Environmental Technology, Vol. 28.

pp 621-628

Selper Ltd., 2007

PERFORMANCE AND COST COMPARISON OF A FWS

AND A VSF CONSTRUCTED WETLAND SYSTEM

V. A. TSIHRINTZIS1*, C. S. AKRATOS1, G. D. GIKAS1, D. KARAMOUZIS2 AND A. N. ANGELAKIS3

Laboratory of Ecological Engineering and Technology, Department of Environmental Engineering,

Democritus University of Thrace, 67100 Xanthi, Greece
2
Hydraulics, Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering Division, Department of Agriculture,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
3
Institute of Iraklio, National Foundation for Agricultural Research, P.O. Box 2229,
71307 Iraklio, Greece

(Received 1 February 2006; Accepted 10 January 2007)

ABSTRACT
Two constructed wetland systems, treating domestic wastewater, are compared in terms of performance and costs. One is a
free water surface (FWS) wetland system located in Pompia, Crete, south Greece, and the other one is a vertical subsurface
flow (VSF) wetland system located in Gomati, Chalkidiki, north Greece. The FWS system is designed for 1200 p.e. Its
construction cost was 305,000, and the capital, operation and maintenance cost was 22.07 p.e.-1 yr-1 or 0.50 m-3 of
influent. The VSF system is designed for 1000 p.e. Its construction cost was 410,850, and the capital, operation and
maintenance cost was 36.81 p.e.-1 yr-1 or 0.56 m-3 of influent. Both systems achieved high removal rates for BOD5, COD,
TSS, TKN, phosphorus, TC, and FC, which makes them ideal for small communities in the Mediterranean region.

Keywords: Free-water surface constructed wetland, vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland, treatment performance,
construction cost; operation cost

are now installed for single family use (e.g., [19]).

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper is to provide a perspective for

Constructed wetland (CW) wastewater treatment

applying

constructed

wetland

technology

in

the

systems are considered more reliable compared to

Mediterranean

conventional systems [1], and are ideal technologies for small

Descriptions,

communities, due to their low construction, operation and

constituent

maintenance costs, easy adaptation to the environment and

maintenance (O&M) costs of two constructed wetland

limited generation of by-products [2,3].

systems (a FWS and a VSF) are presented. Both systems treat

One question however, is which is the optimum CW

regions
design

removal

and

specifically

considerations,
performance,

in

Greece.

construction
and

operation

cost,
and

domestic wastewater and were designed for comparable

type (i.e., free-water surface (FWS), horizontal subsurface flow

treatment capacities.

(HSF) or vertical subsurface flow (VSF) system) to use in a

specific region, in terms of performance, costs, area
requirements, and other factors. Most studies in the literature

METHODS AND MATERIALS

emphasize specific systems in terms of general performance

System Description

[4-9]. Other studies examine the effect of various design

parameters [10-13]. Comparisons of various CW types in the
same region are limited (e.g., [14,15]). Construction and other

Two constructed wetland systems treating domestic

cost data for CW systems are also limited (e.g., [16]). The

wastewater are compared in terms of costs and performance.

necessity of pretreatment is an issue for discussion, since

One is a FWS wetland system located in Pompia, Crete, South

modified VSF designs in France operate successfully without

Greece, and the other is a VSF wetland system located in

pretreatment [17, 18]. Finally, small-scale on-site CW systems

Gomati, Chalkidiki, Macedonia, North Greece.

621

maximum hourly flow rate 27.7 m3 h-1; influent biochemical

FWS system
The main components of the FWS system are [20]: (a) a

oxygen demand (BOD5) 400 mg l-1; septic tank effluent BOD5

septic tank (up-flow reactor simulation) equipped with three

250 mg l-1; wetland effluent BOD5 10 mg l-1 and (COD) <50 mg

screen vault filters [3]; (b) a FWS constructed wetland

l-1; retention time 5-14 d (depending on the season of the

consisting of two basins in series, with surface areas of 4300

year); sewage average temperature in the winter 10 C and in

m2 and 1200 m2 (the inflow is uniformly distributed across at

the summer 22 C.

the inlet of each basin using manifolds); (c) two chambers, one
in each basin, for regulating the water level; (d) small pumps
VSF system

and a pipeline for the recirculation of the effluent back to the

The main components of the facility are: (a) inflow

inlet of the first basin; (e) a compost filter for odor control in

structure; (b) a rotating disk screen with 1 mm openings; (c) a

the septic tank.

