




































Ecology, Economy, and Society–the INSEE Journal 8(1): 13-54, January 2025 

THEMATIC ESSAY 
 

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A 
Review of Research Development 
 

Malabika Biswas Roy

, Shilpa Saha and Pankaj Kumar Roy

   

 
Abstract: Constructed wetlands (CWs) mimic natural wetland processes and are 
designed primarily for wastewater treatment. Their cost-effectiveness and energy 
efficiency have made them popular globally. In the present study, the online Scopus 
database was used to identify 4407 documents related to CWs from 1991 to 2020 
and bibliometric analysis was conducted. Among these, 209 publications were 
highly cited (>100 times), constituting 5.1% of all publications. VOSviewer 
software was used to conduct citation network analyses, which revealed a steady 
increase in annual publications on the topic over time. The United States, China, 
and the Czech Republic produced the highest number of highly cited publications. 
Notably, the journal Ecological Engineering received the most citations, followed by 
Water Research and Water Science and Technology. The literature analysis explored CW 
design, the role of macrophytes and microorganisms, organic pollutant and nutrient 
removal processes, and operation and maintenance. Typha latifolia and Phragmites 
australis are commonly used plant species in CWs. Despite their efficacy and cost-
efficiency, challenges such as difficulties in procuring land, conducting regular 
maintenance, and raising public awareness persist. Further research and innovation 
are crucial for maximizing CW applications in wastewater treatment in the modern 
era. 

Keywords: Constructed Wetlands; Wetlands; Wastewater; Wastewater Treatment; 
VOSviewer 

 

 

                                                 
 Department of Geography, Women’s College, Calcutta, Kolkata 700003, India; 

malabikabiswasroy@gmail.com  
 School of Energy Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India (JU); 
shilpasaha97@gmail.com  
 School of Water Resources Engineering, JU; pankaj.kroy@jadavpuruniversity.in  

Copyright © Roy, Saha and Roy 2025. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v8i1.1281    

mailto:malabikabiswasroy@gmail.com
mailto:shilpasaha97@gmail.com
mailto:pankaj.kroy@jadavpuruniversity.in
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v8i1.1281
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v7i2.1021


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [14] 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Natural wetlands are a unique ecosystem characterized by the presence of 
water, either permanent or seasonal, which supports vegetation adapted to 
saturated soil conditions. These shallow, slow-moving bodies of water are 
typically populated with cattails, bulrushes, reeds, or other water-tolerant 
plants. Wetland ecosystems are characterized by the presence of water on 
the surface and in the root zone, with soil conditions distinct from those of 
adjacent uplands. To maintain saturation, wetlands are inundated with 
surface water or, occasionally, groundwater, for extended periods of time 
(Polprasert 2004). Wetland systems are classified based on their water 
sources, including groundwater, river water, and rainfall (Roy et al. 2021). 
Local people utilize these wetlands in various ways, such as for improving 
fish supply, enhancing agriculture, bathing cattle, washing clothes and 
utensils, and other purposes (Roy et al. 2021). 

Wetlands not only help prevent environmental pollution but also serve as 
water sources. They are often artificially created as man-made systems, 
typically consisting of long, narrow channels (Polprasert 2004). Constructed 
wetlands (CWs) are designed to mimic the natural processes of wetlands—
such as their vegetation, soil characteristics, and associated 
microorganisms—to aid in wastewater treatment.  

Kathe Seidel conducted pioneering experiments in the 1950s at the Max 
Planck Institute in Germany to assess the feasibility of using wetland plants 
for wastewater treatment (Vymazal 2010). The study involved a series of 
experiments aimed at treating several categories of wastewater, such as 
livestock and dairy wastewater. Most of the experiments were conducted in 
horizontal flow (HF) or vertical flow (VF) subsurface CWs. The first 
surface water CW system (free water) in the Netherlands was built in 1967 
(Vymazal 2010). Surface water CW systems (free water) are rare in Europe, 
but subsurface flow (SSF) became dominant between 1980 and 1990 
(Vymazal 2010). 

Wastewater is treated in CWs through physical processes (sedimentation 
and filtration), chemical processes (precipitation and adsorption), and a 
combination of both biological and chemical activities (microbial 
degradation and water uptake from the substrate) (Bakhshoodeh et al. 
2020). CWs are also referred to as man-made, engineered, or artificial 
wetlands (Vymazal 2014). Many of these systems were specifically designed 
and operated for wastewater treatment, while others serve multiple 
purposes. For example, treated effluents can be used for wetland habitat 
development, restoration, agriculture, and environmental enhancement 
(Vymazal 2014). 



[15] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

Domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural run-off wastewater can all 
benefit from CW treatment (Saha et al. 2024). Likewise, several studies 
demonstrate that CWs can effectively treat urban storm water, polluted 
rivers, and reservoirs. CWs can also enhance local populations’ economic 
well-being by increasing agricultural output and fish production, similar to 
the broader benefits provided by natural wetlands (Roy et al. 2021). 

The study undertakes a critical analysis of the published research, including 
review articles from national and international sources. Primary research 
was done using Google Scholar and the Scopus online database, which also 
facilitated data collection and citation tracking for bibliometric analysis. 

 

2. DATA SOURCE AND METHODOLOGY 

The data for this study was collected from the Scopus online database, 
ensuring relevance and reliability. The included studies spanned from 1991 
to 2000. The analysis employed bibliometric analysis, with assumptions 
clearly defined to ensure the validity of results. 

2.1. Bibliometric Analysis 

The data for bibliometric analysis was obtained from Scopus, one of 
Elsevier’s most extensive online databases. While the Web of Science 
(WOS) database is better suited for citation analysis and evaluation, Scopus 
was chosen for this study due to its more comprehensive representation of 
research in this field. The keyword “constructed wetlands” was used to 
identify publications on CWs in the Scopus database from 1991 to 2020, as 
of December 15, 2021. The document types covered included articles, 
review papers, book series, books, chapters, and conference proceedings, 
resulting in 4,074 documents. Information on author names, affiliations, 
journal titles, keywords, citations, the countries where studies were 
conducted, and publication years was retrieved. Only English-language 
documents were included in this study. By applying a threshold of 100 or 
more citations, 209 publications were selected, accounting for 5.1% of all 
publications. 

VOSviewer is a powerful tool for constructing and visualizing bibliometric 
networks. Developed by NJ van Eck and L Waltman of the Centre for 
Science & Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University, Netherlands, it 
offers an intuitive interface for exploring complex bibliometric networks. 
Nodes represent entities (e.g., authors, keywords), while links show 
relationships or collaborations. This allows researchers to map relationships 
between publications, authors, journals, institutions, and keywords, 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [16] 

 

providing meaningful insights into research trends, collaboration patterns, 
and thematic clusters.  

We used the VOSviewer V.1.6.18 to perform network analyses to identify 
co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and citation analysis of authors, 
sources, and the countries studied. The network analysis maps were created 
using the association strength method. By offering a clear and interactive 
way to analyse and interpret bibliometric data, VOSviewer has become an 
essential tool for researchers seeking insights into the structure and 
dynamics of the academic literature. 

2.2. Geospatial and Statistical Analysis 

QGIS V.3.26 was utilized to represent the spatial distribution of different 
studies on CWs and the plant species used across various regions. Raw data 
was collected from the Scopus database, and GIS maps were created. 
Statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 2016. 

 

3. RESULTS 

The results of the study revealed significant findings aligned with the 
objectives. Key trends and patterns emerged from the analysis, highlighting 
the increasing interest in CW research that likely stems from the growing 
need for cost-effective wastewater treatment options in both urban and 
rural settings. Furthermore, the results demonstrated the diverse nature of 
works on CWs, offering valuable insights into wastewater treatment using 
CWs. These findings are discussed in detail to draw meaningful 
interpretations and implications for the development of CWs. 

3.1. Country-wise Publications 

The bibliometric analysis highlights the global distribution of research 
contributions on CWs, revealing notable regional disparities. Asia and 
Europe dominate the field, indicating robust CW research in these regions. 
This trend reflects the significant environmental challenges these densely 
populated regions experience, such as water pollution and resource 
management, which necessitate innovative solutions like CWs. North and 
South America follow, while Africa and Australia contribute fewer 
publications.  

China (1,054 publications) and the United States (807 publications) lead in 
CW research, highlighting their substantial investment in the field. China’s 
prominence likely stems from its extensive infrastructure projects and 
urgent environmental challenges, particularly surrounding wastewater 
treatment and ecological restoration. The United States’ significant 



[17] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

contribution reflects its long-standing expertise in wetland management and 
technological innovation. European nations, including the United 
Kingdom, Germany, and Spain (each with over 200 publications), as well as 
France, Italy, and the Czech Republic (each exceeding 100 publications), 
have a strong tradition of research in environmental science and 
sustainability.  

The representation of Australia, Canada, and India (each with over 100 
publications) highlights their efforts to address region-specific 
environmental challenges. For instance, Australia’s contributions are likely 
linked to its dry climate and the need for sustainable water management. At 
the same time, India’s growing interest in CW research may reflect the 
increasing demand for cost-effective wastewater treatment options in both 
urban and rural settings. 

In contrast, Africa and South America contribute fewer publications, 
possibly due to limited research funding and infrastructure. However, this 
smaller number does not necessarily imply lesser importance; instead, it 
highlights an opportunity for growth in CW research in these regions, 
where CWs can potentially address critical environmental and public health 
issues. The country-wise number of publications on CWs for the given 
period is shown in Figure 1. 

3.2. Annual Trends in Publications 

The year-wise analysis of publications on CWs shows a clear upward trend 
in terms of research output, especially after 2009. This consistent increase 
reflects the growing global recognition of CWs as an effective and 
sustainable solution to environmental challenges, including wastewater 
treatment, habitat restoration, and climate adaptation. 

