4.6 Review

The Partial Contribution of Constructed Wetland Components (Roots, Gravel, Microorganisms) in the Removal of Phenols: A Mini Review

期刊

WATER
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w14040626

关键词

constructed wetland; phenol; biodegradation; biofilm; PAH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Constructed wetlands have been extensively studied and recognized as a key technology in wastewater treatment research. This mini review evaluates the contributions of different components in these systems to contaminant removal and introduces a technique to study these contributions. Future research will enhance the understanding of constructed wetlands and improve their construction and operation.
Constructed wetlands (CW) have attracted growing interest in wastewater treatment research in the last 20 years, and have been investigated intensively worldwide. Many of the basic processes occurring in CWs have been qualitatively established; however, much quantitative knowledge is still lacking. In this mini review, the proportionate contributions of the different system components to removal of contaminants are examined. The main objective of this mini review is to provide a more in-depth assessment of the interactions between the porous bed, plants, and microorganisms during the removal of organic contaminants from the water in a subsurface flow CW system. In addition, a unique technique to study the partial contribution to the total removal of contaminants in a CW is described. Future studies in this field will expand our knowledge of any synergistic or antagonistic interactions between the components and facilitate improved CW construction and operation. Here, phenol will be used as a model industrial organic contaminant to illustrate our current understanding of the contributions of the different components to total removal. I will also discuss the various factors influencing the efficacy of bacteria, whether planktonic or as biofilm (on porous bed or plant roots), in subsurface flow CWs.

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