Vegetation selection included two species of reeds

closed twin settling tank (48 m3 each chamber; dimensions 4m

(Phragmites australis and Arundo donax). The facility was

x 6m x 2.5 m); (d) a closed twin sludge digestion-stabilization

constructed in the early months of 1999. The vegetation was

tank (48 m3 each chamber; dimensions 4m x 6m x 2.5 m); (e)

planted late in the winter of the same year, and due to the

an open siphon tank (3.2 m3; dimensions 1.0 m x 4.2 m x 0.8

favorable climatic conditions prevailing in the area, it

m) for intermittent wastewater feeding (Figure 1); (i) a stage I

established well very rapidly. By the end of the year, the

VSF circular basin (4 cells, 640 m2, sand and gravel fill, 1 m

vegetation was very dense and more than two meters in

deep); (g) a stage II VSF circular basin (4 cells, 360 m2, sand

height.

and gravel fill, 1 m deep); (h) a stage III rectangular HSF cell

The basic parameters used in the design of the FWS

(800 m2, sand and gravel fill, 0.5 m deep); (f) a VSF circular

facility are [20]: population served 1200 p.e.; mean daily flow

basin (4 cells, 240 m2) which receives digested-stabilized

rate 144 m

-1

d ; maximum daily flow rate 216 m

Figure 1.

-1

d ;

sludge for drying and storage. All wetland basins are planted

View of the siphon tank of the VSF system.

622

with Phragmites australis. The HSF cell was not planted at the

settling tank outflow, siphon, stage I VSF outflow and stage II

time of the study and was out of the wastewater stream. The

VSF outflow over a monitoring period from July 2003 to

VSF system was planted in May 2003 and was immediately

August 2004. The samples were analyzed in the laboratory

put to operation. The plants were dense and nearly fully-

following APHA standard methods for BOD5, COD, TSS,

grown by October 2003.

Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen (TKN), Total Phosphorus (TP) or PO4,

Total Coliforms (TC) and Faecal Colifoms (FC). Calculations

The route of the wastewater through the system is the

following: from the inflow structure to the rotating disk

of

screen and to the settling tanks. The sludge is collected at the

concentrations were performed in a spreadsheet.

statistical

parameters

of

measured

constituent

bottom of the settling tank (estimated volume 4.8 m3 week-1),

it is then pumped to the sludge digestion-stabilization tanks,

Cost Evaluation Method

and then to the VSF sludge basins. The leachate collected at

the bottom of the VSF sludge basins is pumped back to the

The actual construction cost of the two systems was

siphon, and together with the wastewater from the settling

used. Since the FWS system was constructed in 1999 and the

basins feed the stage I VSF basin (2 cells operate at a time).

VSF in 2003, for comparison the cost of the FWS was

Then, the wastewater is led to the stage II VSF basins (2 cells

expressed in 2003 prices using a reported inflation rate of

operate at a time). In the future, the flow will continue to the

approximately 3.1%. An economical life of 30 years and a

stage III HSF basin (not in operation now). The effluent of the

capital discount factor of 6% were assumed to calculate net-

basin discharges into a nearby stream, approximately 5 km

present-value cost [21]. Operation and maintenance costs

from the coast.

were obtained for the operation time periods from the records
of the local authorities operating the two facilities, and were

The main design parameters for this system are

summarized as follows: the design population is 1000 p.e. The

expressed in 2003 prices for the FWS system.

design mean daily flow of the system is 180 m3 d-1. The

maximum hourly flow is 28.5 m3 h-1. The design hydraulic

RESULTS

loading rate is about 36 m yr-1, and the organic loading rate

196 kg ha-1 d-1. Design influent and effluent concentrations are

System Performance

as follows: for BOD, influent 330 mg l-1, settling tank effluent

196 mg l-1, VSF effluent 12 mg l-1, HSF effluent < 10 mg l-1. For

FWS system

total suspended solids(TSS), influent 380 mg l-1, settling tank

The results during the 3-year period of the FWS facility

effluent 80 mg l-1, VSF effluent 12 mg l-1, HSF effluent < 10 mg

monitoring could be summarized as follows: mean BOD5,

l-1.

