed wet-
land by approximately 10 years, compared to a primary
decanter pretreatment.
The effect of the inuent type (dissolved glucose or par-
ticulate starch) on the efciency of SSF CW was reported by
Caselles-Osorio and Garca (2006). The type of organic mat-
ter did not appear to inuence the COD removal efciency.
However, ammonia nitrogen removal was higher in the sys-
tem fed with glucose than in the one fed with starch. Hydraulic
conductivity was lower near the inlet of the SSF CW fed with
glucose, despite the possible retention and accumulation of
starch particles near the inlet of the other SSF CW. The authors
hypothesized the growth and development of biolm was
greater in the system fed with glucose than in the system fed
with starch, since glucose is a readily biodegradable carbon
source. Therefore, the biolm growth could be an important
parameter in the evaluation of clogging phenomena, as these
authors indicated.
It is generally accepted that the application of a good
wastewater pretreatment is essential for sustainable, long-
term operation of subsurface ow constructed wetlands
(Vymazal et al., 1998; USEPA, 2000; Vymazal, 2002; Caselles-
Osorio et al., 2007). On the other hand, although VF CW
can directly treat raw domestic wastewater (Chazarenc and
Merlin, 2005), several authors also recommended wastewa-
ter pretreatment (Winter and Goetz, 2003; Langergraber et al.,
2003; Green et al., 2006).
3. Pretreatment alternatives for constructed
wetlands
The main objective of pretreatment or primary treatment is
the reduction of suspended solids in wastewater, although
additional treatment effects leading to organic content reduc-
tion and, in some cases, the hydrolysis and stabilization of
the generated sludge are obtained. In this way, some pretreat-
ment technologies can reach up to 50% COD or BOD removal.
Furthermore, from a general point of view, pretreament opera-
tions are considered to be a convenient means of ensuring the
correct operation of subsequent treatment steps in both con-
ventional and natural low cost treatment approaches (Metcalf
and Eddy, 2003). However, information about the operation
and efciency of pretreatment systems combined with CW
is scarce. Even in many scientic reports, the TSS concentra-
tion entering the CW system is not available, in contrast to
the frequent statement that the inuent concentration and
loading rate of TSS are the main factors that inuence clog-
ging.
Classical sewage pretreatment technologies include a sep-
tic tank and Imhoff tank for small-scale installations. These
systems can achieve a TSS removal of 5070%, generating pri-
mary efuent concentrations in the range of 5090 mgTSS/l
when they are operated well (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Fur-
thermore, septic and Imhoff tanks stabilize the sludge by
anaerobic digestion, reducing the amount of sludge gener-
ated. Another classical pretreatment alternative, which is
used mainly for larger installations, is the primary decanter.
Primary decanters offer similar TSS removal of 5070%, but
the high amount of primary sludge produced is their largest
handicap (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Physico-chemical treat-
ment (coagulation and occulation followed by clarication)
is an advanced pretreatment for domestic sewage, reach-
ing up to 90% TSS removal and 80% COD (Metcalf and Eddy,
2003). However, physico-chemical pretreatment also has cer-
tain requirements that can make this process unsuitable in
the context of constructed wetlands technology; these include
the cost of the coagulants, energy for adding and mixing coag-
ulants, and increased sludge handling (Caselles-Osorio and
Garcia, 2007).
Until now, the most common wastewater pretreatments
for CW have been the septic tank (ST) or the Imhoff tank (IT).
When properly operated, ST and IT offer good pretreatment
levels, reaching low TSS concentrations (Neralla et al., 2000;
Vymazal, 2002). However, ST and IT frequently suffer from
failures that decreased the treatment efciency (Philippi et al.,
1999; Mbuligwe, 2004; Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007).
A recent survey indicates that 86% of the constructed wet-
land plants in operation in Spain use a septic tank or Imhoff
tank for pretreatment (Puigagut et al., 2007). This was observed
in spite of the fact that the majority of these CW were built
within the last 5 or 6 years. A report of recently built CW sys-
tems in Italy also indicated the use of Imhoff tanks (Masi et
al., 2006). The situation is similar in most countries where CW
systems are being used. In the case of the Czech Republic,
pretreatment for a small system usually consists of a septic or
settling tank, while pretreatment for larger systems usually
consists of an Imhoff tank (Vymazal, 2002). Settling tanks are
used also in Flanders (Rousseau et al., 2004a) and Denmark
(Brix and Arias, 2005).
A summary of data on wastewater pretreatment for con-
structed wetlands is presented in Table 1. The average primary
treatment efuent concentration of SS in Czech Republic CW
systems is 65 mg/l, while the average mass-loading rate is
3.6 gTSS/m2 d (Vymazal, 2002; n = 42). Data for Denmark and
the UK (n = 77), North America (n = 34), and Poland (n = 6),
and the Czech Republic, indicate that the average inu-
ent concentration to CW after pretreatment ranges from 48
to 173 mgTSS/l and average loading rates range from 3.6
to 5.2 gTSS/m2 d (Vymazal, 2002). Vymazal (2005) reported
worldwide gures for CW, indicating an average inuent TSS
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467 57

Table 1 Efuent concentration and efciency of TSS removal for domestic sewage pretreatment systems combined with
CW
N TSS (mg/l) TSSr (%) Reference

Septic and Imhoff tanks

Primary sedimentation (to VF CW) 1 240416 Green et al. (2006)
Septic tank (to SSF CW) 8 26114 Neralla et al. (2000)
Septic tank (to VF CW, single-house) 3 85124 Brix and Arias (2005)
Septic tank (to SSF CW) 4 90517 (261)a 35.2 Caselles-Osorio et al. (2007)
Settling pond (to FWS CW) 12 5200 (25)b Rousseau et al. (2004a)
Settling tank (to VF CW) 7 131000 (80)b Rousseau et al. (2004a)
Settling tank (to HF CW) 2 10400 (47)b Rousseau et al. (2004a)
Septic tank or Imhoff Tank (to SSF CW) 3 173 Puigagut et al. (2007)
Septic tank or Imhoff Tank (to SSF CW) 42 65 Vymazal (2002)
Imhoff Tank (to SSF CW) 1 146 73.0 Caselles-Osorio et al. (2007)
Imhoff Tank (to HF or VF CW) 3 2676 Masi et al. (2006)
Range (Average) 261000 (123)

High-rate anaerobic digesters

UASB (to VF CW) 1 124 52 Green et al. (2006)
UASB (to SSF and FWS CW) 1 59 66.5 El-Khateeb and El-Gohary (2003)
UASB (to SSF CW) 1 189 El-Hamouri et al. (2007)
UASB (to SSF CW) 1 3442 8291 Barros et al. (2006)
UASB (to SSF CW) 1 3874 (52)a 4978 (65)a Ruz et al. (2006)
Range (Average) 34189 (92) 5291 (68)

a
Range followed by the average. N is the number of studies included.
b
Range followed by 50% percentile.

