4.7 Article

Behavior of selected priority organic pollutants in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands:: A preliminary screening

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 69, 期 9, 页码 1374-1380

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.05.012

关键词

constructed wetland; European water framework directive; priority pollutants; gravel bed accumulation; pollutant injection; removal efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A discrete injection experiment was carried out in a constructed wetland to evaluate the behavior of selected priority pollutants. A horizontal subsurface flow pilot plant located in the NE of Spain was selected for this study. A total of eight European Priority Pollutants listed in the Water Framework Directive were considered, including a commonly used herbicide (mecoprop). The pollutants encompassed a variety of chemical classes and physicochemical properties. They included organochlorine, organophosphorus, phenols, chloroacetanilides, triazine, phenoxycarboxylic acid and phenylurea pesticides. A time series of composite effluent samples and discrete gravel bed samples from the wetland were analyzed. Response curves for all the pollutants injected from effluent concentrations were obtained and compared with the tracer (clofibric acid). On the basis of an analysis of the samples taken 21 days after the injection, priority pollutants were classified into four groups according to their removal efficiency. These groups were (i) the highly efficiently removed (>90%), namely lindane, pentachlorophenol, endosulfan and pentachlorobenzene; (ii) the efficiently removed (80-90%), namely alachlor and chlorpyriphos; (iii) poorly removed (20%), namely mecoprop and simazine; and (iv) recalcitrant to elimination, namely clofibric acid and diuron. Taking into account the poor accumulation of the injected contaminants in the gravel bed (0-20%), biodegradation and plant uptake are postulated as the most likely elimination pathways for the pollutants. (C) 2007 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