COD and TSS removals about 95%, mean TKN and TP

removals about 53%, and TC and FC removals >97% (without

System Monitoring, Sample Analysis and Statistics

any disinfection). Removal efficiencies of BOD5, COD, TSS,

TKN and TP in the final effluent for the monitoring period are

Grab samples were collected regularly at various points

presented in Table 1. Very high removal rates of BOD5, COD

along the FWS system (i.e., inlet, settling tank outflow and

and TSS (94.4%, 96.1%, and 95.6%, respectively) have been

system outflow) over a 3-year monitoring period from August

observed in the septic tank. On the other hand, low removal

1999 to August 2003, and along the VSF system (i.e., inlet,

rates of TKN and TP of 52.5% and 53.1%, respectively, have

Table 1.

Measured concentrations of BOD (mg l-1), COD (mg l-1), TSS (mg l-1), TKN (mg l-1), and TP (mg l-1) in the influent
(IN), the septic tank effluent (SE) and the final effluent (FE), and overall efficiency (TE, %) for the FWS system in
Pompia, Crete, Greece.

Parameter

BOD
IN

SE FE

COD
TE

mg l-1

IN

SE

FE

mg l-1

TKN

TSS
TE

IN

SE

FE

mg l-1

TE

IN

SE

FE

mg l-1

TP
TE

IN

SE

FE

mg l-1

TE
%

Average

165

39 7.7

94.4

455

100

18

96.1 191

36

5.6

95.5 38

25

18

52.5 13

9.1

6.2

53.1

Std. Error

31

4.0 1.3

1.0

31

9.8

2.7

0.5

40

5.4

0.8

0.9

3.4

1.7

1.7

4.8

1.5

1.3

1.1

4.7

Min

52

11 2.0

86.5

280

44

2.0

92.7 38

4.0

1.0

86.8 17

8.0

4.0

23.1 4.8

2.3

1.6

10.6

Max

540

60 16

99.1

798

180

40

99.6 720

90

12

99.3 62

36

27

83.1 24

22

21

78.5

# of Data

14

14 15

14

17

18

18

17

18

18

17

18

18

17

18

18

17

17

623

17

17

been obtained in the tank. TN and TP removed in the septic

hydraulic path of the system. It is obvious that to improve

tank were probably in organic form as particulate organic

nitrogen and phosphorus removals the last stage of the

matter. Lower removal rates of various constituents in similar

system should also be planted and be put soon in operation.

septic tanks have been reported [3].

System Costs
VSF system
The monitoring results of the VSF system during the 13-

FWS system

month period of operation could be summarized as follows:

System cost calculations are presented in Table 3. The

BOD5 removals >92%, TKN removals >89%, and TC removal

actual capital cost for the FWS system was 305,000 (prices of

>99% (without any disinfection). Removal efficiencies of

1999, including 18% VAT). To compare this cost with that of

BOD5, COD, TSS, TKN and TP in the final effluent for the

the VSF system, it was expressed as 344,615 in 2003 prices

monitoring period are shown in Table 2. Removals are

(287.18 p.e.-1) using the 3.1 % inflation rate. This cost also

satisfactory, considering that the facility was still new and the

includes 115,000 for access road and administration room

plant root system was probably not fully developed yet.

construction and other works. Some of this work was not

Relatively, high removal rates of BOD5, COD and TSS have

actually necessary, such as extra roads outside of the facility.

been measured in the settling tanks. On the other hand, lower

In addition, the soil used for planting in the treatment cells

removal rates of TKN (77%) were observed, while TP removal

was transported from a distance of more than 10 km with a

showed fluctuation and some times increased along the

relatively high cost. This work was also unnecessary. The net-

Table 2.

Measured concentrations of BOD (mg l-1), COD (mg l-1), TSS (mg l-1), TKN (mg l-1) and TP(mg l-1) in the influent (IN),
the settling tank effluent (STE), the VSF effluent (VSF) and overall efficiency (TE, %) for the VSF system in Gomati,
Chalkidiki, Greece.

Parameter

BOD
IN

COD

STE VSF

TE

mg l-1

IN

TSS

STE VSF
mg l-1

TE

IN

TKN

STE VSF
mg l-1

TE

IN

TP

STE VSF TE
mg l-1

IN

STE VSF TE
mg l-1

Average

485 193

39

92

626

243

62

89

1077

208

95

77

51

14

77 17.5

8.2

5.6

62

Std. Error

246 111

29

260

119

31

1784

474

13

47

50

20

9.0

3.9

3.1

22

Min

62

10

78

238

96

81

26

23

75

31

7.5

4.3

2.4

24

Max

819 355

92

100

1171

465

106

100

7060

2158

47

100

187

251

27 100 29.3 14.9 11.9 89

# of Data

20

19

20

20

20

19

20

20

20

19

20

20

20

19

20

Table 3.

