Construction Simplicity and Cost as Selection Criteria Between Two Types of Constructed Wetlands Treating Highway Runoff

Two free water surface (FWS) and two subsurface flow (SSF) pilot-size wetlands were constructed for the evaluation of their performance in treating highway runoff (HRO) in the heart of the Mediterranean region, the island of Crete, at the southernmost point of Greece. Detailed recordings of the resources involved during the construction allowed a thorough calculation of the cost of the systems and the requirements in materials, man-hours, and equipment. The two identical FWS systems had a surface area of 33 m(2) each, while the two identical SSF covered 32 m(2) each. One FWS and one SSF, named FWS12 and SSF12, respectively, were designed with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 12 h, with each one capable of treating a maximum HRO of 12.6 m(3)/day. The other couple, named FWS24 and SSF24, respectively, was designed with an HRT of 24 h, with each receiving a maximum HRO of 6.3 m(3)/days. An influent storage tank was required to hold the runoff during the common storm events and control the flow rate (and the hydraulic retention time) into the wetlands. This construction represented 25% of the total construction cost, while 5% was spent on the influent automated (and sun-powered) control and distribution system, from the storage tank to the wetlands. The respective total cost allocated to the two SSF systems (a,not sign14,676) was approximately 10% higher than that of the FWS (a,not sign13,596), mainly due to the three different-sized gravel layers used in the SSF substrate compared to the topsoil used in the FWS, which tripled the cost and placement time. The Total Annual Economic Cost (TAEC) was a,not sign1799/year and a,not sign1847/year for the FWS and SSF pair, respectively. TAEC was also used to compare the economic efficiency of the systems per cubic meter of HRO treated and kilograms of COD and TSS removed from the wetlands during their first operational year. Based on these estimations, FWS12 recorded the lowest TAEC(COD) and TAEC(TSS) values (a,not sign89.09/kg and a,not sign43.69/kg, respectively) compared to the other three systems, presenting a more economically favorable option.