Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.5
3.4
Journals
Water
Special Issues
Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal
share announcement

Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal

A special issue of Water (ISSN 2073-4441). This special issue belongs to the section "Water Quality and Contamination".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 April 2018) | Viewed by 33198

Special Issue Editor

Dr. David Sample

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455, USA

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Treatment wetlands, (also known as constructed wetlands), are engineered structures or systems that incorporate natural wetland processes to treat effluents and runoff from urban, agricultural, and industrial sources. They can be very effective at reducing nutrients loads. Treatment wetlands can be classified into the following types: Surface flow treatment wetlands (SFTWs), subsurface flow treatment wetlands (SSFTWs), and floating treatment wetlands (FTWs). SSFTWs and FTWs have become more common because their land requirements are much lower than those of comparable SFTWs. This becomes important in crowded urban areas, where the opportunity cost of land is high. Research needs for treatment wetlands for nutrient removal include: Evaluating nutrient reduction potential of particular plants and/or media at the laboratory, mesocosm, or field scale; understanding the role of biofilms in water treatment; developing better understanding of the hydrogeochemistry of these systems, particularly with respect to nutrients; assessing the advantages and disadvantages of harvesting; development of numerical models of treatment wetland behavior; and assessing capital and maintenance costs through the unit lifecycle.

Dr. David J. Sample
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Water is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Treatment (or constructed) wetland
  • Floating treatment wetland (FTW)
  • Surface flow treatment wetland (SFTW)
  • Subsurface flow treatment wetland (SSTW)
  • Biofilm
  • Nutrient uptake
  • Opportunity cost
  • Mesocosm
  • Hydrogeochemistry
  • Redox
  • Anoxic conditions
  • Plant viability
  • hydroponics

Published Papers (7 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

1987 KiB  
Article
Design and Season Influence Nitrogen Dynamics in Two Surface Flow Constructed Wetlands Treating Nursery Irrigation Runoff
by Sarah A. White
Water 2018, 10(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010008 - 23 Dec 2017
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 3783
Abstract
Constructed wetlands (CWs) are used to remediate runoff from a variety of agricultural, industrial, and urban sources. CW remediation performance is often evaluated at the laboratory scale over durations less than one year. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effect [...] Read more.
Constructed wetlands (CWs) are used to remediate runoff from a variety of agricultural, industrial, and urban sources. CW remediation performance is often evaluated at the laboratory scale over durations less than one year. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effect of CW design (cell depth) and residence time on nitrogen (N) speciation and fate across season and years in two free water surface wetlands receiving runoff from irrigated plant production areas at an ornamental plant nursery. Water quality (mg·L−1 of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium, dissolved oxygen and oxidation reduction potential) was monitored at five sites within each of two CWs each month over four years. Nitrate-N was the dominant form of ionic N present in both CWs. Within CW1, a deep cell to shallow cell design, nitrate comprised 86% of ionic N in effluent. Within CW2, designed with three sequential deep cells, nitrate comprised only 66% of total N and ammonium comprised 27% of total N in CW2 effluent. Differences in ionic N removal efficacies and shifts in N speciation in CW1 and CW2 were controlled by constructed wetland design (depth and hydraulic retention time), the concentration of nutrients entering the CW, and plant species richness. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

2414 KiB  
Article
Adapting the Relaxed Tanks-in-Series Model for Stormwater Wetland Water Quality Performance
by Laura S. Merriman, Jon M. Hathaway, Michael R. Burchell and William F. Hunt
Water 2017, 9(9), 691; https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090691 - 09 Sep 2017
Cited by 19 | Viewed by 4268
Abstract
Across the globe, water quality standards have been implemented to protect receiving waters from stormwater pollution, motivating regulators (and consequently designers) to develop tools to predict the performance of stormwater control measures such as constructed stormwater wetlands (CSWs). The goal of this study [...] Read more.
Across the globe, water quality standards have been implemented to protect receiving waters from stormwater pollution, motivating regulators (and consequently designers) to develop tools to predict the performance of stormwater control measures such as constructed stormwater wetlands (CSWs). The goal of this study was to determine how well the relaxed tanks-in-series (P-k-C*) model described the performance of CSWs in North Carolina. Storm events monitored at 10 CSWs in North Carolina were used for calibrating the model, and statistical evaluations concluded the model could adequately predict the performance for all pollutants except organic nitrogen. Nash–Sutcliff calibration/validation values were determined to be 0.72/0.78, 0.78/0.74, 0.91/0.87, 0.72/0.62, 0.88/0.73, and 0.91/0.63 for total nitrogen, total ammoniacal nitrogen, oxidized nitrogen, organic nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids, respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed only one calibration parameter with strong sensitivity, the Arrhenius coefficient (temperature dependent model coefficient). With this model, CSWs can be optimized to treat watershed-specific influent concentrations to meet effluent targets. In general, the current design technique used in North Carolina and many other locations (a first flush volume detention method) oversizes CSWs for water quality vis-à-vis the method herein, suggesting improved designs for water quality may be possible through scientifically-informed methods. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