The year-wise data shows that since 2009, the number of publications on 
CWs has consistently exceeded 100. The most publications occurred in 
2020 (369 documents), while the lowest was in 1992 (2 documents). Since 
2015, there has been a steady increase in publications. The peak in 2020 
may also partially reflect a shift in research focus towards understanding the 
role of ecosystems in disease regulation and public health, highlighting the 
need for resilient natural systems during global crises.  

There was a decline in published research in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2012, 
and 2015. However, since then, the number of publications has nearly 
doubled from 197 in 2009 to 369 in 2020. A trend analysis (Figure 2) 
illustrates this increase in CW studies. This upward trend highlights the 
need for interdisciplinary approaches and international collaborations to 



Ecology, Economy, and Society–the INSEE Journal 8(1): 13-54, January 2025 

Figure 1: Country-wise Publications on Constructed Wetlands from 1991 to 2020 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors. 



Ecology, Economy, and Society–the INSEE Journal 8(1): 13-54, January 2025 

Figure 2: Year-wise Trend of Publications on Constructed Wetlands from 1991 to 
2020 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors. 

refine CW designs further, optimize performance, and expand their 
applicability in addressing twenty-first-century environmental challenges. 

3.3. Subject Areas 

Figure 3 highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the research retrieved 
from the Scopus database, with environmental science representing 51.45% 
of the total publications. This underscores its key role in addressing 
contemporary challenges like sustainability, climate change, and resource 
management. The substantial representation of engineering (9.26%) reflects 
its critical role in developing practical solutions and technologies for 
environmental applications such as wastewater treatment, renewable energy 
systems, and infrastructure design. 

The contributions from agricultural and biological sciences (6.47%) and 
chemical engineering (6.29%) highlight the integration of natural and 
chemical processes in environmental research. These fields likely address 
topics such as soil and crop management, biotechnological solutions, and 
sustainable chemical processes. Similarly, the inclusion of energy (4.69%) 
reflects a growing focus on energy efficiency, renewable sources, and the 
environmental impact of energy systems. 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [20] 

 

Figure 3: Top 10 Study Areas Related to Publications on Constructed Wetlands 
from 1991 to 2020 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors. 

The less dominant fields, such as chemistry, earth and planetary sciences, 
biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, provide niche contributions 
to environmental research. For instance, research in materials science may 
focus on developing sustainable materials or improving water filtration 
technologies.   

The distribution across subject areas highlights the multidisciplinary nature 
of the research, emphasizing the importance of collaboration across diverse 
fields to address complex environmental issues. These trends provide a 
roadmap for future research funding and collaboration opportunities, 
particularly in fostering interdisciplinary studies that link environmental 
science with engineering, biology, and chemistry.   

3.4. Journal- and Publisher-wise Analysis 

Applying a citation threshold of over 100, 209 publications were retrieved, 
representing 5.1% of all publications. Table 1 shows that the most highly 
cited papers were published in journals by major academic publishers, with 
Elsevier leading with 22 publications. This dominance reflects Elsevier’s 
extensive portfolio of environmental and engineering journals. 

The presence of Springer (6), Wiley (3), and smaller contributions from 
Taylor & Francis (2) and others highlights the diversity of platforms hosting  



[21] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

Table 1: Major Sources Contributing to Publications Related to Constructed 
Wetlands 

Sl. 
No. 

Name of the Journal Publisher Cited by 

1.  Ecological Engineering Elsevier 9,579 

2.  Water Research Elsevier 5,222 

3.  Water Science & Technology International Water 
Association 

4,844 

4.  Science of the Total Environment Elsevier 3,625 

5.  Bioresource Technology Elsevier 3,388 

6.  Environmental Pollution Elsevier 1,347 

7.  Chemosphere Elsevier 1,260 

8.  Environmental Science & Technology American Chemical 
Society 

1,214 

9.  Critical Review in Environmental Science 
& Technology 

Taylor & Francis 795 

10.  Journal of Environmental Management Elsevier 782 

11.  Chemical Engineering Journal Elsevier 708 

12.  Environment International Elsevier 518 

13.  Water (Switzerland) Multidisciplinary Digital 
Publishing Institute 

461 

14.  Aquaculture Elsevier 413 

15.  Hydrobiologia Springer 375 

16.  Desalination Elsevier 372 

17.  Engineering in Life Sciences Wiley 324 

18.  Journal of Cleaner Production Elsevier 234 

19.  Agricultural Water Management Elsevier 228 

20.  Water, Air, and Soil Pollution Springer 210 

21.  Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment Elsevier 161 

22.  Biotechnology Advances Elsevier 151 

23.  Journal of Soils and Sediments Springer 150 

24.  Soil Biology and Biochemistry Elsevier 147 

25.  Biosensors and Bioelectronics Elsevier 146 

26.  Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands: Eco-
Engineering Systems for Wastewater & 
Sludge Treatment 

Elsevier 135 

27.  Journal of Environmental Sciences Elsevier 127 

28.  Process Biochemistry Elsevier 123 

29.  Journal of Environmental Quality Wiley 121 

30.  Journal of Industrial Microbiology and 
Biotechnology 

Springer 120 

31.  Journal of Hazardous Materials Elsevier 119 

32.  Vadose Zone Journal Wiley 114 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [22] 

 

33.  Environmental Science and Pollution 
Research 

Springer 113 

34.  Metallomics Oxford University Press 107 

35.  Wetlands Springer 104 

36.  Renewable and Sustainable Energy 
Reviews 

Elsevier 103 

37.  Journal of Environmental Science & 
Health 

Taylor & Francis 101 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors. 

impactful research. However, the limited representation of journals from 
institutions such as the International Water Association (1), American 
Chemical Society (1), Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (1), and 
Oxford University Press (1) suggests the underrepresentation of specialized 
publishers in this domain. 

These results also indicate a concentration of influence among a few major 
publishers, which may reflect trends in publication preferences or journal 
quality standards in the field. However, the smaller contributions by other 
publishers highlight niche areas where impactful research is being 
conducted. A deeper exploration of the thematic focus of these highly cited 
publications provided valuable insights into the specific subtopics within 
CW research driving high citation rates, such as wastewater treatment, 
habitat restoration, and emerging technologies. Examining the publication 
years of these articles revealed trends in the evolution of CW research, 
highlighting periods of significant breakthroughs or shifts in focus.  

The findings emphasize the pivotal role of major publishers in 
disseminating high-impact research on CWs while also highlighting the 
need to recognize and promote contributions from a wider range of 
publishers. A further meta-analysis, as outlined above, could provide a more 
nuanced understanding of the factors driving research impact, enabling 
researchers to identify key trends, gaps, and opportunities for future work 
in the field. 

3.5. Analysis of Highly Cited Publications 

The increase in publications reflects the growing interest in CW research, 
driven primarily by advances in modern methodologies and a broad 
understanding of CW applications (Figure 4). However, fluctuations in 
annual citation numbers indicate the variability in these studies’ visibility 
and perceived impacts. This discrepancy calls for further investigation into 
factors influencing citation trends, such as the relevance of research topics 
to current environmental challenges, the geographic distribution of 
impactful research, and networks of scientific collaboration. 



[23] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

Figure 4: Total Number of Most Cited Publications from 1991 to 2020 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 

This analysis identifies themes or keywords correlated with high citation 
counts, examines interdisciplinary linkages, and maps the progression of 
research focus areas over time. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of 
high-impact and low-impact years reveals strategies for enhancing the 
visibility and influence of CW research. 

3.6. Co-occurrence of All Keywords 

An analysis of the co-occurrence of keywords in highly cited publications 
on CWs was conducted. The authors selected a threshold value of five for 
the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword for network analysis 
using the full counting method. This method counts a full publication for 
each of the co-authors, whereas in the case of the fractional counting 
method, a publication is counted in fractions with respect to the number of 
co-authors for that publication. Figure 5 shows the co-occurrence of all the 
keywords related to CW research generated using VOSviewer software. Six 
clusters, each in a different colour, are observed. The colours of the bubbles 
represent the cluster to which the items belong. The bubble and keyword 
size represents the weight assigned to each keyword, while the frequency of 
keyword occurrence is shown by lines connecting related keywords.  

Among the keywords used more than five times, “constructed wetlands” 
stands out with 209 occurrences, highlighting its importance as a central 
research theme. It is followed by “constructed wetland”, “wetlands”, 
“wastewater treatment”, “wastewater”, and “waste water management”, 
with   frequencies   of   173,   167,   127,  97,  and  83,  respectively.  The  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [24] 

 

Figure 5: The Network Visualization Map of Keyword Co-occurrence for 
Publications Related to Constructed Wetlands 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 

co-occurrence lines connecting keywords, especially their thickness, reveal 
strong associations between certain themes. For instance, the frequent link 
between “constructed wetlands” and “wastewater treatment” emphasizes 
the ongoing focus on CWs’ role in environmental remediation. 

The word “constructed wetlands” (4241) has a stronger link with the other 
clusters than “wetlands” (3721), as evidenced by the green-coloured 
clusters, which show a higher frequency of co-occurrence with the other 
five clusters. Further analysis of the linkages between keywords could reveal 
specific applications such as industrial wastewater treatment and agricultural 
run-off management. The co-occurrence patterns suggest opportunities for 
integrating concepts from related fields such as ecology, chemical 
engineering, and socio-economic studies. By expanding on the observed 
clusters and their interrelations, this analysis offers a comprehensive 
overview of the intellectual landscape of CW research. 