concentration of 107 mg/l and an average TSS loading rate of
5.4 g/m2 d.
For Spanish CW-based treatment systems, TSS loading
rates range from 3 to 17 gTSS/m2 d (n = 6), and the aver-
age primary treatment efuent concentration is 173 mg/l
(n = 3) (Puigagut et al., 2007). These authors highlight the
scarcity of data about TSS loading rates and inuent con-
centrations, as they surveyed a total of 39 SSF systems but
only found information on TSS for a few of these systems.
Also in Spain, recent research conducted on several Catalo-
nian SSF CW systems (Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007) reports
primary efuent from septic tanks and Imhoff tanks con-
taining 90517 mgSS-COD/l (average and standard deviation
of 238 172 mgSS-COD/l; n = 5). These SS-COD values indicate
higher TSS concentrations. The authors indicated that in some
cases, septic tanks used as pretreatment systems were not
working properly. Estimated TSS loading rates for Catalonian
SSF CW systems (Caselles-Osorio et al., 2007) are in the range
of 2.610 gTSS/m2 d, and are higher than the ranges indicated
above for other countries.
As indicated, high-rate anaerobic digesters have become
an alternative for sewage treatment in regions with a warm
climate. As a consequence, in recent years CW systems have
been applied in some occasions as a post-treatment pro-
cess for anaerobically pretreated sewage. Section 4 deals the
operation of CW treating anaerobic efuents, while Table 1
summarizes available data about TSS in UASB efuents fed
to CW systems. Data from Table 1 indicate a somewhat low
TSS concentration in UASB efuents when compared to sep-
tic and Imhoff tank efuents. However, it is not possible to
make a denitive comparison due to the scarcity of data for
UASB-CW combined systems.
A general review of high-rate anaerobic digesters treating
municipal wastewater (Alvarez et al., in preparation) indi-
cated that UASB removes about 73% of inuent TSS (average
inuent TSS of 241 mg/l, efuent TSS of 65 mg/l, n = 127 lab
and eld applications, temperature of 21.6 C, HRT (hydraulic
retention time) of 8.5 h. However, mean values for perfor-
mance of eld-only applications of UASB were lower (inuent
TSS of 301 mg/l, efuent TSS of 102 mg/l, n = 22, temperature
of 23.8 C, HRT of 6.9 h). This could be due to the fact that
UASB eld applications mainly correspond to tropical coun-
tries where wastewater concentration is high. Furthermore,
higher temperatures in these countries lead to higher biogas
production that in turn increases sludge washout. However,
UASB offers an advanced wastewater pretreatment, which
reaches about 62% COD removal and 68% BOD removal, lev-
els that are maintained in eld applications. In addition, UASB
systems generate very small amounts of sludge and applied
HRTs are lower than those of some primary treatments such
as septic tank or ponds.
Different congurations of anaerobic digesters had been
studied in order to treat municipal wastewater in both cold
and warm regions. In Section 5, some of these congurations
are analysed, with special attention given to the solid removal
capability of anaerobic systems.
4. CW post-treatment of anaerobically
treated sewage
Table 2 shows the main design and operating characteris-
tics of various constructed wetlands for UASB-CW combined
systems found in the literature. A dozen UASB-CW appli-
cations were described, although there is only information
about inuent TSS for a few systems, as can be seen by com-
paring Tables 2 and 1. In addition, the operational period
reported in these studies is not long enough (the maximum
 58
Table 2 Operation of constructed wetlands using anaerobic technology as a pretreatment
Ref.a Systemb Plant OLR (g/m2 d) (in CW sub-units system) CW system efciency (%, except FC: Log units)

TRH (d) COD TSS BOD N-NH4 TN TP COD TSS BOD N-NH4 TN TP FC

1 UASB + SSF Juncus spp. 5 1.32 0.16 82.9 65.0 70.0 70.3 89.0 3.4
2 UASB + SSF Juncus spp. 7 1.89 0.23 81.3 56.2 44.8 47.4 64.2 3.9

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
3 UASB + SSF Juncus spp. 10 2.64 0.32 81.6 48.0 45.1 48.0 61.1 4.5
4 UASB + SSF Juncus spp. 10 6.6 2.0 0.17 81.7 70.3 69.3 50.0 4.0
5 UASB + SSF Juncus spp. 7 9.5 2.0 0.25 76.7 66.0 44.3 47.3 3.7
6 UASB + SSF T. latifolia 5 5.513.5 1.43.3 1.74.7 0.71.8 1.33.1 0.080.19 78.0 79.7 77.8 27.3 27.3 38.2 3.3
7 UASB + SF T. latifolia 10.8 5.513.5 1.43.3 1.74.7 0.71.8 1.33.1 0.080.19 69.7 55.9 79.8 51.5 41.8 29.4 3.3
8 UASB + SSF Ph. Mauritianus 1.9 12.3 2.4 5661 2327 0.6
T. latifolia
9 UASB + SSF T. Latifolia 1.2 14.5 3.9 0.75 7580 7475 6975
Colocasia esculenta
10 UASB + VF(3x) Ph. australis 0.6 779.0 183.0 333.9 82.2 91.3 95.1
11 UASB + VF(2) + SSF Ph. australis 0.4 + 1.6 73.7 17.3 31.6 82.2 91.3 95.1
12 UASB(2) + SSF + SF Juncus spp. 5.0 7.7 1.7 5.2 1.2 2.3 0.2 7283 3252 7887 38 32 26 2.1
13 UASB + FSF + SF Juncus spp. 2.4 16.5 5.0 10.2 70.5 77.3 73
14 UASB(2) + SSF Ph. Australis
Arundo donax 0.54 130.1 64.1 74.6 21.4 21.4 3.7 7882 7980 7982 89 811 15.0 1.0
15 AT + SSF Z.b. and T.sc 1.5 4.5 1.0 71.4 86.1 95.8 90.4 93.3 100%
16 AT + SSF Z.b. and T.sc 0.75 9.0 2.0 37.5 46.1 55.2 56.6 20.9 89.7%

