International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 05

73

Removal of Heavy Metals from Landfill

Leachate Using Horizontal and Vertical
Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland Planted
with Limnocharis flava
Ain Nihla Kamarudzaman, Roslaili Abdul Aziz, and Mohd Faizal Ab Jalil

Abstract Heavy metals were present at relatively high

concentrations in the landfill leachate. Therefore, the exposure of
heavy metals into the environment is great concern due to their
serious effects on food chain and furthermore on animal and
human health. This study focussed on comparing the efficiency of
horizontal and vertical subsurface flow (SSF) constructed
wetland in the removal of heavy metals (Fe and Mn) in landfill
leachate. Where, it also determines the amount of heavy metals
uptake by Limnocharis flava and the amount of heavy metals
retained in the soil media. A laboratory-scale study was
conducted on SSF constructed wetland systems operated in
vertical and horizontal mode. Each system comprises of one
planted and one control system. The planted systems namely HP
and VP were planted with Limnocharis flava, while the control
systems namely HC and VC were left unplanted. The systems
operated identically at a flow rate of 0.029 m3/d and HRT of 24.1
hours and 19.7 hours in HSSF and VSSF systems, respectively.
The results shows both system performed well in the removal of
heavy metals from landfill leachate with the overall removal
efficiency ranging from 91.5 - 99.2% and 94.7 - 99.8% for Fe and
Mn, respectively. This research also publicized the suitability of
Limnocharis flava to be used in constructed wetland to treat
landfill leachate.
Index Term Landfill leachate, Constructed wetland, Heavy
metals removal, Plant uptake, Soil media

I. INTRODUCTION
Alandfill, also known as a dump, is a site for the disposal of
waste materials by burial and is the oldest form of waste
treatment. The main purpose of landfill is to stabilize the waste
and to make it hygienic through the use of natural metabolic
pathways [1]. Landfill leachate produced from these areas are
toxicity, classified as problematic wastewaters and represent a
This work was supported by Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
under Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS).
K. Ain Nihla is with School of Environmental Engineering, Universiti
Malaysia Perlis, 02600 Jejawi, Perlis, Malaysia (Phone: 604-9798968; Fax:
6049798636; Email: ainnihla@unimap.edu.my).
A. A. Roslaili is with School of Environmental Engineering, Universiti
Malaysia Perlis, 02600 Jejawi, Perlis, Malaysia.
A. J. Mohd. Faizal is with Perlis State Department of Environment, 2nd
Floor, KWSP Building, Jalan Bukit Lagi, 01000 Kangar, Perlis, Malaysia.

dangerous source of pollution for the environment due to its

fertilizing and toxic effects [2]. Landfill leachate mainly
consists of heavy metals, organics with different
biodegradation and inorganic matters such as ammonia,
sulphate and cationic metals [3]. However, landfill leachate
characteristics were varying depending on the operation type
and the age of the landfill. Health problems and environmental
pollution are often related to inadequate landfill leachate
treatment. Proper collection, treatment and disposal of landfill
leachate are necessary to promote better environment and
healthful condition.
Therefore, the treatment of landfill leachate by natural
systems seems to be environmentally sustainable for treatment
of many constituents. Constructed wetlands have proven very
effective method for the treatment of variety of wastewaters.
The environmental benefit treatment of landfill leachate in a
constructed wetland includes; decreased energy consumption
by using natural processes rather than conventional; efficiently
removed many pollutants from wastewater and also enhance
the environment by providing a habitat for vegetation, fish and
other wildlife [4]. Studies of the long-term use of wetlands for
landfill leachate treatment have demonstrated significant
economic advantages, mainly through lowered construction,
transportation and operation costs [5].
Reference [5] also reported the removal of several metals in
treatment wetlands, including aluminium, arsenic, cadmium,
copper, iron, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc.
Metals are removed in treatment wetlands by three major
mechanisms; binding to soils, sediments, particulates, and
soluble organics by cation exchange and chelation;
precipitation as insoluble salts, principally sulfides and
oxyhydroxides and uptake by plants, including algae and by
bacteria. Removals of heavy metal occur mainly through
adsorption and precipitation and to a minor extent through
plant uptake for some metals. Metals are retained in the soil
profile or the sediments or substratum. Metals can precipitate
out as sulfides and carbonates, or get taken up by plants [6].
Several studies have demonstrated that constructed wetland
systems were very effective to remove and immobilize metals

