4.8 Article

Nitrous Oxide and Methane Dynamics in Woodchip Bioreactors: Effects of Water Level Fluctuations on Partitioning into Trapped Gas Phases

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 24, 页码 14348-14356

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04829

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [CBET-1804975]
  2. Cornell University Program in Cross-Scale Biogeochemistry and Climate - NSF-IGERT [1069193]
  3. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
  4. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  5. Division Of Graduate Education [1069193] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Woodchip bioreactors (WBRs) are low-cost, passive systems for nonpoint source nitrogen removal at terrestrial-aquatic interfaces. The greenhouse gases nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) can be produced within WBRs, and efforts to reduce N2O and CH4 emissions from WBR systems require improved understanding of the biogeochemical and physical-chemical mechanisms regulating their production, transport, and release. This study evaluates the impact of trapped gas-filled void volumes as sinks of dissolved gases from water and as sources of episodic fluxes when water levels fall. Dissolved gas tracer experiments in a laboratory bioreactor were used to parameterize nonequilibrium advection-dispersion-gas transfer models and quantify trapping of gas-filled voids as a function of antecedent hydrological conditions. Experiments following a water-level rise revealed that up to 24% of the WBR pore volume was occupied by trapped gas phases, which were primarily located in pore spaces inside woodchips. This finding was confirmed with X-ray-computed microtomography. N2O (3.3-10%) and CH4 (4.3-14%) injected into the reactor following a water table rise partitioned into gas-filled voids and were released when water tables fell. In the case of N2O, partitioning into trapped gas phases makes N2O unavailable for enzymatic reduction, potentially enhancing N2O fluxes under fluctuating water levels.

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

4.8
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