A SIMPLIFIED WATER QUALITY MODEL FOR WETLANDS A SIMPLIFIED WATER QUALITY MODEL FOR WETLANDS

A SIMPLIFIED WATER QUALITY MODEL FOR WETLANDS

  • 期刊名字:国际泥沙研究(英文版)
  • 文件大小:542kb
  • 论文作者:Jan-Tai KUO,Jihn-Sung LAI,Wu-S
  • 作者单位:Department of Civil Engineering and Hydrotech Research Institute
  • 更新时间:2020-07-08
  • 下载次数:
论文简介

A SIMPLIFIED WATER QUALITY MODEL FOR WETLANDSJan- Tai KU0', Jihn-Sung LAP, Wu-Seng LUNG' and Chou-Ping YANG*ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study is to develop a simplified mathematical model to simulate suspendedsolids and total phosphorus concentrations in a wetland or detention pond. Field data collectedfrom a wet detention pond during storms were used to demonstrate the application of this model.Favorable agreements between the model results and data were achieved. The ratio of averageoutlet method and summary of loads method were used to quantify the removal efficiency ofpollutants, reflecting the efficiencies are very close. The results of this study can be used fornonpoint source pollution control, wastewater treatment or best management practices (BMPs)through the wetland.Key Words: Wetland, Detention pond, Water quality model, Nonpoint source pollution control,BMPs1 INTRODUCTIONModels are becoming increasingly important as a scientific basis for environmental management, yetmodelers hold a variety of opinions as to the proper approach to modeling natural systems. In particular,there is an ongoing debate about the relative merits of simple models which ft statistically to simulatechemical, physical, and biological processes (Reckhow and Chapra, 1999). Wetlands are among the mostimportant ecosystems on the earth because of their unique hydrologic conditions and their role asecotones between terrestrial and aquatic systems. Historically, wetlands were called swamps, marshes,bogs, fens, or sloughs, depending on the existing plant and water conditions and on the geographic setting.Wetlands are sometimes described as“the kidneys of the landscape” because it functions as thedownstream receivers of waste from both natural and human resources. The major functions of a wetlandgenerally include pollution control, flood storage and conveyance, erosion reduction and sediment control,groundwater recharge/discharge, wildlife habitats, recreation and enjoyment (Novotny and Olem, 1994;Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).Wetlands constructed as the wastewater treatment system are considered more cost effective than theadvanced wastewater treatment systems in the world. Past research has shown that the wetland ordetention pond ecosystems are efficient to remove suspended solids, nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen),chemical oxygen demand (COD), and heavy metals (Boyt et al, 1977; Martin, 1988; Holler, 1989; Wu etal., 1996; Odum, 2000; Jing et al., 2001; Yang et al, 2001; Walk and Hurl, 2002). Recently, constructedwetlands and detention ponds are being used increasingly for best management practices (BMPs) inaddressing nonpoint source pollution control problems (Raisin and Mithell, 1995; Kuo et al, 1997;Earles, 1999; Wen et al, 2000; Carleton et al., 2001).In recent years, hydrodynamic models have been developed for the calculation of flow characteristicsin wetlands or detention ponds. Hydrodynamic simulations provide the flow infrmation such as watersurface level and flow fieid as well as salinity distribution (Guardo and Tomasello, 1995; Feng and Molz,1997; Hsu et al, 1998; Somes et al, 1999; Moustafa and Hamrick, 2000; Liu et al., 2003). Althoughmany hydrodynamic and water quality models have been developed and widely used (Brown, 1988;Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Hydrotech Research Istitute, National Taiwan University, No.1,Sect. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 106, Taiwan, China, E-mail: khri@nhi du tw2Assistant Researcher, Hydrotech Research Institute, Nationa中国煤化工)6, Taiwan, China3 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University ofVMH. Cn M H C6, Taiwan, ChinaJia 22904 4742, U.S.A4Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, NationalNote: The original manuscript of this paper was eceived in Nov. 2003. The revised version was received inMarch 2004. Discussion open until June 2005.