CAPITULO IV DE LOS ALBACEAS
ARTICULO 869.- RETRIBUCION TESTAMENTARIA DEL CARGO DE ALBACEA
Despite significant runoff following the high flow path unexpectedly, the
treatment system was still able to reduce nutrient load for TN and TP and reduce acidity during the monitoring period. While the majority of nutrient reduction was shown to happen in the bioreactors, this was in part due to the fact that the bioreactors received ~85% of the runoff and therefore ~85% nutrient load for the majority of the sampled storms. While the bioreactors were designed to be, and acted as, the main aspect of the treatment system, the pre-treatment tanks were still beneficial for mineralization,
allowing more nitrogen to be removed at the next step in the process, presumably through coupled nitrification and denitrification. If design adjustments are made allowing the majority of the silage runoff to flow through the entirety of the system nutrient load reductions could be expected to increase due to additional nitrogen transformations. However, while the pre-treatment tanks assisted in nitrogen transformations, the treatment system proved its ability to function adequately in their absence because the storms that experienced significant high-flow still displayed nutrient removal. If cost and/or space are of concern for future designs, the tanks could theoretically be removed with minimal effect on treatment performance.
Overall, even without full functionality, this wood chip bioreactor treatment system provided an effective method for improving the quality of silage bunker runoff on a northern Vermont farm.
References
Abbott L K and Robson A D 1977 Growth stimulation of subterranean clover with vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizas. Aust. J. Agrie. Res. 28, 639
Arnold, J.L., J.S. Knapp, C.L. Johnson. 2000. The Use of Yeasts to Reduce the Polluting Potential of Silage Effluent. Water Research 34(15):3699-3708.
Arth, Inko. Peter Frenzel, Ralf Conrad, 1998. Denitrification coupleD to nitrification in the rhizosphere of rice, Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 509-515, ISSN 0038-0717,
Bjorkmann E 1949 The ecological significance of the ecto- trophic mycorrhizal association in forest trees. Sv. Bot. Tidskr. 43, 223-233
Blowes, D., Robertson, W., Ptacek, C.J., Merkely, C. 1994. Removal of agricultural nitrate from tile drainage effluent water using in-line bioreactors. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 3:207-221.
Bolan, N.S. 1991. A critical review on the role of mycorrhizal fungi in the uptake of phosphorus by plants. Plant and Soil, Volume 134, Issue 2, Pages 189-207.
Brune, A., Frenzel, P., & Cypionka, H. (2000). Life at the oxic–anoxic interface: Microbial activities and adaptations. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 24(5), 691-710.
Cameron, S.G. & Schipper, L.A. 2010. Nitrate removal and hydraulic performance of organic carbon for use in denitrification beds. Ecological Engineering 36:1588-1595.
Campbell W.A.B. 1952. Methaemoglobinaemia due to nitrates in well-water. Br. Med. J. 2:371–373. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.4780.371.
Chamchoi N, Nitisoravut S (2007) Anammox enrichment from different conventional sludges. Chemosphere 66:2225–2232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.036
Christianson, L.E., Schipper, L. 2016. Moving Denitrifying Bioreactors beyond Proof of Concept: Introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Environmental Quality. 45:757-761.
Christianson, Lepine, Sibrell, Penn, & Summerfelt. (2017). Denitrifying woodchip bioreactor and phosphorus filter pairing to minimize pollution swapping. Water Research, 121, 129-139.
Dapena-Mora A, Fernández I, Campos JL et al (2007) Evaluation of activity and inhibition effects on anammox process by batch tests based on the nitrogen gas production. Enzyme Microb Technol 40:859 – 865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enzmictec.2006.06.018
Deans, E.A. & Svoboda, I.F. 1992. Aerobic Treatment of Silage Effluent – Laboratory Experiments. Bioresource Technology 40(1):23-27.
Evaluation of a Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland Treating Multi-Source Wastewaters Author: Tattrie, S C, TN: 202287
Faulkner, J.W., Zhang, W., Geohring, L.D., Steenhuis, T.S., 2011. Nutrient transport within three vegetative treatment areas receiving silage bunker runoff. J. Environ. Manage. 92:587-595. Fernández I, Vázquez-Padín JR, Mosquera-Corral A et al (2008) Biofilm and granular systems to improve anammox biomass retention. Biochem Eng J 42:308–313.
Gao, H., Bai, J., Xiao, R., Yan, D., Huang, L., and Huang, C. 2012. Soil net nitrogen mineralization in salt marshes with different flooding periods in the Yellow River Delta, China. CLEAN–Soil, Air,
Water, 40 (10) (2012), pp. 1111-1117
Gao, H., Junhong Bai, Xiaoya Deng, Qiongqiong Lu, Xiaofei Ye. 2018. Short-term effects of tidal flooding on soil nitrogen mineralization in a Chinese tidal salt marsh, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Volume 103, 2018, Pages 3-10, ISSN 1474-7065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2017.04.002. Gebrehanna, M. M., Gordon, R.J., Madani, A., VanderZaag, A.C., Wood, J.D. 2014. Silage Effluent Management: A Review. J. Environ Manage 143:113-122
Gersberg, R.M., Elkins, B.V., and Goldman, C.R. 1983. Nitrogen Removal In Artificial Wetlands. Water Res. 17:1009-1014. G
Greenan, C.M., T.B. Moorman, T.C. Kaspar, T.B. Parkin, D.B. Jaynes. 2006. Comparing carbon substrates for denitrification of subsurface drainage water. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:824-8299
Greenan, M., T.B. Moorman, T.B. Parkin, T.C. Kaspar, D.B. Jaynes. 2009. Denitrification in wood chip bioreactors at different water flows. Journal of Environmental Quality 38(4):1664-1671
Hajsardar, Mehdi & Borghei, Mehdi & Hassani, Amir & Takdastan, Afshin. (2016). Simultaneous ammonium and nitrate removal by a modified intermittently aerated sequencing batch reactor (SBR) with multiple filling events. Polish Journal of Chemical Technology. 18. 10.1515/pjct-2016-0051.
Harmel, R.D., King, K.W., and Slade, R.M. 2003. Automated Storm Water Sampling on Small Watersheds. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. Vol. 19(6):667-674.
Howarth, R., Chan, F., Conley, D., Garnier, J., Doney, S., Marino, R., & Billen, G. (2011). Coupled biogeochemical cycles: Eutrophication and hypoxia in temperate estuaries and coastal marine ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,9(1), 18-26. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41149673
Hua G, Salo MW, Schmit CG, Hay CH. Nitrate and phosphate removal from agricultural subsurface drainage using laboratory woodchip bioreactors and recycled steel byproduct filters. Water Res. 2016 Oct 1;102:180-189. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.022. Epub 2016 Jun 11. PubMed PMID: 27344249. Hultberg M, Bodin H. Fungi-based treatment of brewery wastewater—biomass production and nutrient reduction. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2017;101(11):4791-4798. doi:10.1007/s00253-017- 8185-9.
Husk, B., Sanchez, J., Wootton, Anderson, & Whalen. (2018). Removal of phosphorus from agricultural subsurface drainage water with woodchip and mixed-media bioreactors. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 73(3), 265-275.
Kapoor, A., Viraraghavan T. 1997. Nitrate removal from drinking water-review. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 123:371-380.
King, K.W. and Harmel, R.D. 2003. Considerations in Selecting A Water Quality Sampling Strategy. Transactions of the ASAE. Vol. 46(1):63-73.
Koch, G., Seigrist, H. 1997. Denitrification with methanol in tertiary filtration at wastewater treatment plant Zurich-Werdholsli. Water Science and Technology. 36:165-172.
Kortbein, Layne and Rajendran, Aravindan. 2016. Two-stage Modified Denitrifying-Bioreactor for Nutrient Removal from Agricultural Runoff. University of Minnesota, Department of Biproducts and Biosystems Engineering.
Lake Champlain Basin Program. 2018. State of the Lake and Ecosystem Indicators Report. Grand Isle, VT. Larson, R.A., Safferman, S.I. 2012. Field application of farmstead runoff to vegetated filter strips: surface and subsurface water quality assessment. Journal of ENvironmental Quality 41:592-603.
Lodhi, A. M. Arshad, F. Azam, M.H. Sajjad. 2009. Changes in mineral and mineralizable N of soil incubated at varying salinity, moisture and temperature regimes. Pak. J. Bot., 41 (2) (2009), pp. 967-980 Marchant, H., Holtappels, M., Lavik, G., Ahmerkamp, S., Winter, C., & Kuypers, M. (2016). Coupled nitrification–denitrification leads to extensive N loss in subtidal permeable sediments. Limnology and
Oceanography, 61(3), 1033-1048.
Nicolaisen, Mette Haubjerg. Nils Risgaard-Petersen, Niels Peter Revsbech, Wolfgang Reichardt, Niels Birger Ramsing. 2004. Nitrification–denitrification dynamics and community structure of ammonia oxidizing bacteria in a high yield irrigated Philippine rice field, FEMS Microbiology Ecology, Volume 49, Issue 3, Pages 359–369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2004.04.015
Osiadacz, M., W. Brandt, S. Clifton, C. Nicol, D. Nishijima, E. Paddock, V. Pristel, M. Los Huertos. 2010. Successful treatment systems for removing nitrate concentrations from agricultural runoff. The Watershed Institute, Division of Science and Env. Policy. Publication No. WI-2010-07.
Penton, Deenik, Popp, Bruland, Engstrom, St. Louis, & Tiedje. (2013). Importance of sub-surface rhizosphere-mediated coupled nitrification–denitrification in a flooded agroecosystem in Hawaii. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry, 57(C), 362-373.
Plenchette C, Clermont-Dauphin C, Meynard JM, Fortin JA (2005) Managing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in cropping systems. Can. J. Plant Sci 85: 31-40.
Rivett, Buss, Morgan, Smith, & Bemment. (2008). Nitrate attenuation in groundwater: A review of biogeochemical controlling processes. Water Research, 42(16), 4215-4232.
Robertson, W.D. 2010. Nitrate removal rates in woodchip media of varying age. Ecological Engineering. 36:1581-1587.
Robertson, W.D., D.W. Blowes, C.J. Ptacek, and J.A. Cherry. 2000. Long-term performance of in situ reactive barriers for nitrate remediation. Ground Water 38:689-695. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6584.2000.tb02704.x
Robertson, W.D., Ptacek, C.J., Brown, S.J., 2009. Rates of nitrate and perchlorate removal in a 5-year-old wood particle reactor treating agricultural drainage. Ground Water Monit. Remediat. 29(2):87–94. Rust, Aelion, & Flora. (2000). Control of pH during denitrification in subsurface sediment microcosms using encapsulated phosphate buffer. Water Research, 34(5), 1447-1454.
Schipper, & Vojvodić-Vuković. (2001). Five years of nitrate removal, denitrification and carbon dynamics in a denitrification wall. Water Research, 35(14), 3473-3477.
Schipper, L.A., S.C. Cameron & S. Warneke. 2010a. Nitrate removal from three different effluents using large-scale denitrification beds. Ecological Engineering 36:1552-1557.
Schipper, L.A., W.D. Robertson, A.J. Gold, D.B. Jaynes, S.C. Cameron. 2010b Denitrifying bioreactors— An approach for reducing nitrate loads to receiving waters. Ecological Engineering 36(11):1532-1543. Schukking, S. 1976. The history of silage making. Stikstof Dutch Nitrogen Fertilizer Review. 19:2-11. silage effluent: effluent characterization and fermentation. Journal of Agriculture 62:271–279.
Singh, Harbhajan. Mycoremediation: Fungal Bioremediation. 2006. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Smith SE, Smith FA, Jakobsen I (2003) Mycorrhizal Fungi Can Dominate Phosphate Supply to Plants Irrespective of Growth Responses. Plant Physiology 133: 16-20.
Smith, E.L., Gordon, R., Madani, A., Stratton, G.W. 2006. Year-round treatment of dairy wastewater by constructed wetlands in Atlantic Canada. Wetlands 26:349-357.
Strous M, Kuenen JG, Jetten MSM (1999) Key physiology of anaerobic ammonium oxidation. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:3248–3250
Smith SE, Read DJAP (2008) Mycorrhizal Symbiosis.Academic Press, London.
Tang CJ, Zheng P, Hu BL et al (2010) Influence of substrates on nitrogen removal performance and microbiology of anaerobic ammonium oxidation by operating two UASB reactors fed with different substrate levels. J Hazard Mater 181:19–26.
Thomas SA, MR Pinza, and J Jaksch. 2003. Fungal Treatment of Manure Solids in Waste Lagoons. Internal Research and Development (IR&D) Technical Report, Fiscal Year 2003. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sequim, Washington.
Titus, Frank. 1992. Sequential Nitrification/Denitrification in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands: A Literature Review. University of Texas at Austin. Departmental Report Environmental Health Engineering. Tollner, Ernest W. 2002. Natural Resources Engineering. Wiley. 0813818478, 9780813818474.
U.S. EPA. EPA's Report on the Environment (Roe) (2008 Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-07/045F (NTIS PB2008-112484), 2008.
Van De Graaf AA, De Bruijn P, Robertson LA et al (1996) Autotrophic growth of anaerobic ammonium- oxidizing micro-organisms in a fluidized bed reactor. Microbiology 142:2187–
2196. https://doi.org/10.1099/13500872-142-8-2187
van Driel, P.W., Robertson, W.D., Merkley, L.C. 2006. Upflow reactors for riparian zone denitrification. Journal of Environmental Quality. 35:412-420.
Verhoeven, Decock, Barthel, Bertora, Sacco, Romani, . . . Six. (2018). Nitrification and coupled nitrification-denitrification at shallow depths are responsible for early season N2O emissions under alternate wetting and drying management in an Italian rice paddy system. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 120, 58-69.
Weinberg, Z.G., & Muck, R.E. 1996. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculents for silage. FEMS Microbiology Review 19(1):53-68. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00253.x
Woolford, M.K. & Gunter, P. 1984. The Silage Fermentation. Microbiology of Fermented Foods, 73-102. Woolford, M.K. 1978. The problem of silage effluent. Herbage Extracts.
Wright, P.E., Vanderstappen, P.L. 1994. Base flow silage leachate control. ASAE Meeting Presentation. Paper No 94-25-60. ASAE. Atlanta, Georgia.
Xia, Xinghui, Jia, Zhimei, Liu, Ting, Zhang, Sibo, & Zhang, Liwei. (2017). Coupled Nitrification- Denitrification Caused by Suspended Sediment (SPS) in Rivers: Importance of SPS Size and Composition. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(1), 212-221.
Zhou, W., Cheng, Y., Li, Y., Wan, Y., Liu, Y., Lin, X., Ruan, R. 2012. Novel Fungal Pelletization-Assisted Technology for Algae Harvesting and Wastewater Treatment. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 167:214-228. DOI 10.1007/s12010-012-9667-y
Appendix A
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSES
During the monitoring period, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) was also measured in runoff samples collected from the system. However, only four storms events were
measured for BOD, limiting the confidence of the results. Further BOD sampling should be performed before any strong conclusions can be made about the treatment system’s impact on BOD.
Methods
BOD analysis of samples from four individual storm events was performed using standard methods (APHA, 2011). Composite samples were processed by first adding buffered dilution water to create a solution that was 1% as potent as the original sample. Then, initial dissolved oxygen (DO) content of this solution was measured using a DO meter (YSI Pro20, Yellow Springs, OH). After a five-day incubation (temperature and light controlled), final DO content was measured using the same meter. The following equation was used to calculate BOD:
BOD5 = (DOi - DOf) ÷ P
Where BOD5 is biochemical oxygen demand after a 5-day incubation period (mg/L), DOi
is the initial dissolved oxygen content (mg/L), DOf is the final dissolved oxygen content
dissolved oxygen would be consumed during the incubation period. This value was chosen after a series of tests comparing different dilutions ranging from 1% to 20%.
Results
As seen in Figure 10, two out of the four analyzed storms exhibited an increase in BOD between the system influent and the tank effluent, but overall BOD decreased between the inflow and outflow of the treatment system in every storm. BOD values ranged from 49 – 939 mg/L.
Figure 10: BOD in the treatment system as measured in composited storm samples
Discussion
This analysis indicated that, in addition to reducing nutrient load and acidity, the treatment system also successfully lowered the BOD of the silage runoff for the small number of sampled storms. While BOD was expected to be reduced predominantly in the tanks, due to the sedimentation of suspended organic matter in tanks 1 and 3 (Figure 3), BOD reduction by the bioreactors was consistently more significant. This was most likely due to two main factors: 1) sedimentation in the tanks only removed a portion of
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Aug 18 Oct 24 Nov 6 Nov 18
B OD 5 ( mg /L) Storm Date
oxygen-consuming microbial breakdown activities, and 2) the wood chip bioreactors acted as biofilters that were able to remove additional organic matter from the runoff, further reducing microbial breakdown activities and therefore reducing BOD as less oxygen was consumed. Similarly, Lens et al. (1994) found wood chips to successfully reduce BOD in domestic wastewater after a percolation treatment.
Appendix B
TREATMENT SYSTEM COMPLICATIONS
Due to design flaws in the system, laboratory equipment malfunctioning, and confines of lower detection limits, some aspects of the performance of the treatment system were not assessed fully. A number of other factors must be considered before the full impact of this treatment system can be assessed and understood. This appendix describes
complications, limitations, and future considerations pertaining to this research.
Impact of Unexpected Bypass and of the Pre-treatment Tanks
An initial direct comparison of TN and TP influent load into the tanks was found to be significantly smaller than the combined effluent load of the bioreactors for fourteen out of eighteen total sampled storms (77.78%). This increase in load (but not
concentration) was due to the fact that a much larger volume of runoff was exiting the bioreactors than was entering the tanks. This realization led to the discovery that the high flow path in the flow diversion structure, designed to accommodate high flow storms by directing excess flow directly to the bioreactors, was incorrectly placed at an elevation that was too low. The low flow outlet reaches from the cement base of the flow diversion structure to 18.3 cm above the base, and the high flow outlet starts at 5.5 cm above the base and extends to 29.1 cm above the base. This means that there is significant overlap of the two openings, allowing more water than intended to bypass the tanks and flow directly into the bioreactors.
Recognizing the need to account for this volume, a secondary comparison of TN and TP load in the total influent to the two bioreactors (bypass volume plus volume of the tank effluent) versus the combined effluent from both bioreactors was performed. This comparison showed a significant reduction in TN and TP for almost every storm.
Bioreactor Performance Comparison
Due to the fact that runoff flow into the two bioreactors was not identical by volume, a direct comparison between the two bioreactors needs to consider several caveats. The runoff that entered the bioreactors, either from the tank effluent or the bypass flow, was not split evenly between the two. This means that each bioreactor received varying percentages of pre-treated and untreated runoff with each storm. For this reason, the HRT and % TN load reduction comparison done in Chapter 2 (Figures 3 and 4), was based on many assumptions. First, since the individual influent concentration and mass load for each bioreactor was unknown, only storm events where the bypass
accounted for over 85% of total influent were used in the analysis. For these storms, it was assumed that the high-flow runoff comprised the majority of the inflow to the bioreactors, and therefore influenced the bioreactors’ outflow samples’ water quality. To approximate the influent load to each bioreactor, the TN concentration of the bypass flow (which was identical to the TN concentration measured in the inflow to the tanks) was multiplied by the volume of each bioreactor outflow minus the precipitation volume received. The TN concentration and volume from the pre-treatment tank effluent was not included in this comparison because the volume that was directed to each bioreactor
could not be accurately identified. These comparisons, which were based on many assumptions, did not confidently identify any links between HRT and nitrogen removal.
In general, the WWB received a greater volume of runoff, but this was also inconsistent and varied with storm intensity. The difference in flow to the bioreactors explains the wide gap in their mean retention times. When comparing nutrient reduction, the WWB consistently outperformed the EWB. This seems counterintuitive because a sufficiently long retention time is necessary for the completion of denitrification, and the EWB generally had a longer retention time. However, since the WWB received more flow over the duration of the sample season, and the EWB didn’t receive any flow in some storms, the aerobic and anaerobic conditions discussed in Chapter 2 that were necessary for coupled nitrogen transformations would have occurred more frequently in the WWB. It is possible that this factor played a larger role in nitrogen removal than retention time.
There also appeared to be a leak in the sump of the EWB’s water level control structure, as the water level control structure from the EWB was often observed to be well below the zero level in between storm events. This loss of runoff impacted the retention time and effluent load from the EWB, further limiting the accuracy of the information obtained during sample events.
Future Considerations
While this study provided valuable insight into the operations of the treatment system, there are still many unstudied factors to consider. While it was found that the bioreactor with the shorter retention time was more successful in reducing nutrient loads
and concentration, a retention time that is too short could lead to a release of nitrous oxide from the bioreactor. Nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, is a byproduct of
denitrification that is only at risk of being released if denitrification is not carried out to completion (Seitzinger et al., 2006). This risk grows as retention time shrinks. In future studies, it would be beneficial to monitor outgassing from the bioreactors and look for the presence of nitrous oxide. It would also be informative to place an autosampler that pulls from this upper, oxic layer of the bioreactors, in order to further monitor nitrate
concentrations/loads and confirm that denitrification is in fact the dominant pathway for nitrogen removal. One could also test for the presence of annamox bacteria to confirm that it is not present.
Since design flaws greatly impacted the outcomes of this study, future
modifications should be made that remedy the issues at hand. If the pre-treatment tanks are to remain in use, a plug should be placed in the high flow path outlet of the flow diversion structure, to prevent bypass flow, and the pipes directing runoff to the
bioreactors should be adjusted so that flow is evenly split between the two. If flow to the two bioreactors is identical, then retention time can be varied by adjusting the height of the outflow pipe in the water level control structures. This would allow for more accurate