Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42746887›Full record

ArticleWater environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation2026

Reliability-Based Evaluation of the Robustness of Constructed Wetlands for Sustainable Sanitation: Implications for Design and Operation.

Clélio Rodrigo Paiva Rafael, Joan Garcia, Eduardo Lucas Subtil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Clélio Rodrigo Paiva RafaelLaboratory of Urban Wastewater Treatment and Water Reuse (LabTAUS), Center of Engineering, Modeling and Applied Social Sciences, Federal University of ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8365-4944
Joan GarciaGEMMA - Group of Environmental Engineering and Microbiology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya Barcelona Tech, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1258-8174
Eduardo Lucas SubtilLaboratory of Urban Wastewater Treatment and Water Reuse (LabTAUS), Center of Engineering, Modeling and Applied Social Sciences, Federal University of ABC, Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3674-2674

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 402618/2022-0Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 001Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior Finance Code 001Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2023/18242-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Constructed wetlands (CWs) are low-cost, low-energy nature-based solutions for wastewater treatment and are commonly regarded as robust; however, this perception is often based on removal efficiencies or mean effluent concentrations, without accounting for effluent variability or the probability of maintaining concentrations below regulatory limits. This study applied the reliability coefficient (RC) to 34 vertical-flow constructed wetland (VFCW), horizontal-flow constructed wetland (HFCW), and hybrid constructed wetland (HCW) systems treating domestic wastewater identified through a systematic literature review. Removal efficiencies and final effluent concentrations were evaluated against Brazilian discharge and non-potable reuse benchmarks. Reliability was calculated separately for each system-parameter combination at a 95% target non-exceedance probability. Grouped comparisons examined only descriptive patterns, dispersion, and overlap among configurations. Sensitivity to alternative target probabilities and analytical applications to design and monitoring were also examined. Mean removal efficiencies ranged from 79.8%-94.5% for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 76.9%-87.8% for chemical oxygen demand (COD), 73.6%-90.8% for total suspended solids (TSS), 59.6%-65.9% for total nitrogen (TN), and 68.0%-75.4% for total phosphorus (TP). Under the stringent scenario, mean effluent concentrations were below the selected limits in 21/22 systems for BOD, 33/34 for COD, 22/22 for TSS, 4/25 for TN, and 6/18 for TP. Under the assumed log-normal model, incorporating effluent variability at 95% reduced probabilistic compatibility to 20/22, 27/34, 21/22, 2/25, and 4/18 systems, respectively. Grouped mean RC values ranged from 0.38 to 0.69, but substantial within-configuration dispersion and overlap showed that no single RC can represent a flow configuration or treatment train. At target probabilities of 95% or higher, increasing variability consistently reduced the RC; at lower probabilities, the non-monotonic response of the equation altered system rankings. Incorporating the RC into first-order HFCW and VFCW models converted regulatory limits into system- and parameter-specific allowable mean effluent concentrations, providing an analytical basis for reliability-informed design and monitoring, although the framework was not experimentally validated as an independent sizing method. The results support comparatively wide operating margins for organic matter and suspended solids, whereas sustained nutrient compatibility remained less frequent. Removal efficiency, residual concentration, and reliability should therefore be interpreted jointly using RC values specific to each system and parameter.

Indexed as

SanitationWaste Disposal, FluidWetlandsBiological Oxygen Demand AnalysisBrazilReproducibility of ResultsWastewaterWastewaterdecentralized sanitationnature‐based solutionsperformance variabilityreliability coefficientwastewater reliabilitywater reuse

Identifiers

PMID42746887
PMCPMC13579613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.