-96-Intermational Jourmal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No.2, 2004, pp. 96-105many hydrodynamic and water quality models have been developed and widely used (Brown, 1988;Benelmouffok and Yu, 1989; Liu et al, 2001; Wynn and Liehr, 2001), aquatic plant models for thewetland ecosystems are not yet developed well (Lung and Light, 1996; Dormeles et al, 2001; Parrott andKok, 2001; Sanderson et al, 2001). That is, a comprehensive water quality model for a wetland systemincorporating mass transport in the water column and sediments and aquatic plants have not beenreported.'Physical, chemical, and biological processes dominate the fate and transport of pollutants in wetlandsand detention ponds ecosystem. Martin (1988) indicated that the detention pond allows settling of heavyand coarse material, similar to pretreatment or primary treatment in a treatment plant. The wetland withits large area and long detention time provides opportunity for the reduction of dissolved 'Constituentsthrough biological and chemical processes, similar to secondary treatment in a treatment plant.Sedimentation in ponds and wetlands is important, not only for removing the sediment itself but also fornutrients and contaminants which are readily attached to fine particles (Fennessy et al, 1994; Raisin et al,1997). For this reason, a wet detention pond can be regarded as a wetland. Therefore, the data from a wetdetention pond were used for model calibration and verification in this study.The purpose of this research is to develop a modeling framework of the contaminant transport, aquaticplant and sediment- water interactions for suspended solids and total phosphorus concentrations in awetland or detention pond. The suspended solids and total phosphorus concentrations are simulatedfollowing a storm event to calibrate model parameters using the measured data from the field. The studiedresults in this paper can be applied to nonpoint source pollution control and wastewater treatment througha wetland.2 STUDY AREAThe wet detention pond is located at Ben-Chou Industrial Park of Kaohsiung in southerm Taiwan (Fig.1). The wet detention pond was built in 1999 to receive secondary sewage efluent from Ben-ChouIndustrial Park and storm-water runoff from adjacent roadways. The maximum depth of the wet detentionpond is 2 m. Its surface area is 17,716 m, resulting in an effective design volume of 35,432 m'. Fig. 2shows the relationships of stage, surface area, and storage of wet detention pond. The wetland inletconsists of two 4.5 m x 2 m box culverts with a length of 46 m, and a 50 m long pipe culvert with adiameter of 3 m. The outlet consists of three 3 m x 2 m box culverts. Three major species of aquaticplants, including Typha angustifolia L, Ludwigia octovalvis Raven, and Phragmites communis L. arefound in the wet detention pond, which may play an important role in sorbing dissolved contaminants. Inthe present study, Typha angustifolia L. is choosen as the representive aquatic plant in the model.中国煤化工YHCNMHGInternational Jourmal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 96-105-97-N↑TAIWANInlet◆Wet detention pondPondScale120OutletMetersFig. 1 The plan view of wet detention pond located at Ben-Chou Industrial Park of Kaohsiung in Taiwan3025y= 1.62x+ 14.476y= 2.230x + 9.483100.00.5.01.52.02.5Stage (m)3(y= 2.356x2 + 7.757x + 0.225.15中国煤化工.5JYHCNMHGFig. 2 Relationships of stage, surface area, and storage of wet detention pond- 98-Intermational Jourmal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 96-105.The model calibration and verification analyses were supported with the data collected during twostorm events on April 1, 2000 and April 15, 2000 (Wen et al, 2000). The amount of precipitation on April1, 2000 was 38 mm and the associated runoff volume was 13,285 m'. In the second storm event, theamount of precipitation was 11.2 mm and its runoff volume was 1,804 m'. Based on the sequentialmeasurements recorded every 5 minutes, the average concentration of suspended solids was 7,079 mgLand total phosphorus was 4.7 mg/L in the first event. Whereas, the average concentration of suspendedsolids was 381 mg/L and total phosphorus was 1.6 mgL in the second event.3 GOVERNING EQUATIONSThe study area is configured with a one-box model, i.e. completely mixed waterbody. or zerodimensional. Instantaneous equlibrium between dissolved and particulate forms of contaminants isassumed. Wetland hydrologic processes are conceptualized as a hydrologic balance, with the volume ofwater in the wetland as the state variable (Fig. 3). Factors afecting the volume of water in the etlandinclude inflow, rainfall, evapotranspiration, and outflow. For the constructed wetlands, subsurface flowsand groundwater interaction are commonly assumed to be negligible. Hence, the goverming equation forthe hydrologic balance iss=Qn-Qm+P .