Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Constructed wetlands (CWs), increasingly adopted as nature-based solutions (NBS) for wastewater treatment, require a rigorous assessment of the durability and structural performance of the materials used in their supporting systems. In contrast to the extensive literature addressing hydraulic efficiency and contaminant removal, the structural behavior of CWs has been scarcely examined, with existing studies offering only general references to reinforced concrete and masonry and lacking explicit design criteria or deterioration analyses. This study integrates evidence from real-world CW installations with a systematic review of 31 studies on the degradation of cementitious materials in analogous environmental conditions, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, with inclusion criteria based on quantified wastewater-related exposure conditions (e.g., chemical aggressiveness, persistent saturation, and biogenic activity). Results indicate that reinforced concrete, despite its structural capacity, is susceptible to biogenic corrosion, accelerated carbonation, and sulfate–chloride attack under conditions of persistent moisture, with reported degradation rates in analogous wastewater infrastructures on the order of millimeters per year for concrete loss and tens of micrometers per year for reinforcement corrosion. Masonry structures, similarly, exhibit performance constraints when exposed to mechanical overloads and repeated wetting–drying cycles. In contrast, emerging alternatives—such as nanomodified matrices and concretes incorporating supplementary cementitious additives—demonstrate potential to enhance durability while contributing to a reduced carbon footprint, without compromising mechanical strength. These findings reinforce the need for explicit structural design criteria tailored to CW applications to improve sustainability, durability, and long-term performance.
Sangabriel-Lomelí et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: