Advertisement

Purification of leachate from sludge treatment beds by subsurface flow constructed wetlands: effects of plants and hydraulic retention time

  • Shanshan Hu
  • Zhongbing Chen
  • Zuopeng Lv
  • Ke Chen
  • Liangliang Huang
  • Xingtao Zuo
  • Jiajie He
  • Yi ChenEmail author
Research Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Sludge treatment beds (STBs) have been used widely in many countries due to low energy consumption, low operating and maintenance costs, and better environmental compatibility. Penetration, evaporation, and transpiration are the main processes for sludge dewatering in STBs. However, the leachate quality from STBs usually cannot meet discharge limits. Moreover, such leachate has very low COD/N ratio, which makes it difficult to treat. In the present study, two subsurface flow (SSF) constructed wetlands (CWs) were investigated for the treatment of leachate from STBs under three different hydraulic retention time (HRT) (3 days, 4 days, 6 days), aiming for evaluating the effects of plants and HRT on treatment performance, as well as the potential of SSF CWs to treat sludge leachate with low COD/N ration. The results showed that plants play an important role in leachate treatment. The best treatment performance was achieved with HRT of 4 days. In this condition, the mean removal efficiencies of COD (chemical oxygen demand), NH4+-N, TN (total nitrogen), and TP (total phosphorus) in the planted and the unplanted CWs were 61.6% (unplanted − 3.7%), 76.6% (unplanted 43.5%), 70% (unplanted 41%), and 65.6% (unplanted 6%), respectively. Heavy metal concentrations were below the Chinese integrated wastewater discharge standard during the experimental period in the planted CW, and the removal efficiencies in the planted CW system were higher than in the unplanted CW system. In all, planted SSF CWs can be an effective approach in removing leachate from sludge treatment beds. Furthermore, considering to temperature and seasonal variation, the leachate from STBs needs to be further studied in pilot- and full-scale condition.

Keywords

Constructed wetland Sludge leachate Sludge treatment beds Water purification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Mark Francis Sixsmith for revising the English language.

Funding

Shanshan Hu received support from the China Scholarship Council for the PhD scholarship (CSC, No. 201706760061). This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (Grant no. 2014CFB928).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_4006_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Table SM1 Characteristics of the sludge leachate entering the two CWs (DOCX 18 kb)
11356_2018_4006_Fig8_ESM.png (91 kb)
Fig. SM1

Air temperature and humidity trend under the different hydraulic retention time. (PNG 90 kb)

11356_2018_4006_MOESM2_ESM.tif (6.2 mb)
High resolution image (TIF 6302 kb)

References

  1. A D, Oka M, Fujii Y, Soda S, Ishigaki T, Machimura T, Ike M (2017) Removal of heavy metals from synthetic landfill leachate in lab-scale vertical flow constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 584-585:742–750Google Scholar
  2. Bakhshoodeh R, Alavi N, Soltani Mohammadi A, Ghanavati H (2016) Removing heavy metals from Isfahan composting leachate by horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(12):12384–12391Google Scholar
  3. Březinová T, Vymazal J (2015a) Evaluation of heavy metals seasonal accumulation in Phalaris arundinacea in a constructed treatment wetland. Ecol Eng 79:94–99Google Scholar
  4. Březinová T, Vymazal J (2015b) Seasonal growth pattern of Phalaris arundinacea in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow. Ecol Eng 80:62–68Google Scholar
  5. Brix H (2017) Sludge dewatering and mineralization in sludge treatment reed beds. Water 9(3):160Google Scholar
  6. Chen ZB, Hu SS, Hu CX, Huang LL, Liu HB, Vymazal J (2016) Preliminary investigation on the effect of earthworm and vegetation for sludge treatment in sludge treatment reed beds system. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(12):11957–11963Google Scholar
  7. Collison RS, Grismer ME (2013) Nitrogen and COD removal from domestic and synthetic wastewater in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands. Water Environ Res 85(9):855–862Google Scholar
  8. Collison RS, Grismer ME (2015) Nitrogen and COD removal from septic tank wastewater in subsurface flow constructed wetlands: plants effects. Water Environ Res 87(11):1999–2007Google Scholar
  9. Chinese EPA (2002) Discharge standard of pollutants for municipal wastewater treatment plant (GB 18918-2002), in Available at: http://www.kaola100.com/yijian/201611/21804045897.html. Accessed November 2018
  10. Feng C, Huang L, Yu H, Yi X, Wei C (2015) Simultaneous phenol removal, nitrification and denitrification using microbial fuel cell technology. Water Res 76:160–170Google Scholar
  11. Gajewska M, Obarska-Pempkowiak H (2013) Multistage treatment wetland for treatment of reject waters from digested sludge dewatering. Water Sci Technol 68(6):1223–1232Google Scholar
  12. Gao J, Zhang J, Ma N, Wang W, Ma C, Zhang R (2015) Cadmium removal capability and growth characteristics of Iris sibirica in subsurface vertical flow constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 84:443–450Google Scholar
  13. García J, Rousseau DPL, MoratÓ J, Lesage ELS, Matamoros V, Bayona JM (2010) Contaminant removal processes in subsurface-flow constructed wetlands: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 40(7):561–661Google Scholar
  14. Ghosh D, Gopal B (2010) Effect of hydraulic retention time on the treatment of secondary effluent in a subsurface flow constructed wetland. Ecol Eng 36(8):1044–1051Google Scholar
  15. Gill LW, Ring P, Higgins NMP, Johnston PM (2014) Accumulation of heavy metals in a constructed wetland treating road runoff. Ecol Eng 70:133–139Google Scholar
  16. Grismer ME, Shepherd HL (2011) Plants in constructed wetlands help to treat agricultural processing wastewater. Calif Agric 65(2):73–79Google Scholar
  17. Hafeznezami S, Kim J-L, Redman J (2012) Evaluating removal efficiency of heavy metals in constructed wetlands. J Environ Eng 138(4):475–482Google Scholar
  18. Herrera-Cardenas J, Navarro AE, Torres E (2016) Effects of porous media, macrophyte type and hydraulic retention time on the removal of organic load and micropollutants in constructed wetlands. J Environ Sci Health A 51(5):380–388Google Scholar
  19. Holcova V, Sima J, Edwards K, Semancikova E, Dusek J, Santruckova H (2009) The effect of macrophytes on retention times in a constructed wetland for wastewater treatment. Int J Sust Dev World 16(5):362–367Google Scholar
  20. Hu SS, She XL, Wei XD, Hu B, Hu CX, Qian YQ, Fang YH, Zhang XR, Bashir S, Chen ZB (2017) Surplus sludge treatment in two sludge treatment beds under subtropical condition in China. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 119:377–386Google Scholar
  21. Jesus JM, Danko AS, Fiúza A, Borges M-T (2018) Effect of plants in constructed wetlands for organic carbon and nutrient removal: a review of experimental factors contributing to higher impact and suggestions for future guidelines. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(5):4149–4164Google Scholar
  22. Kengne ES, Kengne IM, Nzouebet WAL, Akoa A, Viet HN, Strande L (2014) Performance of vertical flow constructed wetlands for faecal sludge drying bed leachate: effect of hydraulic loading. Ecol Eng 71:384–393Google Scholar
  23. Kengne IM, Kengne ES, Akoa A, Bemmo N, Dodane PH, Koné D (2011) Vertical-flow constructed wetlands as an emerging solution for faecal sludge dewatering in developing countries. J Water Sanit Hyg De 1(1):13–19Google Scholar
  24. Kim B, Bel T, Bourdoncle P, Dimare J, Troesch S, Molle P (2018) Septage unit treatment by sludge treatment reed beds for easy management and reuse: performance and design considerations. Water Sci Technol 77(2):279–285Google Scholar
  25. Kołecka K, Gajewska M, Obarska-Pempkowiak H, Rohde D (2017) Integrated dewatering and stabilization system as an environmentally friendly technology in sewage sludge management in Poland. Ecol Eng 98:346–353Google Scholar
  26. Kołecka K, Gajewska M, Stepnowski P, Caban M (2019) Spatial distribution of pharmaceuticals in conventional wastewater treatment plant with sludge treatment reed beds technology. Sci Total Environ 647:149–157Google Scholar
  27. Kołecka K, Obarska-Pempkowiak H, Gajewska M (2018) Polish experience in operation of sludge treatment reed beds. Ecol Eng 120:405–410Google Scholar
  28. Kröpfelová L, Vymazal J, Švehla J, Štíchová J (2009) Removal of trace elements in three horizontal sub-surface flow constructed wetlands in the Czech Republic. Environ Pollut 157(4):1186–1194Google Scholar