a
References: (1,2,3) Sousa et al. (2001), (4,5) Sousa et al. (2003), (6,7) El-Khateeb and El-Gohary (2003), (8) Kaseva (2004), (9) Mbuligwe (2004), (10,11) Green et al. (2006), (12) Barros et al. (2006), (13) Ruz
et al. (2006), (14) El-Hamouri et al. (2007), (15,16) Da Motta Marques et al., 2001.
b
System description: UASB (Upow Anaerobic Sludge Bed), SSF (Horizontal Subsurface ow constructed wetland), VF (Vertical ow constructed wetland), SF (Horizontal Surface ow constructed
wetland), and AT (Anaerobic treatment not specied). Referred units were connected in series, the number in parentheses indicates several units of the same type in the series.
c
Zizaniopsis bonariensis and Typha subalata.
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
Table 3 Comparison of the loading rate and efciency for CW treatment of efuents from UASB and from classical
pretreatment technologies
BOD5 COD
Worldwide experiment SSFa
Loading rate (g/m2 d) 3.9 12.0
Efciency (%) 81 71
UASB-SSF combined systemsb
Loading rate (g/m2 d) 5.5 10.8
Efciency (%) 78 73
a
Vymazal (2005), n = 66131.
b
This review: mean values obtained from data in Table 2, except for experiments 10, 11, and 14 (n = 413).
operation period was 3 years) to conclude whether anaerobic
pretreatment can prevent gravel bed clogging. Furthermore,
information about solid accumulation or hydraulic conduc-
tivity evolution in constructed wetlands combined with UASB
is not included in referred bibliography.
In general, the performance of the systems is satisfactory
with high removal efciencies for organic matter, suspended
solids, nutrients and pathogens, reaching mean values (S.D.)
of 74 (12)% COD, 68 (17)% TSS, 83 (9)% BOD, 49 (22)%
TN (total nitrogen), 51 (26)% TP (total phosphorous), and 94
(13)% FC (data obtained from Table 2). These efciency val-
ues are close to those found in the literature (Vymazal, 2002;
Rousseau et al., 2004a; Puigagut et al., 2007) for SSF CW treat-
ing primary settled efuents. Planted beds generally perform
better than unplanted ones (El-Khateeb and El-Gohary, 2003;
Sousa et al., 2003; Mbuligwe, 2004; Kaseva, 2004; El-Hamouri
et al., 2007). Da Motta Marques et al. (2001) found that plants
improve constructed wetland efciency only under high load-
ing rates. No signicant differences in efciency between
macrophyte species were found in UASB-CW systems treating
domestic sewage, except in some restricted cases.
The organic load rate for horizontal ow constructed wet-
lands varies from 5 to 20 (mean value of 11.4) gCOD/m2 d
and from 1.4 to 3.3 (mean value of 3.0) gTSS/m2 d, when the
study from El-Hamouri et al. (2007) is excluded. In general,
organic loading rates on a COD basis are similar to those
reported for SSF CW operating in several European countries
while loading rates of suspended solids are lower. As indi-
cated, Vymazal (2002) reported organic loading rates in the
range of 8.612.7 gCOD/m2 d for the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Poland, and Slovenia, and TSS loading rates in the range of
3.65.2 gTSS/m2 d for the Czech Republic, Denmark, UK, North
America, and Poland. Vymazal (2005) reported worldwide
data, including data from Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, India, Mexico, New
Zealand, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, the USA, and the UK.
Table 3 compares mean worldwide values reported by
Vymazal (2005) and mean values obtained from studies
included in Table 2 to UASB-SSF (or SF) combined systems.
Although the number of examples for UASB-SSF combined
systems is scarce, results suggest similar organic loading rates
and lower TSS loading rates for CW combined with UASB
pretreatment. So, UASB reactors reduce the suspended solid
loading rate from 30 to 50% compared to classical pretreat-
ment technologies. COD removal efciency is similar while
TSS removal efciency is lower. Nutrient loading rates (TP,
59
TSS TP TN NH4 + -N
5.4 0.39 1.76 1.06
78 32 39 34
2.9 0.49 3.01 2.02
63 54 53 53
TN, and NH4 + -N) are higher for CW in UASB-SSF combined
systems, which generally also have higher nutrient removal
efciencies. This behaviour is in accordance with the fact that
UASB efciently removes organic mater and suspended solids,
but UASB is primarily a nutrient conservative process. There-
fore, in UASB-SSF combined systems, CW will have a lower
TSS inuent concentration but a higher nutrient concentra-
tion. The removal of faecal coliforms has a range of 14 log
units and is clearly inuenced by the HRT applied.
El-Hamouri et al. (2007) reported higher loading rates of
131 gCOD/m2 d and 64 gTSS/m2 d for a SSF CW fed with the
efuent from a two-step UASB system. The SSF used by
El-Hamouri et al. (2007) had a high depth (0.8 m) and the
system reached low nutrients removal, indicating only sec-
ondary treatment objectives. Furthermore, the reported period
of operation was short (6 months) and there is no informa-
tion on the sustainability of this highly loaded SSF CW. Even
higher organic loading rate values were reached when UASB
efuents were treated in VF CW or in combined systems that
included VF CW units (Green et al., 2006). A system includ-
ing a UASB followed by two VF CWs and one SSF CW reached
a high secondary treatment efciency that had a small foot-
print, equivalent to 0.9 m2 per person. An even lower footprint
of 0.13 m2 per person equivalent was achieved for a scheme
that included a UASB followed by three VF CWs (Green et al.,
2006).
5. Anaerobic congurations as CW
pretreatment: case studies
5.1. Anaerobic digestion processes and up ow
anaerobic digesters
The UASB reactor is the most commonly used anaerobic tech-
nology for domestic sewage treatment; and the hydrolytic
upow sludge bed (HUSB) is an option to be considered. These
digesters have similar design features, but are primarily differ-
entiated by their operational conditions. Both UASB and HUSB
can be operated as a single unit or as a combined two-step or
hybrid system (see Fig. 1).
In upow mode reactors like the HUSB and UASB, raw or
pretreated wastewater enters the bottom of the digester and
goes up until it reaches the solidliquidgas (SLG) separator,
if it exists, and nally reaches the exit level. Sedimentation,
ltration, and absorption processes enable suspended solids
60 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of anaerobic systems used for laboratory, pilot, and eld scale applications (note that
Table 4 indicates which of these congurations are tested at lab, pilot, or full scale experiments). Abbreviations: UASB,
Upow Anaerobic Sludge Bed; HUSB, Hydrolytic Upow Sludge Bed; CMSS, Completely Mixed Sludge Stabilization digester;
I, Inuent; E, Efuent; G, Biogas; S, Sludge.
to be retained inside the digester, resulting in the sludge bed.
Because of this, suspended solids and absorbable organic mat-
ter contained in wastewater have a longer solid retention time
(SRT) than the liquid fraction (HRT), allowing particulate mat-
ter to be totally or partially biodegraded. In properly designed
systems, the pass of the inuent through the sludge in up
ow digesters improves contact between organic substrates
and biomass, enhancing digester performance.
Depending on operational conditions, the sludge held in
the digester can reach the SLG separator and, eventually,
the exit level. In order to avoid the presence of great amounts
of suspended solids in the digester efuent, purges must be
periodically practiced from a point slightly below the SLG
separator or at an equivalent point. The frequency of this
purge is highly variable, from once a week in the case of high
load HUSB systems to a yearly purge or no purge in the case
of low load UASB methanogenic systems. In the case of HUSB
systems, additional purges may be necessary in order to main-
tain the SRT at an appropriate value, as indicated below.
The anaerobic degradation process takes place in two
main sequential phases. Particulate organic and soluble
polymers should rst be hydrolysed and subsequently acid-
ied to volatile fatty acids (known as acidogenic phase,
or hydrolyticacidogenic phase). The process can continue
through acetic acid generation from other volatile fatty acids
and through methane generation from acetic acid and hydro-
gen (known as the methanogenic phase). The overall process
for the anaerobic digestion of complex substrates may be
performed either in a single unit system (only one digester,
single-step system) or in two separated units (two digesters
connected in series, two-step system). In two-step systems,
the rst step mainly deals with the substrate hydrolysis and
acidication and the second step involves the acetogenic
and methanogenic process. However, many two-step systems
respond to a partial phase separation, showing the presence
of methanogenic activity in the rst step and hydrolysis in the
second step.
On the other hand, the anaerobic process may be stopped
in the rst phase as a function of environmental and oper-
ational conditions. In this case, the one-step system will be
called an anaerobic hydrolytic pretreatment. The well-known
UASB system is the most commonly used design for anaero-
bic methanogenic treatment of domestic sewage. A digester
design similar to the UASB, when used under hydrolytic (non-
methanogenic) conditions, is known as a HUSB reactor.
The type of substrate, inuent concentration, temperature,
HRT, and SRT are the main operational parameters that dene
the methanogenic or nonmethanogenic conditions. Domes-
tic sewage is a complex substrate with only a small fraction
of readily degradable matter in anaerobic conditions, making
hydrolysis the limiting step of the overall process in many
cases. Inuent concentration and the applied HRT determine
the maximum achievable SRT, although the actual SRT may
be reduced through a sludge purge (Alvarez et al., 2006). Lower
inuent concentration and lower HRT lead to a lower SRT.
Temperature determines the minimum required SRT for
methanogenic conditions. Methanogenic digesters operating
at 1320 C need a minimum SRT of 80 and 50 d (Henze et al.,
1995). In this way, Zeeman and Lettinga (1999) postulated that
a SRT higher than 75 d would be required for a UASB treating
municipal wastewater at 15 C.
With dilute or very dilute sewage, the maximum achievable
SRT of an UASB may be equal to or below the minimum SRT
required for methanogenesis. In this case, the methanogenic
processes is partial and volatile fatty acids (mainly acetic acid)
accumulate in the efuent of the digester. In any case, the SRT
may be reduced through a sludge purge to reduce methano-
genesis and to reach predominantly hydrolyticacidogenic
conditions. In practice, hydrolytic conditions are established
by applying a low HRT and practicing an additional sludge
Table 4 Summary of the results obtained in anaerobic systems for municipal wastewater treatment
Expa Systema Volume (l) Days (samples)b T ( C) HRT (h) SRT (d) Vup (m/h) XR (gVSS/l) Efuent pH Inuent (mg/l)c Removal (%)d