 



[25] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

Figure 6: The Network Visualization Map of Co-authorship Citations for 
Publications Related to Constructed Wetlands 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 

3.7. Co-authorship Analysis 

To interpret the interconnection between the authors of highly cited 
publications on CWs, a co-authorship analysis map for authors has been 
created. A threshold of two, as the minimum number of documents for an 
author, using the full counting method, was applied for the network 
analysis. Of the 578 authors identified from the highly cited publications, 
112 have at least two jointly published documents (Figure 6). The clusters 
reveal that 112 of the 578 authors are well-connected. The purple cluster 
centred around “Bayona J M” has the highest link strength of 29, indicating 
strong collaborative networks. This is followed by another purple cluster, 
which is centred around “Matamoros V”, with the second-highest link 
strength of 27, alongside authors from the green, blue, and yellow clusters.  

In terms of documents and citations per author, “Vymazal J” (represented 
by the orange cluster) has the highest number of documents (10) and 
citations (6427), highlighting a potentially wide-reaching influence that 
intersects with other clusters or fields. “Brix H” (represented by the green 
cluster) has the second-highest citation count (2583), indicating pivotal 
contributions to CW research. 

3.8. Citation Analysis of Source 

Figure 7 shows a network analysis of the most frequently cited CW sources, 
with bubble size representing the total number of citations. Different 
colours highlight clusters of sources retrieved primarily on the  basis  of  the  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [26] 

 

Figure 7: The Network Visualization Map of Source Citations for Publications 
Related to Constructed Wetlands 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 

frequency of their occurrence. This analysis provides valuable insights into 
the influence and interconnections of various journals in the CW field. 

The dominance of Ecological Engineering, with a link strength of 268 across 51 
documents, highlights its key role in advancing CW research, likely due to 
its focus on ecological restoration and engineering solutions. Similarly, 
Water Research, with a link strength of 213 from 28 documents, reflects its 
importance in water quality and management, making it a natural fit for 
CW-related studies. The strong position of Water Science and Technology, with 
a link strength of 160 from 26 documents, can be attributed to its 
interdisciplinary approach to water technology challenges. 

The geographic distribution of the authors contributing to these journals 
highlights regional research priorities. Understanding the relationship 
between clusters and journals from fields like environmental science, 
engineering, and biology could reveal the extent of interdisciplinary 
collaboration in CW research. 

3.9. Citation Analysis of Authors 

A citation analysis map of the authors of the included publications was 
prepared to analyse the academic structure of highly cited publications on 
CWs. A threshold of two was set as the minimum number of documents 
for an author, using the full counting method, for the network analysis. Of 
the 578 authors identified from highly cited publications, 112 have 
published at least two documents jointly (Figure 8). This highlights key 
contributors and reveals patterns of collaboration and influence. Identifying  



[27] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

Figure 8: The Network Visualization Map of Author Citations for Publications 
Related to Constructed Wetlands 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 

whether these collaborations are interdisciplinary or regionally concentrated 
could provide valuable context for advancing the field. 

The results indicate that the most significant green cluster is led by the 
author “Vymazal J”, who has the highest number of citations and 
demonstrates the strongest link strength (340), highlighting extensive 
collaboration and influence in the field. This is followed by “Brix H”, 
another prominent figure in the green cluster, with a link strength of 253. 
These two authors emerge as leading contributors, with a total of 6,427 and 
2,583 citations, respectively. Additionally, authors such as “Bayona J M” 
(1,776 citations) and “Matamoros V” (1,747 citations) also made significant 
contributions, albeit with slightly lower link strengths. 

Evaluating the thematic contributions of leading authors could reveal 
underexplored areas in CW research, such as the role of nitrogen, 
phosphorus, and SSF CWs, and aspects like microbial processes or climate 
resilience, which deserve greater attention. 

3.10. Citation Analysis of Countries 

A citation analysis map for countries has been prepared for highly cited 
publications on CWs to provide significant insights into global 
collaboration patterns, knowledge dissemination, and research influence in 
the field. A threshold value of two for the minimum number of documents 
from a country was applied for network analysis using the full counting 
method.   Among   the  57   countries   identified   among  the  highly  cited  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [28] 

 

Figure 9: The Network Visualization Map of Country Citations for Publications 
Related to Constructed Wetlands 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 

publications, 33 met the minimum threshold of two documents (Figure 9). 
The clustering patterns indicate regional groupings of countries, likely 
influenced by geographical proximity, shared environmental challenges, or 
economic partnerships.  

The yellow cluster, representing the United States with the highest link 
strength of 523, serves as a central hub for global collaborations, 
highlighting its significant influence and reach within the research 
community. This dominance may reflect the country’s robust research 
infrastructure, ample funding opportunities, and strong institutional 
collaborations. Similarly, China and the Czech Republic, with notable link 
strengths of 470 and 271, respectively, play pivotal roles in advancing CW 
research and contributing to global research. Investigating whether specific 
clusters focus on particular research areas—such as nutrient removal, 
biodiversity conservation, or water reuse—could reveal specialization 
patterns. 

 

4. DISCUSSION 

Bibliometric research, particularly citation analysis, is crucial for 
understanding research trends and identifying key contributions across 
fields. It enables the visualization of significant research documents, aiding 



[29] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

the identification of advanced trends and innovative approaches. In the 
context of CWs, bibliometric analysis highlights the interplay between 
socio-economic conditions and climatic factors, which often constrain the 
development of CWs in a given region. For instance, in China, the 
development of CW follows a diverse pattern, which stands out as one of 
its key characteristics (Y Zhang et al. 2021). Bibliometric analysis results 
indicate that, since 2009, the application of CWs and related research have 
increased. The analysis identified four research hotspots in CW studies: 
nitrogen, phosphorus, macrophytes, and SSF CWs (M Zhang et al. 2021).   

Ji et al. (2021) found that CW-related research exhibits greater diversity and 
increased cross-group associations, highlighting a broader interdisciplinary 
approach. The authors used bibliometric analysis to identify leading journals 
that are significantly contributing to CW research. For instance, Bioresource 
Technology emerged as the most important journal, with 25 records retrieved 
from the WoS database (2012–2020) (Ji et al. 2021) and 655 citations 
recorded in the Scopus database (1995–2021) (Niknejad et al. 2023). The 
present study’s findings reveal that Ecological Engineering (Elsevier) and Water 
Science and Technology (International Water Association) have the highest 
citation counts. These findings emphasize the growing prominence and 
interdisciplinary nature of CW research, offering a foundation for exploring 
advanced applications and developing innovative management strategies. 

In recent years, there has been an increased application of low-cost CWs. 
At the same time, more research and improved management strategies are 
needed. In a bibliometric study based on the Scopus database from 1992 to 
2019, Colares et al. (2020) found that the keyword “macrophyte” is directly 
connected to nearly all other terms. Other key terms include “sediment”, 
“biomass”, and “nutrient removal”. Colares et al. (2020) show that 
wastewater treatment and management are the most crucial topics in 
publications on CWs. Vymazal J and Brix H have the largest co-author 
networks in their studies. In a bibliometric study using the Scopus and WoS 
databases, Yu et al. (2021) identified key connections in the literature and 
highlighted important aspects for optimizing CWs. Further research is 
needed to assess the toxicity of major pollutants and apply new 
technologies for CW optimization (Yu et al. 2021). 

 

5. IMPORTANCE/ APPLICABILITY OF CWS 

The growth of urbanization and industrialization, particularly in developing 
countries, poses challenges for water management. Water reuse has now 
become essential due to the global scarcity in freshwater resources. The 
quality and quantity of reclaimed water can be managed through 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [30] 

 

reclamation and reuse. However, numerous biohazards and concerns are 
associated with using reclaimed water (Arora, Sudhir, and Raghubir 2009). 
CWs offer a feasible, natural, and cost-effective alternative to conventional 
wastewater purification and treatment methods, benefiting developing and 
developed countries (Arora et al. 2009).  

CWs can treat various waste streams, including industrial effluents (Chang et 
al. 2021; Skrzypiecbcef and Gajewskaad 2017; Vymazal 2014), storm-water 
run-off (Choi, Lee-Hyung, and Kyung-Duk 2016; Li et al. 2017; Jie Wang et 
al. 2021), grey water (Prasad et al. 2021), domestic wastewater (Lu et al. 2016; 
Y Zhang et al. 2021), landfill leachate (Bakhshoodeh et al. 2020), and saline 
wastewater (Q Wang et al. 2021).  

CWs offer great potential as the ideal substitute for wastewater treatment, 
particularly in small and medium-sized towns or cities (Zhang, Richard, and 
Tan 2009). Their low operational costs and energy efficiency make CWs an 
appealing and stable alternative worldwide. According to Vymazal (2011), 
the wastewater treatment technologies in CWs in the twenty-first century 
can be described as follows: 

 Using a hybrid system that combines multiple CW types to improve 
water treatment efficiency, particularly for nitrogen reduction.   

 Treating specific compounds already present in effluent wastewater. 

 Finding an effective medium with higher phosphorus removal 
efficiency in SSF. 

 Identifying bacteria that assist in treatment processes. 

 Pollution removal and hydraulic modelling in different types of CWs.  

As a wastewater treatment system, CWs offer several advantages, including 
flexibility in terms of site location, low pre-application treatment 
requirements, simple operation, low maintenance, and no modification of 
the natural wetland environment. They also provide stable performance in 
diverse environmental conditions (Polprasert 2004). CWs are cost-effective 
to develop and operate, and they can create wildlife habitats in free water 
surface (FWS) systems (Polprasert 2004).  

Although mosquitoes are a potential hazard with FWS systems (Polprasert 
2004), efficient and comparably sophisticated systems are cost-effective to 
implement in cities and towns, especially where land is scarce and the dense 
population helps lower household sewerage costs (Denny 1997). The key 
prerequisites for promoting the application of CWs in developing countries 



[31] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

are raising awareness of their potential and encouraging nations to develop 
their own technologies (Denny 1997). 

