4.7 Article

Treatment of flow-through trout aquaculture effluents in a constructed wetland

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 270, 期 1-4, 页码 92-104

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.03.006

关键词

effluent treatment; trout farm; constructed wetlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study on effluent treatment with sub-surface flow (SF) constructed wetlands was conducted in a small commercial scale Bavarian (Germany) flow-through trout farm. Under limited spatial and financial conditions a most suitable wetland was constructed. The wetland treatment efficiency at high hydraulic loading rates during raceway runoff and cleaning situation in comparison to sedimentation as initial treatment method was examined. The constructional solution involved the alteration of six existing sedimentation basins (SB) to SF horizontal flow constructed wetlands with a pre-sedimentation area. As constructional materials only local, cheaply available materials were used in order to reduce the costs. The SF wetland had high treatment efficiencies in the two operational modes examined. During cleaning situation at a hydraulic loading rate (HLR) of 13.6 m/day treatment efficiency for total suspended solids (TSS) was highest and reached 68%. While during raceway runoff situation total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) treatment efficiency of 88% overtopped the efficiency of the other nutrients examined at a HLR of 10.6 m/day. In both treatment situations the SF wetland efficiency was significantly higher than the effect of the SB. SF constructed wetlands treating high hydraulic loading rates accompanied with short retention times were effective on dissolved nutrient treatment only for TAN and nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N), while other dissolved nutrients like nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) and phosphate phosphorous (PO4-P) showed no or even negative treatment effects through the wetland passage. To reduce these nutrients, other treatment conditions or wetland configurations are needed. (C) 2007 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