Comparative Study on Influences of Bank Slope Ecological Revetments on Water Quality Purification Pretreating Low-Polluted Waters
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Set-Up
2.2. Experimental Conditions
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Purification Effects of Different Bank Slope Revetments
3.2. Differences in Water Purification Effects Due to Operational Conditions
3.3. First-Order Modeling Analysis of Water Purification Effects
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ministry of Environmental Protection of China. 2015 Report on the State of the Environmental in China; China Environmental Press: Beijing, China, 2016.
- Mysak, J.; Horsak, M. Floodplain corridor and slope effects on land mollusc distribution patterns in a riverine valley. Acta Oecol. 2011, 37, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Fan, C.; Shen, Q.; Shao, S.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Q. Effects of riverine suspended particulate matter on post-dredging metal re-contamination across the sediment-water interface. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 2329–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanskrityayn, A.; Suk, H.; Kumar, N. Analytical solutions for solute transport in groundwater and riverine flow using Green’s Function Method and pertinent coordinate transformation method. J. Hydrol. 2017, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanjaya, K.; Asaeda, T. Assessing the performance of a riparian vegetation model in a river with a low slope and fine sediment. Environ. Technol. 2017, 38, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Erwin, S.; Schmidt, J.; Allred, T. Post-Project geomorphic assessment of a large process-based river restoration project. Geomorphology 2016, 45–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, A.; Gregory, K. Managing urban river channel adjustments. Geomorphology 2005, 69, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiemer, F. Building an eco-hydrological framework for the management of large river systems. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2016, 16, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Millian, J.; Xu, K.; Deng, B.; Zhang, X.; Luo, X. Downstream sedimentary and geomorphic impacts of the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River. Earth Sci. Rev. 2014, 138, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakayama, T. New perspective for eco-hydrology model to constrain missing role of inland waters on boundless biogeochemical cycle in terrestrial-aquatic continuum. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2016, 16, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parry, L.; Chapman, P.; Palmer, S.; Wallage, Z.; Wynne, H.; Holden, J. The influence of slope and peatland vegetation type on riverine dissolved organic carbon and water colour at different scales. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 527–528, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chou, J. Achieving successful river restoration in dense urban areas: Lessons from Taiwan. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heibaum, M. Geosynthetics for waterways and flood protection structures—Controlling the interaction of water and soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 2014, 42, 374–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordstrom, K. Living with shore protection structures: A review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2014, 150, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oda, T.; Nakajima, S.; Sugiharu, T. Relationships between water quality, morphological factors in river basins, the diversity index and the biotic index. Environ. Technol. 1991, 12, 1147–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.; Ye, X.; Du, X. Suitability evaluation of river bank filtration along the Second Songhua River, China. Water 2016, 8, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanson, S.; Kozlowski, D.; Hall, R.; Heggem, D.; Lin, J. Riparian proper functioning condition assessment to improve watershed management for water quality. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Simunek, J.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, M.; Ni, L.; Zhu, L.; Hua, J.; Chen, Y. Water flow and nitrate transport through a lakeshore with different revetment materials. J. Hydrol. 2015, 520, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Ho, L. Changes in the streambank landscape and vegetation recovery on a stone revetment using the image spectrum: Case study of the Nan-Shi-Ken stream, Taiwan. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 482–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Peng, J.; Yuan, S.; Yuan, S.; Shu, X.; Jiang, S.; Pu, Q.; Ma, K.; Yuan, C.; Chen, G.; et al. Influence of ecological restoration on vegetation and soil microbiological properties in Alpine-cold semi-humid desertified land. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 94, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soar, P.; Wallerstein, N.; Throne, C. Quantifying river channel stability at the basin scale. Water 2017, 9, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oberhagmann, K.; Hossain, M. Geotextile bag revetments for large rivers in Bangladesh. Geotext. Geomembr. 2011, 29, 402–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Everaert, G.; Pauwels, I.; Boets, P.; Verdium, E.; Haye, M.; Blom, C.; Goethals, P. Model-based evaluation of ecological bank design and management in the scope of the European Water Framework Directive. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 53, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwab, A.; Kiehl, K. Analysis of soil seed bank patterns in an oxbow system of a disconnected floodplain. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 100, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, D.; Puklin, L.; Marshall, A. The long-term impact of channel stabilization using gabion structures on Zealand River, New Hampshire. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 779–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beikircher, B.; Florin, F.; Mayr, S. Restoration of rocky slopes based on planted gabions and use of droughTPreconditioned woody species. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, S.; Yue, H.; Li, L. Analysis on Current Situation and Development Trend of Ecological Revetment Works in Middle and Lower Reaches of Yangtze River. Procedia Eng. 2012, 28, 307–313. [Google Scholar]
- Im, D.; Kang, H. Two-dimensional physical habitat modeling of effects of habitat structures on urban stream restoration. Water Sci. Eng. 2011, 4, 386–395. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.; Zhu, C.; Wu, Y.; Jin, Q. Dynamic comprehensive evaluation and scheme optimization of ecological revetment. China Rural Water Hydropower 2016, 4, 69–73. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.; Lu, X.; Jia, Y.; Shi, J. Water quality improvements and community characteristics in simulated rivers using porous concrete embankments. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2010, 20, 317–323. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.; Lu, X. Theory Research and Practice of River Bank Special Ecosystem Construction via Porous Concrete and Botanic Measure; China Water & Power Press: Beijing, China, 2016; Volume 12, pp. 55–78. [Google Scholar]