(1])dtwhere: t=time (s); S= storage (m); Qn= inflow (m/s); Qow = outflow (m'/s); P= precipitation(m'/s)EvapotranspirationRainfall↑InflowOutflow→中中世StorageInfiltration/groundwater exchangeFig. 3 Hydrologic balance in wetlandKinetic interactions in the wetland are depicted in Fig. 4. Equations 2, 3, and 4 represent the massbalance for suspended solids and a given pollutant in the water column and sediment. Mathematically, thetotal contaminant concentration is separated into dissolved and particulate components. The particulateform undergoes sedimentation and scour, while the dissolved form is subjected to volatilization,photolysis, hydrolysis, and biodegradation. Difusion exchange between the sediment and the watercolumn is also incorporated. Settling and resuspension are physical processes of importance in thewetland system. They are complicated by strong interactions with the biotic processes (Di Toro et al,1982; Thomann and Mueller, 1987; Chapra, 1997).v m=Qm -Qowm-v,Am中国煤化工(2)ltYHCNMHG.vi=QmCim -QomG. -KVG -v.AFgG -vAFpCi +v,AC2(3)'dtIntermational Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 96-105-99 -Volatilization↑InflowOutflowAdsorptionDesorptionWaterDissolvedParticulatecolumnyDecayDiffusionResuspensionSettlingSediment▲Piant uptake↓BurialFig. 4 Kinetic processes in wetland+vg4(Fa2C2 - Fanc)-kVFnCv2“= -K;V2Cr +v,AFp:ec-v,Ac2 -v,Ac2 +vgA(Fac-Fncx)(4)2d-k2VzFa2C2where: m = concentration of suspended solids in the water column (mg/L); m;n = inflow concentrationof suspended solids (mg/L); m, = concentration of suspended solids in the sediment (mgL);C = concentration of pollutant in the water column (mg/L); C = concentration of pollutant in thesediment (mg/L); V = volume of water column (m); V2 = volume of sediment (m); A = surface areaof wetland (m2); Qm = inflow of water column (m*/s); Lou = outflow of water column (m^/s);U。= volatilization mass-transfer velocity (m/day); Us= settling velocity of solids (m/day);U, = resuspension velocity (m/day); Ua = sediment-water diffusive mixing velocity (m/day);Ub = burial velocity (m/day); K = decay rate of pollutant in the water column (day); K2 =decay rateof pollutant in the sediment (day"); k = adsorption coefficient of plant (day"); k = plant uptakecofficient (day"); F。= fraction of the particulate form of pollutant in the water column中国煤化工Fm=1+K]MYHCNMHG.where K a1 = partition coefficient in the water column (m'/g), m = concentration of suspended solids inthe water column (mg/L); Fa = fraction of the dissolved form of pollutant in the water column.100-International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 96-105Fa=1-Fmn=1+KgmFar = fraction of the dissolved form of pollutant in the sediment1φ+Kc2(1-φ)pwhere φ= porosity in the sediment; φ= 0.7-0.95, ρ= density of the sediment (g/m');ρ≈2.4x106-2.7x10° g/m3 (Thomann and Mueller, 1987; Chapra, 1997), Kd2 =partition coefficient inthe sediment (m/g); F2 = fraction of the particulate form of pollutant in the sediment,Fp2=1-FsrEquations 2 and 3 are solved simultaneously using the finite difference method with a fouth-orderRunge-Kutter numerical technicque (Chapra, 1997). However, Equations 3 and 4 are not solvedsimultaneously due to lack of sediment data except porosity and density of sediment in this study.4 SETTLING VELOCITYSediment and particulate chemicals in the water column may settle to lower water segments anddeposit to surficial bed segments. Particulate transport velocities may vary both in time and in space, andare multiplied by cross-sectional areas to obtain flow rates for solids and the particulate fractions ofchemicals.Settling velocities should be set within the range of Stoke's velocities corresponding to the suspendedparticle size dstribution (Chapra, 1997):v=a点o g P,-Pw(5)μwhere: u。 = sttling velocity of solids (m/day); a = a dimensionless form factor reflecting the effect ofthe particle's shape on stling velocity (for a sphere it is 1.0); g =acceleration due to gravity (981cm/s); p, = density of the particle (g/cm); Pw = density of the water (g/cm); μ =dynamic viscosity(g/cm . s); d = an effective particle diameter (cm).In this study, stling velocity U。 is a key parameter in modeling concentrations of suspended solidsand total phosphorus in the water column. The value of Us is selected based on Chapra (1997) (P. 301).In general, the stting velocity depends on the sediment concentration and particle size.5 MODEL RESULTSThe field data on April 1, 2000 were selected for model calibration, and the data obtained on April 15,2000 were used for model verification. The basic input data for this study model include hydrodynamicdata (such as inflow, outflow, precipitation, and stage) and concentrations of suspended solids and totalphosphorus constituent. The change of stage with time was used to calculate the surface area of the wetdetention pond. The in-wet detention pond concentrations of suspended solids and total phosphorusconstituent in the first storm on April 1, 2000 and April 15, 2000, were used as the initial conditions. Themain driving force which dictate the hydrodynamic behavior of the system is the inflow into the wetdetention pond. The time series inflow hydrographs of the wet detention pond on April 1, 2000 and April15, 2000 are presented in Fig. 5, which show the peak flows of 4.47 m'/s and 0.35 m'/s on April 1, 2000and April 15, 2000, respectively. Fig. 5 also shows the time series water surface elevation during the twostorm events. In the first storm event, the water surface elevation gradually increased and reached a peak,then decreased gradually and remained relatively constant until the end of storm. The ranged watersurface elevation from 0.66 m to 0.97 m. However, the v中国煤化工nained relativelyconstant in the range of 0.7 m to 0.76 m in the second stormEtflow hydrographsimulation results on April 1, 2000 and April 15, 2000, matchMYHCNMH GInternational Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 96-105- 101-5.April 1, 2000.0)5 rAprl 15, 2000一loflow]2一Inow H 1.8+ W.S.EH 1.6.4w.s. E143.0.3 F2.0.80.2 t1.).4.1 t.2o.18:00 18:36 19:12 19:48 20:24 21:00 21:36 22:12 22:486:43 7:37 8:32 927 10:22 1:16 12:11 13:06 14:00Time (hours)Time (hous)Fig. 5 Time series inflow hydrograph and water surface elevation of wet detention pond om April 1,2000 and April 15, 20000.:Aprl 1, 2000MeasuredApril 15, 20000●Measured4.: Model rsult0.一Model resut IE 3.020有0.218:00 1836 19:12 19:48 20:24 21:00 21:36 22:12 22:48:43 7:37 832 927 1022 1:16 12:11 13:06 14:00Time (houn)Time (ourn)Fig. 6 Comparison of simulated outflow hydrograph vs. measured data for wet detention pond on April 1,The hydrodynamic model results were used as input for water quality simulations of the wet detentionpond. The model results and measured data for suspended solids and total phosphorus concentrations inthe water column on April 1, 2000 are shown in Fig. 7. The hydrodynamic conditions dominate the flowfield during storms. Therefore, flows through the system and the settling velocity control the fate andtransport of pollutants. For the simulation of suspended solids, the source for suspended solids includedsuspended sediment inputs and losses from inflows and outflows. Suspended sediments are lost due tosettling from the water column to the sediment bed and sediment resuspension from the sediment bed tothe water column. Phosphorus can be removed from the internal system by settling, chemical processes,and biological uptake. The loss term was based on sedimentation only. Therefore, the key parameter inmodeling suspended solids and total phosphorus is the assignment of the settling velocity. For this study,a settling velocity of 0.08 m/day is selected. Martin (1988) investigated that the settling of heavysuspended particles and coarse material were probably the primary process causing the reduction ofsuspended constituent in the wet detention pond. Wu et al. (1996) also indicated that the removal ofparticulate pollutants was achieved by sedimentation in the wet detention pond. In addition,concentrations of total suspended solids, pollutant, and partition coefficient in the sediment are assumeddue to lack of measured data. Nevertheless, for the model results and field measurements are in areasonable agreement for the water column, although the model results miss peaks of concentrations.30006.0 r2500二Model results54.