4.7 Article

Removal of faecal bacteria from septage by treating it in a full-scale duckweed-covered pond system

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 92, 期 12, 页码 3130-3135

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.08.008

关键词

Decay coefficient; Dispersed-flow model; Duckweed ponds; E. coli; Enterococci; Mediterranean climate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Performance of a full-scale duckweed-covered treatment system in removing faecal bacteria is presented. The system consisted of three ponds in series and received septage from holding tanks. Inflow averaged between 36 m(3) d(-1) in the cold season and 60 m(3) d(-1) in the warm season, resulting in a total hydraulic retention time of 88 and 58 days, respectively. Duckweed (Lemna minor) colonized the ponds in the summer and continued to grow in the cold season. Due to the difficult harvesting process of the duckweed biomass, the investigation of the treatment efficiency was carried out without plant harvesting. The system was monitored for temperature, pH, oxygen, chlorophyll-a, Escherichia coli and Enterococci. Duckweed growth resulted in chlorophyll-a concentration reduction from 924 to 13 mu g L-1 causing neutral and anoxic conditions in the pond water. A temperature effect was noticed on the E. coli decay coefficient with a decreasing trend along the treatment system. Enterococci always decayed less than E. coli. Differences on decay coefficients and removal efficiencies were not observed between the three ponds for both bacterial types. Effluent quality in terms of E. coli was 489 and 1377 cfu/100 mL, in the warm and the cold seasons, respectively, with average removals of 99.65 +/- 1.46% and 99.33 +/- 3.03%. Total Enterococci removal was 88.91 +/- 23.1% in the warm season and 94.43 +/- 24.45% in the cold season, resulting in mean effluent values of 1058 and 1404 cfu/100 mL, respectively. The seasonal differences in total removal efficiencies were insignificant for both bacterial types. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据