115005-2424 IJCEE-IJENS October 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 05

contained in landfill leachate. Reference [7] reported the
percentage of Mn removal using free water surface (FWS)
constructed wetland planted with Eichhornia crassipes was
achieved more than 60% removal. In this study, reference [7]
was also remarked that Eichhornia crassipes had shown
capability to absorb heavy metals in leachate. It shows that
wetland plant plays an outstanding role as a heavy metal
decontaminator. Reference [8] reported high heavy metals (Fe
and Mn) removal by using vertical subsurface flow (VSSF)
planted with S.sumatrensis and S.mucronatus. The reason
might be because the effect on using two types of plants such
as S.sumatrensis and S.mucronatus in one constructed wetland
system which is can increased the removal of heavy metals in
landfill leachate.
The main objective of this study is to compare the efficiency
of horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF) with vertical subsurface
flow (VSSF) constructed wetland systems in the removal of
heavy metals (Iron (Fe) and Manganese (Mn)) from landfill
leachate planted with Limnocharis flava. This study also
examines the accumulation of heavy metals in plant tissues and
the amount of heavy metals retained in the soil sediments.
II.

METHODOLOGY

A. Leachate Collection and Preparation

In this study, the leachate used as feeding substrate was
taken from the municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) site
located at Kampung Padang Siding, Ulu Pauh, Perlis,
Malaysia (62651.45N, 1001815.93E). The Padang
Siding MSWLF area is about 20 hectares, where its received
abundance amount of municipal solid waste from the whole
Perlis state with a loading approximately 300 tonnes/day. The
landfill leachate was collected at the leachate collection pond
and stored in a high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle. The
collected landfill leachate was later diluted with tap water to
achieve 25% concentrations, in order to provide an acceptable
condition for plant growth.
B. Experimental Set up
In this study, four laboratory scale constructed wetland
systems have been constructed, which consist of two vertical
subsurface flows (VSSF) and two horizontal subsurface flows
(HSSF) constructed wetland systems. Each system comprises
of one planted system and one control system. The planted
systems namely VP and HP were planted with Limnocharis
flava, while the control systems namely VC and HC were left
unplanted. Each of the VSSF and HSSF system consists of a
feeding tank, a wetland reactor and settling tank. The wetland
reactor and operation characteristics are summarized in Table
I. The wetland reactors were constructed using acrylic with the
dimension of 0.58 m length, 0.31 m wide, and 0.33 m depth.
Both HP and VP reactors were planted with Limnocharis
flava with density of 15 peduncles (stem) per reactor, which
transferred from a ditch near paddy field in Kampung Sungai

74

TABLE I
REACTOR CHARACTERISTICS
Total reactor height
0.33 m
Total surface area
0.178 m2
Total planting area
0.141 m2
Weight of gravel used per reactor
35.6 kg
Weight of soil per reactor
27.45 kg
Average gravel size
10-25 mm
Average void volume per reactor
0.016 m3
Flow rate
0.029 m3/d
Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) per
cycle
24.1 hours
HRTHSSF
19.7 hours
HRTVSSF

Bakau, Perlis, Malaysia. The Limnocharis flava was chosen in

this study because of its availability, where it can be
commonly found throughout the state of Perlis, Malaysia. It
was also chosen due to the fact that it has long fibrous roots
that can provide oxygen supply to the media and promote
uptake of contaminants. After the transplantation, the wetland
reactors (HP and VP) were loaded with tap water to establish
the emergent plant. The duration takes 7 days for the
acclimatization process, where the readiness of the plant for
the actual experimental procedure was illustrated by the
healthy leaves and stem and also by the growth of new leaves
and inflorescence.
The influent flow across the wetland reactors and effluent
was collected in a settling tank and manually transferred back
into the feeding tank to be re-circulated to the wetland reactors
on a daily basis for the whole treatment period. A 20 mm PVC
pipe and a 20 mm valve were used to regulate flow. The inlet
feeding pipe and perforated holes in each wetland reactors
were installed at 0.08 m below the surface of the substrate. The
experiments were continuously monitored throughout the
whole treatment period. Fig. 1 shows the experimental set up
for horizontal and vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland
system.
C. Analysis of Plant Tissues
Analysis of the plant tissue was conducted initially before
the treatment procedure begin and after the termination of the
experiment. This analysis was conducted to determine the
uptake of heavy metals by the plant. The method used for the
analysis of the plant tissue was Dry Ashing Method [9], where
two replicate samples from the planted (HP and VP) reactors
were selected and harvested. The plants were cleaned by
washing them with tap water followed by distilled water and
sorted into leaf, stem (peduncles) and root component.
The plants samples were then placed in a porcelain crucible
and ashed by heating it overnight in a muffle furnace at 500C.
The ash residue was then cooled and 1 g of each samples (leaf,
stem, and root) were weighted and dissolved in 5 mL of 20%
hydrochloric acid (HCl) for digestion. The solutions were then
shaken for four hours with orbital shaker. It was later filtered
through an acid-washed filter paper into a 50 mL

