4.8 Article

The removal of micropollutants from treated effluent by batch-operated pilot-scale constructed wetlands

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 230, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.119494

Keywords

Post -treatment; Municipal wastewater effluent; Bark; Biochar; Aeration; Constructed wetland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to improve the removal of micropollutants (MPs) in constructed wetlands (CWs) by optimizing the design of batch-operated CWs, and found that using bark-biochar as a support matrix significantly increased the removal of MPs compared to traditional sand-filled CWs.
Micropollutants (MPs), such as pharmaceuticals and antibiotics, are present in the environment at low concentrations (ng/L-mu g/L). A constructed wetland (CW) is a nature-based wastewater treatment technology, which can be used to remove MPs from wastewater treatment plant effluent. This study aimed to improve MP removal of CWs by optimizing the design of batch-operated CW. Three pilot-scale CWs were built to study the effect of two design-features: the use of a support matrix (a mixture of bark and biochar) and continuous aeration. The use of bark-biochar as support matrix increased the removal of 11 of 12 studied MPs compared to the CW filled with conventional material sand. The highest improved removal by the addition of bark-biochar was more than 40% (median) for irbesartan, carbamazepine, hydrochlorothiazide and benzotriazole. Aerating the bed of the barkbiochar CW did not change MP removal. Besides, the presence of bark-biochar also enhanced the removal of total nitrogen during 10 months of operation, but no improvement was observed on the total organic carbon and total phosphorus removal. Considering the application in a batch-operated CW, MP removal can be greatly enhanced by replacing sand with bark-biochar that will act as MP adsorbing matrix.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available