4.4 Article

Pesticide removal from container nursery runoff in constructed wetland cells

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 1548-1556

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2003.1548

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The increased use of pesticides by container nurseries demands that practices for removal of these potential contaminants from runoff water be examined. Constructed wetlands may be designed to clean runoff water from agricultural production sites, including container nurseries. This study evaluated 14 constructed wetlands cells (1.2 by 4.9 m or 2.4 by 4.9 m, and 30 or 45 cm deep) that collected pesticide runoff from a 465-m(2) gravel bed containerized nursery in Baxter, TN. One-half of the cells were vegetated with bulrush, Scirpus validus. The cells were loaded at three rates or flows of 0.240,0.120, and 0.060 m(3) d(-1). Herbicides-simazine (Princep) [2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine] and metolachlor (Pennant) [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-2-methoxy-1-methylethyl-acetamide]-were applied to the gravel portion of the container nursery at rates of 4.78 and 2.39 kg ha(-1), respectively, 9 July 1998, and at rates of 2.39 and 1.19 kg ha(-1), respectively, 17 May 1999. Pesticides entering the wetland and wetland cell water samples were analyzed daily to determine pesticide removal. At the slower flow rate, which corresponds to lower mass loading and greater hydraulic retention times (HRTs), a greater percentage of pesticides was removed. During the 2-yr period, cells with plants removed 82.4% metolachlor and 77.1% simazine compared with cells without plants, which removed 63.2% metolachlor and 64.3% simazine. At the lowest flow rate and mass loading, wetland cells removed 90.2% metolachlor and 83% simazine. Gravel subsurface How constructed wetlands removed most of the pesticides in runoff water with the greatest removal occurring at lower How rates in vegetated cells.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available