Capital and operating costs () for the two facilities.

Cost ()

Cost category

FWS System

VSF System

Capital, including VAT (construction cost)

344,615

410,850

Construction cost per p.e.

287.18

410.85

Net-present-value cost

25,036

29,848

Annual average O&M cost

1,445

6,960

O&M cost per p.e. per year

1.20

6.96

O&M cost per m per year

0.03

0.11

Total annual cost (capital and O & M)

26,481

36,808

Total annual cost per p.e.

22.07

36.81

0.50

0.56

Total annual cost per m of influent

624

20

present-value cost was estimated at 25,036 yr-1 using a 6%

p.e.-1yr-1 or 0.56 m-3 of influent.

discount factor. The total mean operation and maintenance

Design, Construction and Operation Problems

(O&M) cost of the FWS system in the first three years of

operation was estimated at 1,445 yr-1 (i.e., 1045 for energy
used, 300 for works, and 100, for miscellaneous expenses)

No major problems were observed in the FWS

or 1.20 p.e.-1 yr-1 or 0.03 m-3 of influent. Net-present-value

constructed wetland. It seems that this CW has been

cost and O&M cost are added to a total annual cost of 26,481,

designed, constructed and is operated very successfully. The

and the mean figures become 22.07 p.e.-1 yr-1 or 0.50 m-3 of

VSF constructed wetland achieves a high removal efficiency

influent.

for all pollutants. Nevertheless, it is believed that its

performance could be even better if some design, construction
and operation problems were resolved. These can be

VSF system

summarized as follows.

The total construction cost of the VSF system was

410,850 (prices of 2003, including 18% VAT) or 410.85 p.e.-1

Design problems

This construction cost also included costs for access road (250

A major design problem is the sizing of the siphon that

m paved road), construction of 550 m sewer line to bring

feeds the first stage of the VSF cells (Fig. 1). The dimensions of

wastewater to the facility and 400 m sewer line for effluent

this siphon are 10x4.2x0.8m or 3.2m3 of flooding volume. The

disposal to the final receiver, fencing, landscaping and other

siphon floods two cells at a time, i.e., 320 m2, therefore, the

works. These extra works are estimated at about 100,000.

average flooding depth is 1.0 cm. If one considers surface

The net-present-value cost was estimated at 29,848 yr-1. The

irregularities of the planted cells, it is obvious that this depth

operation cost for the VSF system (for the first 10 months of

is small. Usually, 4 to 5 cm of flooding depth are

operation) comprises electricity (lighting and operation of 9

recommended. This problem was obvious in this facility. The

pumps, estimated at 67.50 month-1 on the average), salaries

flooding was limited to about a 1 m wide area around the

for the operator and maintenance works (500 month-1 on the

perforated feeding pipes (Fig. 2), something seen by denser

average) and miscellaneous other expenses (12.50 month-1).

plant growth in this area. Therefore, a major part of the

Therefore, the total operation cost is approximately 580

available facility area was not used, reducing active treatment

month-1 or 6,960 yr-1 or 6.96 p.e.-1 yr-1 or 0.11 m-3

area and performance. To fix this problem, it is recommended

of influent. Net-present-value cost and O&M cost are added to

that the siphon is replaced to one of a larger size that would

a total cost of 36,808 and the mean figures become 36.81

provide at least 4 cm of flooding.

Figure 2.

View of the stage I distribution pipe.

625

Constructions problems

It is recommended that these problems are addressed to

A construction problem was the proper placing of the

improve the system treatment performance.

porous media and the installation of filtering material. Some

porous media was washed out from the drainage pipe at the

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

bottom of the wetland cells. Obviously, this was a result of not

placing proper filtering material. As a result, seepage holes

In general, selection of the appropriate constructed

developed at areas of the cells from where wastewater could

wetland system depends on wastewater characteristics,

seep out untreated. Another construction problem was in the

experience gained, local conditions and site constraints. FWS

last stage (HSF), which was not perfectly level in the lateral to

systems are less expensive to construct, to operate and to

the flow direction, resulting in preferential flow (and plant

maintain, are less sensitive and susceptible to problems, and

growth) on one side (Fig. 3). Again, this resulted in reduction

have greater potential for wildlife support. VSF systems

in total active treatment area and perfomance.

generally require less land area, are less susceptible to

freezing, mosquitoes and odor problems, and do not have
wastewater exposed at the surface, thus providing minimal

Operation and maintenance problems

Operation and maintenance problems were also

human contact and health risks. These systems are considered

observed in some of our visits. For example, plants were

more susceptible to clogging of the media. However,

grown (and not removed) inside the outlet overflow pipe of

neither odor nor clogging problem in either system has

the last HSF stage, obstructing outflow and resulting in

been observed so far. It is noted that a possible problem

flooding of the system.

of mosquitoes in the FWS project was faced effectively by

Figure 3.

View of the HSF constructed wetland cell.

626

and storage) or 2.04 m2 p.e.-1 Thus, as expected, the VSF

planting from the start Gambusia spp. fish.

In terms of performance, the organic loading rates were

system provides comparable treatment at significantly

slightly higher in the VSF than in the FWS system.

less area (less than half), for slightly higher average

Furthermore, ambient temperatures in the VSF system,

design flow rate (180 m3 d-1 vs. 144 m3 d-1), and at lower

located in Northern Greece, are 5 to 10 C lower. Nevertheless,

operational temperatures (north vs. south Greece).

the high efficiency of both systems has been observed. The

d.

When comparing the construction costs of the two

cost analysis, incorporating both capital and operation and

systems, it seems that the VSF is slightly more

maintenance costs, also suggested a low cost for both systems.

expensive, probably due to the fact that this system

The FWS system was less expensive to construct and to

contains more concrete and several pumps. Generally,

operate. However, the VSF system required considerably less

the FWS system construction is much simpler. In terms

land area (in this economic analysis the price of land was not

of the capital and operation cost, it also seems that the

considered). In terms of construction and O&M problems, the

FWS system is less expensive. Both systems are

VSF system, which is more complex in design, construction

considered less expensive, both in construction and

and operation, showed most problems, which, however, could

operation, when compared to equivalent conventional

have been predicted and avoided from the beginning. Finally,

treatment systems operating in the same areas.

the FWS system may freeze for a few days in the winter, if

e.

When comparing design, construction operation and

installed in areas where the temperature drops below 0oC

maintenance problems it seems that, the VSF was more

(e.g., North Greece).

susceptible to problems since it is a more complex

More specifically, the following can be drawn from the

system. For both systems, careful design and

comparison of the FWS and VSF systems:

construction, and proper maintenance are very

a.

important.

b.

Constructed wetlands are considered appropriate

wastewater treatment systems for the Mediterranean

In conclusion, the treatment efficiencies of the two

environment, generating excellent quality of effluent at

systems are comparable (except for TKN and TP where the

the secondary treatment level. In this comparative

VSF system had higher removal efficiencies), costs seem to be

study, BOD5, COD and TSS reductions of about 95%

less for the FWS system, and land requirements are quite

were observed for the FWS CW. BOD5 and TSS

lower for the VSF system. Thus, one can select either system

reductions were similar for the VSF system, while COD

in terms of treatment efficiency. When land is available, the

reduction was about 89% for this system. In addition,

FWS system would be preferable because of its simplicity, less

for the FWS system reductions of TKN and TP of about

expensive construction, and more reliable and problem-free

53% were measured, and removal rates of TC and FC of

operation. If land availability is a problem or land value is

98.7% and 97.1%, respectively. For the VSF system, TKN

high, then the VSF system would be more preferable. A

removal was 77% on average, while mean phosphorus

careful design and construction, and proper maintenance are

removal efficiency was 62%.

necessary in any case to avoid operational problems.

Reasons for the lower efficiency of the VSF system in

COD removal may be that it was new at the time of the

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

study and the plant roots were probably not fully

c.

developed. Furthermore, the HSF basin of the system

We thank G. Dialynas, N. Kefalakis and K. Tsagarakis

was not in operation during the study. Nevertheless, the

for providing information on the study. Sample collection and

two systems seem to be very promising in producing a

analyses for the VSF constructed wetland system were

high effluent quality.

performed by A. Paltsoglou, K. Vragalas and J.N.E.

The total wetland area (after pre-treatment) of the FWS

Papaspyros. The evaluation of the VSF system was co-funded

system is 5500 m2 (4.58 m2 p.e.-1), while that of the VSF

by the European Social Fund & National Resources EPEAEK

system is 2040 m 2 (including 240 m2 for sludge drying

II PYTHAGORAS II.

REFERENCES

1.

Ansola G., Gonzlez J.M., Cortijo R. and de Luis E., Experimental and full-scale pilot plant constructed wetlands for
municipal wastewaters treatment. Ecol. Eng., 21, 43-52 (2003).

2.
3.

