4.6 Article

Floating treatment wetland aided remediation of nitrogen and phosphorus from simulated stormwater runoff

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 207-215

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.09.020

关键词

Urban stormwater; Agricultural runoff; Dissolved oxygen; pH adjustment; Temperature moderation; Aquatic macrophyte; Beemats; Juncus effusus; Canna flaccida

资金

  1. Clemson University
  2. Beeman's Nursery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Floating treatment wetlands are potential alternatives to traditional constructed wetlands for remediating nutrient-rich water. This study examined the remediation efficacy of floating treatment wetlands planted with Canna flaccida and Juncus effusus in a replicated trough system over two growing seasons at two nutrient loading rates. Plant growth parameters were measured on a biweekly basis, and water quality parameters were monitored weekly. Plant shoots and roots were harvested at the end of the first growing season, and biomass was dried, ground, and analyzed for nutrient content. Juncus plants fixed 28.5 +/- 3.4 gN per m(2) and 1.69 +/- 0.2g P per m(2), while Canna fixed 16.8 +/- 2.8 gN per m(2) and 1.05 +/- 0.2g P per m(2). More N and P were fixed in the below-mat biomass of both species than in the above-mat biomass, thus whole-plant harvest may be a critical management strategy for floating treatment wetlands. During the first season, when nutrient addition rates simulated stormwater loading conditions, effluent nutrient concentrations were very low and averaged 0.14 +/- 0.04 mg L-1 total N and 0.02 +/- 0.01 mg L-1 total P. During the second season, nutrient-loading rate into treatment wetlands was doubled to simulate a more nutrient-rich runoff, and effluent nutrient concentrations averaged 0.79 +/- 0.3 mgL(-1) total N and 0.12 +/- 0.03 mg L-1 total P. Floating treatment wetlands may prove most effective in low nutrient environments where it is necessary to polish water quality to extremely low P concentrations. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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