4.6 Article

Nitrogen and Phosphorus Remediation by Three Floating Aquatic Macrophytes in Greenhouse-Based Laboratory-Scale Subsurface Constructed Wetlands

期刊

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
卷 197, 期 1-4, 页码 223-232

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-008-9805-x

关键词

Nursery runoff; Nutrient contaminants; Parrotfeather; Phytoremediation; Water hyacinth; Water lettuce; Water quality

资金

  1. Floriculture and Nursery Research Initiative for Environmental and Resource Management Practices and Strategies
  2. USDA Agriculture Research Service Ft. Pierce, Florida

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the greenhouse and container nursery production industry there is potential for runoff of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), which may contaminate surface and groundwater. Since the 1950s constructed wetlands (CWs), as a simple, low-technology method, have been shown to effectively treat agricultural, industrial, and municipal wastewater. We investigated the N and P attenuating potential of three floating hydrophytes planted in a laboratory-scale subsurface flow (SSF) CW system. Over an 8-week period plants were supplied with N and P (0.39 to 36.81 mg center dot L-1 N and 0.07 to 6.77 mg center dot L-1 P) that spanned the rates detected in nursery runoff between the discharge and inflow locations of a commercial nursery currently employing CWs. Whole plant dry weight was positively correlated with N and P supplied. Highest N recovery rates were exhibited by water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes [Mart.] Solms.) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.). P recovery rates were similar for water hyacinth, water lettuce, and dwarf redstemmed parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum [Vell.] Verdc.). These floating hydrophytes can be cultivated in a SSF CW to remediate runoff losses of N and P. The possibility exists for integrating them into a polycultural remediation system that includes emergent aquatic macrophytes for processing and polishing nursery/greenhouse wastewater.

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

4.6
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