| Literature DB >> 28469703 |
E V Lopez-Ponnada1, T J Lynn2, M Peterson1, S J Ergas1, J R Mihelcic1.
Abstract
Two important and large non-point sources of nitrogen in residential areas that adversely affect water quality are stormwater runoff and effluent from on-site treatment systems. These sources are challenging to control due to their variable flow rates and nitrogen concentrations. Denitrifying bioreactors that employ a lignocellulosic wood chip medium contained within a saturated (anoxic) zone are relatively new technology that can be implemented at the local level to manage residential non-point nitrogen sources. In these systems, wood chips serve as a microbial biofilm support and provide a constant source of organic substrate required for denitrification. Denitrifying wood chip bioreactors for stormwater management include biofilters and bioretention systems modified to include an internal water storage zone; for on-site wastewater, they include upflow packed bed reactors, permeable reactive barriers, and submerged wetlands. Laboratory studies have shown that these bioreactors can achieve nitrate removal efficiencies as high as 80-100% but could provide more fundamental insight into system design and performance. For example, the type and size of the wood chips, hydraulic loading rate, and dormant period between water applications affects the hydrolysis rate of the lignocellulosic substrate, which in turn affects the amount and bioavailability of dissolved organic carbon for denitrification. Additional field studies can provide a better understanding of the effect of varying environmental conditions such as ambient temperature, precipitation rates, household water use rates, and idle periods on nitrogen removal performance. Long-term studies are also essential for understanding operations and maintenance requirements and validating mathematical models that integrate the complex physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring in these systems. Better modeling tools could assist in optimizing denitrifying wood chip bioreactors to meet nutrient reduction goals in urban and suburban watersheds.Entities:
Keywords: Best management practice (BMP); Biofilm; Decentralized treatment; Eutrophication; Green infrastructure; Low impact development (LID); Microbiology; On-site wastewater treatment; Septic systems; Stormwater
Year: 2017 PMID: 28469703 PMCID: PMC5410704 DOI: 10.1186/s13036-017-0057-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biol Eng ISSN: 1754-1611 Impact factor: 4.355
Fig. 1Denitrifying wood chip bioreactor schematics: a flow through the submerged (anoxic) zone, b biofilm on the wood chip support medium, c DOC dissolution and denitrification in the biofilm (x-axis:depth of biofilm and distance from wood chip, y- axis: concentration)
Fig. 2Six distinct zones in a modified bioretention unit. Top to bottom shows regions of stormwater ponding, mulch, top soil, nitrification, denitrification (IWSZ) and drainage layers. Wood chips are contained in the denitrification (IWSZ) zone
Fig. 3Timeline of design and research advances for bioretention systems
Concentration-based TN removal efficiencies (%) for four low impact development (LID) technologies (adapted from Collins et al. [42])
| LID Technologya | Median |
|---|---|
| Green roofs ( | 7.4% |
| Permeable pavement ( | −2.4% |
| Bioretention - Conventional ( | 25% |
| Bioretention - Modified ( | 54.2% |
a n is the number of studies
Field studies focused on removal of dissolved nutrients from stormwater and agricultural runoff with a modified bioretention system (adapted from LeFevre et al. [1])
| Study # | Location | Carbon Source for Modified System | Lined | U.S. Climate Regions defined by NOAA | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maryland | Shredded newspaper | Yes | Northeast | [ |
| 2 | North Carolina | Not specified. Assuming organic material in fill soil media | Yes | Southeast | [ |
| 3 | Maryland | Shredded newspaper | Not specified | Northeast | [ |
| 4 | North Carolina | Not specified. Assuming organic material in fill soil media | No | Southeast | [ |
| 5 | North Carolina | Assuming organic material in fill soil media | No | Southeast | [ |
| 6 | Connecticut | Wood chips (maple and birch wood) | Yes | Northeast | [ |
| 7 | Florida | Wood chips (eucalyptus wood) | Yes | Southeast | [ |
Fig. 4Schematic of a residential on-site wastewater treatment system employing a denitrifying wood chip bioreactor (Stage 2)
Fig. 5Timeline of research and design advances for on-site wastewater treatment
Collected data for nine different types of wood chips: type of study performed, carbon content, TOC leaching, influent and effluent nitrogen concentrations, and nitrogen removal
| Wood Type | Type of Study | Carbon Content (%) | Leached TOC (mg TOC/L) | Influent Concentration (mg N/L) | Effluent Concentration (mg N/L) | N – Removal (%) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Softwood | Pine | Column | 47 | 100 | 3 | 1.56 | 48 | [ |
| Pine | Column | – | – | 15.8 | 11.1 | 30 | [ | |
| Pine | Column | 28 | 158 | 50 | <2.0 | 96 | [ | |
| Pine | Column | 28 | 175.3 | 50 | 17.7 | 65 | [ | |
| Pine | Column | 50 | – | 26 | 1.8 | 93 | [ | |
| Pine | Batch | 47 | – | 57.8 | 6.4 | 89 | [ | |
| Coniferous | Batch | 44 | – | 32.2 | 1.6 | 95 | [ | |
| Willow | Batch | 47 | 120 | 32.2 | 4.5 | 86 | [ | |
| Average | 41.5 (9.3) | 138.3 (34.4) | 33.4 (18.7) | 5.84 (5.8) | 75.2 (24.9) | |||
| Hardwood | Eucalyptus | Column | 51 | – | 2.3 | BDL | 100 | [ |
| Eucalyptus | Column | – | – | 15.8 | 9.9 | 37 | [ | |
| Maple | Column | 49 | 42 | 3 | 1.1 | 62 | [ | |
| Maple/Birch | Pilot | – | – | 7.6 | 0.9 | 88 | [ | |
| Red Gum | Batch | 44 | – | 55 | 7 | 87 | [ | |
| Wild Cherry | Column | 50 | 153 | 3 | 1.9 | 36 | [ | |
| Oak | Column | 50 | 41 | 3 | 1.2 | 62 | [ | |
| Beech | Column | 50 | 45 | 3 | 2 | 32 | [ | |
| Average | 48.8 (2.5) | 70.3 (55.2) | 11.6 (18.1) | 3.45 (3.6) | 63.0 (26.6) |
Standard deviation (if applicable) is in parenthesis. BDL: below detection limit
a Study that reported ADC