4.7 Article

Cultivating Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus quadricauda microalgae to degrade inorganic compounds and pesticides in water

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 18, 页码 18165-18174

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-6996-3

关键词

Decontamination; Greenhouse wastewater; Fenhexamid; Metalaxyl; Triclopyr; Iprodione; Chlorella vulgaris; Scenedesmus quadricauda

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work evaluates the possibility of cultivating Scenedesmus quadricauda and Chlorella vulgaris microalgae in wastewater from the hydroponic cultivation of tomatoes with the aim of purifying the water. S. quadricauda and C. vulgaris were also used in purification tests carried out on water contaminated by the following active ingredients: metalaxyl, pyrimethanil, fenhexamid, iprodione, and triclopyr. Fifty-six days after the inoculum was placed, a reduction was found in the concentration of nitric nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and soluble and total phosphorus. The decrease was 99, 83, 94, and 94 %, respectively, for C. vulgaris and 99, 5, 88, and 89 %, respectively, for S. quadricauda. When the microalgae were present, all the agrochemicals tested were removed more quickly from the water than from the sterile control (BG11). The increase in the rate of degradation was in the order metalaxyl > fenhexamid > iprodione > triclopyr > pyrimethanil. It was demonstrated that there was a real degradation of fenhexamid, metalaxyl, triclopyr, and iprodione, while in the case of pyrimethanil, the active ingredient removed from the substrate was absorbed onto the cells of the microalgae. It was also found that the agrochemicals used in the tests had no significant effect on the growth of the two microalgae. The experiment highlighted the possibility of using cultivations of C. vulgaris and S. quadricauda as purification systems for agricultural wastewater which contains eutrophic inorganic compounds such as nitrates and phosphates and also different types of pesticides.

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