4.7 Article

An integrated gravity-driven ecological bed for wastewater treatment in subtropical regions: Process design, performance analysis, and greenhouse gas emissions assessment

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 212, 期 -, 页码 1143-1153

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.027

关键词

Agritainment; Gravity-driven; Decentralized wastewater treatment; Pollutant removal; GHG emissions; Economic analysis

资金

  1. National Key RD Program [2016YFC0502800]
  2. Natural Sciences Foundation [51520105013, 51679087]
  3. 111 ITDU Program [B14008]
  4. United Nations Development Programme
  5. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on the development of an integrated gravity-driven ecological bed (IGEB) for treating wastewater from agritainment activities in subtropical region. An integrated treatment process including multiple modules was designed. A filed scale treatment system was built and operated at an agritainment farm in Xiamen, China. Although the developed system had no requirement for electric power, it presented the good performances in pollutant removal and shock resistance. The effluent concentrations of COD, NH3-N, and TP reached 50.4, 10.4, and 0.9 mg/L, with removal rates of 78.0%, 72.7%, and 69.6%, respectively. The IGEB modules of anaerobic tank, multiple soil layer system and subsurface flow constructed wetland functioned as preliminary, secondary, and polishing treatments, respectively. The total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of IGEB system were about 21.3 kg CO2-eq/d. IGEB system had a significant advantage in terms of mitigation of GHG emissions over centralized wastewater treatment. In addition, the total cost of IGEB system was about 0.3 RMB Yuan to treat 1 tonne wastewater. As a sound decentralized wastewater treatment technique, it provides a sustainable solution for the environmental pollution issues related to agritainment activities. (C) 2018 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