一Model resuts)2000150020 F中国煤化工18:43 19:04 19:26 19:48 20:09 20:31 20:52fHCNMHG二209 2031 20:52Time (hour)Fig. 7 Comparison of simulated suspended solids and total phosphorus vs.measured data for wet detention pond on April 1, 2000- 102-International Joumal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 96-105Model verification is needed to test the validity of the model against independent sets of measured data.This is, to test the consistency of the previously evaluated coefficients using data collcted under differentambient conditions (Liu et al., 2000). The verification results for suspended solids and total phosphorusconcentrations in the water column on April 15, 2000 are shown in Fig. 8. The model results match themeasured data very well. The calibrated values of kinetic coefficients for suspended solids and totalphosphorus of the key model cofficients are listed in Table 1. The calibration of all parameter values forthe detention pond is within the general range reported in the literature (Bowie et al, 1985; Thomann andMueller, 1987; Chapra, 1997; Yu et al, 1998).00 r.0「●MeasuredMeasured250 tModel results. Model results1.5 t50 t1.0 t00一g0.5t3.0 L07:12 08:24 0936 10:48 12:00 13:12 1424 15307:1208:24 09:36 10:48 12:00 13:12 1424 15:36Time (hours)Fig. 8 Comparison of simulated suspended solids and total phosphorus vs.measured data for wet detention pond on April 15, 2000Table 1 Cofficients and constants used in the model calibrationParameterDefinitionUnitCalibration value_UVolatilization mas-ransfer velocitym/day0USetling velocity of solids0.08.Resuspension velocity0.0005UaSediment-water difusive mixing velocity0.00KDecay rate of pollutant in the water columnday'0.001KgPartition cofficient in the water columnm'/g0.1Adsorption cofficient of plant0.055Porosity in the sediment0.9Density of the sedimentg/m22.5x10°A detailed sensitivity analysis was not undertaken as a part of the study but experience with the modelsshow that the settling velocity of particle would be the most critical in terms of accuracy.6 DISCUSSIONSThe mass of pollutants transported was calculated as the product of flow and concentration over theentire sampling period. The removal efficiency of pollutants was then determined as the percentdifference of the pollutant mass entering and leaving the detention pond. Two methods were used toquantify the pollutant removal efficiency in constructed wetlands or detention ponds (Martin, 1988). Thefirst method is based on the ratio of average outlet event mean concentration (EMC) and average inletevent mean concentration, expressed as:EMC efficiency =:average outlet EMCx 100(6)average inlet EMCThe second method is based on the summation of all load中国煤化工orm event. The .summation of loads (SOL) efficiency is expressed asMHCNMHGsum of outlet loadsSOL eficiency|x 100(7)sum of inlet loadsIntermational Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No.2, 2004, pp.96-105-103-.The average EMC and SOL efficiency methods assume that the monitored storms are a representativesample of all storms that generally occur The EMC efficiency provides information about the effect ofdetention on the water quality of downstream waters by providing an average event mean concentrationof constituents delivered to downstream waters. The EMC efficiency method does not requireconcomitant data; it gives equal weight, by averaging, to each storm in the study data set. However, theSOL efficiency provides a measure of the overall efficiency of the detention units. The SOL efficiencymethod requires concomitant data for input and output storm loads; it gives somewhat more weight tolarge-load storms, it does not provide an assessment of the individual storm data. According to themeasured data, removal efficiency for suspended solids is 49.5 to 88.2% and for total phosphorus is 69.6to 72.8% using EMC method. The removal efficiency for suspended solids is 43.5 to 90:0% and for totalphosphorus is 69.7 to 74.8% using SOL method. A comparison of the suspended solids and totalphosphorus removal efficiency results show that the twin method eficiencies are very close.7 CONCLUSIONSA simplifed water quality model for wetlands was developed in this study, using the data collected at aselected site at Ben-Chou Industrial Park of Kaohsiung in southern Taiwan. The model is calibrated andverified using the observed data collected on April 1, 2000 and April 15, 2000. Favorable agreementsbetween the model results and measured data of suspended solids and total phosphorus in the watercolumn were obtained. Two methods were used to quantify the removal efficiency of pollutants: the ratioof average outlet method and summary of loads method. For most constituents, the two methods yieldabout the same results. Further, a more complicated multi-dimensional model is being developed withfield data collcted from a coastal wetland (i.e. Erh-Chung Flood Way wetland, which is located at theconfluence of the Tanshui River in northerm Taiwan) system. The results of this study can be used fornonpoint source pollution control and wastewater treatment as well as for best management practices(BMPs).ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis research was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan, China, under grant NSC89-221 1-E-002-092. We would like to thank Prof. Ching-Gung Wen of National Cheng Kung Universityfor providing the field data used in the model calibration and verification analyses. The authors alsowould like to express their appreciation to the manuscript reviewers; through their comments this paperwas substantially improved.REFERENCESBenelmouffok, D. E, and Yu, S. L. 1989, Two dimensional numerical modeling of hydrodynamics and pollutanttransport in a wet detention pond. Water Science and Technology, Vol. 21, pp. 727-738. .Bowie, G. L, Mills, W. B., Porella, D. B., Campbell, C. L., Pagenkopf, J. K, Rupp, G. L, Johnson, K M, Chan, P.w. H, and Ghreini, S. A.1985, Rates, constants, and kinetics formations in surface water quality modeling, 2nd ed,EPA/600/3-85/040, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.Boyt, F. L., Bayley, s. E., and Zoltek J, J. 1977, Removal of nutrients from treated municipal wastewater by wetlandvegetation. Journal/Water Pollution Control Federation, pp. 789-799.Brown, M. T.1988, A simulation model of hydrology and nutrient dynamics in wetlands. Computers, Environmentand Urban Systems, Vol. 12, No.4, pp. 221-237.Carleton, J. N, Grizzard, T. J, Godrej, A. N, and Post, H. E. 2001, Factors affecting the performance of stormwatertreatment wetlands. Water Research, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1552-1562.Chapra, S. C.1997, Surface Water-Quality Modeling, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Di Toro, D. M., O'Connor, D. J, Thomann, R. V, and John, J. P. St. 1982, Simplified model of the fate ofpartitioning chemicals in lakes and streams. In Modeling the Fate of Chemicals in the Aquatic Environment, Pp.165-190, Dickson, K. L., Maki, A. W, and Jr, J. C. (eds.), Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Dormeles, M. R. F, da Silva, C. M, and Gomes, A. A. 2001, A model for hyphae effects in phosphorus absorption byplants. Ecological Modelling,'Vol.142, pp.83-89.Earles, T A. 1999, Mitigated wetlands for the treatment of s中国煤化工and management. PhDFeng, K., and Molz, F. J. 1997, A 2-d, diffusion-based wetlanu ...Thesis, University ofVirginia, Chartlttesville.:YCHCNMH Gydrology, Vol. 196, pp.230-250.-104.International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004, pp. 96-105Fennessy, M. s, Brueske, C. C, and Mitsch, W. J. 1994, Sediment deposition patterms in restored freshwaterwetlands using sediment traps. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 409-428.Guardo, M, and Tomasello, R. s.1995, Hydrodynamic simulations for a constructed Wetland in south Florida. WaterResources Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, PP.687-701.Holler, J. D.1989, Storm water detention basin nutrient removal efficient. Journal of Water Resources Planning andManagement, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 52-63.Hsu, M. HL, Kuo, A. Y, Kuo, J. T, and Liu, w. C.1998, Modeling estuarine hydrodynamics and salinity for wetlandrestoration. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Vol. A33, No.5, pp. 891 921.Jing, s. R., Lin, Y. F,, Lee, D. Y, and Wang, T. W. 2001, Nutrient removal from polluted river water by usingconstructed wetlands. Bioresource Technology, Vol. 76, pp. 131-135.Kadlec, R. H., and Knight, R. L.1996, Treatment Wetlands, CRC Press, Inc: Boca Raton.Kuo, J. T, Yu, S. L., and Lin, J. Y.1997, Development of a BMP manual for nonpoint pollution control and amanagement strategy for reservoir watersheds, 86EC2A040019, Water Resources Bureau, Ministry of EconomicAffairs, Taipei, Taiwan. (in Chinese)Liu, W. C, Hsu, M. H, and Kuo, A. Y. 2000, Sensitivity analysis of a mathematical model of chlorophyll distributionin the tidal Keelung river. Jourmal of Environmental Science and Health, Vol. A35, No.4, pp. 489-514.Liu, W. C, Hsu, M. H, and Kuo, A. Y. 2001, A modeling study of water quality in main channel and estuarieswetland. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Vol. A36, No. 5, pp. 641 -660.Liu, W. C, Hsu, M. H, and Wang, C. F. 2003, Modeling of flow resistance in mangrove swamp at mouth of tidalKeeling river, Taiwan. Jourmal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 2, PP.86-92.Lung, W. s., and Light, R. N. 1996, Modelling copper removal in wetland ecosystem. Ecological Mdelling, Vol. 93,pp. 89-100.Martin, E. H, 1988. Effectiveness of an urban runoff detention pond- wetlands system. Joumal of EnvironmentalEngineering, ASCE, Vol. 114, No. 4, p..810-827.Mitsch, W. J, and Gosselink, J. G.2000, Wetlands, 3rd ed, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Moustafa, M. Z, and Hamrick, J. M.2000, Calibration of the wetland hydrodynamic model to the everglades nutrientremoval project. Water Quality and Ecosystem Modeling, Vol. 1, pp. 141-167.Novotny, V., and Olem, H. 1994, Water Quality Prevention, Identification and Management of Difuse Pllution, VanNostrand Reinhold.Odum, H. T. 2000, Heavy Metals in the Environment Using Wetlands for Their Removal, CRC Press LLC.Parrot, L, and Kok, R. 2001, A generic primary producer model for use in ecosystem simulation. EcologicalModelling, Vol. 139, pp. 75-99.Raisin, G. W, and Mitchell, D. s.1995, The use of wetlands for the control of non-point source pollution. WaterScience and Technology, Vol. 32, No.3, pp. 177-186.Raisin, G. w, Mitchell, D S., and Croome, R. L. 1997, The effectiveness of a small constructed wetland inameliorating diffuse nutrient loadings from an Australian rural catchment. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 9, pp.19-35.Reckhow, K. H, and Chapra, S. C. 1999, Modeling excessive nutrient loading in the environment. EnvironmentalPollution, Vol.100, pp.197-207.Sanderson, E. w, Foin, T. C, and Ustin, s. L. 2001, A simple empirical model of salt marsh plant spatialdistributions with respect to a tidal channel network. Ecological Modelling, Vol. 139, pp. 293-307.Somes, N. L .G, Bishop, W. A., and Wong, T. H. F. 1999, Numerical simulation of wetland hydrodynamics.Environment International, Vol. 25, No. 6/7, pp. 773-779. .Thomann, R. V, and Mueller, J. A. 1987, Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control, Harper CollinsPublishers Inc.Walker, D. J,, and Hurl, s. 2002, The reduction of heavy metals in a stormwater etland. Ecological Engineering, Vol.18, pp. 407-414.Wen, C. G, Yu, S. L., Fan, J. C, Change, T. K, Cheng, K. S, and Lin,J. Y. 2000, The research for nonpoint sourceoptimal management strategy for watershed, EPA-89-U1G1-03-003, Environmental Protection Agency, Taipei,Taiwan. (in Chinese)Wu, J. s, Holman, R. B., and Dormey, J. R.1996, Systematic evaluation of pollutant removal by urban wet detentionponds. Jourmal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 11, pp.982-988.Wynn, T. M, and Liehr, s. K.2001, Development of a constructed subsurface flow etland simulation model.Yang, L, Chang, H. T, and Huang, M-N, L. 2001, Nutrient removEcological Engineering, Vol. 16, pp. 519-536.中国煤化工vetland microcosmswith and without vegetation. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 18, pp.YHCNMHGYu, S. L, Fitch, G. M, Earles, T. A, and Wolfe, D. D. August 1998, Constructed wetlands for nonpoint sourcepollution control, VTRC 99-R14, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville.Intermational Joumal of Sediment Research, Vol. 19, No.2, 2004, pp.96-105。 105-

论文截图
版权:如无特殊注明,文章转载自网络,侵权请联系cnmhg168#163.com删除!文件均为网友上传,仅供研究和学习使用,务必24小时内删除。