115005-2424 IJCEE-IJENS October 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 05

75

VC, and VP) for the final characterization study. The samples
were analysed using X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Spectrometer.
Prior to the XRF analysis, the soil samples were oven dried at
105C overnight, grinded and sieved to obtain soil samples
size of less than 70 m and pressed into pellet by using
hydraulic Pellet Press Model PP 25. The preparation of the
soil samples as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 1. Initial experimental set up

Fig. 3. Preparation for soil analysis. (a) soil sample after oven dried; (b) soil
sample after sieved; (c) soil pellet; (d) XRF spectrometer unit

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 2. Samples preparation for plant analysis

(a) Leaf sample; (b) root sample; (c) stem sample; (d) orbital shaker

A. Heavy metals Removal

The initial leachate characterization study was conducted to
determine the most significant heavy metals that will be the
parameter of interest. The results of initial leachate
characterization study are summarized in Table II. By referring
to Table II, it can be clearly observed that the leachate sample
was exhibited significant value of heavy metals content, among
which the highest concentration was recorded for Fe and Mn
with 11.6 mg/L and 10.6 mg/L, respectively.
TABLE II
RESULT OF INITIAL LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS

volumetric flask. The solutions were then diluted to volume

with deionised water and mixed well. The solution was
analyzed for heavy metals according to United State
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved
methods, by using HACH DR 2800 spectrophotometer. Fig. 2
shows plant digestion for analysis of heavy metals in plant
tissues.
D. Analysis of Soil Composition
The analysis on the soil composition was conducted to
identify the initial and final composition of the soil used in
both HSSF and VSSF constructed wetland system. Only one
sample was used for the initial characteristic, while three
replicate soil samples were collected at different depth
(surface, mid depth, and bottom) of each reactors (HC, HP,

Parameter

Unit

Value

Manganese (Mn)

mg/ L

10.6

Nickel (Ni)

mg/ L

0.587

Calcium (Ca)

mg/ L

ND

Magnesium (Mg)

mg/ L

0.437

Zinc (Zn)

mg/ L

ND

Iron (Fe)

mg/ L

11.6

Copper (Cu)

mg/ L

ND

Chromium (Cr)

mg/ L

ND

Cadmium (Cd)

mg/ L

ND

Aluminium (Al)

mg/ L

0.978

Plumbum (Pb)

mg/ L

0.653

Note: ND = Not detected

115005-2424 IJCEE-IJENS October 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 05

In this study it can be clearly observed that the influent
concentration of Fe in the leachate sample was subsequently
reduced to a significantly low concentration throughout the
treatment period as shown in Fig. 4. The final effluent
concentration of Fe was significantly reduced and varies
among all four wetland microcosm, with 0.985 mg/L, 0.250
mg/L, 0.653 mg/L and 0.093 mg/L for reactor VC, VP, HC,
and HP, respectively. The optimum removal percentage of the
planted systems (VP and HP) was recorded on the day 3 of the
treatment period with 15.5% and 17.2% for VP and HP,
respectively. While, for the unplanted system (VC and HC) the
optimum removal was only achieved on the day 21 of the
treatment period with 32.8% for VC and 24.1% for HC
reactor.
However, it was observed the overall treatment efficiency
for all reactors does not varies greatly between each other,
with the most efficient system in the removal of Fe from
landfill leachate was reactor HP with 99.2%, while the least
efficient system was reactor VC with removal of 91.5%. This
finding was higher than those reported by [10]; [11] and [12],
which proved the effectiveness of constructed wetland in the
removal of Fe from wastewater and concurrent with the
findings by [13] and [14].
In this study, both VP and HP reactors were effective in
reducing the high level of Mn from landfill leachate. As it been
demonstrated in Fig. 5, the final concentration of Mn was
reduced to a significant value of 0.561 mg/L, 0.042 mg/L,
0.323 mg/L and 0.027 mg/L for VC, VP, HC, and HP reactors,
respectively. The highest treatment efficiency was recorded for
reactor HP with 99.8% removal and the least was reactor VC
with 94.7% removal at the end of treatment period. The
optimum removal of Mn for the planted systems was recorded
on day 3 of the treatment period with 18.9% and 20.8% for VP
and HP respectively, while the optimum removal of the
unplanted system (VC and HC) was only achieved on day 12
and day 15 of the treatment period with 17.0% for VC and
25.7% for HC reactor.
In this study it can be clearly observed that all reactors
managed to subsequently reduce the concentration of Fe and
Mn to significantly low concentrations after 45 days of
treatment period. The control system (unplanted) also
demonstrated high reduction of heavy metals which is more
than 90% removal. The reduction of heavy metals in the SFF
wetland system maybe was due to settling and sedimentation,
uptake by algae and bacteria, precipitation as insoluble salts,
and binding to soil, sediments and particulate [5]; [15].
However, the reduction of Fe and Mn in control system still
showed lower removal if compared to the planted system.
Plants species have variety of capacity in accumulating and
removing heavy metals. Several processes are envisioned as
being effective in pollutant reduction; for example metals are
taken up by plants, and in many cases stored preferentially in
the roots and rhizomes [16].

