4.6 Article

Occurrence and Fate of Heavy Metals in Municipal Wastewater in Heilongjiang Province, China: A Monthly Reconnaissance from 2015 to 2017

期刊

WATER
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w12030728

关键词

heavy metals; municipal wastewater; wastewater treatment plants; flow-analysis; aquatic environment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41701543, 41977311, 41630748]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018NTST20, 2019B06614, 2017XTCX02]
  3. 111 Project [B18006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As one of the major sources of pollutions in the environments, effluents from municipal wastewater recently became a hot topic. This study quantified monthly county-level releases of five heavy metals, i.e., lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As), and mercury (Hg), from municipal wastewater into the environment in the Heilongjiang Province of China, based on sampling, measurement, and modeling tools. Wastewater samples were collected from 27 municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWTPs) in 15 county-level cities of Heilongjiang every month from 2015 to 2017. The concentrations of five heavy metals were analyzed in both influents (Pb: 160 +/- 100 mu g/L; Cd: 15 +/- 9.0 mu g/L; Cr: 170 +/- 64 mu g/L; Hg: 0.67 +/- 1.5 mu g/L; As: 6.2 +/- 4.8 mu g/L) and effluents (Pb: 45 +/- 15 mu g/L; Cd: 5.2 +/- 5.1 mu g/L; Cr: 57 +/- 13 mu g/L; Hg: 0.28 +/- 0.12 mu g/L; As: 2.6 +/- 1.4 mu g/L). The removal ratios of the five heavy metals ranged from 50% to 67%. Inflow fluxes of Pb, Cr, and Cd displayed increasing trends first then decreased after reaching a maximum value, whereas those of Hg and Pb remained stable. Material flow analysis reveals that constructions of MWTPs are conducive to significantly reduce the releases of heavy metals from urban areas into the aquatic environment in the study area. Additionally, municipal wastewater sludge (used as fertilizer or spread on the land) could be a significant source of heavy metals in the land.

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