4.8 Article

Designing the vertical flow constructed wetland based on targeted limiting pollutant

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 351, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127068

关键词

Kikuth Approach; Pollutant removal; Vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW)

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [DST/TM/WTI/EIC/2K17/83 (G)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The requirement of large land area limits the adoption of constructed wetlands (CWs) in urban settings with limited land availability. The area calculations for CW design are commonly carried out following Kikuth approach where the removal rate constant (K) is derived from literature. Investigation of secondary data of 82 vertical flow CWs, performed in this study, revealed wide variations in the calculated K values for different pollutants under different environmental and operational conditions, highlighting the importance of incorporating desired pollutant removal levels into customized CW design.
The requirement of large land area limits the adoption of constructed wetlands (CWs) in urban settings with limited land availability. The area calculations for CW design are commonly carried out following Kikuth approach where the removal rate constant (K) is derived from literature. Investigation of secondary data of 82 vertical flow CWs, performed in this study, yielded wide variations (0.0003 - 0.822 md(-1)) in the calculated K values for different pollutants under different environmental and operational conditions indicating that it is important to incorporate the desired levels of pollutant removal to arrive at customized design of CWs. The results indicated that the relative standard deviation of K values could be narrowed by classifying the datasets based on design parameters like depth, hydraulic loading rates and substrate loading rates. These calculations can help arrive at more scientific design of CW to achieve the prevailing standards for the discharge or reuse of sewage.

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

4.8
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