Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 3.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access November 29, 2012

A comparison of fluorescein and deuterated water as tracers for determination of constructed wetland retention time

Veronika Holcová EMAIL logo , Jan Šíma and Jiří Dušek
From the journal Open Chemistry


Retention time of treated water in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland was determined in the non-vegetative period using fluorescein and deuterium oxide. Fluorescein served as one of the most frequent tracers detectable at extremely low concentrations by fluorimetry; however, deuterated water (concentrations of deuterium measured by IRMS and expressed as δ (‰) against VSMOW) was used to precisely simulate the treated water flow movement. Tracer retention time (TRT) of fluorescein was 194 h while deuterated water TRT was 192 h. TRT and nominal hydraulic retention time (nHRT, 190 h) were nearly exactly equal. The tracer behavior of deuterated water was almost ideal. On the other hand, the fluorescein movement through the system was slightly influenced by the interaction with the vegetation bed (sorption causing the tailing of tracer-response curves). Nevertheless, both tracers can be successfully used and provide similar results. Retention time is a very important characteristic of a constructed wetland. It is closely connected with the efficiency of the contaminant removal from treated water. It has to be determined correctly when wetland operation parameters are optimized. The choice of the suitable and reliable tracer is always necessary. Fluorescein takes preference with respect to its simple and inexpensive determination.

[1] W.J. Mitsch, J.G. Gosselink, Wetlands (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000) Search in Google Scholar

[2] J. Vymazal, H. Brix, P.F. Cooper, M.B. Green, R. Haberl, Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Europe (Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, 1998) Search in Google Scholar

[3] C.J. Hodgson, J. Perkins, J.C. Labadz, Water Res. 38, 3833 (2004) in Google Scholar

[4] J.K. Rash, S.K. Liehr, Water Sci. Technol. 40, 309 (1999) in Google Scholar

[5] J. Garcia, J. Chiva, P. Aguirre, E. Alvarez, J.P. Sierra, R. Mujeriego, Ecol. Eng. 23, 177 (2004) in Google Scholar

[6] R.H. Kadlec, Ecol. Eng. 3, 345 (1994) in Google Scholar

[7] T.M. Werner, R.H. Kadlec, Ecol. Eng. 7, 213 (1996) in Google Scholar

[8] T.M. Werner, R.H. Kadlec, Ecol. Eng. 15, 77 (2000) in Google Scholar

[9] F.E. Dierberg, T.A. DeBusk, Wetlands 25, 8 (2005)[0008:AEOTTI]2.0.CO;2Search in Google Scholar

[10] R.J. Hunt, T.D. Bullen, D.P. Krabbenhoft, C. Kendall, Ground Water 36, 434 (1998) in Google Scholar

[11] P.L. Smart, I.M.S. Laidlaw, Water Resour. Res. 13, 15 (1977) in Google Scholar

[12] C.C. Smart, K.C. Karunaratne, Environ. Geol. 42, 492 (2002) in Google Scholar

[13] T. Kasnavia, D. Vu, D.A. Sabatini, Ground Water 37, 376 (1999) in Google Scholar

[14] M.W. Becker, T.B. Coplen, Hydrogeol. J. 9, 512 (2001) in Google Scholar

[15] E. Gaspar, In: E. Gaspar (Ed.), Modern Trends in Tracer Hydrology (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1987) 49 Search in Google Scholar

[16] M. Kravčík, J. Pokorný, J. Kohutiar, M. Kováč, E. Tóth, Water for the Recovery of the Climate — A New Water Paradigm (Typopress Publishing House, Košice, 2008) Search in Google Scholar

[17] R.A. Werner, W.A. Brand, Rapid Commun. Mass Sp. 15, 501 (2001) in Google Scholar PubMed

Published Online: 2012-11-29
Published in Print: 2013-2-1

© 2013 Versita Warsaw

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Downloaded on 10.12.2022 from
Scroll Up Arrow