4727 KiB  
Article
Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems
by Tiffany L. Messer, Michael R. Burchell and François Bírgand
Water 2017, 9(7), 517; https://doi.org/10.3390/w9070517 - 13 Jul 2017
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 4939 | Correction
Abstract
The objective of the study was to determine the kinetic model that best fit observed nitrate removal rates at the mesocosm scale in order to determine ideal loading rates for two future wetland restorations slated to receive pulse flow agricultural drainage water. Four [...] Read more.
The objective of the study was to determine the kinetic model that best fit observed nitrate removal rates at the mesocosm scale in order to determine ideal loading rates for two future wetland restorations slated to receive pulse flow agricultural drainage water. Four nitrate removal models were investigated: zero order, first order decay, efficiency loss, and Monod. Wetland mesocosms were constructed using the primary soil type (in triplicate) at each of the future wetland restoration sites. Eighteen mesocosm experiments were conducted over two years across seasons. Simulated drainage water was loaded into wetlands as batches, with target nitrate-N levels typically observed in agricultural drainage water (between 2.5 and 10 mg L−1). Nitrate-N removal observed during the experiments provided the basis for calibration and validation of the models. When the predictive strength of each of the four models was assessed, results indicated that the efficiency loss and first order decay models provided the strongest agreement between predicted and measured NO3-N removal rates, and the fit between the two models were comparable. Since the predictive power of these two models were similar, the less complicated first order decay model appeared to be the best choice in predicting appropriate loading rates for the future full-scale wetland restorations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

6616 KiB  
Article
Performance of an Agricultural Wetland-Reservoir-Irrigation Management System
by Michael J. Haverstock, Ali Madani, Hambaliou Baldé, Andrew C. VanderZaag and Robert J. Gordon
Water 2017, 9(7), 472; https://doi.org/10.3390/w9070472 - 28 Jun 2017
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 5517
Abstract
Constructed wetlands (CW) have gained recognition as a management option for the treatment of various agricultural wastewaters. This study involved the design, construction, and initial evaluation of a wetland-reservoir-irrigation (WRI) system. The system was established in Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada, with the goal [...] Read more.
Constructed wetlands (CW) have gained recognition as a management option for the treatment of various agricultural wastewaters. This study involved the design, construction, and initial evaluation of a wetland-reservoir-irrigation (WRI) system. The system was established in Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada, with the goal to capture, treat, and re-use agricultural sub-surface drainage water. It consisted of a 1.8-ha area of a cropped field that was systematically tile drained. Drainage water was directed through a 2-cell CW and then into a reservoir-irrigation pond. Flow rate hydraulics, residence time distributions, and treatment efficiencies for nitrate-nitrogen (NO3−-N) and Escherichia coli (E. coli) were monitored for 14 months. Mass reductions of NO3−-N and E. coli from the CW were 67.6% and 63.3%, respectively. However, average E. coli concentrations increased to 178 CFU 100 mL−1 in the reservoir during the warm season. It may therefore be best to use reservoir water for irrigation of crops that are not consumed raw. To aid in the future design of similar systems, mean first-order rate constants (ks) for NO3−-N and E. coli were calculated to be 8.0 and 6.4 m y−1, respectively. The volume of water collected in the reservoir exceeded typical irrigation requirements of the drained land and could therefore provide irrigation to additional land beyond the drainage area. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

