Water quality improvement by four experimental wetlands

Hey, Donald L.; Kenimer, A. L.; Barrett, Kirk R.

doi:10.1016/0925-8574(94)00008-5

Cited by 61 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The simulation which included a variable sediment settling velocity predicted a sediment retention which was only 5.5% lower than was observed in Wetland 1 and only 2.1% lower than was observed in Wetland 2. These values are much lower than the 76-99% sediment retention that was found by Hey et al (1994b) for a similar experimental wetland system in Illinois. Low removal efficiency of the wetland could result from biological activity, including carp and muskrats, within the basin that causes resuspension of the surface sediments or erosion of deeper sediments.…”

Section: Comparison With Model Outcome and Sediment Budgetcontrasting

confidence: 41%

Patterns of Short-Term Sedimentation in a Freshwater Created Marsh

Harter¹,

Mitsch²

2003

Journal of Environment Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Comparison With Model Outcome and Sediment Budgetcontrasting

confidence: 41%

Patterns of Short-Term Sedimentation in a Freshwater Created Marsh

Harter¹,

Mitsch²

2003

Journal of Environment Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The magnitude of this production is often much larger than that associated with incoming and departing flows. For example, a 2.3-ha cattail marsh in Illinois, constructed to retain river-borne sediments, trapped 143 gm -2 of total suspended solids (TSS) during the 1991 growing season, based on inflow-outflow (I/O) measurements (Hey et al, 1994). However, sedimentation traps operated over the same period, which were designed to prevent resuspension, trapped 1200 gm -2 (Fennessy et al, 1994).…”

Section: B Sedimentation and Entrainmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phosphorus Retention in Streams and Wetlands: A Review

Reddy

Kadlec

Flaig

et al. 1999

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

850

605

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copyright© 1999, CRC Press LLC -Files may be downloaded for personal use only. Reproduction of this material without the consent of the publisher is prohibited. 83Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 29(1):83--146 (1999) ABSTRACT : Wetlands and streams buffer the interactions among uplands and adjacent aquatic systems. Phosphorus (P) is often the key nutrient found to be limiting in both estuarine and freshwater ecosystems. As such, the ability of wetlands and streams to retain P is key to determining downstream water quality. This article reviews the processes and factors regulating P retention in streams and wetlands and evaluates selected methodologies used to estimate P retention in these systems. Phosphorus retention mechanisms reviewed include uptake and release by vegetation, periphyton and microorganisms; sorption and exchange reactions with soils and sediments; chemical precipitation in the water column; and sedimentation and entrainment. These mechanisms exemplify the combined biological, physical, and chemical nature of P retention in wetlands and streams. Methodologies used to estimate P retention include empirical input-output analysis and mass balances, and process kinetics applied at various scales, including micro-and mesocosms to full-scale systems. Although complex numerical models are available to estimate P retention and transport, a simple understanding of P retention at the process level is important, but the overall picture provided by mass balance and kinetic evaluations are often more useful in estimating long-term P retention.

show abstract

“…Percent removals of NO~-N from surface-flow marshes tabulated in Kadlec and Knight (1996) ranged from 55 to 92%, although the areal denitrification rates only ranged from 0.02 to 0.20 g N-m-Z.d -~ (calculated from their table 13-5). Hey et al (1994) reported TN removal rates of 0.019-0.25 g N-m-2-d -~ for wetlands receiving river water: Hosomi et al (1994) reported a long-term removal rate of 0.13 g N.m-2-d -~ for a wetland receiving residential greywater; Van Oostrom and Cooper (1990) reported 1.3 g N.m Z-d L for a wetland receiving high-strength wastewater from a meat processing facility; and Home (1995) reported even higher denitrification rates (->5 g N.m -~.d -1) for the Prado wastewater treatment wetlands. Additional data in the grey literature ranged from 0.63-1.0 g N-m Z-d~ (Horne 1995).…”

Section: Nh) Volatilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Primary wastewater treatment removes the bulk of the solids in domestic sewage, and secondary wastewater treatment removes biochemical oxygen demand and residual solids, but the removal of nutrients requires further treatment and is expensive using conventional engineering approaches. Constructed wetlands have been shown to remove nutrients, especially N (e.g., Gersberg et al 1986, Hey et al 1994, Home 1995, Kadlec and Knight 1996 and have recently become more popular for use in municipal wastewater treatment. We investigated the ability of a surface-flow constructed wetland to remove N from municipal sewage in northern California, USA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrogen removal in a surface-flow wastewater treatment wetland

Frankenbach

Meyer

1999

Wetlands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From December 1993 through November 1994, we conducted a nitrogen mass-balance study on a 0.74-ha, surface-flow wetland that receives water from an oxidation pond in the municipal waslewater treatment system in Arcata, California, USA. Water samples were collected biweekly and analyzed for concentrations of NO~-N (nitrate), NH,-N (total anamonia), and TN (total nitrogen). Flow was calculated from hydraulic head measurements taken at two inlet weirs. Macrophytes and sediment were sampled during summer to estimate N storage in these compartments. The wetland removed 17% of the 16,600 kg of influent N during the annual cycle. Little removal occurred prior to mid-May; whereas from mid-May through November, 37% ofinfluent N was removed. Expressed on an areal basis, net N removal was 1.84 g N.m 2-d during the warmer months of the year and 1.07 g N.m-:-d -~ during the entire 12-month period. Nitrogen storage in the seasonal, above-ground increment of macrophyte biomass was only 7% of overall N removal by the marsh. From 1986 to 1994, 990-2,390 kg of N (or 0.046-0.11 g N-m 2-d ~) accumulated in the sediment--only 4-10% of overall annual N removal. Mean annual TN removal (1.07 g N.m ~.d ') considerably exceeded mean influent , and removal of TN was highly correlated with NO,-N mass loading (r = 0.89, P < 0.001). Thus. sequential nitrification/denitrification appears to occur in lhe marsh, and denitrification (estimated at 0,95-1.02 g N-m -"-d -~) appears to be the primary N-removal mechanism,

show abstract

Water quality improvement by four experimental wetlands

Cited by 61 publications

References 8 publications

Patterns of Short-Term Sedimentation in a Freshwater Created Marsh

Patterns of Short-Term Sedimentation in a Freshwater Created Marsh

Phosphorus Retention in Streams and Wetlands: A Review

Nitrogen removal in a surface-flow wastewater treatment wetland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About