6 research outputs found

    Constructed Wetlands for Agricultural Wastewater Treatment in Northeastern North America:A Review

    Get PDF
    Constructed wetlands (CW) are a treatment option for agricultural wastewater. Their ability to adequately function in cold climates continues to be evaluated as they are biologically active systems that depend on microbial and plant activity. In order to assess their performance and to highlight regional specific design considerations, a review of CWs in Eastern Canada and the Northeastern USA was conducted. Here, we synthesize performance data from 21 studies, in which 25 full-scale wetlands were assessed. Where possible, data were separated seasonally to evaluate the climatic effects on treatment performance. The wastewater parameters considered were five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), E. coli, fecal coliforms, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia/ammonium (NH3/NH4+-N), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3−-N), and total phosphorus (TP). Average concentration reductions were: BOD5 81%, TSS 83%, TKN 75%, NH4+-N 76%, NO3−-N 42%, and TP 64%. Average log reductions for E. coli and fecal coliforms were 1.63 and 1.93, respectively. Average first order areal rate constants (ka, m·y−1) were: BOD5 6.0 m·y−1, TSS 7.7 m·y−1, E. coli 7.0 m·y−1, fecal coliforms 9.7 m·y−1, TKN 3.1 m·y−1, NH4+-N 3.3 m·y−1, NO3−-N 2.5 m·y−1, and TP 2.9 m·y−1. In general, CWs effectively treated a variety of agricultural wastewaters, regardless of season

    An improved laboratory method shows that freezing intensity increases N2O emissions

    No full text
    A novel laboratory method was developed to control soil freeze-thaw cycles and study the effects of freezing intensity on soil conditions and N2O emissions. The method created uni-directional freeze-thaw (top-down), similar to field conditions. Soil was placed in boxes that were insulated on the sides, heated from the bottom, and left open on the top. Snow was placed on the soil surface, and the boxes were placed in separate climate-controlled chambers to freeze (-9C) and thaw (+5C). The method was used in an experiment to evaluate the links between freezing degree days (FDD), soil water content, C and N transformations, and N2O emissions. Results showed that N2O emissions were greatest from soils that experienced more freezing, with the 185 FDD treatment emitting significantly more N2O than the 50 FDD treatment (17.7 vs 7.7 mg N2O-N m-2 d-1). Peaks in soil water content during thaw preceded peaks in N2O flux, but increasing water content by simulating rain (in addition to snow melt) did not increase N2O emissions compared to snow melt alone. Extractable soil C and N increased in the top 5-cm when soils froze; however, greater emissions were not linked to greater C and N concentrations at individual points in time. Higher N2O emissions at 134 and 185 FDD were associated with greater C exposure (i.e. extractable soil C concentration integrated over time) than the 50 FDD treatment.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author

    Water Use and Conservation on a Free-Stall Dairy Farm

    No full text
    Livestock watering can represent as much as 20% of total agricultural water use in areas with intensive dairy farming. Due to an increased emphasis on water conservation for the agricultural sector, it is important to understand the current patterns of on-farm water use. This study utilized in situ water meters to measure the year-round on-farm pumped water (i.e., blue water) on a ~419 lactating cow confined dairy operation in Eastern Ontario, Canada. The average total water use for the farm was 90,253 ± 15,203 L day−1 and 33,032 m3 annually. Water use was divided into nutritional water (68%), parlour cleaning and operation (14%), milk pre-cooling (15%), barn cleaning, misters and other uses (3%). There was a positive correlation between total monthly water consumption (i.e., nutritional water) and average monthly temperature for lactating cows, heifers, and calves (R2 = 0.69, 0.84, and 0.85, respectively). The blue water footprint scaled by milk production was 6.19 L kg−1 milk or 6.41 L kg−1 fat-and-protein corrected milk (FPCM) including contributions from all animal groups and 5.34 L kg−1 milk (5.54 L kg−1 FPCM) when excluding the water consumption of non-lactating animals. By applying theoretical water conservation scenarios we show that a combination of strategies (air temperature reduction, complete recycling of milk-cooling water, and modified cow preparation protocol) could achieve a savings of 6229 m3 annually, a ~19% reduction in the total annual water use

    Effects of Two Manure Additives on Methane Emissions from Dairy Manure

    No full text
    Liquid manure is a significant source of methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas. Many livestock farms use manure additives for practical and agronomic purposes, but the effect on CH4 emissions is unknown. To address this gap, two lab studies were conducted, evaluating the CH4 produced from liquid dairy manure with Penergetic-g® (12 mg/L, 42 mg/L, and 420 mg/L) or AgrimestMix® (30.3 mL/L). In the first study, cellulose produced 378 mL CH4/g volatile solids (VS) at 38 °C and there was no significant difference with Penergetic-g® at 12 mg/L or 42 mg/L. At the same temperature, dairy manure produced 254 mL CH4/g VS and was not significantly different from 42 mg/L Penergetic-g®. In the second lab study, the dairy manure control produced 187 mL CH4/g VS at 37 °C and 164 mL CH4/g VS at 20 °C, and there was no significant difference with AgrimestMix (30.3 mL/L) or Penergetic-g® (420 mg/L) at either temperature. Comparisons of manure composition before and after incubation indicated that the additives had no effect on pH or VS, and small and inconsistent effects on other constituents. Overall, neither additive affected CH4 production in the lab. The results suggest that farms using these additives are likely to have normal CH4 emissions from stored manure
    corecore