1955 KiB  
Article
Assessing the Integration of Wetlands along Small European Waterways to Address Diffuse Nitrate Pollution
by Natalia Donoso, Sacha Gobeyn, Pieter Boets, Peter L. M. Goethals, Denis De Wilde and Erik Meers
Water 2017, 9(6), 369; https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060369 - 24 May 2017
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 5070
Abstract
Nitrate concentrations in numerous European fresh watercourses have decreased due to end-of-pipe measures towards manure and fertilization management, but fail to meet the environmental objectives. The implementation of complementary measures to attenuate diffuse nitrate pollution in densely populated regions characterised by limited available [...] Read more.
Nitrate concentrations in numerous European fresh watercourses have decreased due to end-of-pipe measures towards manure and fertilization management, but fail to meet the environmental objectives. The implementation of complementary measures to attenuate diffuse nitrate pollution in densely populated regions characterised by limited available area has been barely studied. To tackle this issue, this study evaluates the feasibility of integrating Constructed Wetlands (CWs) along waterways as a promising tool to facilitate compliance with the nitrate regulations. The aim is to calculate the required area of land alongside a specific watercourse to integrate CWs to reduce nitrate concentrations consistently below the 11.3 and 5.65 mgNO3-N/L levels, according to the Nitrates Directive and the Flemish Environmental Regulations. Nitrate-nitrogen removal efficiencies achieved at case study CWs were compared and validated with reported values to estimate the needed wetland areas. In addition, the removal efficiencies and areas needed to meet the standards were calculated via the kinetic model by Kadlec and Knight. The predicted areas by both methods indicated that CWs of 1.4–3.4 ha could be implemented in certain regions, such as Flanders (Belgium), with restricted available land. To conclude, three designs for ICWs (Integrated Constructed Wetlands) are proposed and evaluated, assessing the feasibility of their implementation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

6322 KiB  
Article
Tracer Experiments and Hydraulic Performance Improvements in a Treatment Pond
by Shang‐Shu Shih, Yun‐Qi Zeng, Hong‐Yuan Lee, Marinus L. Otte and Wei‐Ta Fang
Water 2017, 9(2), 137; https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020137 - 20 Feb 2017
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 6578
Abstract
The treatment efficiency of a wetland constructed for nutrient removal depends strongly on the flow patterns and residence times of the wetland. In this study, a tracer experiment was performed to estimate the residence time distribution and the hydraulic efficiency of a treatment [...] Read more.
The treatment efficiency of a wetland constructed for nutrient removal depends strongly on the flow patterns and residence times of the wetland. In this study, a tracer experiment was performed to estimate the residence time distribution and the hydraulic efficiency of a treatment pond with shallow and deep‐water areas. Rhodamine WT experiments revealed a non‐uniform flow pattern in the deep‐water area and an overall poor hydraulic efficiency in the wetland. To improve flow uniformity and hydraulic efficiency, several design options for different inlet-outlet configurations, flow rates, water depths, and emergent baffle additions were considered. The effects on hydraulic performance were investigated through mathematical model simulations. The results revealed that increasing the flow rate and decreasing the water depth slightly improved the hydraulic performance, whereas changing the positions of the inlet and outlet produced inconsistent effects. The most effective improvement involved installing emergent baffles, with the number of baffles presenting the largest positive effect, followed by the width and length of the baffles. Long and thin baffles resulted in a uniform flow velocity field, a meandering flow path, and greater residence times and effective volume ratios. The installation of two baffles increased the hydraulic efficiency to 1.00, indicating excellent hydraulic performance. The thin baffles occupied approximately 3.7%-6.3% of the deep‐water area and 1.9%-3.2% of the entire pond, indicating the potential for their practical application in limited land use regions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

141 KiB  
Correction
Correction: Messer, T.L.; Burchell, M.R.; Birgand, F. Comparison of Four Nitrate Removal Kinetic Models in Two Distinct Wetland Restoration Mesocosm Systems. Water 2017, 9, 517
by Tiffany L. Messer, Michael R. Burchell and François Birgand
Water 2017, 9(9), 635; https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090635 - 24 Aug 2017
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2488
Abstract
The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [...] Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Treatment Wetlands for Nutrient Removal)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-7
Back to TopTop