Evaluation of a Greenhouse Ecosystem to Treat Craft Beverage Wastewater
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Design a greenhouse ecosystem for craft beverage wastewater, using the literature values from other high-strength wastewaters.
- Choose the best native, non-invasive plants to use for the greenhouse ecosystem.
- Determine the characteristics of winery, brewery, and cidery wastewaters to develop synthetic wastewaters (SWWs). SWWs were used to determine the effect of specific wastewater constituents on treatment and plants.
- Collect and treat actual winery, brewery, and cidery wastewater to determine if any constituents that were not in the SWW negatively impact the greenhouse ecosystem.
2.1. Loading and System Configuration
2.2. Plant Choice and Health Monitoring
2.3. Research Phases
- Phase 1: 3/20/23–4/6/23
- o
- All trains managed identically, receiving SWW
- Phase 2: 4/13/23–5/17/23
- o
- Train 1: SWW
- o
- Train 2: SWW with COD spike to mimic winery wastewater
- o
- Train 3: SWW with nutrient spike to mimic brewery wastewater
- Phase 3: 5/31/23–6/22/23
- o
- Train 1: SWW
- o
- Train 2: SWW spiked with COD and nutrients, representing winery wastewater
- o
- Train 3: SWW spiked with nutrients and salt spike, representing cidery wastewater
- Phase 4: 7/14/23–8/21/23
- o
- Train 1: SWW
- o
- Train 2: actual winery wastewater
- o
- Train 3: actual cidery wastewater
- Phase 5: 10/20/23–11/15/23
- o
- Train 1: SWW
- o
- Train 2: actual brewery wastewater
- o
- Train 3: SWW, recovery after actual cidery wastewater
2.4. Analytical Methods
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. COD Analysis
3.2. Nitrogen Analysis
3.2.1. Total Nitrogen
3.2.2. Ammonia Analysis
3.2.3. Nitrite Analysis
3.2.4. Nitrate Analysis
3.2.5. Organic Nitrogen Analysis
3.3. Total Phosphorus Analysis
3.4. Plant Health Results
3.5. Aeration
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- US EPA. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: The Living Machine; US EPA: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2001.
- Todd, J.; Brown, E.J.; Wells, E. Ecological design applied. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Western Consortium for Public Health. Total Resource Recovery Project: Final Report; Western Consortium for Public Health: San Diego, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Austin, D. Final Report on the South Burlington, Vermont, Advanced Ecologically Engineerd System (AEES); Living Technologies, Inc.: Burlington, VT, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- ITRC Wetlands Team. Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document for Constructed Treatment Wetlands; Interstate Technology Regulatory Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Li, X.; Dai, C.; Xu, K.; Bei, K.; Zheng, X.; Zhao, M. Combined process of bio-contact oxidation-constructed wetland for blackwater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 316, 123891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Z.; Lv, C.; Zhao, M.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, X.; Bei, K.; Kong, H.; Zheng, X. Black water collected from the septic tank treated with a living machine system: HRT effect and microbial community structure. Chemosphere 2018, 210, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lansing, S.L.; Martin, J.F. Use of an ecological treatment system (ETS) for removal of nutrients from dairy wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 2006, 28, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.K.; Tay, J.-H.; Tay, S.T.L.; Hung, Y.-T. Environmental Bioengineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; Volume 11, Available online: http://www.springer.com/series/7645 (accessed on 6 May 2022).
- Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Guidance for the Design of Land Treatment Systems Utilized at Wineries; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: Lansing, MI, USA, 2015.
- DK Publications. The Beer Book: Your Drinking Companion to Over 1,700 Beers; DK Publishing: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Skornia, K.; Safferman, S.I.; Rodriguez-Gonzalez, L.; Ergas, S.J. Treatment of winery wastewater using bench-scale columns simulating vertical flow constructed wetlands with adsorption media. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakare, B.; Shabangu, K.; Chetty, M. Brewery wastewater treatment using laboratory scale aerobic sequencing batch reactor. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng. 2017, 24, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito, A.G.; Peixoto, J.; Oliveira, J.M.; Oliveira, J.A.; Costa, C.; Nogueira, R.; Rodrigues, A. Brewery and Winery Wastewater Treatment: Some Focal Points of Design and Operation. In Utilization of By-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Liu, F.; Luo, P.; Xie, G.; Xiao, R.; Hu, W.; Peng, J.; Wu, J. Performance of integrated ecological treatment system for decentralized rural wastewater and significance of plant harvest management. Ecol. Eng. 2018, 124, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worku, A.; Tefera, N.; Kloos, H.; Benor, S. Bioremediation of brewery wastewater using hydroponics planted with vetiver grass in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2018, 5, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, L.; Jinzhong, L.; Shenglin, Y.; Zhourong, Y.; Min, Z.; Hainan, K.; Xiangyong, Z. Treatment via the Living Machine system of blackwater collected from septic tanks: Effect of different plant groups in the systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 1964–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.B.; Mehrvar, M. Winery wastewater management and treatment in the Niagara Region of Ontario, Canada: A review and analysis of current regional practices and treatment performance. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2020, 98, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Photone. Keep the Guesswork Out of Grow Lighting. Available online: https://growlightmeter.com/ (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- Burgoon, P.S.; DeBusk, T.A.; Reddy, K.R.; Koopman, B. Vegetated Submerged Beds with Artificial Substrates. 1: BOD Removal. J. Environ. Eng. 1991, 117, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, J.; Hench, K.; Garbutt, K.; Sexstone, A.; Bissonnette, G.; Skousen, J. Treatment of domestic wastewater by three plant species in constructed wetlands. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2001, 128, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulshreshtha, N.M.; Verma, V.; Soti, A.; Brighu, U.; Gupta, A.B. Exploring the contribution of plant species in the performance of constructed wetlands for domestic wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2022, 18, 101038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, Y.S.; Chan, D.J.C. Phytoremediation capabilities of Spirodela polyrhiza, Salvinia molesta and Lemna sp. in synthetic wastewater: A comparative study. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2018, 20, 1179–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melchiors, E.; Freire, F.B. Winery Wastewater Treatment: A Systematic Review of Traditional and Emerging Technologies and Their Efficiencies. Environ. Process. 2023, 10, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HACH. Sension+ 5051T Portable Combination pH Electrode for ‘Dirty’ (Wastewater) Applications. Available online: https://www.hach.com/p-sension-ph-probes-for-portable-meters-with-temperature-compensation/LZW5051T.97.002#optionalaccessory (accessed on 7 November 2023).
- HACH. HQ1130 Portable Dissolved Oxygen Meter with Dissolved Oxygen Electrode, 1 m Cable. Available online: https://www.hach.com/p-portable-meters-hq1130-do1-channel/LEV015.53.11301 (accessed on 7 November 2023).
- Holmes, D.E.; Dang, Y.; Smith, J.A. Nitrogen Cycling during Wastewater Treatment, 1st ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, S.; Kambey, C.; Nguyen, V.K. Performance of anammox processes for wastewater treatment: A critical review on effects of operational condi-tions and environmental stresses. Water 2020, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Full Circle Brewing, Co. What Is an Adjunct in Brewing? Available online: https://www.fullcirclebrewing.com/post/what-is-an-adjunct-in-brewing#:~:text=Inbrewinganadjunctis,it’saddedtotheboil (accessed on 9 November 2023).
- Gebeyehu, A.; Shebeshe, N.; Kloos, H.; Belay, S. Suitability of nutrients removal from brewery wastewater using a hydroponic technology with Typha latifolia. BMC Biotechnol. 2018, 18, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott Laboratories. Complete Guide to Cider Fermentation Nutrition. Available online: https://scottlab.com/complete-guide-to-cider-fermentation-nutrition (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- Wittenham Hill Cidery. Nitrogen—The Forgotten Element in Cider Making. Available online: http://www.cider.org.uk/nitro.htm (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- Hong, P.; Wu, X.; Shu, Y.; Wang, C.; Tian, C.; Gong, S.; Cai, P.; Donde, O.O.; Xiao, B. Denitrification characterization of dissolved oxygen microprofiles in lake surface sediment through analyzing abundance, expression, community composition and enzymatic activities of denitrifier functional genes. AMB Express 2019, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F.L.; Stensel, D.H. Metcalf&Eddy: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 5th ed.; no. 7; McGraw-Hill Education; McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 632–639. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, T.D.; Richards, P.A. Unit Operations and Processes in Environmental Engineering, 2nd ed.; PWS Publishing Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Shahid, M.J.; Al-Surhanee, A.A.; Kouadri, F.; Ali, S.; Nawaz, N.; Afzal, M.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, B.; Soliman, M.H. Role of microorganisms in the remediation of wastewater in floating treatmentwetlands: A review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pucciariello, C.; Perata, P. How plants sense low oxygen. Plant Signal. Behav. 2012, 7, 813–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Riley, W.J.; Tang, J. A new theory of plant–microbe nutrient competition resolves inconsistencies between observations and model predictions. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 875–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seeger, E.M.; Reiche, N.; Kuschk, P.; Borsdorf, H.; Kaestner, M. Performance evaluation using a three compartment mass balance for the removal of volatile organic compounds in pilot scale constructed wetlands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8467–8474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohio Department of Health: Bureau of Environmental Health and Radiation Protection. Ethanol: Answers to Frequently Asked Health Questions. 2016. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg (accessed on 26 November 2023).
- US EPA. Principles of Design and Operations of Wastewater Treatment Pond Systems for Plant Operators, Engineers, and Managers; US EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
Parameter | Winery | Brewery | Cidery | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | Range | Average | Range | Average | Range | |
Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) | 3236 | 320–296,000 | 11,214 | 800–20,000 | 8000 | >170,000 |
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) | 2046 | 125–130,000 | 2746 | 1200–3600 | 4800 | N/A |
pH | 6.2 | 3–12.9 | 6.74 | 5–11 | N/A | N/A |
Sodium (mg/L) | 279 | 7–470 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Total Solids (mg/L) | 11,311 | 1602–79,635 | 5600 (TSS *) | 5100–8750 | 6000 | N/A |
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) | 5.26 | 3.3–188.3 | 16–68 | 9–50 | N/A | N/A |
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) | 7.6 | 10–415 | 8.1 | 12–31 | N/A | N/A |
COD Concentration or Loading Value | Hydraulic Residence Time (Days) | Wastewater Type | Technology | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
440 +/− 217 mg/L * | 5 | Black water | Bio-contact oxidation; constructed wetland | [6] |
392 +/− 174 mg/L * on startup 723+/− 409 mg/L * once stable | 6, 5, 4 | Black water | Living Machine™ | [7] |
0.004 kg/m2/d | 7, 10, 9 (compared 3 technologies) | Sewage | Biofilters, surface flow wetland, stabilization pond | [15] |
0.03 kg/m2/d | 5 | Brewery wastewater | Hydroponics with grass | [16] |
425.7 mg/L * | 3.27 | Black water | Living Machine™ | [17] |
0.092 kg COD/m2/d | 3–5 | Winery wastewater | Constructed wetland | [18] |
Formulation | 95% Ethanol (mL/L) | Diluted Juice (mL/L) | Nitrogen Fertilizer (mg/L) | Sodium Phosphate (mg/L) | Salt (mg/L) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWW | 2.0 | 3.3 | 45.5 | 7.5 | 0 |
COD Spike | 3.3 | 25 | 45.5 | 7.5 | 0 |
Nutrient Spike | 2.0 | 3.3 | 137 | 46 | 0 |
COD and Nutrient Spike | 47 | 25 | 228 | 37 | 0 |
Salt Spike | 2.0 | 3.3 | 137 | 46 | 688 |
Sample Location | COD (mg/L) | Mass, (g/d) | n | Std. Dev. | % Removal | % Removal Std. Dev |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Train 1 SWW Influent | 1100 | 22.9 | 19 | 800 | 88 | 20.9 |
Train 1 SWW Effluent | BDL (125) | 2.56 | 20 | 90 | ||
Train 2 SWW Influent | 1200 | 24.6 | 4 | 600 | 67 | 12.5 |
Train 2 SWW Effluent | 400 | 8.05 | 4 | 100 | ||
Train 3 SWW Influent | 1100 | 22.2 | 4 | 700 | 74 | 15.9 |
Train 3 SWW Effluent | 300 | 5.82 | 4 | 80 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Influent | 4500 a | 92.2 | 6 | 6000 | 88 | 80.0 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Effluent | 560 b | 11.5 | 6 | 400 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Influent | 1400 a | 28.3 | 6 | 1000 | 89 | 25.6 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Effluent | BDL (125) b | 2.56 | 6 | 70 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Influent | 4500 a | 91.5 | 3 | 500 | 96 | 7.8 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Effluent | BDL (125) b | 2.56 | 3 | 10 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Influent | 1400 a | 28.8 | 3 | 1000 | 90 | 25.2 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Effluent | BDL (125) b | 2.56 | 3 | 20 | ||
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Influent | 7000 a | 144 | 7 | 9100 | 98 | 106.1 |
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Effluent | BDL (125) b | 2.56 | 7 | 20 | ||
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Influent | 13,000 a | 266 | 3 | 1100 | 97 | 11.2 |
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Effluent | 300 b | 6.84 | 3 | 100 | ||
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Influent | 15,000 a | 312 | 7 | 18,500 | 98 | 147.7 |
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Effluent | 300 b | 6.20 | 7 | 270 | ||
Train 3 SWW Recovery Influent after Cidery Exp. | 1100 | 23.3 | 2 | 630 | 89 | 16.5 |
Train 3 SWW Recovery Effluent after Cidery Exp. | BDL (125) | 2.56 | 2 | 12 |
Sample Location | mg/L N | Mass, mg/d | n | Std. Dev. | % Removal | % Removal Std. Dev |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Train 1 SWW Influent | 5.7 | 117 | 19 | 3.6 | 64 | 1.17 |
Train 1 SWW Effluent | 2.0 | 41.9 | 20 | 1.5 | ||
Train 2 SWW Influent | 3.7 | 74.8 | 4 | 3.5 | 59 | 1.09 |
Train 2 SWW Effluent | 1.5 | 30.7 | 4 | 0.4 | ||
Train 3 SWW Influent | 3.0 | 61.0 | 4 | 2.6 | 32 | 0.49 |
Train 3 SWW Effluent | 2.0 | 41.4 | 3 | 0.4 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Influent | 16.7 | 343 | 5 | 18.7 | 31 | 1.65 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Effluent | 11.5 | 235 | 5 | 8.8 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Influent | 10.8 | 221 | 5 | 7.5 | 76 | 1.74 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Effluent | 2.60 | 53.2 | 5 | 0.5 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Influent | 16.6 | 341 | 4 | 6.5 | 11 | 0.18 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Effluent | 14.8 | 303 | 4 | 0.6 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Influent | 14.6 | 299 | 4 | 7.5 | 64 | 1.39 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Effluent | 5.3 | 108 | 4 | 2.3 | ||
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Influent | 22.2 * | 455 | 5 | 2.1 | 20 | 0.95 |
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Effluent | 17.9 | 366 | 7 | 20.5 | ||
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Influent | 22.2 | 455 | 0 | 3.7 | 53 | 1.62 |
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Effluent | 10.5 | 215 | 3 | 9.6 | ||
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Influent | 45.3 | 928 | 6 | 59.3 | 88 | 7.95 |
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Effluent | 5.3 | 108 | 7 | 4.2 | ||
Train 3 SWW Recovery Influent after Cidery Exp. | 7.0 | 144 | 2 | 3.0 | −52 | 0.00 |
Train 3 SWW Recovery Effluent after Cidery Exp. | 10.7 | 219 | 2 | 2.0 |
Sample Location | mg/L N | Mass, mg/d | n | Std. Dev. | % Removal | % Removal Std. Dev |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Train 1 SWW Influent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 20 | 0.77 | 0 | 0.00 |
Train 1 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 21 | 0.03 | ||
Train 2 SWW Influent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 4 | 0.14 | 0 | 0.00 |
