4.7 Article

An analysis of US wastewater treatment plant effluent dilution ratio: Implications for water quality and aquaculture

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 721, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137819

关键词

Surface water; Contaminants of emerging concern; Wastewater dilution; Food security

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  2. National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
  3. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Water for Agriculture Challenge Area grant [2106-69007-25093]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wastewater discharge and surface flow data from 2007 to 2017 was used to calculate wastewater dilution factors (WWDF) for U.S. Geological Society hydrologic unit codes (HUC) in the contiguous U.S. HUC 10-year average WWDF values generally increased from the east coast (HUC 1-3: WWDF range 125-466) as you move west to the Mississippi River (HUC 7, 8, 10: 1435-1813) before further declining moving west (HUC 13-18: 7-908), particularly in the California (HUC 18: 9) and southwestern states (HUC 13-16: 7-351). Within HUCs, watersheds with higher population centers had lower WWDF values. This population effect on WWDF was greater in drier regions (e.g. Southwestern U.S.) or during drought. This is particularly pronounced in the regions of the Southwest and West where populations are growing in an already water limited region. Moderate WWDF improvement was observed and projected through 2022 in these regions. A few areas of the country where surface water is used for aquaculture overlap with areas of low (<2) WWDF, but it is not widespread for the period examined. With continued population growth and the intensification of climate change, the proportion of treated wastewater effluent in surface waters may grow and potentially influence users of that water, but over the 10-year period examined WWDF values were relatively stable or improving for most regions of the contiguous U.S. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. 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