4.6 Article

Characteristics and mechanisms of the hydroponic bio-filter method for purification of eutrophic surface water

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1574-1583

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.12.034

关键词

Hydroponic bio-filter method; Hydraulic loading rate; Mass balance of nitrogen and phosphorus; Secateur length of plant; Harvesting frequency

资金

  1. 863 project [2002AA601011]
  2. Project for Water Environment Renovation of Lake Kasumigaura

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydroponic bio-filter method (HBFM) was adopted to purify eutrophic surface water. The average removal efficiency of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) was 16.8% and 30.8%, respectively, at the hydraulic loading rate (HLR) of 3.0 m(3) (m(2) d)(-1). The mass removal rate of TN and TP accordingly reached 1.0 and 0.1 g(m(2) d)(-1) separately. The sedimentation of particulate nitrogen and phosphorus played a major role in removal of nitrogen and phosphorus, which contribute 62.2% and 75.9%, respectively. The optimal HLR of HBFM ranged from 3.0 to 4.0 m(3) (m(2) d)(-1). The sediment in midstream reached a maximum nitrification potential of 4.76 x 10(-6), g (g h)(-1), while upstream it reached a maximum denitrification potential of 8.1 x 10(-7) g(g h)(-1). The distribution of nitrification potential corresponded to the ammonium-oxidizing bacteria density. The key for improving nitrogen removal efficacy of HBFM system consisted of changing the nitrification/denitrification region distribution and accordingly enhancing the denitrification process. The sum of dissolved nitrogen removed by denitrification and plant assimilation was nearly equal to the amount released by sediment. Secateur length of Nasturtium officinale had some effect on its uptake rate. The length of cut should be less than 10cm at a time. The harvesting frequency of once a month for N. officinale had no influence on nitrogen and phosphorus removal. (C) 2009 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

4.6
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