COD TSS COD TSS

Single-step HUSB systems (hydrolytic pretreatment)

1 HUSBlab 2 524 (147) 20 2.24.5 1429 0.11 1015 7.38 624 (255806) 220 (110312) 3347 5568

e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
2 HUSBpilot run 1 25500 53 (23) 1920 35 11.4 1.43 6.7 7.26 438 (291594) 294 (111605) 4659 8285
3 HUSBpilot run 2 25500 495 (250) 1320 35 22.4 1.30 11.1 7.14 282 (53565) 173 (19438) 2944 4476

Single-step UASB systems (anaerobic treatment)

4 UASBlab 2 155 (42) 20 516 33215 0.04 9.2 7.00 685 (276926) 214 (116336) 5376 6385
5 UASBpilot run 1 25500 69 (34) 1415 1011 88 0.49 11.4 7.15 282 (118451) 187 (93418) 5458 7685
6 UASBpilot run 2 25500 54 (28) 14 11 57 0.48 4.2 6.98 169 (34300) 107 (44173) 3545 5065
7 UASBpilot run 3 25500 70 (34) 2021 4.75.6 38 1.02 10.7 7.15 339 (227480) 207 (92430) 4749 8182
8 UASB (eld) 3600 325 (32) 518 17 4692 0.19 36 7.10 1354 (802700) 799 (502100) 5893 8296

UASB-CMSS systems (anaerobic treatment)

9 UASB-CMSS lab 21.6 95 (42) 20 67 3375 0.06 14.8 6.83 644 (220967) 237 (152424) 7181 7788
10 UASB-CMSS pilot 2550020000 80 (41) 1516 69 82.5 0.70 8.45.9 7.27 321 (182451) 175 (112252) 4653 6379

Two-step systems (anaerobic treatment)

11 HUSB + UASB pilot run 1 25500 + 20000 97 (42) 1421 35 + 714e 2883e 1.260.50e 11.78.3e 7.14 251 (70540) 166 (49359) 4965 8189
12 HUSB + UASB pilot run 2 25500 + 20000 60 (35) 1620 34 + 69e 2171e 1.270.52e 12.68.5e 7.21 367 (213565) 202 (99361) 5965 8689
13 UASB + UASB (eld) 3600 + 3600 252 (29) 718 24 + 24e 387 0.120.12e 4.46.5e 7.24 352 (200800) 354 (50400) 4565 7590

a
For system description, see also Fig. 1. Experiments: (1) Ligero et al. (2001a); (2) Alvarez et al. (2003); (3) Alvarez (2004); (4) Ruz et al. (1998); (5, 6, 7) Alvarez et al. (2006); (8) Barros and Soto (2002); (9)
Ruz et al. (1998); (10) Alvarez et al. (2004); (11) Alvarez et al. (2007); (12) Alvarez (2004); (13) Barros and Soto (2004).
b
Reported operation period in days, the number of samples analysed is in parentheses.
c
The average is followed by the minimum and maximum values in parentheses.
d
Removal range obtained from average removal values that corresponded to periods of different operation conditions.
e
Values corresponding to the rst and second step units (in two-step systems), respectively.

