4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Microbial nitrogen transformation in constructed wetlands treating contaminated groundwater

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 17, Pages 12829-12839

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3575-3

Keywords

Nitrogen; Ammonium; Constructed wetland; Nitrification; Denitrification; Isotope fractionation

Funding

  1. European Commission, Marie Curie Actions Project [265063]
  2. SAFIRA project
  3. Helmholtz Interdisciplinary Graduate School for Environmental Research (HIGRADE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pathways of ammonium (NH4 (+)) removal were investigated using the stable isotope approach in constructed wetlands (CWs). We investigated and compared several types of CWs: planted horizontal subsurface flow (HSSF), unplanted HSSF, and floating plant root mat (FPRM), including spatial and seasonal variations. Plant presence was the key factor influencing efficiency of NH4 (+) removal in all CWs, what was illustrated by lower NH4 (+)-N removal by the unplanted HSSF CW in comparison with planted CWs. No statistically significant differences in NH4 (+) removal efficiencies between seasons were detected. Even though plant uptake accounted for 32-100 % of NH4 (+) removal during spring and summer in planted CWs, throughout the year, most of NH4 (+) was removed via simultaneous nitrification-denitrification, what was clearly shown by linear increase of delta N-15-NH4 (+) with decrease of loads along the flow path and absence of nitrate (NO3 (-)) accumulation. Average yearly enrichment factor for nitrification was -7.9 aEuro degrees for planted HSSF CW and -5.8 aEuro degrees for FPRM. Lack of enrichment for delta N-15-NO3 (-) implied that other processes, such as nitrification and mineralization were superimposed on denitrification and makes the stable isotope approach unsuitable for the estimation of denitrification in the systems obtaining NH4 (+) rich inflow water.

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