| Literature DB >> 34062738 |
Ismael Vera-Puerto1, Hugo Valdés2, Christian Correa1, Valeria Perez3, Roberto Gomez3, Erica Alarcon1, Carlos Arias4,5.
Abstract
The aim of this work was to evaluate the performance of vertical subsurface flow treatment wetlands (VSSF TWs) for treating rural domestic wastewater when strategies such as bed depth reduction and media change are used in combination with bottom saturation. Two treatment wetland systems were implemented: normal (VF-N), with a bed depth of 1.0 m, and modified (VF-M), with a bed depth of 0.5 m and a bottom layer of natural zeolite. Schoenoplectus californicus was used as experimental plant. These two treatment systems were operated at a hydraulic loading rate of 120 mm/d in two phases. Phase I did not use bottom saturation, while Phase II involved a bottom saturation of the zeolite layer of the VF-M system. The results show that bed depth reduction did not have a significant effect (p > 0.05) in terms of organic matter, solids, and ammonium removal. Conversely, it had a significant influence (p < 0.05) on phosphate as well as a negative effect on pathogen removal. This influence could be explained by initial media capacity for phosphorus removal and filtration importance in the case of pathogens. Partial saturation only had a positive influence on total nitrogen removal. The addition of a bottom layer of natural zeolite showed no positive effect on nutrient removal. The plant showed adaptation and positive development in both VF-N and VF-M. The water balance showed that water loss was not influenced by bed depth reduction. Therefore, according to the previous results, a combination of the proposal modifications to VSSF TWs can be introduced for treating rural domestic wastewater.Entities:
Keywords: nutrients; partial saturation; vertical subsurface flow treatment wetlands; zeolite
Year: 2021 PMID: 34062738 PMCID: PMC8124162 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18094842
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Wastewater characteristics. (n = 12).
| Water Quality Parameter | Unit | Average ± Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | °C | 13.8 ± 4.5 | 8.8 | 24.5 |
| pH | 7.8 ± 0.2 | 7.3 | 8.1 | |
| EC | µs/cm | 978 ± 87 | 866.0 | 1125.0 |
| COD | mg/L | 186.0 ± 62.0 | 125.0 | 325.0 |
| TSS | mg/L | 205.0 ± 228.3 | 30.5 | 658.3 |
| NH4+-N | mg/L | 43.0 ± 5.0 | 37.3 | 53.4 |
| NO3−-N | mg/L | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 0.2 | 1.6 |
| TN | mg/L | 50.0 ± 19.7 | 37.6 | 102.4 |
| PO4−3-P | mg/L | 9.3 ± 3.5 | 5.2 | 15.7 |
| Total Coliforms | Log10(MPN/100 mL) | 6.5 ± 0.6 | 5.0 | 7.0 |
|
| Log10(MPN/100 mL) | 6.0 ± 0.5 | 5.0 | 6.6 |
Figure 1Characteristics of experimental mesocosm VSSF TWs. Dimensions are in meters with exception of numbers inside parentheses that specify grain size in mm.
pH, temperature (T), electrical conductivity (EC) and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) by treatment wetland and phase. n = 6 for each phase.
| Parameter | Unit | VF-N | VF-M | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I * | Phase II * | Phase I * | Phase II ** | ||
| pH | 7.4 ± 0.2 | 6.9 ± 0.3 | 7.5 ± 0.4 | 7.0 ± 0.1 | |
| T | °C | 16.4 ± 4.5 | 10.8 ± 1.6 | 16.7 ± 4.3 | 10.6 ± 1.5 |
| ORP | mV | +154.3 ± 69.9 | +195.2 ± 71.4 | +139.2 ± 73.5 | +160.8 ± 107.0 |
| EC | µs/cm | 806.3 ± 105.2 | 772.2 ± 305.6 | 852.5 ± 94.2 | 805.3 ± 82.2 |
*: No bottom saturation; **: bottom saturation. T: temperature; ORP: oxidation-reduction potential; EC: electrical conductivity.