61
62 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467

purge if necessary. In this way, a lower HRT and a lower SRT tem (Barros and Soto, 2004) consisting of two UASB, each with
differentiate HUSB from UASB systems. 3.6 m3 of active volume was used. These digesters did not have
a solidliquidgas separator.
5.2. Description of surveyed anaerobic systems Analytical methods were carried out according to Standard
methods (1995), as previously detailed (Ruz et al., 1998;
Fig. 1 shows the different anaerobic digester congurations Alvarez et al., 2006). Sampling frequency of inuent and efu-
analysed in this section, which include laboratory, pilot- ent varied from once a week for eld scale applications to four
and eld-scale applications of anaerobic digesters, single or ve times a week for pilot and lab scale digesters. The mon-
and two-step systems, and hydrolytic and methanogenic itoring period varied from 53 to 495 days depending on the
operation conditions. All applications were carried out in system considered.
Galiza, in northwest Spain. Attention has been paid to the
removal efciency and efuent concentration of suspended
5.3. Operation and efciency of anaerobic systems
solids.
The main characteristics of these systems are described
Table 4 summarises the results of the different anaerobic
below, while a detailed explanation is available in the ref-
systems studied, and includes the main design and oper-
erences indicated. All water line digesters, i.e., all digesters
ation variables such as the HRT, SRT, upow velocity, and
used except the Completely Mixed Sludge Stabilization (CMSS)
biomass concentration. The operation and efciency of these
digester, operated in an upow mode.
systems has been described in detail elsewhere (see refer-
A 2 l active volume digester was operated on a laboratory
ences in Table 4). Upow velocity of the different systems
scale UASB at a HRT of 516 h (Ruz et al., 1998). In a second
surveyed is determined by design characteristics, digester
study, the UASB reactor was operated in combination with
size, and HRT applied. Design characteristics and HRT com-
a 1.6 l active volume CMSS digester (Ruz et al., 1998). The
bined with wastewater characteristics also determined the
CMSS digester was fed with sludge drawn from UASB and an
SRT and the biomass concentration (XR ) obtained. However,
equal volume of the CMSS digester content was returned to
in some operation periods of examples 3 and 12, the SRT of
the bottom of the UASB. The CMSS digester was mechanically
the HUSB system was intentionally reduced via an additional
stirred and in a thermostat-controlled bath that was 35 C.
sludge purge. As indicated in Table 4, SRT was highly variable,
Finally, the same digester was operated as a HUSB at a HRT
while the biomass concentration was generally between 8 and
of 2.24.5 h (Ligero et al., 2001a,b). In this case, the digester
15 gVSS/l (volatile suspended solids). Lower biomass concen-
was equipped with an internal recirculation system. These
trations were registered in some cases, either when very dilute
laboratory digesters were fed with raw domestic wastewater
wastewater was treated (experiment 6) or in very low-load
collected from the main sewer of the city of A Coruna (Ruz et
digesters (experiments 8 and 13).
al., 2007).
In this paper, we carried out a comparative study of
An anaerobic pilot plant was located at the municipal
different systems focusing on the TSS removal efciency
wastewater treatment facility of Santiago de Compostela, and
and efuent quality. As indicated above, this aspect is of
it was fed with raw domestic wastewater from this city. This
great importance in preventing clogging phenomena in post-
plant had a 25.5 m3 active volume and it could treat municipal
treatment wetlands. For this purpose, original data on the
wastewater from a population of about 200300 inhabitants
inuent and efuent were used.
when operated in methanogenic conditions or about 500800
Attention is also focused on other design and operation
inhabitants when operated as a hydrolytic pretreatment. This
variables like COD removal efciency, efuent pH, biomass
pilot plant was successively operated as methanogenic UASB
activity, and surplus sludge generation. Other parameters, like
system (runs 1, 2, and 3) at a HRT from 5 to 11 h (Alvarez et
alkalinity, pathogens, fat, and oil were not measured in most
al., 2006), and as a hydrolytic HUSB reactor at a HRT of 35 h
of the research described. Pathogen removal has scarcely been
(Alvarez et al., 2003).
considered in anaerobic digesters treating municipal wastew-
In another study, this UASB was coupled with a CMSS
ater, and generally this aspect is not considered in monitoring
digester that had 20 m3 of active volume. This system is named
anaerobic digesters, although helminthic eggs were reported
as the UASB-CMSS pilot plant. In this conguration, the UASB
to be completely eliminated in UASB (Lettinga et al., 1993). In a
was operated at a HRT of 69 h and the CMSS digester at a HRT
combined UASB-CW system treating the efuent from a small
of 1627 d and 3035 C (Alvarez et al., 2004). The overall HRT
rural community, anaerobic digesters removed less than 0.5
was in the range of 10.716.1 h.
log units of faecal coliforms, while the overall system removed
A two-step pilot plant was also studied (Alvarez et al.,
about 2.0 log units.
2007), and consisted of a hydrolyticacidogenic reactor (HUSB,
25.5 m3 ) followed by a methanogenic unit (UASB, 20 m3 ). Both
digesters had a similar design, and were differentiated by their 5.3.1. Single-step HUSB systems
operating conditions. The HRT ranged from 3 to 5 h for HUSB The anaerobic hydrolysis of wastewater is a promising
and from 6 to 14 h for UASB. pretreatment with the following advantages (Wang, 1994;
A eld application of the anaerobic digester was carried out Goncalves et al., 1994; Ligero et al., 2001a,b): (a) it removes
in order to treat domestic wastewater from a small community an high percentage of SS; (b) it totally or partially stabilises
of about 30 inhabitants (Beariz, Ourense). The operation of a the sludge; and (c) it increases the biodegradability of the
single-step UASB with 3.6 m3 of active volume was checked remaining COD. The latter advantage favours the subsequent
(Barros and Soto, 2002). In a second study, a two-step sys- biological elimination of nutrients (N, P).
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
In laboratory-scale experiments with the HUSB, optimum
results were obtained at a HRT of 2.3 h (see experiment 1
in Table 4). Over 60% of inuent SS were retained in the
digester and hydrolysed. On the other hand, a pilot plant-scale
HUSB reactor treating diluted wastewater at 20 C removed
more than 82% of TSS (experiment 2). Most of the solids
removed (above 81%) were eliminated by hydrolysis. In con-
trast, at lower temperatures (1315 C), the TSS retention and
hydrolysis decreased (experiment 3). Furthermore, the HUSB
digester removed COD in an extension that varied from 30 to
60%.
The process is self-controlled in relation to operational
parameters like pH, biomass concentration, and activity. Since
acidication is a faster process than hydrolysis, the result of
hydrolytic pretreatment is the generation of VFA that reduces
the pH in both the sludge bed and the digester efuent. The
sludge bed pH is in the range from 5.5 to 7, which is lower
than inuent and efuent pH. The HUSB efuent contained
acetic acid in a range of concentrations that varied from 60
to 110 mg/l, and the efuent pH was generally 0.21.0 units
lower than the inuent pH. Sludge held in HUSB reactors
showed residual methanogenic activity ranging from 0.01 to
0.02 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd, indicating partial separation of anaer-
obic phases. A lower SRT may be reached by an additional
purge, which in turn enhances phase separation through
a lower biomass concentration and methanogenic activity.
However, lower SRT also reduces the suspended solid hydrol-
ysis and increases the surplus sludge generation. Previous
research (Alvarez, 2004) demonstrated that inuent wastewa-
ter strength strongly inuences the overall efciency (percent
TSS, COD, and BOD removal) and acidication efciency (VFA
generation) of the HUSB reactor, while temperature only
appreciably inuences the acidication efciency. The inu-
ence of operational parameters such as HRT, SRT, and sludge
concentration on the behaviour of the HUSB system is not well
established (Alvarez, 2004). Further research on this subject is
still necessary.
5.3.2. Single-step UASB systems
The laboratory UASB system, which treats domestic waste-
water at 20 C and HRT of 16 h, reached COD and TSS removal
efciencies of 76 and 85%, respectively. An important effect of
HRT on the removal efciency was observed, since at the same
temperature and 5 h of HRT, removal efciencies decreased
to 53% of COD and 63% of TSS (experiment 4). In experi-
ments 5 and 6, a pilot plant UASB was operated at 1011 h
HRT and 1415 C. In experiment 5, this plant achieved TSS
and COD removals above 75 and 54%, respectively. In exper-
iment 6, these values decreased to 58% TSS removal and
40% COD removal. The inuent concentration explained this
behaviour, since very dilute wastewater was used in exper-
