4.3 Article

Livestock Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands for Agriculture Reuse

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228592

关键词

phytoremediation; constructed wetland; wastewater; fertilizer

资金

  1. Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalizacao
  2. Programa Operacional Regional de Lisboa
  3. Programa Operacional Regional do Algarve through Sistema de Incentivos a Investigacao e Desenvolvimento Tecnologico (SI IeDT) Regime Contratual de Investimento (RCI) [POCI-01-0247-FEDER-035234, LISBOA-01-0247-FEDER-035234, ALG-01-0247-FEDER-035234]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study focused on the evaluation of constructed wetlands (CWs) microcosms, on a laboratory scale, for the removal of metals from a pig industry effluent while maintaining effluent organic matter and nutrients levels for its later used as a fertilizer. CWs with different macrophytes (Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia) and different substrates (light expanded clay aggregate and lava rock) were tested. Results showed high removals of metals during CWs treatment, with removal rates reaching >80% for Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn after 2 days of treatment in CWs planted with T. latifolia and >60% in CWs planted with P. australis. Significant differences were only found between substrates for Fe and Mn in CWs with P. australis. Removal of organic matter (through chemical oxygen demand (COD)) was >77%, with no significant differences between substrates or plants. Removals of ammonium and phosphate ions ranged between 59-84% and 32-92%, respectively, in CWs with P. australis and 62-75% and 7-68% in CWs with T. latifolia, with no significant differences between substrates. Overall, CWs showed potential to be efficient in removing toxic contaminants, as metals, while maintaining moderated levels of nutrients, allowing the use of reclaimed water in agriculture, namely as fertilizer. If one aims for a short CW treatment, CW planted with T. latifolia and expanded clay as substrate could be the more suitable choice.

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

4.3
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