4.7 Article

Long-term assessment at field scale of Floating Treatment Wetlands for improvement of water quality and provision of ecosystem services in a eutrophic urban pond

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 584, 期 -, 页码 561-571

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.072

关键词

Phytoremediation; Pontederia sagittata; Cyperus papyrus; Nutrients removal; Water quality

资金

  1. National Council of Science and Technology, Mexico (CONACyT) [215148]
  2. Xalapa City Municipal Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pollution of urban water bodies requires stringent control measures and the development of low-cost and highly efficient alternative technologies. In contrast to Constructed Wetlands, Floating Treatment Wetlands (FTWs) have the advantage of not requiring large surface of land since they operate in situ. However, there is limited information about their long-term evaluation while operating at field scale. The aim of this work was to assess the performance of FTWs using a combination of Pontederia sagittata and Cyperus papyrus for the improvement of the water quality and provision of ecosystem services of a eutrophic urban pond. The FTWs were built with low-cost material easy to acquire and to ensemble. Two FTWs (175 m(2) and 33 m(2)) located in Pond 1 within a complex of 4 urban artificial ponds were evaluated for two years. They promoted an increase in the dissolved oxygen (DD.) within a range of 15 to 67%, a removal of fecal coliforms in the range of 9 to 86% and a nitrate removal in the range of 9 to 76%. The plant productivity reached a maximum of 363 g(dm) m(-2) d(-1) in the FTWI and 536 g(dm) m(-2) d(-1) in the FTW2 during the period March-June 2016. The TKN and the TP content in the plant were in the range of 183 to 28.1 and of 0.05 to 0.196 g kg(-1) city matter, respectively. In conclusion, the tested FTWs have proved to be a very beneficial low-cost technology for the improvement of water quality and provision of ecosystem services. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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