76

B. Heavy Metals in Plants Tissue

The analysis of plant tissues were conducted to study the
extents of phytoaccumulation or phytoextraction of heavy
metals (Fe and Mn) in the plant tissues which was segregated
into three main components which is leaves, stems, and roots.
The results of the plant tissue analysis as shown in Fig. 6
shows that there was an accumulation of heavy metals in the
tissue of Limnocharis flava planted in both HP and VP
subsurface flow system. The accumulations of heavy metals
shows that the contribution of macrophytes in the sense of the
uptake of pollutants are significant in this study, apart from
providing a large surface area for attached microbial growth,
supplying reduced carbon through root exudates and microaerobic environment and a via root oxygen release in the
rhizosphere, and stabilizing the surface of the bed [17]; [18];
[19]; [20].
The ability of Limnocharis flava to uptake heavy metals was
also proven in this study. Where, the highest amount of heavy
metals were determined in the root for both VSSF and HSSF,
with 0.728 mg/g (VSSF) and 1.117 mg/g (HSSF) for Fe and
0.223 mg/g (VSSF) and 0.362 mg/g (HSSF) for Mn,
respectively. In which it was consistent with the findings by
reference [21] and [22]. These roots have been reported to be
the most beneficial for phytostabilisation of the metal
contaminants. As depicted previously in Fig. 6, the result
shows that Mn uptake by plants was less than Fe. Study by
references [23], [24] and [25] also reported that the amount of
Fe uptake by plants was higher compared to Mn in the plant
tissues. Fe2+ was the micronutrient for plants that was required
in higher concentration than Mn2+ [26]. Additionally, plants
require a small amount of Mn, high level of Mn interfere with
enzyme structure and nutrient consumption. As it can be
noticed in Fig. 6, HSSF systems exhibited a higher uptake of
heavy metals as compared to VSSF system due to the higher
HRT for HSSF system. These findings have shown the
significant and positive effect of macrophytes on pollutants
removal [19]. Whereby, the roles of macrophytes as an
essential component of constructed wetland have been well
established [17]; [27].
C. Heavy Metals in Soil Media
The wetland media is one of the important components of
constructed wetland, as it provides a viable condition for
maximum removal of pollutant, since the reduction is said to
be accomplished by diverse treatment mechanisms including
sedimentation, filtration, chemical precipitation and
adsorption, microbial interactions and uptake by vegetation
which governed by the accurate selection of media type [28].
Therefore in this study, soil analysis was conducted to
determine the suitability of the media beds used, as it is
indicated by the accumulation of the heavy metals within the
soil media.
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 shows concentration of Fe and Mn in the
soil media collected at different depth of four reactors (VC,

115005-2424 IJCEE-IJENS October 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 05

VP, HC and HP). The unplanted control systems (VC and HC)
exhibited a higher concentration of Fe and Mn in the soil
samples collected at the bottom of the reactors, with an
increase of 5.2% (VC) and 7.7% (HC) for Fe and 0.2% (VC)

Fig. 4. Concentration of Fe in landfill leachate effluent

throughout treatment period

77

and 0.3% (HC) for Mn. While, the reactors planted with
Limnocharis flava exhibited a higher concentration of Fe and
Mn in the soil samples collected at mid-depth of the reactors,
with an increase of 3.9% (VC) and 6.6% (HP) for Fe and 0.2%
(VP) and 0.3% (HP) for Mn, respectively.

