{"title":"Impact of forced aeration on vertical flow treatment wetland performances for combined sewer overflow","authors":"Daniella Portela , Katharina Tondera , Stéphane Troesch , Pascal Molle","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Wetlands (CSO wetlands) are designed to remove pollutants under stochastic events with variable hydraulic loads. Upgrading them with forced aeration promises to increase the effectiveness and resilience of the treatment. We have tested two vertical CSO wetlands with forced aeration (CSOa and CSOb) to understand the effects of aeration on CSO treatment. Both filter beds have 0.95 and 0.80 m of saturated layer. CSOa uses gravel as top filtering layer, while CSOb utilizes sand and an additional transition layer. Tracer tests were conducted in both filters with and without aeration to assess the impact of aeration on hydraulic performance. CSOa operated with four different aeration conditions, with the optimal condition tested on both filters for comparison. Samples were taken for analysis of global parameters and the redox potential was monitored online. In the tracer test, CSOa allowed to observe the mixing impact of aeration, which avoids any preferential path when influent entered the filter. The addition of a sand layer at the surface (CSOb) allows for a more even distribution of water on the top, which limits preferential flows when aeration is off. In both filters, the results showed that aeration increased the residence time and mixing degree (NTIS <3). Testing different aeration strategies revealed the dependence of dissolved pollutant removal on oxygen supply. In CSOa, the median outlet concentration varied from 23 to 6.4 mg.L<sup>−1</sup> in TSS, 153 to 32 mg.L<sup>−1</sup> total COD (CODt), 124 to 20 mg.L<sup>−1</sup> soluble COD (CODs) and 5 to 2.5 mg.L<sup>−1</sup> NH<sub>4</sub>-N according to aeration strategy. The lower outlet concentrations were always under the highest aeration condition. Under the optimal condition (75 min on/15 min off), median removal of CSOa was 97% TSS, 85% CODt, 78% CODs and 75% NH<sub>4</sub>-N. Besides COD and TSS, outlet concentration and removal efficiency did not significantly differ between CSOa and CSOb. Pollutant removal demonstrated a linear correlation with organic surface load. Overall, forced aeration in CSO-TW distinctly affected filter dynamics and improved its performance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"208 ","pages":"Article 107359"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424001848/pdfft?md5=2d6d8556da4c5f7f7e9a8eb55a1eb4a2&pid=1-s2.0-S0925857424001848-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424001848","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Wetlands (CSO wetlands) are designed to remove pollutants under stochastic events with variable hydraulic loads. Upgrading them with forced aeration promises to increase the effectiveness and resilience of the treatment. We have tested two vertical CSO wetlands with forced aeration (CSOa and CSOb) to understand the effects of aeration on CSO treatment. Both filter beds have 0.95 and 0.80 m of saturated layer. CSOa uses gravel as top filtering layer, while CSOb utilizes sand and an additional transition layer. Tracer tests were conducted in both filters with and without aeration to assess the impact of aeration on hydraulic performance. CSOa operated with four different aeration conditions, with the optimal condition tested on both filters for comparison. Samples were taken for analysis of global parameters and the redox potential was monitored online. In the tracer test, CSOa allowed to observe the mixing impact of aeration, which avoids any preferential path when influent entered the filter. The addition of a sand layer at the surface (CSOb) allows for a more even distribution of water on the top, which limits preferential flows when aeration is off. In both filters, the results showed that aeration increased the residence time and mixing degree (NTIS <3). Testing different aeration strategies revealed the dependence of dissolved pollutant removal on oxygen supply. In CSOa, the median outlet concentration varied from 23 to 6.4 mg.L−1 in TSS, 153 to 32 mg.L−1 total COD (CODt), 124 to 20 mg.L−1 soluble COD (CODs) and 5 to 2.5 mg.L−1 NH4-N according to aeration strategy. The lower outlet concentrations were always under the highest aeration condition. Under the optimal condition (75 min on/15 min off), median removal of CSOa was 97% TSS, 85% CODt, 78% CODs and 75% NH4-N. Besides COD and TSS, outlet concentration and removal efficiency did not significantly differ between CSOa and CSOb. Pollutant removal demonstrated a linear correlation with organic surface load. Overall, forced aeration in CSO-TW distinctly affected filter dynamics and improved its performance.
期刊介绍:
Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers.
Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.