4.7 Article

Escherichia coli removal in a treatment wetland - pond system: A mathematical modelling experience

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 839, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156237

关键词

Pathogens; Solar disinfection; Die-off; Predation; Sedimentation; Pond

资金

  1. Centre for Development Cooperation (Universitat Politecnica de Valencia) through the ADSIDEO programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated a full-scale treatment wetland for the removal of Escherichia coli. The results showed that the wetland system was able to effectively reduce the concentration of E. coli to a level suitable for reuse. The study also found that a small pond at the end of the treatment train played a crucial role in E. coli removal and biodiversity enhancement.
A full-scale treatment wetland (TW) (100 inhabitants, 14 m(3).d(-1)), composed of two horizontal subsurface flow wetlands (TW1-400 m(2) and TW2-200 m(2)) and a small pond (13 m(2)), has been evaluated for Escherichia coli (E. coli) removal. The results indicate a global removal from 1.74.106 to 685 MPN.100 mL(-1) (3.41 log units), reducing E. coli sufficiently to reach values suitable for reuse purposes such as agricultural reuse, without energy and reagent consumption. The small pond at the end of the treatment train plays an important role in E. coli removal and biodiversity enhancement. Data from TW1 and TW2 have been fitted to the P-k-C* model, giving values of 134 and 100 m.yr(-1) for the first-order kinetic reaction coefficient. For the pond, a process-based model using continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) and a 3d-CFD model have been implemented and compared. The models indicate that solar disinfection and predation by daphnids are the most important mechanisms in the studied pond, representing 65% and 25% of the removal respectively. It can be concluded that CSTR can provide good results for small ponds and 3d-CFD model provides extra information, useful to enhance their design.

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