5.1. Major Types 

For wastewater treatment, CWs are typically categorized based on various 
characteristics. One classification divides CWs into four types based on the 
dominant macrophyte: (1) free-floating macrophytes, (2) rooted emergent 
macrophytes, (3) floating leaved macrophytes, and (4) submerged 
macrophytes (Vymazal 2010). Additionally, CWs are further subdivided 
based on the hydrological features of the wetland, including FWS and 
subsurface systems. CWs can also be classified by flow direction as either 
horizontal or vertical (Vymazal 2010). According to Stottmeister et al. 
(2003), CWs encompass aquaculture, hydrobotanical, and soil systems.  

Based on the dominant plant species, Dordio and Carvalho (2013) classified 
four types of CWs: floating macrophytes (for example, Lemna minor, 
Eichhornia crassipes); floating macrophytes with leaves (for example, 
Potamogeton gramineus, Nymphaea. alba); submerged macrophytes (for example, 
P. crispus, L. uniflora); and rooted, emergent macrophytes (for example, Typha 
latifolia, Potamogeton australis). The CW classification for wastewater 
treatment, according to Vymazal (2007), is shown in Figure 10. 

A horizontal SSF CW is a large basin filled with gravel, sand, and wetland 
vegetation. In horizontal SSF CWs, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 
total suspended solids (TSS), and pathogens are significantly reduced. 
Oxygen availability in horizontal SSF CWs is often low in summer and may 
become even more limited when plants are dormant in winter. Unlike FWS 
CWs, horizontal SSF CWs do not cause mosquito problems. In a 2006 
study by Ouellet-Plamondon et al. (2006), artificial aeration was found to be 
a promising method for improving removal efficiency in horizontal SSF 
CWs, particularly in freshwater farms in cold regions where aeration is 
readily available. Because water primarily flows beneath the bed surface, the 
risk of hydraulic failure due to freezing is reduced in horizontal SSF CWs. It 
has several benefits, including no need for electrical energy and low 
operating costs. However, it also has drawbacks such as requiring a large 
amount of land, effecting limited nutrient removal, posing risks of clogging 
depending on the primary treatment, requiring a long time to reach full 
capacity, and needing expert design and construction supervision.  

FWS CWs effectively remove organics through microbial degradation and 
colloidal particle settling (Vymazal 2010). VF CWs, also known as “reed 
bed systems” or “soil filters”, are a common urban wastewater treatment 
system. They are particularly useful in areas where other natural water 
treatment   systems   are   challenging  to  implement.  VF  CWs  are  highly  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [32] 

 

Figure 10: Different Types of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment 

 

Source: Based on Vymazal (2007) 

beneficial due to their minimal surface area requirements and effectiveness 
in removing organic matter and ammonia, though their phosphorus 
removal efficiency is relatively lower (Prochaska and Anastasios 2006). 
According to Prochaska and Anastasios (2006), VF systems are typically 
flooded and drained regularly, which saturates the soil bed’s pores. 
However, not all VF systems operate on a fill-and-drain basis; some 
function entirely under unsaturated conditions, while others maintain a 
portion of the substrate in a partially saturated state. In these systems, the 
wastewater percolates through the substrate, which functions like a filter.     

5.2. Role of Wetland Vegetation 

The primary functions of plants in CWs include supplying oxygen; 
removing nitrogen and phosphorus; reducing chemical oxygen demand 
(COD), BOD, and TSS; and enhancing overall removal efficiency (Zhang et 
al. 2009). Commonly used plant species for leachate treatment in CWs are 
P. australis, T. latifolia, and Chrysopogon zizanoides, although other genera, such 
as Glyceria, Scirpus, and Eleocharis, are also utilized (Bakhshoodeh et al. 
2020). According to Zhang et al. (2009), key considerations for CW 
development include the design, the specific role of plants, weather 
impacts, costs, energy efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Using local 



[33] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

and renewable resources lowers ecological costs, enhances economic 
benefits through reduced energy consumption, and mitigates environmental 
stress (Zhang et al. 2009).  

The ability of various aquatic plants, such as lemna, reed-grass, Salvinia, 
Eichhornia, and Azolla, to grow in polluted waters and reduce nutrient and 
contaminant loads have been studied (Arora et al. 2009). Compared to 
conventional treatment systems, macrophyte-based wastewater treatment 
systems offer several advantages. However, they also have limitations, such 
as their sensitivity to potentially toxic elements like high ammonia 
concentrations in wastewater (Arora et al. 2009).  

Various experiments have determined that helophytes, commonly known as 
marsh plants, perform best in semi-natural wastewater treatment systems 
(Stottmeister et al. 2003). This is due to their unique growth physiology, 
which allows them to survive in extreme rhizosphere conditions 
(Stottmeister et al. 2003). Plants enhance overall treatment efficiency, 
directly and indirectly, making selecting the most suitable vegetation species 
a critical design decision.  

Improved nitrogen removal in CWs planted with vegetation results from 
active and passive oxygen transfer from the atmosphere to the roots, which 
supply oxygen to the rhizosphere (Lin, Dong, and Mo 2002). Aerated CWs 
also remove more nitrogen than non-aerated CWs (Nivala et al. 2013). To 
evaluate microbial density and activity in the rhizospheres of three plant 
species, Gagnon et al. (2007) planted six replicates in four different 
microcosms, including Typha angustifolia, Phalaris arundinacea, P. australis, and 
one unplanted control. The major plant species found in CWs within the 
selected study areas are shown in Figure 11. 

The types and species of aquatic plants are influenced by water depth and 
the extent of inundation (Greenway 2004). A mix of emergent, submerged, 
and floating plant species should be selected to evaluate the performance of 
CWs with regards to plant diversity. Typical wetland species used in interior 
China include Typha orientalis, P. australis, Zizania latifolia, Canna generalis, 
Acorus calamus, Echinochloa cruss-galli, Juncus effusus, and E. crassipes (Yan and 
Xu 2014). According to Yan and Xu (2014), in cold climates, P. australis, T. 
orientalis, and Z. latifolia are better suited to SSF CW environments, while 
species like E. crassipes thrive in warmer climates. 

5.3. Design and Construction  

CWs mimic natural wetland systems and effectively remove various 
pollutants from wastewater (Ansola, Paula, and Luis 2014). CW systems are 
categorized  into  three  types  based  on their design and operation: surface  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [34] 

 

Figure 11: Different Species of Plants Used in Constructed Wetlands across 
Various Study Areas Worldwide 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 



[35] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

flow, SSF, and VF systems (Farooqi, Farrukh, and Rahat 2008). Numerous 
studies have examined and reviewed the key design parameters, removal 
mechanisms, and treatment performance of CWs (Akratos and Tsihrintzis 
2007; Albers and Camardese 1993; Ansola et al. 2003; Bayati et al. 2021; 
Dordio and Carvalho 2013; El-Mekkawi et al. 2021; Green et al. 1997; Guo 
et al. 2021; Lu et al. 2016; Maltais-Laundry et al. 2009; Mthembu et al. 2013; 
Prochaska and Anastasios 2006; Shrestha et al. 2001; Vandevenne 1995; Jie 
Wang et al. 2021, Jinqi Wang et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2021; Y Zhang et al. 2021).  

To ensure the process is completely waterproof, the CWs are placed in a 
basin enclosed on all sides, with the substrate and bottom shielded by 
rubber foils (Farooqi et al. 2008). This precaution is crucial in any 
environmental setting to prevent water leaks that could disrupt system 
operation or contaminate the source water. Plants, gravel, or sand serve as 
substrates in these systems (Farooqi et al. 2008). Persson, Somes, and Wong 
(1999) examined the effects of various pond and wetland shapes as well as 
inlet and outlet locations. The results indicated that hydraulic efficiency, 
process effectiveness, and optimization of water quality treatment are the 
three main design components. Details of selected publications related to 
CWs are provided in Table 2. 

Various fillers, such as steel slag, limestone, bamboo charcoal, and maifanite 
(with maximum adsorption capacity), have been used to create substrata for 
CW systems. Their effects on pollutant degradation in rural household 
sewage treatment systems were assessed by Lu et al. (2016), who found that 
removal efficiencies were positively impacted. In the CW developed by 
Mthembu et al. (2013), the medium consisted of multiple strata: fine sand at 
top, crushed rocks in the middle, and coarse rocks at the bottom. Various 
plants were planted in the wetland to analyse their effects on the pathogen, 
nutrient, and metal levels in wastewater (Mthembu et al. 2013).  

Certain design parameters of CWs, such as deeper and larger beds, along 
with a natural or artificial insulation layer made of snow, rock wool, or 
polystyrene, can enhance protection against freezing (Ouellet-Plamondon et 
al. 2006). According to Greenway (2004), the key parameters to consider 
when designing a CW for wastewater treatment are shown in Figure 12. 

Before constructing a CW for wastewater treatment, it is essential to select a 
suitable site that considers the wetland’s objectives, soil type, land 
topography, local climate, total operational and maintenance costs, and 
potential future management changes (Cronk 1996). Key factors in 
constructing CW systems include the pre-treatment stage, choice of 
vegetation, porous media, and operation strategy (Skrzypiecbcef and 
Gajewskaad 2017).  Further  research  and exploration of new potential and



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [36] 

 

Table 2: Details of Selected Publications Related to Constructed Wetlands 

Sl. 
No. 

Study area 
Type of 

CW 
Type of work 

Type of 
water 

Size of CW 
Macrophytes 

used 
References 

1.  Columbia SF CW 

Removal of 
pharmaceuticals 
and personal 
care products 

Treated 
wastewater 

Area: 53 ha Typha latifolia L. 
Bayati et al. 