iment 6. In experiment 7, the pilot UASB reached a high
level of TSS removal (8182%) but COD removal remained low
(4749%). In the eld application (experiment 8), the full-scale
UASB reached a TSS removal of 8296% and a COD removal of
5893%.
Efuent VFA (mainly acetic acid) in single-step UASB sys-
tems working at low environment temperatures ranged from 0
to 80 mgCOD/l, while the average specic methanogenic activ-
ity of UASB sludge ranged from 0.02 to 0.05 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd.
63
Fig. 2 Average efuent TSS concentration (mg/l) in the
anaerobic system studied. Bars and whiskers represent
average values and standard deviations, respectively.
Number of data is shown at the bottom of the columns. To
identity system, see Table 4.
Efuent pH was generally 0.10.3 units lower than the inuent
pH. Surplus organic sludge generation ranged from 0 to 30%
of inuent VSS, depending mainly on organic and hydraulic
loading and SRT. For example, no generation of surplus sludge
was found in experiments 6 and 8 (Table 4). In contrast, sur-
plus sludge reached 20% for inuent VSS in experiment 5 and
up to 31% in experiment 7.
At temperatures of 20 C and particularly at tempera-
tures lower than 15 C, single-step methanogenic process had
some difculties caused by low hydrolysis rates of inuent
suspended solids, which accumulated in the digesters displac-
ing the active methanogenic biomass (Zeeman and Lettinga,
1999). Therefore, signicant amounts of volatile fatty acids
remained in the digester efuent. For example, this occurred
in experiment 7, working at a low HRT of 45 h, when about
75 mgVFA-COD/l were registered in the treated efuent. Thus,
at a low temperature, a higher HRT must be applied in single-
step UASB systems, as experiments 5, 6, and 8 described (see
Table 4).
5.3.3. UASB-CMSS systems
The main aim of the CMSS digester, combined with the UASB,
was to enhance the biodegradation of inuent solids retained
in the UASB and to increase its specic methanogenic activity.
The sludge drawn from the middle zone of the UASB entered
the upper zone of the digester and then circulated from the
bottom of the CMSS digester to the bottom of the UASB (Fig. 1).
The CMSS digester temperature was set at optimum values
ranging from 30 to 35 C, while the UASB operated at ambient
temperature.
The laboratory scale UASB-CMSS system (experiment 9,
Table 4) reached COD and TSS removal levels of 76% and 86%,
respectively, at a HRT of 6.2 h for the UASB, improving the
results obtained in the single-step laboratory UASB (experi-
ment 4).
The UASB-CMSS pilot plant (experiment 10, Table 4) also
had increased efciency compared to the single-step UASB,
since it slightly increased the methanogenic activity of the
sludge and reduced the excess sludge generation, which was
64 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
Fig. 3 Percentile distribution of inuent and efuent TSS for each anaerobic conguration. Legend: (1) Single-step HUSB
system, (2) Single-step UASB system, (3) UASB-CMSS system, and (4) Two-step HUSB-UASB and UASB-UASB systems. The
numbers of data included were: (1) 282, (2) 128, (3) 41, and (4) 106.
only 7% of the inuent total COD (or 11% of inuent VSS).
The VFA concentration in UASB efuent was reduced to
830 mgCOD/l. As indicated in Table 4, steady state efciency
for TSS removal was high (6379%). Furthermore, results sug-
gest that the relative volume of the CMSS digester could be
considerably lower than the volume of the UASB, and a plug
up ow sludge digester could be of interest (Alvarez et al.,
2004).
5.3.4. Two-step anaerobic treatment systems
At temperatures below 20 C, the two-step anaerobic sys-
tem can improve the efciency of the single digester, due to
the retention and hydrolysis of suspended organic matter in
the rst step, allowing for an increase in the methanogenic
activity of the anaerobic biomass held in the second step
digester.
The pilot-scale two-step HUSB-UASB system was operated
at a HRT varying from 5.7 to 2.8 h for the rst step and from
13.9 to 6.5 h for the second step (experiment 11). For the overall
system, TSS and COD removals ranged from 81 to 89% and 49
to 65%, respectively. Hydrolysis of inuent VSS reached 59.7%,
and surplus sludge was 22% of the incoming VSS. Although
COD removal efciency was inuenced by wastewater con-
centration and temperature, the efuent TSS concentration
was mainly constant for inuent COD higher than 250 mg/l.
In the second run (experiment 12, Table 4), the efciency was
8689% and 5965% for TSS and COD, respectively, which was
slightly higher than in experiment 11 and was a consequence
of a higher inuent concentration. Surplus sludge in this case
reached 29% of the incoming VSS. The specic methanogenic
activity was 0.010.02 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd for the sludge from
the rst step and 0.050.06 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd for the sludge
from the second step.
The eld application of the two-step system also showed a
very good efciency (experiment 13). The UASB-UASB system
operated at a HRT of 24 h for each digester and a temperature
of 718 C. The efciency of this low load system was 4565%
and 7590% of COD and TSS, respectively (Table 4); and surplus
sludge was not generated. Specic methanogenic activity was
0.01 and 0.02 gCH4 -COD/gVSSd for the sludge in the rst and
second step UASB reactors, respectively.
5.4. Efuent TSS concentration of the surveyed
anaerobic systems
Fig. 2 shows the average TSS concentration in treated efuent
from each system studied. The TSS concentration of HUS-
Blab efuent was the highest (87 mg/l, see Exp. 1 in Fig. 2).
In the HUSB pilot plant, the efuent TSS concentration was
reduced to 50 and 63 mg/l depending on the operating condi-
tions (Fig. 2). These differences in TSS efuent concentration
were probably caused by the lower height of the lab scale
HUSB, which reduced the distance between the top of the
sludge bed and the efuent exit. Furthermore, the upow
velocity (surface loading rate) is higher in the pilot-scale HUSB
reactor (1.4 m/h compared to 0.1 m/h for the lab-scale unit)
allowing better contact between the inuent and the sludge
bed. In practice, the lab-scale digester needs efuent recircu-
lation in order to homogenize the sludge bed and avoid bed
compaction. The pilot-scale HUSB showed a good hydraulic
ux distribution without the need for recirculation, as was
outlined by experiments on hydraulic retention time distri-
bution (Alvarez et al., 2003).
UASB systems, operating at higher HRT than HUSB sys-
tems, had average efuent TSS concentrations below 50 mg/l.
In the case of UASB-CMSS systems, values for efuent TSS
were similar to those of UASB. The lowest efuent TSS con-
centration was obtained with two-step systems, since the pilot
plant and eld application systems had efuent TSS concen-
tration below 35 mg/l.
Fig. 3 shows the percentile distribution of the inuent
and efuent TSS concentration for each anaerobic congu-
ration, excluding laboratory scale experiments. Efuent TSS
concentration was below 100 mg/l for 95% of the data for all
congurations. In the case of the two-step systems, this con-
centration was 55 mg/l for 95% of the data. Mean efuent TSS
concentrations ranged from 35 to 63 mg/l.
Anaerobic digesters generated pretreated efuents with a
TSS concentration that was 50% lower than that generated
by classical pretreatment technologies used in combination
with CW, as indicated above in Table 1 (mean efuent concen-
tration of 123 mgTSS/l), or as reported by Vymazal (2005) for
worldwide experiment (107 mgTSS/l). Therefore, taking into
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
account these data, all these anaerobic digester congurations
meet the general requirements for a municipal wastewater
pretreatment capable of preventing clogging in a constructed
wetland.
The stability and reliability of these anaerobic digesters is
indicated by their behaviour when they are faced with the
wide range of inuent and operational conditions that were
tested. Inuent COD varied from 34 to 2700 mg/l and inuent
TSS from 19 to 2100 mg/l, while the operational tempera-
ture ranged from 5 to 21 C. Efuent quality, however, varied
to a lesser extent, as indicated above for efuent TSS. COD
removal efciency suffered from low inuent temperatures
and organic loads, but values remained in the ranges indicated
in Table 4. Pilot- and eld-scale digesters tolerated prolonged
periods of temperatures below 13 C. However, prolonged peri-
ods of more than 1 month treating very dilute wastewater
(inuent COD below 200 mg/l) clearly affected the efciency
of single-step UASB, and also the stability of two-step HUSB-
UASB systems, when the biomass concentration became very
low (Alvarez, 2004).
6. Inuence of anaerobic pretreatment on
constructed wetland area
Anaerobic pretreatment has two important consequences for
the quality of inuent wastewater in a constructed wetland.
The rst one is the high TSS removal and the maintenance of
TSS concentration in the pretreated wastewater so that it is
below 100 mg/l, as indicated above.
A second consequence is the decrease in the inuent
COD concentration to the wetland by an amount that varied
from 30 to 90%, depending on the type of anaerobic digester
