Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 1042–1050 | Cite as

Effects of tidal operation on pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland treating sulfate rich wastewater contaminated by chlorinated hydrocarbons

  • Zhongbing ChenEmail author
  • Jan Vymazal
  • Peter Kuschk
Research Article

Abstract

Three different flow regimes were carried out in a pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland-treating sulfate rich wastewater contaminated with monochlorobenzene (MCB) and perchloroethene (PCE). The three regimes were continuous flow, 7-day cycle discontinuous flow, and 2.5-day cycle discontinuous flow. The results show that intensifying the tidal regime (2.5-day cycle) significantly enhanced MCB removal before 2 m from the inlet and increasing PCE removal efficiency at 0.5 m. The PCE dechlorination process was promoted with tidal operation, especially under the 2.5-day cycle regime, with significant increases of cis-1,2- dichloroethenes (DCEs), vinyl chloride (VC), and ethene, but trans-1,2-DCE was significantly decreased after tidal operation. Due to the high sulfate concentration in the influent, sulfide was observed in pore water up to 20 and 23 mg L−1 under continuous flow and 7-day cycle regime, respectively. However, sulfide concentrations decreased to less than 4 mg L−1 under intensified tidal operation (2.5-day cycle). The increase of oxygen concentration in pore water through intensified tidal operation resulted in better MCB removal performance and the successful inhibition of sulfate reduction. In conclusion, intensifying tidal operation is an effective approach for the treatment of chlorinated hydrocarbons and inhibiting sulfide accumulation in horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland.

Keywords

Chlorobenzene Constructed wetland Groundwater Perchloroethene Tidal flow 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Program No. 2662015QC004), the International Science and Technology Cooperation Program from Hubei Province of China (Grant No. 2015BHE010), and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ within the scope of the SAFIRA II Research. We gratefully acknowledge Dr. John M. Marton and Dr. Paul Cooper for language correction.