Fig. 5. Concentration of Mn in landfill leachate effluent

throughout treatment period

Fig. 6. Accumulation of heavy metals in plant tissues after 45 days

of treatment period

Fig. 7. Concentration of Fe in soil at different depth

Fig. 8. Concentration of Mn in soil at different depth

115005-2424 IJCEE-IJENS October 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 05

The increased concentration of heavy metals (Fe and Mn) in
the soil samples collected at the bottom of unplanted control
reactors (VC and HC) indicates that the heavy metals were
actually precipitated towards the bottom of the reactors [12].
While, the higher concentration of Fe and Mn at the middle of
the planted reactors was due to the rhizofiltrations of these
heavy metal in the rhizosphere since precipitation and
rhizofiltration are the main mechanism in the removal of heavy
metals in constructed wetland [12].

[2]

[3]
[4]

[5]
[6]

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the above results and discussions, it can be
summarized that HSSF system has higher removal efficiency
compared to VSSF system for the removal of heavy metals.
The higher removal of HSSF system was due to the higher
HRT value for this system, which also indicates the
importance of HRT that affects the removal efficiency of
heavy metals in the constructed wetland system. Also, its so
obvious that by comparing the planted and control system,
both systems were achieved high percentage of heavy metals
removal at the end of treatment. The greater heavy metals
removal in the control system maybe was due to clogging of
the substrate in the soil media. So it can be concluded that,
reduction of heavy metals concentration in the planted and
control system were most likely due to chemical precipitation
and sorption on sediment, and aided by the macrophytes. This
is also shows the shorter treatment period is required in
achieving optimum removal for planted system as compared to
unplanted system. However, for a longer treatment period
there were only slender differences in the effluent
concentration of pollutants between the planted and control
system. To further enhance the result obtained in this study,
the following areas of investigation are recommended: (1)
degradation by microorganism is among the important
mechanisms in the removal of pollutants. However, this study
does not quantify the development of microorganism within
the wetland reactor. If the microorganism formation and
development within the reactor could be measured, it surely
will enhance the findings in this study and (2) further studies
should vary the flow rates, retention time, types of plant and
size of constructed wetlands system in order to determine the
efficient of pollutants removal.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We are grateful for the university resources provided by
Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), Malaysia. Special
acknowledge to the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE),
Malaysia for granting us financial support under the
Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) (9003 00289).

[18]

[19]

[20]

REFERENCES
[1]

A. Yalcuk and A. Ugurlu. Comparison of horizontal and vertical

constructed wetland systems for landfill leachate treatment. Bioresource
Technology, 2008, pp. 2521-2526.

