4.8 Article

Phosphorus removal using Ca-rich hydrated oil shale ash as filter material - The effect of different phosphorus loadings and wastewater compositions

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 44, Issue 18, Pages 5232-5239

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.044

Keywords

Constructed wetlands; Filter material; Landfill leachate; Municipal wastewater; Phosphate; Total phosphorus

Funding

  1. Enterprise Estonia project [EU23687]
  2. Ministry of Education and Science of Estonia [SF0180127s08, SF0180069s08]
  3. Estonian Science Foundation [7527]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We studied the phosphorus (P) binding capacity of Ca-rich alkaline filter material hydrated oil shale ash (i.e. hydrated ash) in two onsite pilot-scale experiments (with subsurface flow filters) in Estonia: one using pre-treated municipal wastewater with total phosphorus (TP) concentration of 0.13-17.0 mg L-1 over a period of 6 months, another using pre-treated landfill leachate (median TP 3.4 mg L-1) for a total of 12 months. The results show efficient P removal (median removal of phosphates 99%) in horizontal flow (HF) filters at both sites regardless of variable concentrations of several inhibitors. The P removal efficiency of the hydrated ash increases with increasing P loading, suggesting direct precipitation of Ca-phosphate phases rather than an adsorption mechanism. Changes in the composition of the hydrated ash suggest a significant increase in P concentration in all filters (e.g. from 489.5 mg kg(-1) in initial ash to 664.9 mg kg(-1) in the HF filter after one year in operation), whereas almost all TP was removed from the inflow leachate (R-2 = 0.99). Efficiency was high throughout the experiments (median outflow from HF hydrated ash filters 0.05-0.50 mg L-1), and P accumulation did not show any signs of saturation. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available