- Long, Y.; Bing, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Cui, K.; Pan, X.; Yan, X.; Li, B.; Xie, S.; Guo, Q. Influence of plantation on microbial community in porous concrete treating polluted surface water. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 117, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, B.; Tia, M. An experimental study on the water-purification properties of porous concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Zhu, G.; Lu, X. Characteristics of DOM and removal of DBPs precursors across O3-BAC integrated treatment for the micro-polluted raw water of the Huangpu River. Water 2013, 5, 1472–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Environmental Protection of China. Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water, GB3838-2002; Ministry of Environmental Protection of China: Beijing, China, 2002.
- American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Marimon, Z.; Xuan, Z.; Chang, N. System dynamics modeling with sensitivity analysis for floating treatment wetlands in a storm wet pond. Ecol. Model. 2013, 267, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Lu, X. Characteristics and constituent of dissolved organics in drinking water advanced treatment process. CIESC J. 2011, 62, 805–810. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.; Sample, D. Assessment of the nutrient removal effectiveness of floating treatment wetlands applied to urban retention ponds. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kadlec, R.; Reddy, K. Temperature effects in treatment wetlands. Water Environ. Res. 2001, 73, 543–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saeed, T.; Sun, G. Kinetic modelling of nitrogen and organics removal in vertical and horizontal flow wetlands. Water Res. 2011, 45, 3137–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yin, Z.; Wu, Y.; Lu, X. Simulation of nitrogen and phosphorous removal in hydroponic vegetable filter bed on first-order kinetics model. J. Southeast Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2016, 46, 812–817. [Google Scholar]
Parameters | pH | CODMn (mg L−1) | Ammonia (mg L−1) | TN (mg L−1) | TP (mg L−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | 7.60 | 6.53 | 1.12 | 5.12 | 0.169 |
Range | 7.41–7.82 | 5.86–7.08 | 0.22–1.24 | 3.73–6.72 | 0.142–0.228 |
standard deviation | 0.153 | 0.153 | 0.434 | 0.641 | 0.0014 |
Experimental Run Start | Water Sample at Different HRTs | CODMn | Ammonia | TN | TP | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ditch A | Ditch B | Ditch A | Ditch B | Ditch A | Ditch B | Ditch A | Ditch B | ||||||||||
Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | Concentration (mg L−1) | Removal Rate (%) | ||
21 January | 0 d | Initial concentration: 6.37 mg/L | Initial concentration: 2.004 mg/L | Initial concentration: 6.086 mg/L | Initial concentration: 0.143 mg/L | ||||||||||||
1 d | 6.16 | 3 | 6.32 | 1 | 1.539 | 23 | 1.774 | 11 | 5.407 | 11 | 5.758 | 5 | 0.109 | 24 | 0.123 | 14 | |
2 d | 5.68 | 11 | 6.08 | 5 | 1.320 | 34 | 1.621 | 19 | 5.017 | 18 | 5.429 | 11 | 0.080 | 44 | 0.108 | 24 | |
3 d | 5.52 | 13 | 6.00 | 6 | 1.123 | 44 | 1.566 | 22 | 4.537 | 25 | 5.331 | 12 | 0.071 | 50 | 0.094 | 34 | |
4 d | 5.44 | 15 | 5.89 | 8 | 0.926 | 54 | 1.511 | 25 | 4.184 | 31 | 5.243 | 14 | 0.061 | 57 | 0.089 | 38 | |
5 d | 5.28 | 17 | 5.96 | 6 | 0.631 | 69 | 1.402 | 30 | 3.842 | 37 | 5.139 | 16 | 0.059 | 59 | 0.092 | 36 | |
6 d | 5.24 | 18 | 5.76 | 10 | 0.499 | 75 | 1.287 | 36 | 3.505 | 42 | 5.121 | 16 | 0.061 | 57 | 0.087 | 39 | |
5 May | 0 d | Initial concentration: 6.46 mg/L | Initial concentration: 1.161 mg/L | Initial concentration: 5.550 mg/L | Initial concentration: 0.184 mg/L | ||||||||||||
1 d | 6.02 | 7 | 6.32 | 2 | 0.472 | 59 | 1.046 | 10 | 4.083 | 26 | 5.528 | 0 | 0.055 | 70 | 0.086 | 53 | |
2 d | 5.56 | 14 | 6.01 | 7 | 0.160 | 86 | 0.974 | 16 | 3.142 | 43 | 5.145 | 7 | 0.049 | 73 | 0.071 | 61 | |
3 d | 5.18 | 20 | 5.92 | 8 | 0.127 | 89 | 0.935 | 19 | 2.814 | 49 | 5.057 | 9 | 0.033 | 82 | 0.068 | 63 | |
4 d | 4.44 | 31 | 5.77 | 11 | 0.078 | 93 | 0.916 | 21 | 1.773 | 68 | 4.379 | 21 | 0.028 | 85 | 0.055 | 70 | |
5 d | 4.26 | 34 | 5.67 | 12 | 0.066 | 94 | 0.794 | 32 | 1.369 | 75 | 4.302 | 22 | 0.025 | 86 | 0.056 | 70 | |
6 d | 4.52 | 30 | 5.66 | 12 | 0.063 | 95 | 0.698 | 40 | 0.931 | 83 | 4.072 | 27 | 0.021 | 89 | 0.048 | 74 | |
17 August | 0 d | Initial concentration: 5.76 mg/L | Initial concentration: 0.603 mg/L | Initial concentration: 3.569 mg/L | Initial concentration: 0.278 mg/L | ||||||||||||
1 d | 5.26 | 9 | 5.68 | 1 | 0.286 | 53 | 0.531 | 12 | 1.960 | 45 | 2.956 | 17 | 0.102 | 63 | 0.144 | 48 | |
2 d | 4.88 | 15 | 5.36 | 7 | 0.218 | 64 | 0.469 | 22 | 1.249 | 65 | 2.868 | 20 | 0.091 | 67 | 0.123 | 56 | |
3 d | 4.16 | 28 | 5.18 | 10 | 0.165 | 73 | 0.448 | 26 | 0.756 | 79 | 2.343 | 34 | 0.082 | 71 | 0.106 | 62 | |
4 d | 4.26 | 26 | 5.08 | 12 | 0.108 | 82 | 0.426 | 29 | 0.68 | 81 | 2.212 | 38 | 0.068 | 76 | 0.098 | 65 | |
5 d | 4.16 | 28 | 5.14 | 11 | 0.068 | 89 | 0.408 | 32 | 0.439 | 88 | 2.069 | 42 | 0.039 | 86 | 0.082 | 71 | |
6 d | 4.03 | 30 | 5.28 | 8 | 0.066 | 89 | 0.406 | 33 | 0.395 | 89 | 1.829 | 49 | 0.027 | 90 | 0.075 | 73 | |
15 November | 0 d | Initial concentration: 5.87 mg/L | Initial concentration: 1.232 mg/L | Initial concentration: 4.937 mg/L | Initial concentration: 0.172 mg/L | ||||||||||||
1 d | 5.40 | 8 | 5.60 | 5 | 0.685 | 44 | 1.150 | 7 | 3.707 | 25 | 4.324 | 12 | 0.149 | 13 | 0.160 | 7 | |
2 d | 5.24 | 11 | 5.52 | 6 | 0.417 | 66 | 1.112 | 10 | 3.302 | 33 | 4.074 | 17 | 0.087 | 49 | 0.150 | 13 | |
3 d | 4.92 | 16 | 5.46 | 7 | 0.308 | 75 | 1.101 | 11 | 2.809 | 43 | 3.762 | 24 | 0.068 | 60 | 0.132 | 23 | |
4 d | 4.56 | 22 | 5.53 | 6 | 0.122 | 90 | 1.074 | 13 | 2.228 | 55 | 3.849 | 22 | 0.068 | 60 | 0.126 | 27 | |
5 d | 4.52 | 23 | 5.56 | 5 | 0.111 | 91 | 0.992 | 19 | 2.078 | 58 | 3.735 | 24 | 0.051 | 70 | 0.111 | 35 | |
6 d | 4.48 | 24 | 5.4 | 8 | 0.098 | 92 | 0.953 | 23 | 2.002 | 59 | 3.804 | 23 | 0.035 | 80 | 0.099 | 42 |
Date | Mean Water Temperature/°C | Parameter | Ditch A | Ditch B | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CODMn | Ammonia | TN | TP | CODMn | Ammonia | TN | TP | |||
21–27 January | 7.8 | k /d−1 | 0.033 | 0.225 | 0.090 | 0.145 | 0.016 | 0.067 | 0.028 | 0.081 |
R2 | 0.920 | 0.981 | 0.998 | 0.856 | 0.907 | 0.968 | 0.888 | 0.864 | ||
5–11 May | 21.6 | k /d−1 | 0.071 | 0.478 | 0.290 | 0.309 | 0.023 | 0.076 | 0.057 | 0.184 |
R2 | 0.901 | 0.877 | 0.985 | 0.822 | 0.942 | 0.950 | 0.945 | 0.779 | ||
17–23 August | 28.8 | k /d−1 | 0.060 | 0.365 | 0.364 | 0.329 | 0.018 | 0.065 | 0.106 | 0.189 |
R2 | 0.868 | 0.964 | 0.959 | 0.908 | 0.650 | 0.901 | 0.972 | 0.860 | ||
15–21 November | 14.2 | k /d−1 | 0.047 | 0.445 | 0.152 | 0.256 | 0.009 | 0.039 | 0.040 | 0.092 |
R2 | 0.941 | 0.955 | 0.956 | 0.957 | 0.580 | 0.955 | 0.737 | 0.988 |
Parameters | Ditch A | Ditch B | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CODMn | Ammonia | TN | TP | CODMn | Ammonia | TN | TP | |
k20/d−1 | 0.054 | 0.378 | 0.222 | 0.266 | 0.016 | 0.061 | 0.057 | 0.138 |
1.031 | 1.021 | 1.071 | 1.038 | 1.019 | 1.009 | 1.064 | 1.047 | |
R2 | 0.722 | 0.310 | 0.982 | 0.817 | 0.194 | 0.077 | 0.982 | 0.877 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wu, Y.; Dai, H.; Wu, J. Comparative Study on Influences of Bank Slope Ecological Revetments on Water Quality Purification Pretreating Low-Polluted Waters. Water 2017, 9, 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090636
Wu Y, Dai H, Wu J. Comparative Study on Influences of Bank Slope Ecological Revetments on Water Quality Purification Pretreating Low-Polluted Waters. Water. 2017; 9(9):636. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090636
Chicago/Turabian StyleWu, Yifeng, Hongliang Dai, and Jianyong Wu. 2017. "Comparative Study on Influences of Bank Slope Ecological Revetments on Water Quality Purification Pretreating Low-Polluted Waters" Water 9, no. 9: 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9090636