4.8 Article

Fate of physical, chemical, and microbial contaminants in domestic wastewater following treatment by small constructed wetlands

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 921-927

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00377-9

关键词

bacteria; biochemical oxygen demand; coliphage; pathogens; sewage; wastewater treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to evaluate the efficacy of constructed wetlands for treatment of domestic wastewater for small communities located in rural areas, small-scale wetland mesocosms (400 L each) containing two treatment designs (a mixture of Typha, Scirpus, and Juncus species; control without vegetation) were planted into two depths (45 or 60 cm) with pea gravel. Each mesocosm. received 19 L/day of primary-treated domestic sewage. Mesocosms were monitored (inflow and outflow samples) on a monthly basis over a 2-year period for pH, total suspended solids (TSS), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODO5), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), dissolved oxygen (DO), and conductivity. Microbiological analyses included enumeration of fecal coliforms, enterococci, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, and coliphage. Significant differences between influent and effluent water quality for the vegetated wetlands (p<0.05) were observed in TSS, BOD5, and TKN. Increased DO and reduction in fecal coliform, enterococcus, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, and coliphage populations also were observed in vegetated wetlands. Greatest microbial reductions were observed in the planted mesocosms compared to those lacking vegetation. Despite marked reduction of several contaminants, wetland-treated effluents did not consistently meet final discharge limits for receiving bodies of water. Removal efficiencies for bacteria and several chemical parameters were more apparent during the initial year compared to the second year of operation, suggesting concern for long-term efficiency and stability of such wetlands. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.8
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