(2021) 

2.  
Zenin WTP, 
Giza, Egypt 

— 
Effective use of 
microphytes 

Wastewater 

Area of algal pond: 5.4 m3; 
volume of water: 525.6 m3; 
inflow rate: 1.44 m3/d; 
HRT: 2 days  

Ankistrodesmus 
acicularis 
Coelostrum 
microporum 
Scenedismus obliquus 
Scenedismus 
quadricauda 
Chlorella vulgaris 
Oscillatoria limentica 
Nitzschia linearis 
Cyclotella comta 

El-Mekkawi 
et al. (2021) 

3.  
Zengcheng, 
China 

VSSF CW 
Purifying effect 
of biochar and 
zeolite 

Biogas slurry Area: 392 m2  

Water spinach 
Green Pennisetum 
sinese 
Purple Pennisetum 
sinese 

Guo et al. 
(2021) 



[37] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

4.  

SVNIT, 
Surat, 
Gujarat, 
India 

— 
Grey-water 
treatment 

Grey water 

Area: 0.3 m2; depth and 
width: 0.3 m each; length: 1 
m; water volume: 80 L; 
water depth: 0.27 m; 
capacity of overhead tank: 
250 L 

Eichhornia crassipes  
Prasad et al. 

(2021) 

5.  
St. Lucie 
county, 
Florida, USA 

— 

Cleaning 
contaminated 
storm-water in 
urban areas 

Contaminated 
run-off/ 
storm water 

Area: 2 ha  

Typha latifolia 
Hydrilla verticillate 
Eichhornia crassipes 
Spirogyra 

Jie Wang et 
al. (2021) 

6.  
Wuhan, 
China 

— 

Endogenous 
denitrification 
and denitrifying 
dephosphatation 

Municipal 
wastewater 

Height: 120 cm; diameter: 
20 cm 

Iris pseudacorus 
Wu et al. 
(2021) 

7.  
Chongming 
Island, China 

— 
Dissimilatory 
nitrate reduction 
processes 

River water 
Length: 6.0 m; width: 5.2 m; 
height: 2.0 m 

Phragmites australis 
Zhang et al. 

(2021a) 

8.  

Shandong 
Normal 
University, 
Jinan, China 

SSF CW 
Phosphorus 
removal 
efficiency 

Saline 
wastewater 

Height: 48 cm; diameter: 30 
cm 

Phragmites australis 
Q Wang et 
al. (2021) 

9.  
Municipal 
WTP, China 

Composite 
VSSF 
(upwards)  

Rural household 
sewage 
treatment 

— 
Length: 3 cm; width: 1.7 
cm; height of concrete 
pond: 160 cm 

—  
Lu et al. 
(2016) 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [38] 

 

10.  
Durban, 
South Africa 

Multi-
designed 
(VF CW, 
HF CW, 
SSF CW) 

Wastewater 
treatment 

— 
Length: 8 m; width: 4 m; 
volume: 3,000 L; flow rate: 
0.2–2 l/s 

Phragmites australis 
Mthembu et 

al. (2013) 

11.  

Nehru Vihar 
Pumping 
station in 
Delhi, India 

— 
Nutrient 
removal from 
wastewaters 

Partially 
treated 
municipal 
effluents 

— Azolla microphylla 
Arora et al. 

(2009) 

12.  

Montreal 
Botanical 
Garden, 
Canada 

HSSF CW 
Nitrogen 
transformations 
and retention 

— 
Height: 0.3 m; width: 0.8 m; 
length: 1.25 m 

Phragmites australis 
Typha angustifolia 
Phalaris arundinacea 

Maltais-
Laundry et al. 

(2009) 

13.  

Mansilla de 
las Mulas, 
northwest of 
the Iberian 
Peninsula 

SSF CW 
Municipal 
wastewater 
treatment 

Municipal 
wastewater 

Surface of glass fibre Tank: 
1.1 m2; depth of glass fibre 
tank: 0.55 m; volume of 
glass fibre tank: 0.6 m3; 
water height: 20 cm  

Typha latifolia 
Ansola et al. 

(2003) 

14.  
Kathmandu 
Valley, 
Nepal 

Two-
staged SSF 
CW (HF 
followed 
by VF 
bed) 

Wastewater 
treatment 

— 

Area (settlement tank): 18 
m3; area (horizontal flow 
bed): 140 m2; length: 7 m; 
width: 20 m; height: 60 cm; 
area (vertical flow bed): 121 
m2; length: 11 m; width: 11 

Phargmites karka 
Shrestha et 
al. (2001) 



[39] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

m; height: 90 cm; flow rate: 
20 m3/day 

15.  

Sewage 
Treatment 
Plant, 
Doische, 
Belgium 

— 

Operational 
survey of a 
natural lagoon 
treatment 
facility 

Wastewater 
Area: 3,050 m2; area of free 
water zone: 375 m2 

Typha latifolia 
Phragmites australis. 
Scirpus lacustris 
Sparganium erectum 
Iris pseudacorus 
Carex acutiformis 
Phalaris arundinacea 

Vandevenne 
(1995) 

Note: CW: constructed wetland; HRT: hydraulic retention time; WTP: water treatment plant; SF: surface flow; SSF: subsurface flow; VSSF: 
vertical subsurface flow; VF: vertical flow; HF: horizontal flow; HSSF: horizontal subsurface flow. 

Source: Authors’ compilation 

 



Ecology, Economy, and Society–the INSEE Journal 8(1): 13-54, January 2025 

Figure 12: Parameters Considered in the Design of Constructed Wetlands 

 

Source: Based on Greenway (2004) 

solutions are necessary for CW applications in contemporary scenarios. 

5.4. Role of Microorganisms 

Bacteria, protozoa, fungi, algae, and other microorganisms play a crucial 
role in the biogeochemical transformation of nutrients (Hoppe, Sang-Jin, 
and Klaus 1998). Indigenous (autochthonous) and foreign (allochthonous) 
microorganisms commonly coexist with the bacterial communities of CWs 
(Truu, Jaanis, and Jaak 2009). Autochthonous microbes exhibit metabolic 
activity, surviving and thriving in wetland systems while contributing to 
purification processes. In contrast, allochthonous microorganisms, such as 
pathogens, rarely survive and lack functional relevance in wetland 
environments (Ansola et al. 2014).  

Ottova (1997) found that the retention of coliform bacteria was 
exceptionally high, exceeding the typical values observed in conventional 
systems. To evaluate the microbiological properties of various CWs, five 



[41] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

CWs were selected representing diverse design parameters, including CW 
area, media type, and vegetation. Monthly samples of inflowing and 
outflowing water were collected and analysed for microbial properties 
(Ottova 1997). 

According to Kang et al. (1998), the low activity of soil enzymes is partly 
attributable to improved water quality. In two CW sites in the United States, 
four soil enzyme activities and microbial activity were measured along a 
transect from upland soil to wetland sediment. The hydrochemistry of the 
wetlands’ inflow and outflow was also analysed. Results showed that 
enzyme activities in the sediments were significantly lower in both wetlands 
compared to the adjacent upland soils (Kang et al. 1998).  

Microbial biomass carbon, denitrification enzyme activity, soil respiration, 
and related factors were compared across two constructed systems and 
three natural wetland settings (Duncan and Groffman 1994). The primary 
goal was to assess whether microbial biomass and activity were comparable 
across different wetland types (Duncan and Groffman 1994). The findings 
suggested that using organic substrates and establishing vigorous plant 
communities during wetland construction likely contributed to the 
successful development of microbial communities in these systems 
(Duncan and Groffman 1994).  

5.5. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes for Organic 
Pollutants and Nutrient Removal  

CWs are used for wastewater treatment because of their low operating costs 
and high pollutant removal efficiency. Primary pollutants include nutrients, 
organic contaminants, metals, and metalloids, which can accumulate in 
various mediums such as surface water, soil, sediment layers, and 
groundwater. In recent years, numerous strategies and technologies for 
water and wastewater treatment and the remediation of contaminated areas 
have been developed (Dordio and Carvalho 2013). Numerous advanced 
technologies have been developed for treating wastewater, such as oxidative 
processes, membrane filtration, and adsorption by activated carbon. Dordio 
and Carvalho (2013) have evaluated these mechanisms for removing 
organic xenobiotics from water. Despite their improved removal capacity, 
these treatment processes are used sporadically, primarily due to their cost-
effectiveness.  

As a result, there is growing demand for a substitute that effectively treats 
wastewater and helps eliminate organic xenobiotics from both the soil and 
natural waters at low operating and maintenance costs.  

 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [42] 

 

Figure 13: Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality in Constructed Wetlands 

 

Source: Based on Haberl et al. (2003) 

Researchers have explored various treatment technologies, including natural 
water treatment methods and biological and physiochemical processes. 
Biological water treatment involves the use of aerated bioreactors and 
biological aerated filters, while physical treatment primarily consists of 
filtration (Prasad et al. 2021). Chemical treatment methods, including 
chemical coagulation and electrocoagulation, were also investigated (Prasad 
et al. 2021). Phytotechnologies have successfully removed many organic 
xenobiotics from contaminated soils, waters, and wastewater (Dordio and 
Carvalho 2013). According to Haberl et al. (2003), the following 
mechanisms help improve water quality in CWs (Figure 13). 

