4.7 Article

Natural wetlands efficiency assessment in removing sugarcane fields' drainage contaminants: a case study in Khuzestan, Southwest Province of Iran

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 17, Pages 51003-51017

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-25858-0

Keywords

Heavy metals; Wetland; Nutrients; Retention time; Naseri Wetland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The efficiency of the Naseri Wetland in the qualitative treatment of agricultural drainage from Khuzestan sugarcane was investigated. The wetland showed the highest removal efficiency for heavy metals and nutrients at the farthest station, W3.
The present study investigated the efficiency of a real-scale natural wetland (Naseri Wetland) in the qualitative treatment of agricultural drainage of Khuzestan sugarcane for 1 year (2019-2020). This study divides the wetland length into three equal parts in W1, W2, and W3 stations. The efficiency of the wetland in removing contaminants such as Cr, Cd, BOD5, TDS, TN, and TP is evaluated by field sampling, laboratory analysis, and t-test. Results indicate that the highest mean difference in Cr, Cd, BOD, TDS, TN, and TP are observed between W0 and W3. At W3, the farthest station from the entry point, the highest removal efficiency is obtained for each factor. Removal percentage of Cd, Cr, and TP in all seasons is equal to 100% up to station 3 (W3), and BOD5 and TN are 75% and 65%, respectively. Also, the results show a gradual rise in TDS along the wetland's length due to high evaporation and transpiration in the area. Naseri Wetland reduces the Cr, Cd, BOD, TN, and TP compared to the initial level. This decrease is more significant at W2 and W3, and it is worth mentioning that W3 has the most considerable reduction. With increasing distance from the entry point, the effect of timing of 1.10, 1.26, 1.30, and 1.60 on removing heavy metals and nutrients is high. The highest efficiency is observed for each retention time at W3.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available