4.7 Article

Nitrogen removal from landfill leachate in constructed wetlands with reed and willow: Redox potential in the root zone

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 97, 期 -, 页码 22-27

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.11.014

关键词

Landfill leachate; Constructed wetland; Redox potential; Nitrogen removal

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [219/MOB/2008/0]
  2. EVAWET [PTDC/AMB/73081/2006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effects of reed and willow on bioremediation of landfill leachate in comparison with an unplanted control by measuring redox potential levels in the rhizosphere of microcosm systems in a greenhouse. Plants had a significant influence on redox potential relative to the plant-less system. Redox potential in the reed rhizosphere was anoxic (mean -102 +/- 85 mV), but it was the least negative, being significantly higher than in the willow (mean -286 +/- 118 mV), which had the lowest Eh. Redox potential fluctuated significantly in the willow rhizosphere during daylight hours, with large decreases in the morning. Levels of NH4+ decreased significantly in the first day of the experiment and remained at similar low levels in all three variants for the next four weeks of the experiment. Following this removal of ammonia significant peaks in NO2- occurred in the control and reed tanks on the 1st day, and again on 14th day in the control tank up to 13 mg/dm(3). In the willow tank there was also one significant peak of NO2- in the first week, but only up to 0.5 mg/dm(3). Significant accumulation, within 21 days of NO3- in all variants was observed, but in tanks with reed and willow the concentration of NO3- remained significantly lower (<4 mg/dm(3)) than in the unplanted tank (similar to 35 mg/dm(3)). Final levels of total-nitrogen, nitrate and chemical oxygen demand were considerably lower in the reed and willow tank than in the unplanted tank. (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