Train 2 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 4 | 0.02 | ||
Train 3 SWW Influent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 4 | 0.10 | 0 | 0.00 |
Train 3 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 4 | 0.17 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Influent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 6 | 0.26 | 0 | 0.00 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Effluent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 6 | 1.21 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Influent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 6 | 0.32 | 0 | 0.00 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Effluent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 6 | 0.19 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Influent | 3.12 | 63.9 | 4 | 3.25 | 5 | 0.21 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Effluent | 2.95 | 60.4 | 4 | 5.83 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Influent | 3.76 | 77.0 | 4 | 0.32 | 87 | 0.14 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Effluent | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 4 | 0.02 | ||
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Influent | 6.48 a | 13.3 | 7 | 5.48 | 92 | 1.99 |
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Effluent | BDL (0.5) b | 10.2 | 7 | 0.01 | ||
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Influent | * | 470 | 2 | 7.28 | 94 | 2.09 |
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Effluent | 1.39 | 28.5 | 2 | 1.92 | ||
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Influent | 1.75 a | 35.9 | 7 | 3.35 | 71 | 1.92 |
Train 3 SWW Cidery Wastewater Effluent | BDL (0.5) b | 10.2 | 7 | 0.64 | ||
Train 3 SWW Recovery Influent after Cidery Exp. | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Train 3 SWW Recovery Effluent after Cidery Exp. | BDL (0.5) | 10.2 | 2 | 0.00 |
Sample Location | mg/L-N | Mass, mg/d | n | Std. Dev. | % Removal | % Removal Std. Dev |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Train 1 SWW Influent | 0.89 | 18.2 | 18 | 0.54 | 35 | 0.30 |
Train 1 SWW Effluent | 0.58 | 11.8 | 19 | 0.47 | ||
Train 2 SWW Influent | 1.04 | 21.3 | 4 | 0.24 | 83 | 0.20 |
Train 2 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.115) | 2.35 | 4 | 0.02 | ||
Train 3 SWW Influent | 0.99 | 20.2 | 4 | 0.31 | 81 | 0.26 |
Train 3 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.115) | 2.35 | 4 | 0.02 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Influent | 5.39 a | 11.0 | 4 | 2.89 | 96 | 1.21 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Effluent | 0.23 b | 4.76 | 4 | 0.11 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Influent | 1.19 | 24.3 | 4 | 0.60 | 25 | 0.26 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Effluent | 0.89 | 18.3 | 4 | 0.86 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Influent | 4.73 | 96.8 | 4 | 3.78 | −2.5 | 0.00 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Effluent | 4.85 | 99.2 | 4 | 5.03 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Influent | 0.79 | 16.1 | 4 | 0.60 | −350 | 0.00 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Effluent | 3.56 | 72.9 | 4 | 0.94 | ||
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Influent | 3.51 | 71.9 | 7 | 4.58 | −125 | 0.00 |
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Effluent | 8.01 | 164 | 7 | 1.21 | ||
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Influent | 11.5 a | 235 | 2 | 1.13 | 97 | 0.36 |
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Effluent | 0.38 b | 7.70 | 2 | 0.10 | ||
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Influent | 5.34 | 109 | 7 | 3.78 | 79 | 1.44 |
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Effluent | 1.11 | 22.7 | 7 | 0.84 | ||
Train 3 SWW Recovery Influent after Cidery Exp. | 1.76 | 36.0 | 2 | 0.00 | 340 | 0.00 |
Train 3 SWW Recovery Effluent after Cidery Exp. | 7.69 | 157 | 2 | 1.00 |
Sample Location | mg/L-N | % Removal |
---|---|---|
Train 1 SWW Influent | 4.8 | 70 |
Train 1 SWW Effluent | 1.4 | |
Train 2 SWW Influent | 11.3 | 89 |
Train 2 SWW Effluent | 1.3 | |
Train 3 SWW Influent | 2.0 | 7.5 |