The phytoremediation process is a key method for wastewater treatment, 
involving the removal of contaminants through the interaction of soil, 
water, plants, and microorganisms (Prasad et al. 2021). The choice of plants 
is critical for the process’s effectiveness. Key requirements for these plants 
include rapid growth, high nutrient absorption capacity, ease of harvesting, 
and significant biomass content (Prasad et al. 2021). This approach seeks to 
capitalize on plants’ ability to absorb and metabolize organic xenobiotics 
(Dordio and Carvalho 2013). Dordio and Carvalho (2013) have also 
conducted several successful experiments analysing the removal of 
xenobiotics from contaminated source water using secondary and tertiary 
wastewater treatment methods.   

The physical processes of sedimentation and decantation are crucial for 
removing various contaminants, some of which may remain largely 
unaltered in winter environments, such as particulate organic matter 
(Ouellet-Plamondon et al. 2006). While temperature significantly influences 



[43] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

biological processes, the efficiency with which nitrogen and soluble organic 
matter are removed are reduced in winter conditions (Ouellet-Plamondon et 
al. 2006). The following factors influence CW wastewater treatment 
efficiency: CW area, depth, flow pattern, plant type, site selection, material 
porosity, and hydraulic budget (Polprasert 2004). Mosquito control and 
plant harvesting are two operational considerations for wetlands used in 
wastewater treatment. Green et al. (1997) investigated the nitrification of a 
secondary effluent using a VF bed system variant.  

The life-cycle approach can be used to assess the environmental impact of 
various wastewater treatment technologies in greater detail (Brix 1994). The 
plant species and microorganisms in CWs are considered key biological 
components. These organisms are crucial in removing pollutants, including 
organic matter, from wastewater (Dordio and Carvalho 2013). In addition 
to biological processes and activities, CW systems can remove pollutants 
such as potentially toxic elements. Two examples are ammonia adsorption 
and organic nitrogen burial (Vymazal 2007). Figure 14 illustrates various 
studies on CWs published by different authors. 

5.6. Operation and Maintenance 

The set-up of a CW requires expert design and construction supervision. 
CWs need periodic maintenance to operate at full capacity without issues 
related to wetland processes. In an experimental study, Lu et al. (2016) 
designed various CW fillers for rural household sewage treatment based on 
an analysis of natural wetlands and the challenges associated with ineffective 
operation and treatment. Using a natural zeolite, gravel, and sandstone-
based filler enhances nitrification and denitrification in CW systems, 
improving nitrogen removal efficiency (Lu et al. 2016). The intensity of 
these processes reflects the denitrifying capacity and potential of wetland 
systems (Lu et al. 2016). This experiment offers a solid basis for optimizing 
substrate filler selection in wetlands (Lu et al. 2016).  

According to Greenway (2004), improving treatment effectiveness requires 
balancing two key parameters: the pollutant loading rate and the hydraulic 
retention time. The quantity and quality of wastewater effluents play a 
major role in affecting these parameters (Greenway 2004). Several factors, 
including the run-off volume, the properties of pollutants, the required 
treatment level, and the wetland’s function as a flood retention basin, all 
influence the wetland’s size (Greenway 2004).  

Yan and Xu (2014) examined current engineering practices in cold climates, 
including case studies on improving water treatment effectiveness. They 
explored  various  measures  such  as  optimizing system set-up, improving  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [44] 

 

Figure 14: Various Works on Constructed Wetlands by Authors Worldwide 

 

Data Source: Scopus. Created by the authors 



[45] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

winter operations, refining internal system design, and analysing pre-
treatment and post-treatment technologies (Yan and Xu 2014). Pre-
treatment and detention times are critical parameters to maximize pollutant 
removal efficiency (Greenway 2004). In storm-water wetlands, 
sedimentation ponds play a key role in removing particulates from the 
water. At the same time, dense vegetation in the macrophyte zone is 
essential for enhancing the removal of suspended solids and nutrients 
(Greenway 2004).  

5.7. Major Challenges 

Despite the numerous benefits CWs offer communities, they also face 
several challenges. The issues encountered during CW implementation, 
operation, and maintenance, as outlined by Shrestha et al. (2001), are as 
follows:  

 Starting the first CW system required significant effort due to a lack 
of awareness. 

 Although the system is natural and the materials needed for 
treatment are locally available, the initial capital investment is high, 
though lower than that of primary wastewater treatment plants. 

 The sealing material for the beds is still not readily available. 

 Filter media such as sand and gravel are difficult to obtain. 

 There is also a security issue, particularly regarding the distribution 
pipes of the VF bed, which are exposed on the ground. 

Other issues related to CW implementation include insufficient funding for 
further research to improve treatment systems and neglect in their 
operation and maintenance. However, wastewater treatment remains a low 
priority for both the public and industries due to weak effluent regulations. 

Controlling mosquitoes in CWs remains a major issue. In CWs, mosquitoes 
are significant vectors of diseases in surrounding areas (Russell 1999). The 
design and operation of CWs should consider the potential for disease 
outbreaks via mosquitoes and implement measures to minimize their 
occurrence (Reddy and Elisa 1997). Flight range, blood host preferences, 
pathogen susceptibility, and their intrinsic capacity for population growth, 
which vary among species, are essential factors determining their 
characteristics (Russell 1999). To accurately assess the dangers and risks 
associated with mosquito development in CWs, proper species 
identification and knowledge of their biology are required (Russell 1999).  



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [46] 

 

SSF CWs are more favourable for the health of nearby populations because 
insect invasions and odour issues are less likely in SSF than in FWS CWs 
(Machado et al. 2017). However, due to support matrix clogging—one of 
the main limiting factors—SSF CWs have a shorter lifespan than FWS CWs 
(Machado et al. 2017). 

The quality of water plays a major role in mosquito production. For 
instance, storm water with minimal organic pollution tends to cause fewer 
mosquito problems (Russell 1999). In contrast, domestic sewage, which 
contains higher nutrient levels, fosters increased vegetation and mosquito 
production (Russell 1999). Predators are less likely to survive in heavily 
polluted water (Russell 1999). The nutrients in polluted wastewater may 
enhance conditions that support mosquito growth while reducing the 
effectiveness of factors that typically control larval populations, such as 
predators and surface vegetation (Tennessen 2020).  

In a 2016 study on FWS CW by Walton et al. (2016), the impact of alkali 
bulrush on raised water levels, mosquito production, and water quality was 
investigated. In the summer of 2012, after converting a hectare of CW into 
six systems, bulrush was planted in the centre of three 5 m bands (0.5 m 
wide) in each system (Walton et al. 2016). Mosquito larvae require 
vegetation in wetlands for protection from predators and physical 
disturbances, as well as to increase food resources (Russell 1999). Mosquito 
populations are generally low in wetlands without vegetation (Russell 1999). 
In addition to mosquito production, wetland development and processes 
involve issues such as the need for larger areas, poor nutrient removal, 
substrate saturation, and odour control.  

6. CONCLUSION 

CWs are systems designed to use the natural processes of wetland 
vegetation, microbial communities, and soil to treat wastewater. CW 
ecosystems provide essential goods and services that benefit human welfare, 
including run-off water management, groundwater recharge, habitats for 
diverse species, and educational and scientific value. Primarily, CWs offer a 
sustainable and cost-effective solution for wastewater treatment, especially 
in areas facing urbanization, industrialization, and water scarcity. 

The evolution of CW technology has seen significant advancements, from 
early experiments in the mid-twentieth century to modern hybrid systems 
optimized for nitrogen removal, pollutant management, and hydraulic 
efficiency. CWs have proven versatile in treating various waste streams, 
including industrial effluents, storm water, and grey water, demonstrating 
their adaptability to diverse climatic conditions and regional needs. 



[47] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

The Scopus online database was used for bibliometric analysis. Using the 
keyword “constructed wetlands”, 4,407 documents published over a 30-year 
period were identified. A citation threshold of more than 100 citations was 
applied, resulting in 209 publications. Investigating how these highly cited 
works have influenced policy-making, technological advancements, and 
practical applications provided insights into the real-world impact of CW 
research. 

VOSviewer software has been used for various citation-related network 
analyses. The co-occurrence analysis of the keywords used in highly cited 
publications on CWs offered valuable insights into the field’s thematic 
focus and research trends. Among all the keywords, “constructed 
wetlands”, “constructed wetland”, “wetlands”, “wastewater treatment”, 
“wastewater”, and “wastewater management” showed the highest frequency 
of co-occurrences. Citation analysis revealed that the journal Ecological 
Engineering had the most citations, followed by Water Research and Water 
Science and Technology.  

To interpret the academic structure of highly cited publications on CWs, a 
citation analysis map focusing on authorship collaboration and influence 
was created. The co-authorship network analysis revealed that Bayona J M 
has the strongest link, followed by Matamoros V. An analysis of emerging 
authors and their collaborative networks aimed at understanding their 
integration into the global research community was also conducted. The 
citation-author network analysis showed that Vymazal J received the most 
citations and had the highest link strength (340), followed by Brix H. 
Regarding citations per author, Vymazal J (6427) and Brix H (2583) are 
followed by Bayona J M and Matamoros V.  

Understanding the evolution of international partnerships provided insights 
into the growing globalization of CW research. The analysis of citations by 
country highlighted that the United States, China, and the Czech Republic 
dominate CW research, illustrating how these leading nations shape global 
trends and outcomes, particularly in citations and cross-disciplinary studies. 

Bibliometric analysis revealed a growing research interest in CWs and their 
interdisciplinary applications, reflecting their increasing global relevance. 
Keywords like “constructed wetlands” and “wastewater treatment” 
dominate the research landscape, highlighting CWs’ potential to address 
pressing environmental and water management challenges. However, as this 
review suggests, there is significant room for innovation, particularly in 
optimizing design, enhancing phosphorus removal, and integrating 
emerging technologies. 



