| Literature DB >> 30466420 |
Abebe Gebeyehu1, Nurelegne Shebeshe2, Helmut Kloos3, Solomon Belay4.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: Brewery wastewater; Hydroponics; Nutrients removal; Phytoremediation; Typha latifolia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30466420 PMCID: PMC6251130 DOI: 10.1186/s12896-018-0484-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biotechnol ISSN: 1472-6750 Impact factor: 2.563
Design characteristics and operating parameters of the gravel bed hydroponic treatment units
| Design parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of treatment units | 4 |
| Length (L) | 2 m |
| Width (W) | 0.75 m |
| Unit area | 1.50 m2 |
| Gravel depth | 0.40 m |
| Gross capacity | 0.60 m3 |
| Macrophyte type |
|
| Operational parameters | |
| Hydraulic loading rate | 2.33 cm d− 1 |
| Loading rate | |
| TKN | 0.44–1 g m−2d−1 |
| NH4+ − N | 0.42–0.72 g m− 2d− 1 |
| NO3− - N | 0.2–0.4 g m− 2d− 1 |
| PO43−-P | 0.19–0.54 g m−2d− 1 |
| Hydraulic retention time | 5 days |
Fig. 1Constructed pilot hydroponic wastewater treatment system inside a green house
Physicochemical characteristics of raw brewery wastewater in mg l− 1 except for temperature and pH
| Parameter | Mean ± SD | Range |
|---|---|---|
| BOD5 | 1144 ± 431 | 667–1505 |
| COD | 2402 ± 1619 | 950–4149 |
| NO3− - N | 11.27 ± 5.20 | 6.83–19 |
| NH4+ − N | 22.78 ± 3.91 | 15–34 |
| SO4−2 | 15.33 ± 5.13 | 11–21 |
| TKN | 32.66 ± 6.81 | 25–38 |
| TDS | 2786 ± 960 | 1908–3811 |
| TSS | 2959 ± 123 | 2885 - |
| PO43−-P | 23.33 ± 8.33 | 14–30 |
| T (°C) | 31.33 ± 6.11 | 26–38 |
| pH | 6.36 ± 0.85 | 5.4–7 |
Inlet values and percentage removal (%R) of nutrients monitored on monthly basis for hydroponic treatment units (HUs) and control unit (CTRL)
| Parameter | Description | Time (month) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23-May-15 | 23-Jun-15 | 23-Jul-15 | 23-Aug-15 | 23-Sep-15 | 23-Oct-15 | 23-Nov-15 | |||
| TKN | Inlet (in mg l−1) | 19 | 43 | 35 | 28 | 41 | 29 | 38 | |
| Outlet | HUs (%R) | 72 | 79 | 80 | 59 | 72 | 70 | 54 | |
| CTRL (%R) | 42 | 42 | 34 | 38 | 41 | 41 | 45 | ||
| NH4+-N | Inlet (in mg l−1) | 18 | 24 | 27 | 31 | 20 | 23 | 25 | |
| Outlet | HUs (%R) | 42 | 54 | 56 | 65 | 45 | 54 | 51 | |
| CTRL (%R) | 22 | 25 | 33 | 26 | 20 | 13 | 32 | ||
| NO3−-N | Inlet (in mg l−1) | 16 | 9.8 | 11.8 | 17 | 13 | 8.7 | 14.8 | |
| Outlet | HUs (%R) | 47 | 56 | 58 | 47 | 54 | 47 | 50 | |
| CTRL (%R) | 25 | 31 | 32 | 24 | 23 | 23 | 26 | ||
| PO4−3-P | Inlet (in mg l−1) | 13 | 11 | 16 | 14 | 8 | 19 | 23 | |
| Outlet | HUs (%R) | 59 | 56 | 63 | 70 | 57 | 51 | 53 | |
| CTRL (%R) | 23 | 27 | 40 | 37 | 20 | 35 | 39 | ||
Fig. 2Triplicate hydroponic treatment units (HU1, HU2 and HU3) and control unit
Overall average (±SD) inlet and outlet concentrations (in mg l− 1 except for temperature and pH) and average percentage removal (%R) of wastewater constituents. Minimum and maximum values are indicated in brackets
| Parameter | Inlet | Outlet | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | %R | HUs | %R | ||
| TKN | 33.29 ± 3.13 (19–43) | 19.77 ± 1.87 (11–25) | 41 | 10.14 ± 3.99 (5.38–17.67) | 69 |
| NH4+ − N | 24 ± 1.63 (18–31) | 18 ± 1.09 (14–23) | 25 | 11.15 ± 0.69 (10.40–12.33) | 54 |
| NO3− - N | 13 ± 3.12 (8.70–17) | 9.64 ± 2.52 (6.70–13) | 26 | 6.4 ± 1.91 (4.30–9) | 51 |
| PO43− - P | 14.86 ± 5 (8–23) | 9.87 ± 2.57 (6.40–14) | 34 | 6.26 ± 2.74 (3.44–10.80) | 58 |
| DO | 0.83 ± 0.39 (0.3–1.4) | 0.03 ± 0.05 (0–0.1) | – | 0.02 ± 0.03 (0–0.07) | – |
| pH | 6.4 ± 1.02 (4.8–7.8) | 7.6 ± 0.64 (6.8–8.7) | – | 8.1 ± 0.17 (8–8.3) | – |
| T(°C) | 31.57 ± 4.72 (26–40) | 20.29 ± 1.50 (18–22) | – | 19.97 ± 0.86 (19.14–20.86) | – |
ANOVA and t-Test table for comparison of nutrient removal by the hydroponic treatment units planted with T. latifolia and the control unit in terms of statistical significance
| ANOVA | |||||||
| TKN | |||||||
| Source of Variation | SS | df | MS | F | Interference | ||
| Between (Inlet and control) and (Inlet and HUs) | 1892.84 | 2 | 946.4 | 25.34 | Sa | P < 0.001 | |
| Between (HU1 andHU2), (HU1 and HU3) and (HU2 and HU3) | 16.6 | 2 | 8.3 | 0.36 | – | ||
| NH4 + -N | |||||||
| Source of Variation | SS | df | MS | F | Interference | P-value | |
| Between (Inlet and control) and (Inlet and HUs) | 578.99 | 2 | 289.5 | 31.61 | S | P < 0.001 | |
| Between (HU1 andHU2), (HU1 and HU3) and (HU2 and HU3) | 17.08 | 2 | 8.54 | 3.59 | – | P > 0.05 | |
| NO3--N | |||||||
| Source of Variation | SS | df | MS | F | Interference | P-value | |
| Between (Inlet and control) and (Inlet and HUs) | 153.36 | 2 | 76.68 | 11.65 | S | P < 0.001 | |
| Between (HU1 andHU2), (HU1 and HU3) and (HU2 and HU3) | 6.06 | 2 | 3.03 | 0.61 | – | P > 0.05 | |
| PO4–3-P | |||||||
| Source of Variation | SS | df | MS | F | Interference | P-value | |
| Between (Inlet and control) and (Inlet and HUs) | 261.05 | 2 | 130.5 | 9.97 | S | P < 0.001 | |
| Between (HU1 andHU2), (HU1 and HU3) and (HU2 and HU3) | 4.51 | 2 | 2.26 | 0.29 | – | P > 0.05 | |
| t-Test | |||||||
| nutrients treated | TKN | NH4+ − N | NO3- - N | PO4–3- P | |||
| Treatment units | CTRL | CTRL | CTRL | CTRL | HUS | ||
| Mean | 19.77 | 18 | 9.64 | 9.86 | 6.25 | ||
| Variance | 24.56 | 8.33 | 6.37 | 6.62 | 7.52 | ||
| | P < 0.01 | P < 0.05 | P < 0.05 | P < 0.05 | |||
| Interference | S | S | ─ | ─ | |||
Sa - significance
Plant growth and nutrient analysis during the study period
| Growth status | HUs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| HU1 | HU2 | HU3 | |
| Initial number of | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| No.of plants at the end of the treatment | 49 | 60 | 56 |
| Height of plant (cm) at the end of the treatment period | 110–190 | 100–175 | 115–170 |
| Average no. of leaves per plant | 5–9 | 6–10 | 5–11 |
| No. of plants m−2 | 32 | 40 | 37 |
| Dry biomass (kg) per unit | 0.916 | 1.29 | 1.17 |
| Dry biomass (kg m−2) | 0.611 | 0.86 | 0.78 |
| Accumulated nitrogen (g N kg−1 DW) | 16.47 | 21.17 | 18.92 |
| Accumulated phosphorus (g P kg−1 DW) | 2.43 | 2.87 | 2.52 |