78

P. Kjeldsen, M.A. Barlaz, A.P. Rooker, A. Baun, A. Ledin, T.H.

Christensen. Present and Long-term Composition of MSW Landfill
Leachate: A Review. Crit. Rev. Environmental Science Technology,
Vol. 32, 2002, pp. 297336.
T.H. Christensen, R. Cossu and R. Stegmann. Landfilling of Waste:
Leachate. London: Elsevier Applied Science. 1992.
G. Jin, T. Kelley and N. Vargas. Preliminary Evaluation of Metals
Removal in Three Pilot-Scale Constructed Wetland Systems.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. Vol.
14, No. 3, 2003, pp. 323-332.
R.H. Kadlec and R.L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. Boca Raton: CRC
Press. 1996.
L. Renee. Constructed Wetlands: Passive Systems for Wastewater
Treatment. National Network of Environmental Management Studies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unpublished. 2001.
A.N. Noor Ida Amalina. Leachate Treatment using Constructed
Wetland with Magnetic Field. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master
Thesis. 2006.
H. Rafidah Hamdan. Kajian Pengaruh Konfigurasi Tumbuhan di
dalam Sistem Tanah Bencah Buatan Jenis Aliran Sub-permukaan
terhadap Penyingkiran Bahan Organic dan Logam Berat di dalam Air
Larut Lesap. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master Thesis. 2003.
Bureau of Nutritional Sciences Ottawa. Dry Ash Method - A Rapid
Method for The Determination of Sodium and Potassium. Health
Protection Branch Laboratories, Ottawa, Ont, Canade Canada,
unpublished, 1983.
M.W. Jayaweera, J.C. Kasturiarachchi, R.K.A. Kularatne and S.L.J.
Wijeyekoon. Contribution Of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes
(Mart.) Solms) Grown Under Different Nutrient Conditions to FeRemoval Mechanisms in Constructed Wetlands. Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 87, 2008, pp. 450460.
M.A. Maine, N. Sun e, H. Hadad, G. Sa nchez and C. Bonetto.
Influence of Vegetation on The Removal of Heavy Metals and Nutrients
A Constructed Wetland. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.
90, 2009, pp. 355363.
S. Khan, I. Ahmad, M.T. Shah, S. Rehman and A. Khaliq. Use Of
Constructed Wetland For The Removal Of Heavy Metals From
Industrial Wastewater. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009.
Z.H. Ye, S.N. Whiting, Z.Q. Lin, C.M. Lytle, J.H. Qian and N. Terry.
Removal and Distribution of Iron, Manganese, Cobalt, And Nickel
within a Pennsylvania Constructed Wetland Treating Coal Combustion
By-Product Leachate. Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 30, 2001,
pp. 14641473.
A.D. OSullivan, B.M. Moran and M.L. Otte. Accumulation and Fate of
Contaminants (Zn, Pb, Fe and S) In Substrates Of Wetlands Constructed
For Treating Mine Wastewater. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 2004,
157, 345364.
P.E. Lim. Constructed Wetland : Mechanisms of Treatment Processes
and Design Models. In: Mashhor, M., Lim, P.E. and Shutes, R.B.E.
Constructed Wetlands : Design, Management and Education.
Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia Publisher. 2002.
R.H. Kadlec. Constructed Wetlands for Treating Landfill Leachate. In:
Mulamoottil, G., McBean, E.A., and Rovers, F., Ed. Constructed
Wetlands for the Treatment of Landfill Leachates. United States: Lewis
Publishers. 1999.
J. Brisson and F. Chazarenc. Maximizing Pollutant Removal in
Constructed Wetlands: Should We Pay More Attention to Macrophytes
Species Selection? Unpublished, 2008.
R.M. Gersberg, B.V. Elkins, S.R. Lyon and C.R. Goldman. Role of
Aquatic Plants in Wastewater Treatment by Artificial Wetlands. Water
Resource, 1986, pp. 363368.
C.C. Tanner. Growth and Nutrient Dynamics of Soft-Stem Bulrush in
Constructed Wetlands Treating Nutrient-Rich Wastewater. Wetlands
Ecological Management, Vol. 9, 2001, pp. 4973.
V. Gagnon, F. Chazarenc, Y. Comeau and J. Brisson. Influence of
Macrophytes Species on Microbial Density and Activity in Constructed
Wetlands. Proc. 10th International Water Association Conference on
Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, 2006, pp. 102533.

115005-2424 IJCEE-IJENS October 2011 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 05

79

[21] S.D. Janet and H.B. Kathleen. Potential use of constructed wetlands for
treatment of industrial wastewaters containing metals The Science of
the Total Environment, 1992, pp. 151-168.
[22] J.H. Peverly, J.M. Surface and T. Wang. Growth and Trace Metal
Absorption By Phragmites Australis in Wetlands Constructed for
Landfill Leachate Treatment. Ecological Engineering,Vol. 5, 1995, pp.
21-35.
[23] S.H. Thien. Leachate Treatment by Floating Plants in Constructed
Wetland. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master Thesis. 2005.
[24] A.N. Noor Ida Amalina. Leachate Treatment using Constructed Wetland
with Magnetic Field. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master Thesis.
2006.
[25] K. Ain Nihla. Leachate Treatment Using Subsurface Flow And Free
Water Surface Constructed Wetland Systems. Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia: Master Thesis. 2006.
[26] M. Kamal, A.E. Ghaly, N. Mahmoud and R. Cote. Phytoaccumulation
of Heavy metals by aquatic plants. Environmental International. Vol.
29, 2004, pp. 1029-1039.
[27] H. Brix. Do Macrophytes Play a Role in Constructed Treatment
Wetland? Water Science Technology, 2007, pp. 1117.
[28] J.T. Watson, S.C. Reed, R.H. Kadlec, R.L. Knight and A.E.
Whitehouse. Performance expectations and loading rates for constructed
wetlands, in: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, D.A.
Hammer, ed., Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 1989, pp. 319-358.

115005-2424 IJCEE-IJENS October 2011 IJENS

IJENS