| Literature DB >> 29326968 |
Yousef Dadban Shahamat1, Hosseinali Asgharnia2, Laleh R Kalankesh3, Mehdi Hosanpour4.
Abstract
Date in this paper highlights the applications of constructed horizontal surface flow (HF-CW) wetland with two different local plants (Louis latifoila and Phragmites -australis (Cav.) Trin) at the wastewater treatment plant in Babol city. This system was designed as an advanced treatment unit in field scale after the treatment plant. Parameters such as Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), Total Suspended Solid (TSS), Turbidity, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), were investigated. The result shows that treatment efficiency increases with the passage of time. The efficiency of Phragmites planted setups in open environment was fairly good for all studied parameters (28.6% of TDS, 94.4% for TSS, 79.8% for turbidity, 93.7% for BOD and 82.6% for COD). The efficiency of the latifoila set up was also good, but lower than that of Phragmites (26.5% of TDS, 76.9% for TSS, 71.5% for turbidity, 79.1 for BOD and 68.8% for COD). In brief, the obtained dates show that using local plants in (HF-CW) wetland not only effectively reduces various contaminants from the effluent of the wastewater according to Effluent Guideline regulations (WHO & EPA), but it is also a cost- effective and environmentally friendly method. Also, it was calculated that in full scale operation [time (1 day) and a depth (0.3 m)], 8 ha of wetland was needed.Entities:
Keywords: BOD; Babol; COD; Horizontal subsurface flow wetland; TSD; TSS
Year: 2017 PMID: 29326968 PMCID: PMC5760464 DOI: 10.1016/j.dib.2017.12.034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Data Brief ISSN: 2352-3409
Efficiency removal data of the TDS, TSS, Turbidity, BOD and COD by Phragmites, L. latifoila and control troughs wetland in the different Hydraulic Retention Time.
| COD | 1 | 61.06±4.89 | 14.32±2.21 | 67.56±5.26 | 11.98±1.95 | 66.36±5.38 | 12.35±2.07 | 36.67±1.55 |
| 3 | 59.40±7.18 | 14.50±1.78 | 69.48±4.06 | 10.78±1.59 | 65.75±6.23 | 12.20±2.04 | 35.79±3.25 | |
| 5 | 49.94±9.41 | 14.40±1.95 | 78.44±3.48 | 6.36±1.70 | 68.8±2.55 | 9.08±1.12 | 29.20±3.36 | |
| BOD | 1 | 46.48±13.02 | 11.62±4.47 | 75.99±9.64 | 5.44±3.37 | 70.24±11.00 | 6.78±3.93 | 21.78±7.86 |
| 3 | 46.62±7.54 | 11.16±3.94 | 78.71±5.07 | 4.64±1.82 | 74.91±5.07 | 5.39±1.65 | 21.70±5.67 | |
| 5 | 56.01±11.68 | 8.70±3.97 | 82.59±3.52 | 3.26±0.72 | 79.05±3.50 | 3.95±0.90 | 18.97±4.16 | |
| TDS | 1 | 19.35±5.38 | 466.90±21.78 | 24.54±5.18 | 436.60±38.36 | 21.51±5.46 | 454.50±24.18 | 580.10±26.11 |
| 3 | 18.04±4.57 | 490.10±39.22 | 25.81±7.21 | 436±38.36 | 22.83±5.99 | 464.90±30.50 | 593.3±73.5 | |
| 5 | 25.45±4.38 | 466.00±19.89 | 446±34.03 | 26.47±5.83 | 459±34.04 | 625.90±22.25 | ||
| TSS | 1 | 64.00±10.34 | 7.43±4.44 | 77.29±9.87 | 4.52±2.58 | 75.67±10.7 | 5.12±2.66 | 19.60±8.74 |
| 3 | 60.02±3.59 | 4.48±1.11 | 81.58±3.63 | 1.55±0.82 | 76.93±8.25 | 5.51±0.96 | 11.12±3.55 | |
| 5 | 60.02±3.59 | 9.37±2.09 | 79.97±1.91 | 4.62±0.48 | 75.21±3.51 | 5.91±1.81 | 23.40±4.30 | |
| Turbidity | 1 | 51.04±5.37 | 11.17±2.02 | 78.10±6.22 | 6.04±2.41 | 71.45±6.78 | 6.88±2.61 | 23.48±6.00 |
| 3 | 65.40±4.52 | 7.00±2.19 | 84.77±4.38 | 3.14±1.33 | 82.32±7.27 | 3.65±1.77 | 19.92±4.85 | |
| 5 | 75.72±3.64 | 5.64±1.36 | 93.66±1.80 | 1.42±0.29 | 93.05±1.93 | 1.56±0.21 | 23.30±4.35 | |
(mg L−1).
(g L −1).
NTU.
Fig. 1Compare removal efficiency in various vegetation troughs.
Fig. 2Schematic experimental setups.
Fig. 3Set up of constructed wetland built in an open field environment.
| Subject area | |
|---|---|
| More specific subject area | |
| Type of data | |
| How data was acquired | |
| Data format | |
| Experimental factors | |
| Experimental features | |
| Data source location | |
| Data accessibility |