Removal efficiencies by operational phase and treatment wetland. n = 6 for each phase.
| Parameter | Effluent Concentrations (mg/L) and Removal Efficiencies (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VF-N | VF-M | |||
| Phase I * | Phase II * | Phase I * | Phase II ** | |
| COD | 24.4 + 10.4 (83.9 ± 7.7) | 68.5 ± 46.5 (65.1 ± 21.1) | 45.8 ± 17.1 (73.6 ± 10.7) | 74.5 ± 28.4 (60.9 ± 14.5) |
| TSS | 1.7 ± 1.1 (97.1 ± 3.6) | 2.4 ± 2.3 (98.2 ± 1.0) | 5.4 ± 3.4 (94.1 ± 6.5) | 6.5 ± 3.7 (93.5 ± 3.6) |
| PO4−3-P | 2.2 ± 1.3 (80.6 ± 9.6) | 3.3 ± 0.8 (51.4 ± 20.2) | 4.1 ± 1.2 (61.8 ± 7.0) | 4.6 ± 1.3 (33.3 ± 22.3) |
| NH4+-N | 0.6 ± 0.4 (98.6 ± 0.9) | 3.5 ± 4.3 (96.2 ± 2.8) | 0.6 ± 0.4 (98.6 ± 0.9) | 2.3 ± 2.7 (96.9 ± 3.8) |
| NO3−-N | 37.2 ±13.3 | 46.8 ± 16.5 | 27.1 ± 8.8 | 19.5 ± 17.9 |
| TN | 43.5 ± 31.1 (23.9 ± 30.0) | 36.8 ± 9.7 (19.1 ± 33.1) | 37.1 ± 25.2 (35.3 ± 13.9) | 15.5 ± 13.6 (63.3 ± 33.1) |
*: not bottom saturation; **: bottom saturation. Number in parentheses shows removal efficiency. In the case of NO3−-N no removal efficiencies are reported due to increase of this compound in effluents.
Figure 2Relationship between NH4+-N loading rate and removal by treatment wetland and Phase. VF-Normal: Phase I (), Phase II (); VF –Modified: Phase I (), Phase II ().
Total coliforms and E. coli effluent concentrations and removal by treatment wetland and operational phase. n = 6 for each phase.
| Wetland Type | Phase | Total Coliforms |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log. Units Removed | Data ≤ 1.0 × 103 MPN/100 mL (%) | Min–Max | Log. Units Removed | Data ≤ 1.0 × 103 MPN/100 mL (%) | Min–Max | ||
| VF-N | I * | 3.3 | 90.0 | 2.0 × 102–1.2 × 104 | 3.0 | 100.0 | 1.0 × 103 |
| II * | 3.0 | 40.0 | 1.0 × 103–2.2 × 105 | 2.4 | 80.0 | 1.0 × 103–2.3 × 105 | |
| VF-M | I * | 1.7 | 10.0 | 1.0 × 103–3.7 × 105 | 1.9 | 18.2 | 1.0 × 103–1.8 × 105 |
| II ** | 1.4 | 0.0 | 4.6 × 104–>2.4 × 106 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 1.2 × 104–>2.4 × 106 | |
*: not bottom saturation; **: bottom saturation.
Figure 3Behavior of plants during the experimental period for each treatment wetland and phase (bar chart: stems; dot chart: height). () VF- N, () VF-M.
Figure 4Evolution of chlorophyll status for each treatment wetland system and phase. () VF- N, () VF-M.
Biomass and nutrient content by treatment wetland.
| Wetland Type | Plant Tissue | Biomass (kgDW/m2 * Year) | Nutrient Content (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | P | |||
| VF-N | Leaf | 4.54 ± 0.05 * | 1.69 ± 0.09 | 0.24 ± 0.03 |
| Root | 7.06 ± 0.07 ** | 1.45 ± 0.07 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | |
| VF-M | Leaf | 6.22 ± 0.07 * | 1.62 ± 0.08 | 0.24 ± 0.02 |
| Root | 5.20 ± 0.05 ** | 1.63 ± 0.08 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | |
* Three individuals. ** One individual.
Figure 5Evolution of evapotranspiration (ETP) (bar chart) during experimental time and relationship with mean monthly air temperature (dot char). () VF-N, () VF-M.
Percentage of water loss by treatment wetland and phase.
| Phase | Month | Water Loss (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VF-N | VF-M | ||
| I | 1 | 13.6 ± 3.0 * | 16.2 ± 3.2 * |
| 2 | 9.8 ± 5.3 * | 10.5 ± 2.4 * | |
| 3 | 7.3 ± 3.8 * | 4.4 ± 2.6 * | |
| Average | 10.2 ± 4.7 | 10.4 ± 5.4 | |
| II | 4 | 5.1 ± 1.8 * | 1.9 ± 1.0 ** |
| 5 | 4.4 ± 1.9 * | 2.7 ± 0.9 ** | |
| 6 | 6.5 ± 1.7 * | 2.1 ± 1.1 ** | |
| Average | 5.3 ± 1.9 | 2.3 ± 1.0 ** | |
*: not bottom saturation; **: bottom saturation.