used, wastewater characteristics, and operational conditions
(Table 4). Horizontal ow constructed wetlands can be sized
in order to meet a dened supercial COD load, for exam-
ple 12 gCOD/m2 d (Vymazal, 2005). Therefore, generally the
reduction in the wetland area required when an anaerobic
pretreatment is introduced may range from 30 to 90%.
However, a better method to measure constructed wet-
lands is one that takes into consideration the BOD5 removal
kinetic, such as the rst order model (Rousseau et al., 2004b).
In this case, assuming the background concentration of BOD
is equal to zero, the constructed wetland area is calcu-
lated according to the following equation (Kadlec et al., 2000;
Rousseau et al., 2004b):
F   BOD i 
A= kv E ln
5
(1)
h BOD5 e
where A is the wetland area (m2 ), F is the volumetric ow
(m3 /d), h is the wetland depth (0.40.6 m), E is the gravel
bed porosity (generally, 0.3), and kv is a rst order kinetic
constant that depends on temperature (from 0.17 to 6.11 d1 ,
as reported by Kadlec and Knight (1996) and by Rousseau et
al., 2004b).
In this way, the wetland area is proportional to the loga-
rithm of the quotient between the wetlands inuent BOD5
and efuent BOD5 . Anaerobic pretreatment greatly modies
this quotient but it does not inuence the rest of the param-
65
eters present in Eq. (1). Finally, wetland efuent must meet
legal specications, which according to the EU is a BOD5 less
than or equal to 25 mg/l.
Information on BOD5 inuent concentration and removal
efciency resulting from the anaerobic treatment of munic-
ipal wastewater is scarce in the literature. A general review
of anaerobic digesters treating municipal wastewater (Alvarez
et al., in preparation) indicated that UASB removes about
67% of inuent BOD5 . Limited data for single-step UASB and
UASB-CMSS systems treating diluted (BOD5 about 200 mg/l)
municipal wastewater at temperatures below 20 C show BOD5
removals ranging from 50 to 70% (Alvarez et al., 2004, 2006). In
this case, the BOD5 entering the wetland decreases from 200
to 80 mg/l (60% reduction on average) when an UASB anaero-
bic pretreatment was applied. Therefore, the required wetland
area will be reduced by 44%, as can be calculated using Eq. (1).
More efcient anaerobic pretreatment systems could remove
about 70% of BOD5 and provide a 60% reduction in wetland
area. Even if BOD5 removal decreases to 46%, as may be the
case when HUSB reactors are used as a municipal wastewater
pretreatment, the required wetland area will be 30% less.
Construction costs of CW are highly variable from place
to place but in many cases may be similar to those of some
conventional treatment technologies or may be higher when
land costs are accounted for (Rousseau et al., 2004a; Puigagut
et al., 2007). The requirement of a large amount of land is one
of the limitations to widespread adoption of CW technology
for wastewater treatment in both developed and developing
countries, and the need for reducing investment costs through
reducing the CW area has been proposed on several occasions
(Badkoubi et al., 1998; Kivaisi, 2001; Gomez Cerezo et al., 2001;
Green et al., 2006; El-Hamouri et al., 2007). The footprint of
high-rate anaerobic digesters is very small, ranging from 0.005
to 0.02 m2 /p.e. for the systems included in Table 4. Thus, anaer-
obic digesters may be combined with CW in order to reduce
the overall area below 1 m2 /p.e., as previously proposed (Barros
and Soto, 2002; Green et al., 2006). Furthermore, construction
costs of anaerobic digesters are lower than that of CW and
operation costs are very low and are comparable to that of
CW (Kivaisi, 2001; Hoffmann et al., 2002). In this way, the use
of high-rate anaerobic digesters as a rst treatment step may
be a better choice than using a high-rate vertical ow CW or a
very high load horizontal ow CW that can suffer from surface
ooding and clogging (Batchelor and Loots, 1997).
An anaerobic system is preferable as a wetland pretreat-
ment, compared to a primary decanter or a common septic
tank, as it reduces surplus sludge generation, it removes SS
and BOD5 more effectively, and it offers a good way to buffer
the large uctuations of municipal wastewater from a small
population.
The type of anaerobic process, either a hydrolytic pre-
treatment or methanogenic digestion can also inuence the
performance and efciency of CW post-treatment as the type
of substrate changes. Advanced methanogenic digestion pro-
duces an efuent that is mainly recalcitrant for anaerobic
processes in CW. Therefore, post-treatment CW could be
designed with a lower depth in order to maximize aerobic con-
ditions; or VF CW may be of great interest. In the case of an
anaerobic hydrolytic pretreatment, as in the HUSB process,
most of the volatile suspended solids and readily biodegrad-
66 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
able matter present in raw wastewater are converted to acetic
acid. Acetic acid may be converted in both anaerobic/anoxic
conditions or in aerobic conditions aiding in the nitrogen and
phosphorus removal process. Furthermore, biomass growth
from acetic respiration in anaerobic conditions was lower than
biomass growth from complex substrates (Gujer and Zehnder,
1983). Low growth will reduce solid accumulation in CW media
and could prevent clogging phenomena. At the present time,
no research has been reported on the inuence of the type of
anaerobic pretreatment on the post-treatment CW operation;
and there is a need for additional studies on this subject.
7. Conclusions
One of the most signicant handicaps of constructed wet-
lands for urban wastewater treatment is gravel bed clogging
after a few years of operation with poor waste pretreatment
or high organic loading rates. Another disadvantage of con-
structed wetlands is that a large supercial area is required.
Both handicaps can be minimised with an appropriate anaer-
obic pretreatment.
Anaerobic plants may be operated either as hydrolytic or
methanogenic digesters. Hydrolytic digesters, at an HRT of
35 h, remove 6585% of TSS and 3555% of COD, showing
a large amount of hydrolysis and acidication of inuent
SS. Methanogenic digesters, operating at a HRT of 811 h,
remove 6090% of TSS and 4075% of COD. A two-step system
(hydrolytic and methanogenic digesters in series) can remove
up to 8090% of TSS and 5065% of COD. These results corre-
spond to applications carried out in temperate climates where
wastewater temperature ranges from 13 to 20 C, or in some
cases from 5 to 20 C.
The average and 95th percentile TSS concentrations of
anaerobically treated wastewater were below 60 and 100 mg/l,
respectively, for all congurations. Therefore, anaerobic pre-
treatment of sewage could help prevent media clogging
in constructed wetlands. Furthermore, depending on the
amount of organic matter removed, anaerobic pretreatment
can provide a reduction of 3060% of the wetland area.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by project CTM2005-06457-C05-
02/TECNO from the Ministery of Education and Science of
Spain.
references
Alvarez, J.A., Zapico, C.A., Gomez, M., Presas, J., Soto, M., 2003.
Anaerobic hydrolysis of a municipal wastewater in a
pilot-scale digester. Water Sci. Technol. 47 (12), 223230.
Alvarez, J.A., Armstrong, E., Gomez, M., Presas, J., Soto, M., 2004.
Performance of an UASB-Digester system treating domestic
wastewater. Environ. Technol. 25, 11891199.
Alvarez, J.A., 2004. Tratamiento anaerobio de aguas residuales
urbanas en planta piloto. PhD Thesis. Department of Physical
Chemistry and Chemical Engineering I, University of A
Coruna, Spain.
Alvarez, J.A., Ruz, I., Gomez, M., Presas, J., Soto, M., 2006. Start-up
alternatives and performance of an UASB pilot plant treating
diluted municipal wastewater at low temperature. Bioresour.
Technol. 97, 16401649.
Alvarez, J.A., Armstrong, E., Gomez, M., Soto M., 2007. Anaerobic
treatment of low-strength municipal wastewater by a
two-stage piloto plant under psychrophilic conditions. Biores.
Technol., doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.013, in press.
Alvarez, J.A., Ruz, I., Soto, M. Anaerobic treatment of municipal
wastewater: a review.
Badkoubi, A., Ganjidoust, H., Ghaderi, A., Rajabi, A., 1998.
Performance of a subsurface constructed wetland in Iran.
Water Sci. Technol. 38 (1), 345350.
Barros, P., Soto, M., 2002. Anaerobic systems for domestic
wastewater treatment in rural areas. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Small Wastewater Technologies
and Mangement for the Mediterranean Area, Seville, Spain,
March 2022.
Barros, P., Soto, M., 2004. Depuracion natural avanzada en
nucleos rurais. In: Procceedings of the II Congreso
Internacional de Ingeniera Civil, Territorio y Medio Ambiente,
16111622, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, September 2224.
Barros, P., Ruz, I., Soto, M., 2006. Performance of an anaerobic
digester-wetland system for a small community. In:
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wetlands
Systems for Water Pollution Control, Lisboa, Portugal,
September 2329.
Batchelor, A., Loots, P., 1997. A critical evaluation of a pilot scale
subsurface ow wetland: 10 years after commissioning. Water
Sci. Technol. 35, 337343.
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.