 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [48] 

 

A detailed discussion on the importance of CWs captured several key 
characteristics related to their design and construction, the role of 
macrophytes and microorganisms, the physical and chemical processes 
involved in organic pollutant and nutrient removal, and their operation and 
maintenance. All these factors should be considered when constructing a 
CW for wastewater treatment.  

To summarize, CWs for wastewater treatment can provide a sustainable 
source of bioenergy without depleting water resources or competing with 
energy crops. Successful implementation requires technical refinement, 
awareness, and policy support to maximize their ecological and socio-
economic benefits. By harnessing the natural processes of wetlands, CWs 
offer a harmonious blend of ecological sustainability and engineering 
ingenuity, promising a greener future. 

 

Acknowledgements: The authors like to acknowledge the University 
Grant Commission (UGC) for giving financial assistance in the form of the 
UGC-Senior Research Fellowship to S. Saha for smoothly conducting this 
research. 

Ethics Statement: This statement is not applicable to us as it is a review 
paper and we have not taken any ethical approvals to write this manuscript. 

Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated and analysed for this 
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. 

Conflict of Interest Statement: No potential conflict of interest was 
reported by the authors. 

REFERENCES 

Akratos, Christos S, and Vassilios A Tsihrintzis. 2007. “Effect of Temperature, 
HRT, Vegetation and Porous Media on Removal Efficiency of Pilot-Scale 
Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands.” Ecological Engineering 29(2): 
173-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.06.013  

Albers, Peter H, and Michael B Camardese. 1993. “Effects of Acidification on 
Metal Accumulation by Aquatic Plants and Invertebrates. 1. Constructed 
Wetlands.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal 12(6): 959-
967. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620120603  

Ansola, Gemma, Juan Manuel González, Rubén Cortijo, and Estanislao de Luis. 
2003. “Experimental and Full-Scale Pilot Plant Constructed Wetlands for 
Municipal Wastewaters Treatment.” Ecological Engineering 21(1): 43-52. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2003.08.002  

Ansola, Gemma, Paula Arroyo, and Luis E Sáenz de Miera. 2014. “Characterisation 
of the Soil Bacterial Community Structure and Composition of Natural and 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.06.013
https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620120603
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2003.08.002


[49] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

Constructed Wetlands.” Science of the Total Environment 473: 63-71. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.125  

Arora, Anju, Sudhir Saxena, and Raghubir Shah. 2009. “Aquatic Microphyte Azolla 
for Nutrient Removal from Wastewaters in Constructed Wetlands.” Proceedings of the 
International Conference on Energy and Environment: 185-189. 

Bakhshoodeh, Reza, Nadali Alavi, Carolyn Oldham, Rafael M Santos, Ali Akbar 
Babaei, Jan Vymazal, and Pooya Paydary. 2020. “Constructed Wetlands for Landfill 
Leachate Treatment: A Review.” Ecological Engineering 146: 105725. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105725  

Bayati, Mohamed, Thi L Ho, Danh C Vu, Fengzhen Wang, Elizabeth Rogers, Craig 
Cuvellier, Steve Huebotter, et al. 2021. “Assessing the Efficiency of Constructed 
Wetlands in Removing PPCPs from Treated Wastewater and Mitigating the 
Ecotoxicological Impacts.” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 
231: 113664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113664  

Brix, Hans. 1994. “Use of Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control: 
Historical Development, Present Status, and Future Perspectives.” Water Science and 
Technology 30(8): 209-223. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1994.0413  

Chang, Jie, Ying Ge, Zhaoping Wu, Yuanyuan Du, Kaixuan Pan, Guofu Yang, 

Yuan Ren, et al. 2021. “Modern Cities Modelled as ‘Super‐cells’ Rather than 
Multicellular Organisms: Implications for Industry, Goods and Services.” BioEssays 
43(7): 2100041. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202100041  

Choi, Yeong-Joo, Lee-Hyung Kim, and Kyung-Duk Zoh. 2016. “Removal 
Characteristics and Mechanism of Antibiotics Using Constructed Wetlands.” 
Ecological Engineering 91: 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.058  

Colares, Gustavo S, Naira Dell'Osbel, Patrik G Wiesel, Gislayne A Oliveira, Pedro 
Henrique Z Lemos, Fagner P da Silva, Carlos A Lutterbeck, Lourdes T Kist, and 
Ênio L Machado. 2020. “Floating Treatment Wetlands: A Review and Bibliometric 
Analysis.” Science of the Total Environment 714: 136776. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136776  

Cronk, Julie K 1996. “Constructed Wetlands to Treat Wastewater from Dairy and 
Swine Operations: A Review.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 58(2-3): 97-114. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(96)01024-9  

Denny, Patrick. 1997. “Implementation of Constructed Wetlands in Developing 
Countries.” Water Science and Technology 35(5): 27-34. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00049-8  

Dordio, Ana V, and Alfredo Jorge Palace Carvalho. 2013. “Organic Xenobiotics 
Removal in Constructed Wetlands, with Emphasis on the Importance of the 
Support Matrix.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 252: 272-292. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.03.008  

Duncan, Colin P, and Peter M Groffman. 1994. “Comparing Microbial Parameters 
in Natural and Constructed Wetlands.” American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science 
Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America 23(2): 298-305. 
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300020012x  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.125
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105725
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113664
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1994.0413
https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202100041
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.058
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136776
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(96)01024-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00049-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.03.008
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1994.00472425002300020012x


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [50] 

 

El-Mekkawi, Samar A, Hala S Doma, Gamila H Ali, and Sayeda M Abdo. 2021. 
“Case Study: Effective Use of Microphytes in Wastewater Treatment, Profit 
Evaluation, and Scale-Up Life Cycle Assessment.” Journal of Water Process Engineering 
41: 102069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102069  

Farooqi, I H, Farrukh Basheer, and Rahat Jahan Chaudhari. 2008. “Constructed 
Wetland System (CWS) for Wastewater Treatment.” Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th 
World Lake Conference 1004: 1009. 

Gagnon, Vincent, Florent Chazarenc, Yves Comeau, and Jacques Brisson. 2007. 
“Influence of Macrophyte Species on Microbial Density and Activity in 
Constructed Wetlands.” Water Science and Technology 56(3): 249-254. 
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.510  

Green, Michal, Eran Friedler, Yuri Ruskol, and Iris Safrai. 1997. “Investigation of 
Alternative Method for Nitrification in Constructed Wetlands.” Water Science and 
Technology 35(5): 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00053-X  

Greenway, Margaret. 2004. “Constructed Wetlands for Water Pollution 

Control‐Processes, Parameters and Performance.” Developments in Chemical 

Engineering and Mineral Processing 12(5‐6): 491-504. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.5500120505  

Guo, Xiongfei, Xingyi Cui, Huashou Li, and Binghong Xiong. 2021. “Purifying 
Effect of Biochar-Zeolite Constructed Wetlands on Arsenic-Containing Biogas 
Slurry in Large-Scale Pig Farms.” Journal of Cleaner Production 279: 123579. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123579  

Haberl, Raimund, Stefano Grego, Günter Langergraber, Robert H Kadlec, Anna-
Rita Cicalini, Susete Martins Dias, Julio M Novais, et al. 2003. “Constructed 
Wetlands for the Treatment of Organic Pollutants.” Journal of Soils and Sediments 3: 
109-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991077  

Hoppe, Hans-Georg, Sang-Jin Kim, and Klaus Gocke. 1988. “Microbial 
Decomposition in Aquatic Environments: Combined Process of Extracellular 
Enzyme Activity and Substrate Uptake.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54(3): 
784-790. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.54.3.784-790.1988  

Ji, Bin, Yaqian Zhao, Jan Vymazal, Ülo Mander, Rauno Lust, and Cheng Tang. 
2021. “Mapping the Field of Constructed Wetland-Microbial Fuel Cell: A Review 
and Bibliometric Analysis.” Chemosphere 262: 128366. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128366  

Kang, Hojeong, Chris Freeman, Dowon Lee, and William J Mitsch. 1998. “Enzyme 
Activities in Constructed Wetlands: Implication for Water Quality Amelioration.” 
Hydrobiologia 368: 231-235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003219123729  

Li, Yi Cheng, Dong Qing Zhang, and Mo Wang. 2017. “Performance Evaluation of 

a Full‐Scale Constructed Wetland for Treating Stormwater Runoff.” CLEAN-Soil, 
Air, Water 45(11): 1600740. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201600740  

Lin, Ying-Feng, Shuh-Ren Jing, Der-Yuan Lee, and Tze-Wen Wang. 2002. 
“Nutrient Removal from Aquaculture Wastewater Using a Constructed Wetlands 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102069
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.510
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00053-X
https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.5500120505
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123579
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991077
https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.54.3.784-790.1988
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128366
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003219123729
https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201600740


[51] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

System.” Aquaculture 209(1-4): 169-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-
8486(01)00801-8  

Lu, Shibao, Xiaoling Zhang, Jianhua Wang, and Liang Pei. 2016. “Impacts of 
Different Media on Constructed Wetlands for Rural Household Sewage 
Treatment.” Journal of Cleaner Production 127: 325-330. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.166  

Machado, AI, M Beretta, R Fragoso, and EDCNFDA Duarte. 2017. “Overview of 
the State of the Art of Constructed Wetlands for Decentralized Wastewater 
Management in Brazil.” Journal of Environmental Management 187: 560-570. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.015  

Maltais-Laundry, Gabriel, Roxane Maranger, Jacques Brisson, and Florent 
Chazarenc. 2009. “Nitrogen Transformations and Retention in Planted and 
Artificially Aerated Constructed Wetlands.” Water Research 43(2): 535-545. 
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20256  

Mthembu, Mathews Simon, Christine Odinga, Swalaha Feroz Mahomed, and Bux 
Faizal. 2013. “Constructed Wetlands: A Future Alternative Wastewater Treatment 
Technology.” African Journal of Biotechnology 12(29). 
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2013.12978  

Niknejad, Naghmeh, Behzad Nazari, Saman Foroutani, and Ab Razak bin Che 
Hussin. 2023. “A Bibliometric Analysis of Green Technologies Applied to Water 
and Wastewater Treatment.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30(28): 
71849-71863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18705-1  

Nivala, Jaime, Tom Headley, Scott Wallace, Katy Bernhard, Hans Brix, Manfred 
van Afferden, and Roland Arno Müller. 2013. “Comparative Analysis of 
Constructed Wetlands: The Design and Construction of the Ecotechnology 
Research Facility in Langenreichenbach, Germany.” Ecological Engineering 61: 527-
543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.01.035  

NJ van Eck and L Waltman. 2022. VOSviewer. V.1.6.18. 
https://www.vosviewer.com/  

Ottova, Vlasta, Jarmila Balcarová, and Jan Vymazal. 1997. “Microbial 
Characteristics of Constructed Wetlands.” Water Science and Technology 35(5): 117-
123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00060-7  

Ouellet-Plamondon, Claudiane, Florent Chazarenc, Yves Comeau, and Jacques 
Brisson. 2006. “Artificial Aeration to Increase Pollutant Removal Efficiency of 
Constructed Wetlands in Cold Climate.” Ecological Engineering 27(3): 258-264. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.03.006  

Persson, Jesper, NLG Somes, and THF Wong. 1999. “Hydraulics Efficiency of 
Constructed Wetlands and Ponds.” Water Science and Technology 40(3): 291-300. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00448-5  

Polprasert, Chongrak. 2004. “Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: 
Principles and Practices.” Wetlands Ecosystems in Asia, Elsevier 1: 285-310. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451691-6/50019-3  

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00801-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00801-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.166
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.015
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2017.20256
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2013.12978
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18705-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.01.035
https://www.vosviewer.com/
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00060-7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.03.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00448-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451691-6/50019-3


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [52] 

 

Prasad, Rajnikant, Dayanand Sharma, Kunwar D Yadav, and Hussameldin Ibrahim. 
2021. “Preliminary Study on Greywater Treatment Using Water Hyacinth.” Applied 
Water Science 11(6): 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01422-4  

Prochaska, Charikleia A, and Anastasios I Zouboulis. 2006. “Removal of 
Phosphates by Pilot Vertical-Flow Constructed Wetlands Using a Mixture of Sand 
and Dolomite as Substrate.” Ecological Engineering 26(3): 293-303. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.10.009  

QGIS Geographic Information System. 2022. QGIS. V.3.26. Open Source 
Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.org  

Reddy, K Raja, and Elisa M D'angelo. 1997. “Biogeochemical Indicators to 
Evaluate Pollutant Removal Efficiency in Constructed Wetlands.” Water Science and 
Technology 35(5): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00046-2  

Roy, Malabika Biswas, Arnab Ghosh, Abhishek Kumar, and Pankaj Kumar Roy. 
2021. “Assessing the Nature of Seasonal Meteorological Change in People's 
Dependency on Wetland: A Case Study of Bhagirathi-Hooghly Floodplain System.” 
Environment, Development and Sustainability 23(12): 17881-17903. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01419-8  

Russell, Richard C. 1999. “Constructed Wetlands and Mosquitoes: Health Hazards 
and Management Options-an Australian Perspective.” Ecological Engineering 12(1-2): 
107-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00057-3  

Saha, Shilpa, Ratan Mandal, Pankaj Kumar Roy, and Malabika Biswas Roy. 2024. 
“Unlocking the Potential of Constructed Wetlands for Sustainable Development: 
Some Case Studies Focusing on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” Advances 
in Energy and Sustainability (Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering): 459-478. Springer, 
Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7308-4_33  

Shrestha, Roshan Raj, Raimund Haberl, Johannes Laber, Rajesh Manandhar, and 
Josef Mader. 2001. “Application of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater 
Treatment in Nepal.” Water Science and Technology 44(11-12): 381-386. 
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2001.0855  

Skrzypiecbcef, Katarzyna, and Magdalena H Gajewskaad. 2017. “The Use of 
Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Industrial Wastewater.” Journal of Water 
and Land Development 34(1): 233. https://doi.org/10.1515/jwld-2017-0058  

Stottmeister, Ullrich, Arndt Wießner, Peter Kuschk, Uwe Kappelmeyer, Matthias 
Kästner, O Bederski, Roland Arno Müller, and H Moormann. 2003. “Effects of 
Plants and Microorganisms in Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment.” 
Biotechnology Advances 22(1-2): 93-117. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2003.08.010  

Tennessen, Kenneth J. 2020. “Production and Suppression of Mosquitoes in 
Constructed Wetlands.” In Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, 591-
601. United States: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003069997-76  

Truu, Marika, Jaanis Juhanson, and Jaak Truu. 2009. “Microbial Biomass, Activity 
and Community Composition in Constructed Wetlands.” Science of the Total 
Environment 407(13): 3958-3971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.036 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01422-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.10.009
http://qgis.org/
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00046-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01419-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00057-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7308-4_33
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2001.0855
https://doi.org/10.1515/jwld-2017-0058
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2003.08.010
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003069997-76
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.036


[53] Roy, Saha and Roy 

 

Vandevenne, Louis. 1995. “An Operational Survey of a Natural Lagoon Treatment 
Plant Combining Macrophytes and Microphytes Basins.” Water Science and Technology 
32(3): 79-86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1223(95)00607-9  

Vymazal, Jan. 2007. “Removal of Nutrients in Various Types of Constructed 
Wetlands.” Science of the Total Environment 380(1-3): 48-65. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.09.014  

___. 2010. “Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment.” Water 2(3): 530-
549. https://doi.org/10.3390/w2030530  

___. 2011. “Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Five Decades of 
Experience.” Environmental Science & Technology 45(1): 61-69. 
https://doi.org/10.1021/es101403q  

___. 2014. “Constructed Wetlands for Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters: A 
Review.” Ecological Engineering 73: 724-751. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.034  

Walton, William E, Dagne Duguma, Min Tao, David A Popko, and Scott Nygren. 
2016. “Integrated Mosquito Management in Experimental Constructed Wetlands: 
Efficacy of Small-Stature Macrophytes and Fluctuating Hydroperiod.” Water 8(10): 
421. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100421  

Wang, Jie, Ling Xia, Jieyu Chen, Xiaoning Wang, Hu Wu, Dapeng Li, George F 
Wells, Jun Yang, Jie Hou, and Xugang He. 2021. vSynergistic Simultaneous 
Nitrification-Endogenous Denitrification and EBPR for Advanced Nitrogen and 
Phosphorus Removal in Constructed Wetlands.” Chemical Engineering Journal 420: 
127605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.127605  

Wang, Jinqi, Weimu Wang, Jibing Xiong, Liguang Li, Biying Zhao, Irfan Sohail, 
and Zhenli He. 2021. “A Constructed Wetland System with Aquatic Macrophytes 
for Cleaning Contaminated Runoff/Storm Water from Urban Area in Florida.” 
Journal of Environmental Management 280: 111794. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111794  

Wang, Qian, Jiewei Ding, Huijun Xie, Derek Hao, Yuanda Du, Congcong Zhao, 
Fei Xu, Qiang Kong, and Baoshan Wang. 2021. “Phosphorus Removal 
Performance of Microbial-Enhanced Constructed Wetlands That Treat Saline 
Wastewater.” Journal of Cleaner Production 288: 125119. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125119  

Wu, Hu, Jie Wang, Jieyu Chen, Xiaoning Wang, Dapeng Li, Jie Hou, and Xugang 
He. 2021. “Advanced Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal by Combining 
Endogenous Denitrification and Denitrifying Dephosphatation in Constructed 
Wetlands.” Journal of Environmental Management 294: 112967. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112967  

Yan, Yijing, and Jingcheng Xu. 2014. “Improving Winter Performance of 
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Northern China: A Review.” 
Wetlands 34: 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-013-0444-7  

Yu, Guanlong, Peiyuan Li, Guoliang Wang, Jianwu Wang, Yameng Zhang, Shitao 
Wang, Kai Yang, Chunyan Du, and Hong Chen. 2021. “A Review on the Removal 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1223(95)00607-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.09.014
https://doi.org/10.3390/w2030530
https://doi.org/10.1021/es101403q
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.034
https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100421
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2020.127605
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111794
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125119
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112967
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-013-0444-7


 Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [54] 

 

of Heavy Metals and Metalloids by Constructed Wetlands: Bibliometric, Removal 
Pathways, and Key Factors.” World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 37(9): 157. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-021-03123-1  

Zhang, Dongqing, Richard M Gersberg, and Tan Soon Keat. 2009. “Constructed 
Wetlands in China.” Ecological Engineering 35(10): 1367-1378. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.07.007  

Zhang, Manping, Jung-Chen Huang, Shanshan Sun, Muhammad Muneeb Ur 
Rehman, Shengbing He, and Weili Zhou. 2021. “Dissimilatory Nitrate Reduction 
Processes and Corresponding Nitrogen Loss in Tidal Flow Constructed Wetlands.” 
Journal of Cleaner Production 295: 126429. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126429  

Zhang, Yan, Mengqi Li, Lu Dong, Chunxiao Han, Ming Li, and Haiming Wu. 2021. 
“Effects of Biochar Dosage on Treatment Performance, Enzyme Activity and 
Microbial Community in Aerated Constructed Wetlands for Treating Low C/N 
Domestic Sewage.” Environmental Technology & Innovation 24: 101919. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101919  

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-021-03123-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.07.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126429
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101919

