4.7 Article

Study on treatment of city tail water by constructed wetland with corn straw biochar substrate

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2022.102855

关键词

Carbon sequestration; Nitrogen; Biochar; Constructed wetland (CW); City tail water

资金

  1. Changchun City Technology Bureau, China [16SS06]
  2. Jilin Provincial Science and Technology Department, China [20180101092JC]
  3. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA28020102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study shows that the city tail water treatment based on straw biochar substrate can effectively improve the pollutant removal rate, especially for ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen. The preparation conditions of straw biochar play an important role in carbon fixation rate and adsorption capacity.
Constructed wetland (CW) has obvious advantages in city tail water treatment. The biochar preparation from corn straw is an effective measure for improving the straw utilization. In order to improve the pollutant removal rate of CW, the city tail water treatment based on straw biochar substrate was studied. The thermogravimetric experiment of straw, characteristics test (scanning electron microscope, pore structure, element, adsorption) of biochar and city tail water treatment experiment by CW was carried out. The results show that the carbon fixation rate of straw biochar prepared at 450 degrees C (10 degrees C center dot min-1, 2 h, N2) was 67.72%, and the adsorption capacity of biochar exceeded 40% of the requirements of wood activated carbon adsorption standard. When the proportion of biochar in substrate was 2.95%, the mean removal rates of ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen was more than 85%. This study will be conducive to reducing straw carbon emissions and improve CW technical level. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

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