Caselles-Osorio, A., Garca, J., 2006. Performance of experimental
horizontal subsurface ow constructed wetlands fed with
dissolved or particulate organic matter. Water Res. 40,
36033611.
Caselles-Osorio, A., Garcia, J., 2007. Effect of physico-chemical
pretreatment on the removal efciency of horizontal
subsurface-ow constructed wetlands. Environ. Pollut. 146,
5563.
Caselles-Osorio, A., Puigagut, J., Segu, E., Vaello, N., Granes, F.,
Garcia, D., Garcia, J., 2007. Solids accumulation in six full-scale
subsurface ow constructed wetlands. Water Res. 41 (6),
13881398.
Chazarenc, F., Merlin, G., 2005. Inuence of surface layer on
hydrology and biology of gravel bed vertical ow constructed
wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (9), 9197.
Da Motta Marques, D.M.L., Leite, G.R., Giovannini, S.G.T., 2001.
Performance of two macrophyte species in experimental
wetlands receiving variable loads of anaerobically treated
municipal wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (1112), 311316.
Dahab, M.F., Surampalli, R.Y., 2001. Subsurface-ow constructed
wetlands treatment in the plains: ve years of experience.
Water Sci. Technol. 44 (11), 375380.
El-Hamouri, B., Nazih, J., Lahjouj, J., 2007. Subsurface-horizontal
ow constructed wetland for sewage treatment under
Moroccan climate conditions. Desalination 215, 153158.
El-Khateeb, M.A., El-Gohary, F.A., 2003. Combining UASB
technology and constructed wetland for domestic wastewater
reclamation and reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 3 (4), 201208.
Foresti, E., 2002. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage:
established technologies and perspectives. Water Sci.
Technol. 45 (10), 181186.
Foresti, E., Zaiat, M., Vallero, M., 2006. Anaerobic process as the
core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater
treatment: consolidated applications, new trends,
perspectives and challenges. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 319.
 e c o l o g i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 3 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5467
Goncalves, R.F., Charlier, A.C., Sammut, F., 1994. Primary
fermentation of soluble and particulate organic matter for
wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 30 (6), 5362.
Gomez Cerezo, R., Suarez, M.L., Vidal-Abarca, M.R., 2001. The
performance of a multi-stage system of constructed wetlands
for urban wastewater treatment in a semiarid region of SE
Spain. Ecol. Eng. 16, 501517.
Green, M., Shaul, N., Beliavski, M., Sabbah, I., Ghattas, B., Tarre, S.,
2006. Minimizing land requirement and evaporation in small
wastewater treatment systems. Ecol. Eng. 26, 266271.
Gujer, W., Zehnder, A.J., 1983. Conversion processes in anaerobic
digestion. Water Sci. Technol. 15, 127.
Henze, H., Harremoes, P., Jansens, J., Arvin, E., 1995. Wastewater
Treatment. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Hoffmann, H., Platzer, C., Heppeler, D., Barjenbrunch, M.,
Tranckner, J., Belli, P., 2002. Combination of anaerobic
treatment and nutrient removal of wastewater in Brazil. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd Water World Congress, April,
Melbourne, Australia, April 912.
Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper, P., Haberl,
R., 2000. Constructed Wetlands for Pollution Control:
Processes, Performance, Design and Operation, IWA Specialist
Group on Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control,
Scientic and Technical Report 8, IWA Publishing, London,
U.K.
Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publ.
USA, Boca Raton, FL.
Kaseva, M.E., 2004. Performance of a sub-surface ow
constructed wetland in polish pre-treated wastewatera
tropical case study. Water Res. 38, 681687.
Kivaisi, A.K., 2001. The potential for constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: a
review. Ecol. Eng. 16, 545560.
Langergraber, G., Haberl, R., Laber, J., Pressi, A., 2003. Evaluation
of substrate clogging processes in vertical ow constructed
wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (5), 2534.
Lens, P., Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 2001. Decentralised Sanitation
and Reuse: Concepts, Systems and Implementation. IWA
Publishing, London, UK.
Lettinga, G., de Man, A., Van der Last, A.R.M., Wiegant, W., Van
Knippenberg, K., Frijns, J., Van Buuren, J.C.L., 1993. Anaerobic
treatment of domestic sewage and wastewater. Water Sci.
Technol. 27 (9), 6773.
Lettinga, G., 2001. Digestion and degradation, air for life. Water
Sci. Technol. 44 (8), 157176.
Ligero, P., Vega, A., Soto, M., 2001a. Pre-treatment of urban
wastewaters in a hydrolytic up ow digester. Water SA 27 (3),
16.
Ligero, P., Vega, A., Soto, M., 2001b. Inuence of HRT (hydraulic
retention time) and SRT (solid retention time) on the
hydrolytic pre-treatment of urban wastewater. Water Sci.
Technol. 44 (4), 714.
Masi, F., Martinuzzi, N., Bresciani, R., Giovannelli, L., Conte, G.,
2006. Tolerance to hydraulic and organic load uctuations in
constructed wetlands. In: Proceedings of 10th International
Conference on Wetlands Systems for Water Pollution Control,
Lisboa, Portugal, September 2329.
Mbuligwe, S.E., 2004. Comparative effectiveness of engineered
wetland systems in the treatment of anaerobically pre-treated
domestic wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 23, 269284.
Metcalf & Eddy. 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and
Reuse. fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, USA.
Neralla, S., Weaver, R.W., Lesikar, B.J., Persyn, R.A., 2000.
Improvement of domestic wastewater quality by subsurface
ow constructed wetlands. Bioresour. Technol. 75, 1925.
67
Philippi, L.R., Da Costa, R.H.R., Sezerino, P.H., 1999. Domestic
efuent treatment through integrated system of septic tank
and root zone. Water Sci. Technol. 40, 125131.
Puigagut, J., Villasenor, J., Salas, J.J., Becares, E., Garcia, J., 2007.
Subsurface-ow constructed wetlands in Spain for the
sanitation of small communities: a comparative study. Ecol.
Eng. 30, 312319.
Rousseau, D.P.L., Vanrolleghem, P.A., Pauw, N.D., 2004a.
Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis.
Ecol. Eng. 23, 151163.
Rousseau, D.P.L., Vanrolleghem, P.A., Pauw, N.D., 2004b.
Model-based design of horizontal subsurface ow constructed
treatment wetlands: a review. Water Res. 38,
14841493.
Ruz, I., Soto, M., Veiga, M.C., Ligero, P., Vega, A., Blazquez, R.,
1998. Performance of and biomass characterization in a UASB
reactor treating domestic wastewater at ambient
temperature. Water SA 24 (3), 215221.
Ruz, I., Alvarez, J.A., Daz, M.A., Grana, M., Soto, M., 2006.
Municipal wastewater treatment in an anaerobic
digester-constructed wetland system. In: Proceedings of 10th
International Conference on Wetlands Systems for Water
Pollution Control, Lisboa, Portugal, September 2329.
Ruz, I., Blazquez, R., Soto, M., 2007. Characteristics and anaerobic
treatability of municipal and industrial estate wastewaters.
Environ. Technol. 28, 10631072.
Sousa, J.T., Van Haandel, A.C., Guimaraes, A.A., 2001.
Post-treatment of anaerobic efuents in constructed wetland
systems. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (4), 213219.
Sousa, J.T., Van Haandel, A., Lima, E.P.C., Guimaraes, A.V.A., 2003.
Performance of constructed wetland systems treating
anaerobic efuents. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (6), 295299.
Sperling, von M., 1996. Comparison among the most frequently
used systems for wastewater treatment in developing
countries. Water Sci. Technol. 33 (3), 5972.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
1995. 19th ed. American Public Health Association/American
Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation,
Washington, DC, USA.
USEPA, 2000. Constructed Wetland Treatment of Municipal
Wastewaters. US.EPA 625/R99/010, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Van Haandel, A., Kato, M.T., Cavalcanti, P.F.F., Florencio, L., 2006.
Anaerobic design concepts for the treatment of domestic
wastewater. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 2138.
Vymazal, J., Brix, H., Cooper, P.F., Green, M.B., Haberl, R., 1998.
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Europe.
Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Vymazal, J., 2002. The use of sub-surface constructed wetlands
for wastewater treatment in the Czech Republic: 10 years
experience. Ecol. Eng. 18, 633646.
Vymazal, J., 2005. Horizontal sub-surface ow and hybrid
constructed wetlands systems for wastewater treatment.
Ecol. Eng. 25, 478490.
Wang, K., 1994. Integrated anaerobic and aerobic treatment of
sewage. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Biotechnology,
University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Winter, K.J., Goetz, D., 2003. The impact of sewage composition
on the soil clogging phenomena of vertical ow constructed
wetlands. Water Sci. Technol. 48 (5), 914.
Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 1999. The role of anaerobic digestion of
domestic sewage in closing the water and nutrient cycle at
community level. Water Sci. Technol. 39 (5), 187194.
Zhao, Y.Q., Sun, G., Allen, S.J., 2004. Anti-sized reed bed system
for animal wastewater treatment: a comparative study. Water
Res. 38, 29072917.