  29. Lu S, Zhang X, Wang J, Pei L (2016) Impacts of different media on constructed wetlands for rural household sewage treatment. J Clean Prod 127:325–330Google Scholar
  30. Mayo AW, Hanai EE, Kibazohi O (2014) Nitrification–denitrification in a coupled high rate – water hyacinth ponds. Phys Chem Earth 72-75:88–95Google Scholar
  31. Muñoz MA, Rosales RM, Gabarrón M, Faz A, Acosta JA (2016) Effects of the hydraulic retention time on pig slurry purification by constructed wetlands and stabilization ponds. Water Air Soil Pollut 227(9)Google Scholar
  32. Pedescoll A, Sidrach-Cardona R, Sánchez JC, Bécares E (2013) Evapotranspiration affecting redox conditions in horizontal constructed wetlands under Mediterranean climate: influence of plant species. Ecol Eng 58:335–343Google Scholar
  33. Petitjean A, Forquet N, Boutin C (2016) Oxygen profile and clogging in vertical flow sand filters for on-site wastewater treatment. J Environ Manag 170:15–20Google Scholar
  34. Saeed T, Sun G (2012) A review on nitrogen and organics removal mechanisms in subsurface flow constructed wetlands: dependency on environmental parameters, operating conditions and supporting media. J Environ Manag 112:429–448Google Scholar
  35. Sheoran AS, Sheoran V (2006) Heavy metal removal mechanism of acid mine drainage in wetlands: A critical review. Miner Eng 19(2):105–116Google Scholar
  36. Sima J, Svoboda L, Pomijova Z (2016) Removal of selected metals from wastewater using a constructed wetland. Chem Biodivers 13(5):582–590Google Scholar
  37. Stefanakis AI, Tsihrintzis VA (2012) Heavy metal fate in pilot-scale sludge drying reed beds under various design and operation conditions. J Hazard Mater 213-214:393–405Google Scholar
  38. Sultana MY, Mourti C, Tatoulis T, Akratos CS, Tekerlekopoulou AG, Vayenas DV (2016) Effect of hydraulic retention time, temperature, and organic load on a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland treating cheese whey wastewater. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 91(3):726–732Google Scholar
  39. Tao WD, Hall KJ, Duff SJB (2006) Performance evaluation and effects of hydraulic retention time and mass loading rate on treatment of woodwaste leachate in surface-flow constructed wetlands. Ecol Eng 26(3):252–265Google Scholar
  40. Toet S, Van Logtestijn RSP, Kampf R, Schreijer M, Verhoeven JTA (2005) The effect of hydraulic retention time on the removal of pollutants from sewage treatment plant effluent in a surface-flow wetland system. Wetlands 25(2):375–391Google Scholar
  41. Trang NTD, Konnerup D, Schierup H-H, Chiem NH, Tuan LA, Brix H (2010) Kinetics of pollutant removal from domestic wastewater in a tropical horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland system: effects of hydraulic loading rate. Ecol Eng 36(4):527–535Google Scholar
  42. Uggetti E, Ferrer I, Nielsen S, Arias C, Brix H, García J (2012) Characteristics of biosolids from sludge treatment wetlands for agricultural reuse. Ecol Eng 40(3):210–216Google Scholar
  43. Uggetti E, Hughes-Riley T, Morris RH, Newton MI, Trabi CL, Hawes P, Puigagut J, Garcia J (2016) Intermittent aeration to improve wastewater treatment efficiency in pilot-scale constructed wetland. Sci Total Environ 559:212–217Google Scholar
  44. Valipour A, Ahn YH (2016) Constructed wetlands as sustainable ecotechnologies in decentralization practices: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(1):180–197Google Scholar
  45. Vera I, Verdejo N, Chavez W, Jorquera C, Olave J (2016) Influence of hydraulic retention time and plant species on performance of mesocosm subsurface constructed wetlands during municipal wastewater treatment in super-arid areas. J Environ Sci Heal A 51(2):105–113Google Scholar
  46. Vymazal J (2005) Removal of heavy metals in a horizontal sub-surface flow constructed wetland. J Environ Sci Health 40(40):1369–1379Google Scholar
  47. Vymazal J (2007) Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci Total Environ 380(1–3):48–65Google Scholar
  48. Vymazal J (2011a) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: five decades of experience. Environ Sci Technol 45(1):61–69Google Scholar
  49. Vymazal J (2011b) Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow: a review. Hydrobiologia 674(1):133–156Google Scholar
  50. Vymazal J (2016) Concentration is not enough to evaluate accumulation of heavy metals and nutrients in plants. Sci Total Environ 544:495–498Google Scholar
  51. Vymazal J, Kröpfelová L (2015) Multistage hybrid constructed wetland for enhanced removal of nitrogen. Ecol Eng 84:202–208Google Scholar
  52. Wang R, Korboulewsky N, Prudent P, Domeizel M, Rolando C, Bonin G (2010) Feasibility of using an organic substrate in a wetland system treating sewage sludge: impact of plant species. Bioresour Technol 101(1):51–57Google Scholar
  53. Yadav AK, Kumar N, Sreekrishnan TR, Satya S, Bishnoi NR (2010) Removal of chromium and nickel from aqueous solution in constructed wetland: mass balance, adsorption–desorption and FTIR study. Chem Eng J 160(1):122–128Google Scholar
  54. Zhang CB, Liu WL, Wang J, Ge Y, Gu BH, Chang J (2012) Effects of plant diversity and hydraulic retention time on pollutant removals in vertical flow constructed wetland mesocosms. Ecol Eng 49:244–248Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Ecology, Faculty of Environmental SciencesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.The Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Medicinal Plants of Jiangsu ProvinceJiangsu Normal UniversityXuzhouChina
  3. 3.College of Resources and Environmental ScienceSouth-Central University for NationalitiesWuhanChina
  4. 4.College of Environmental Science and EngineeringGuilin University of TechnologyGuilinChina
  5. 5.College of Resources and EnvironmentHuazhong Agricultural UniversityWuhanChina
  6. 6.Key Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir Region’s Eco-Environment, Ministry of EducationChongqing UniversityChongqingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations