Table 3.
Comparison performance efficiency of a series connected two-stage HSSFCWs with other research findings
| System | Macrophyte used | HRT (day) | MLR (gm−2d−1) in HF SSCW unit (s) | HF SSCW removal efficiency (%) | References | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD | TSS | TN | NH4–N | TP | COD | TSS | TN | NH4–N | TP | ||||
| UASB + HF SSCW | Juncus spp. | 10 | 6.64 | – | 1.98 | – | 0.25 | 79–86 | 70–71 | 63–79 | – | 9–90 | De Sousa et al. (2003) |
| ABR + HF SSCW | Z.bonorrienss & T. subalata | 1.5 | – | – | 4.5 | – | 1.1 | 71.4 | 86.1 | 90.4 | 95.8 | 93.3 | Da Motta Marques et al. (2001) |
| UASB + 2HF SSCW | Reed + Lettuce | 13.7 | 0.52 | 1.91 | – | 0.24 | 0.1 | 75.9 | 79.4 | – | 96.3 | 75.1 | Cheng et al. (2010) |
| UASB + HF SSCW | T. latifolia | 3 | 14.4 | 5.8 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 71 | 93.7 | 74.8 | 88.5 | 33 | El-Khateeb and El-Bahrawy (2013) |
| UASB + HF SSCW | T. latifolia | 1.1 | – | – | – | – | – | 84.5 | 87.8 | – | – | – | Von Sperling (2015) |
| UASB + 2HF SSCW | C. aternifoius + T. latifolia | 4 | 11.7 | 6.4 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 92 | 89 | 83.6 | 92.9 | 74.4 | This study |