4.7 Review

The performance of the intensified constructed wetlands for organic matter and nitrogen removal: A review

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 372-383

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.098

关键词

Constructed wetlands; Dissolved oxygen; Nitrogen; Organic matter; Removal efficiency; Wastewaters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of different aeration strategies including tidal flow (TF), effluent recirculation (ER) and artificial aeration (AA) on performance of vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW), horizontal flow constructed wetland (HFCW) and hybrid constructed wetland (HCW) are comprehensively and critically reviewed in this paper. The removal efficiencies of nine types of intensified constructed wetlands (CWs) were examined in detail and their mean and standard deviation were estimated at 89 +/- 11%, 84 +/- 12%, 81 +/- 17% and 63 +/- 20% for total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonium nitrogen (NH4+-N) and total nitrogen (TN), respectively. From the studied CWs, ER-HCW, TF-HCW, AA-VFCW and ER-VFCW emerged as the four best performing systems. The overall removal efficiency of TSS, COD, NH4+-N and TN by ER-HCW was 98 +/- 2%, 85 +/- 11%, 83 +/- 15% and 73 +/- 11%, respectively. Specifically, the ER enhances the interactions between pollutants and micro-organisms, consequently, the efficient removal of NH4+-N and TN has been achieved in ER-HCW. The TF has a positive effect in refreshing the wetland with fresh air to enhance the dissolved oxygen (DO) in the system. In case of AA, intermittent aeration is more effective than continuous aeration, as it facilitates the establishment of aerobic and anaerobic conditions suitable for nitrification and denitrification. Statistical analysis shows that DO, organic loading rate and specific surface area requirement are the most significant factors that influence the performance of intensified CWs. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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