Kadlec R. and Knight R., Treatment Wetlands, CRC Press, USA, Boca Raton, Fl., (1996).
Crites R. and Tchobanoglous G., Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems, WCB and McGraw-Hill. New
York. USA (1998).

4.

Andersson J.L., Kallner Bastviken S. and Tonderski K.S., Free water surface wetlands for wastewater treatment in Sweden
nitrogen and phosphorus removal. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control,

627

IWA, Avignon, France, September 26-30, Vol. 1, pp. 39-47 (2004).

5.

Koottatep T., Surinkul N., Polprasert C., Kamal A.S. and Srauss M., Treatment of septage in constructed wetlands in
tropical climate Lessons learnt after seven years of operation. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems
for Water Pollution Control, IWA, Avignon, France, September 26-30, Vol. 1, pp. 249-257 (2004).

6.

Cooper D., Griffin P. and Cooper P., Factors affecting the longevity of sub-surface horizontal flow systems operating as
tertiary treatment for sewage effluent. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution
Control, IWA, Avignon, France, September 26-30, Vol. 1, pp. 259-267 (2004).

7.

Solano M.L., Soriano P. and Ciria M.P., Constructed wetlands as a sustainable solution for wastewater treatment in small
villages. Biosystems Eng., 87, 109-118 (2004).

8.

Cameron K., Madramootoo C., Crolla A. and Kinsley C., Pollutant removal from municipal sewage lagoon effluents with a
free-surface wetland. Water Res., 37, 2803-2812 (2003).

9.

Ran N., Agami M. and Oron G., A pilot study of constructed wetlands using duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) for treatment of
domestic primary effluent in Israel. Water Res., 38, 2241-2248 (2004).

10.

He Q. and Mankin K., Performance variations of COD and nitrogen removal by vegetated submerged bed wetlands. J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc., 38, 1679-1689 (2002).

11.

Mayo A. W. and Mutamba J., Effect of HRT on nitrogen removal in a coupled HRP and unplanted subsurface flow gravel
bed constructed wetland. Phys. Chem. Earth, 29, 1253-1257 (2004).

12.

Korkusuz E. A., Beklioglu M. and Demirer G.N., Comparison of gravel and slag based vertical flow reed bed performance
in Turkey. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, IWA, Avignon, France,
September 26-30, Vol. 1, pp. 173-181 (2004).

13.

Akratos C. and Tsihrintzis V.A., Pilot-scale constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment studies. In: Proc. of the
International Conference on Protection and Restoration of the Environment VII, Technical University of Athens, Greece and
Sterens Institute of Technology, USA. June 28-July 1, 2004, Mykonos, Greece, CD-Rom Section IV (Ecological Engineering
Applications), #1 (2004).

14.

Rousseau D.P.L., Vanrolleghem P.A. and De Pauw N., Constructed wetlands in Flanders: a performance analysis. Ecol.
Eng., 23, 151-163 (2004).

15.

Luederitz V., Eckert E., Lange-Weber M., Lange A. and Gersberg R.M., Nutrient removal efficiency and resource
economics of vertical and horizontal flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng., 18, 157-171 (2001).

16.

Sderqvist T., Constructed wetlands as nitrogen sinks in southern Sweden: An empirical analysis of cost determinants.
Ecol. Eng., 19, 161-173 (2002).

17.

Molle P., Linard A., Boutin C., Merlin G. and Iwema A., How to treat raw sewage with constructed wetlands: An
overview of the French systems. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control,
IWA, Avignon, France, September 26-30, Vol. 1, pp. 11-19 (2004).

18.

Paing J. and Voisin J., Vertical flow constructed wetlands for municipal wastewater and septage treatment in French rural
area. In: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, IWA, Avignon, France,
September 26-30, Vol. 1, pp. 315-323 (2004).

19.

Brix H., Danish guidelines for small-scale constructed wetland systems for onsite treatment of domestic sewage. In: Proc. of
the 9th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, IWA, Avignon, France, September 26-30, Vol.
1, pp. 1-9 (2004).

20.

Dialynas G.E., Kefalakis N., Dialynas M.G. and Angelakis A.N., Performance of the first free-water surface constructed
wetland system in Crete, Greece. Water Sci. Technol., 46, 355-360 (2002).

21.

Tsagarakis K.P., Mara D.D. and Angelakis A.N., Application of cost criteria for selection of municipal wastewater
treatment systems. Water, Air Soil Pollut., 142, 187-210 (2003).

628