References

  1. Amon JP, Agrawal A, Shelley ML, Opperman BC, Enright MP, Clemmer ND, Slusser T, Lach J, Sobolewski T, Gruner W, Entingh AC (2007) Development of a wetland constructed for the treatment of groundwater contaminated by chlorinated ethenes. Ecol Eng 30:51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, D., Lohan, E., Verson, E., Living machines I. Nitrification and denitrification in a tidal vertical flow wetland pilot. Published in Proceedings of the Water Environment Technical Conference 2003, Los Angeles, California, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, D.C., Wolf, L., Strous, M., Mass transport and microbiological mechanisms of nitrification and denitrification in tidal flow constructed wetlands systems. In: Dias V, Vymazal J, editors. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wetland Systems for Water Pollution Control, Ministerio de Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Territori e do Desenvolvimento Regional (MAOTDR) and IWA, September 23–29, 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, 2006, pp. 1147–1156.Google Scholar
  4. Bankston JL, Sola DL, Komor AT, Dwyer DF (2002) Degradation of trichloroethylene in wetland microcosms containing broad-leaved cattail and eastern cottonwood. Water Res 36:1539–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley PM (2003) History and ecology of chloroethene biodegradation: a review. Biorem J 7:81–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braeckevelt M, Rokadia H, Mirschel G, Weber S, Imfeld G, Stelzer N, Kuschk P, Kästner M, Richnow HH (2007a) Biodegradation of chlorobenzene in a constructed wetland treating contaminated groundwater. Water Sci Technol 56:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braeckevelt M, Mirschel G, Wiessner A, Rueckert M, Reiche N, Vogt C, Schultz A, Paschke H, Kuschk P, Kaestner M (2008) Treatment of chlorobenzene-contaminated groundwater in a pilot-scale constructed wetland. Ecol Eng 33:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braeckevelt M, Reiche N, Trapp S, Wiessner A, Paschke H, Kuschk P, Kaestner M (2011a) Chlorobenzene removal efficiencies and removal processes in a pilot-scale constructed wetland treating contaminated groundwater. Ecol Eng 37:903–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braeckevelt M, Seeger EM, Paschke H, Kuschk P, Kaestner M (2011b) Adaptation of a constructed wetland to simultaneous treatment of monochlorobenzene and perchloroethylene. Int J Phytorem 13:998–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan SY, Tsang YF, Chua H (2008) Domestic wastewater treatment using tidal-flow cinder bed with Cyperus alternifolius. Aquat Ecosyst Health 11:206–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen Z, Wu S, Braeckevelt M, Paschke H, Kästner M, Köser H, Kuschk P (2012) Effect of vegetation in pilot-scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands treating sulphate rich groundwater contaminated with a low and high chlorinated hydrocarbon. Chemosphere 89:724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper P (1999) A review of the design and performance of vertical-flow and hybrid reed bed treatment systems. Water Sci Technol 40:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper PF (2001) Nitrification and denitrification in hybrid constructed wetlands systems. In: Vymazal J (ed) Transformations of nutrients in natural and constructed wetlands. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, pp. 257–270Google Scholar
  14. Field J, Sierra-Alvarez R (2008) Microbial degradation of chlorinated benzenes. Biodegradation 19:463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia J, Rousseau DPL, Morato J, Lesage ELS, Matamoros V, Bayona JM (2010) Contaminant removal processes in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: a review. Crit Rev Env Sci Tec 40:561–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green M, Friedler E, Ruskol Y, Safrai I (1997) Investigation of alternative method for nitrification in constructed wetlands. Water Sci Technol 35:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kassenga GR, Pardue JH, Blair S, Ferraro T (2003) Treatment of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in upflow wetland mesocosms. Ecol Eng 19:305–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kästner M, Fischer A, Nijenhuis I, Geyer R, Stelzer N, Bombach P, Tebbe CC, Richnow HH (2006) Assessment of microbial in situ activity in contaminated aquifers. Eng Life, Sci 6:234–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu H, Hu Z, Zhang J, Ngo HH, Guo W, Liang S, Fan J, Lu S, Wu H (2016) Optimizations on supply and distribution of dissolved oxygen in constructed wetlands: a review. Bioresour Technol 214:797–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lv T, Wu S, Liu M, Ju X, Chang Y, Chen L, Dong R (2013) Comparison of purification performance in tidal flow and horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. J Agro Environ Sci 32(8):1618–1624Google Scholar
  21. MacLeod CJA, Reid BJ, Semple KT (1999) The fate of chlorinated organic pollutants in a reed-bed system. In: Leeson A, Alleman BC (eds) Phytoremediation and innovative strategies for specialized remedial applications: the Fifth International In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium. Batelle Press, Columbus (OH), USA, San Diego (CA)Google Scholar
  22. Pardue JH, Kassenga G, Shin WS (1999) Design approaches for chlorinated VOC treatment wetland. In: Means JL, Hinchee RE (eds) Wetlands and remediation: an international conference. Batelle Press, Columbus (OH), USA, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp. 301–308Google Scholar
  23. Stefanakis AI, Tsihrintzis VA (2009) Effect of outlet water level raising and effluent recirculation on removal efficiency of pilot-scale, horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Desalination 248:961–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sun G, Gray KR, Biddlestone AJ, Cooper DJ (1999a) Treatment of agricultural wastewater in a combined tidal flow-downflow reed bed system. Water Sci Technol 40:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sun G, Gray KR, Biddlestone AJ (1999b) Treatment of agricultural wastewater in a pilot-scale tidal flow reed bed system. Environ Technol 20:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sun G, Gray KR, Biddlestone AJ, Allen SJ, Cooper DJ (2003) Effect of effluent recirculation on the performance of a reed bed system treating agricultural wastewater. Process Biochem 39:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sun G, Zhao Y, Allen S (2005) Enhanced removal of organic matter and ammoniacal-nitrogen in a column experiment of tidal flow constructed wetland system. J Biotechnol 115:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sun GJ, Zhao Y, Allen S, Cooper D (2006) Generating “tide” in pilot-scale constructed wetlands to enhance agricultural wastewater treatment. Eng Life Sci 6:560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tam NFY, Wong AHY, Wong MH, Wong YS (2009) Mass balance of nitrogen in constructed mangrove wetlands receiving ammonium-rich wastewater: effects of tidal regime and carbon supply. Ecol Eng 35:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vogt C, Alfreider A, Lorbeer H, Ahlheim J, Feist B, Boehme O, Weiss H, Babel W, Wuensche L (2002) Two pilot plant reactors designed for the in situ bioremediation of chlorobenzene-contaminated ground water: hydrogeological and chemical characteristics and bacterial consortia. Water, Air and Soil Pollution: Focus 2:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vymazal J (2009) The use constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow for various types of wastewater. Ecol Eng 35:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vymazal J, Masa M (2003) Horizontal sub-surface flow constructed wetland with pulsing water level. Water Sci Technol 48:143–148Google Scholar
  33. Wu Y, Chung A, Tam NFY, Pi N, Wong MH (2008) Constructed mangrove wetland as secondary treatment system for municipal wastewater. Ecol Eng 34:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu SB, Zhang DX, Austin D, Dong RJ, Pang CL (2011) Evaluation of a lab-scale tidal flow constructed wetland performance: oxygen transfer capacity, organic matter and ammonium removal. Ecol Eng 37(11):1789–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu S, Chen Z, Braeckevelt M, Seeger EM, Dong R, Kästner M, Paschke H, Hahn A, Kayser G, Kuschk P (2012) Dynamics of Fe (II), sulphur and phosphate in pilot-scale constructed wetlands treating a sulphate-rich chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater. Water Res 46:1923–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao YQ, Sun G, Lafferty C, Allen SJ (2004a) Optimising the performance of a lab-scale tidal flow reed bed system treating agricultural wastewater. Water Sci Technol 50:65–72Google Scholar
  37. Zhao YQ, Sun G, Allen SJ (2004b) Purification capacity of a highly loaded laboratory scale tidal flow reed bed system with effluent recirculation. Sci Total Environ 330:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Resources and EnvironmentHuazhong Agricultural UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Applied Ecology, Faculty of Environmental SciencesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Environmental BiotechnologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations