4.7 Article

Heavy metal removal within pilot-scale constructed wetlands receiving river water contaminated by confined swine operations

Journal

DESALINATION
Volume 249, Issue 1, Pages 368-373

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2008.11.025

Keywords

Constructed wetland; Heavy metals; Translocation; Bioavailability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three parallel pilot-scale surface flow constructed wetlands were employed to investigate heavy metal removal receiving river water contaminated by swine confined-housing operations in Taiwan. Wastewater from swine operation contained elevated levels of copper and zinc due to their abundance in feed. Two macrophytes, namely cattail (Typha latifolia) and reed (Phragmites australis), were planted to observe their heavy metal removal efficiency. Significant total recoverable copper and zinc reduction for three tested wetlands were 80 and 91% for unplanted control, 83 and 92% for cattail, and 83 and 92% for reed wetland systems. Acid-soluble forms were 56 and 86% of total recoverable influent metals for copper and zinc, respectively. More bioavailable zinc was subjected to releasing back to aqueous environment. Heavy metals entering the studied systems as insoluble forms were settling from water column. Concentrations of metals were higher in the vegetated sediments than in the non-vegetated sediments. The sequential extraction results of sediments indicated that most retained metals were in less mobile fractions. Most of metal uptake by vegetation remained in root portions. Translocations of both copper and zinc for tested macrophytes were not prominent. The metal species in incoming water and metal fractionations in sediment were demonstrated as the major factors to influence plant metal levels. The performance of the studied wetland systems can comply with local water criteria rendering for further water reuse. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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