Train 3 SWW Effluent | 1.8 | |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Influent | 11.9 | 5.5 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Effluent | 11.2 | |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Influent | 9.6 | 84 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Effluent | 1.5 | |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Influent | 18.6 | 50 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Effluent | 9.4 | |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Influent | 13.8 | 88 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Effluent | 1.7 | |
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Influent | 18.6 | 47 |
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Effluent | 9.9 | |
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Influent | N/A | N/A |
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Effluent | 10.1 | |
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Influent | 39.9 | 90 |
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Effluent | 4.1 | |
Train 3 SWW Recovery Influent after Cidery Experiment | 5.3 | 43 |
Train 3 SWW Recovery Effluent after Cidery Experiment | 3.0 |
Sample Location | mg/L P | Mass, mg/d | n | Std. Dev. | % Removal | % Removal Std. Dev |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Train 1 SWW Influent | 2.25 | 46.0 | 20 | 0.45 | 79 | 0.43 |
Train 1 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.25) | 5.12 | 21 | 0.22 | ||
Train 2 SWW Influent | 2.30 | 47.1 | 4 | 0.03 | 95 | 0.32 |
Train 2 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.25) | 5.12 | 4 | 0.16 | ||
Train 3 SWW Influent | 2.32 | 47.4 | 4 | 0.24 | 88 | 0.43 |
Train 3 SWW Effluent | BDL (0.25) | 5.12 | 4 | 0.23 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Influent | 3.25 a | 66.6 | 6 | 3.80 | 79 | 1.73 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD Effluent | 0.69 b | 14.2 | 6 | 0.51 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Influent | 4.94 a | 101 | 6 | 2.05 | 77 | 0.97 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Nutrients Effluent | 1.12 b | 22.9 | 6 | 0.89 | ||
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Influent | 6.41 a | 131 | 4 | 1.68 | 75 | 0.52 |
Train 2 SWW Spiked with COD and Nutrients Effluent | 1.63 b | 33.3 | 4 | 0.26 | ||
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Influent | 6.31 a | 129 | 4 | 2.05 | 66 | 0.57 |
Train 3 SWW Spiked with Salt and Nutrients Effluent | 2.13 b | 43.5 | 4 | 0.40 | ||
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Influent | 9.40 a | 192 | 7 | 7.51 | 88 | 2.19 |
Train 2 Winery Wastewater Effluent | 1.09 b | 22.4 | 7 | 0.39 | ||
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Influent | 89.7 a | 1840 | 3 | 61.2 | 91 | 6.05 |
Train 2 Brewery Wastewater Effluent | 7.83 b | 160 | 3 | 4.18 | ||
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Influent | 23.9 a | 489 | 7 | 23.9 | 88 | 4.42 |
Train 3 Cidery Wastewater Effluent | 2.99 b | 61.1 | 6 | 2.16 | ||
Train 3 SWW Recovery Influent after Cidery Exp. | 2.44 | 49.9 | 2 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Train 3 SWW Recovery Effluent after Cidery Exp. | 2.87 | 58.7 | 2 | 0.00 |
Sample Location | Average, mg/L | Std. dev. | n | # of Occurrences < 0.2 mg/L | % of Total Values < 0.2 mg/L |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
WW1 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 88 | 14 | 15.9 |
T1R1 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 98 | 16 | 16.3 |
T1R2 | 5.4 | 3.1 | 98 | 14 | 14.3 |
T1R3 | 3.2 | 2.5 | 98 | 14 | 14.3 |
WW2 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 88 | 20 | 22.7 |
T2R1 | 5.4 | 3.1 | 98 | 14 | 14.3 |
T2R2 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 98 | 18 | 18.4 |
T2R3 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 98 | 15 | 15.3 |
WW3 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 88 | 17 | 19.3 |
T3R1 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 98 | 18 | 18.4 |
T3R2 | 4.3 | 3.1 | 98 | 17 | 17.3 |
T3R3 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 98 | 16 | 16.3 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Allison, C.E.; Safferman, S.I. Evaluation of a Greenhouse Ecosystem to Treat Craft Beverage Wastewater. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177395
Allison CE, Safferman SI. Evaluation of a Greenhouse Ecosystem to Treat Craft Beverage Wastewater. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177395
Chicago/Turabian StyleAllison, Carley E., and Steven I. Safferman. 2024. "Evaluation of a Greenhouse Ecosystem to Treat Craft Beverage Wastewater" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7395. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177395