Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorErickson Andrew J.;Weiss Peter T.;Gulliver John S.
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-26T07:52:36Z
dc.date.available2019-02-26T07:52:36Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.other%28ASCE%29EE.1943-7870.0001296.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4250000
dc.description.abstractField installations of two iron-enhanced sand filters (IESFs), designed to remove phosphate and particulates from stormwater runoff, were monitored and maintained for 1–3 years. One application, a traditional IESF in an agricultural watershed, retained over 64% of the influent phosphate load, whereas the second, a pond perimeter IESF in a developing suburban watershed, retained 26%. The measured average effluent event mean concentration (EMC) for the traditional IESF was 56.1  μg/L. All events exhibited positive removal of phosphate (i.e., effluent loads<influent loads). In contrast, the measured percent phosphate retained for the pond perimeter IESF in 213, 214, and 215 was 18, 25, and 45%, respectively. In addition, the average effluent EMC for the 3 years was 64.1, 54.2, and 19.9  μg/L, respectively. Half of the events (14 of 28) were found to have negative removal (i.e., effluent loads>influent loads). Events with negative removal tended to be smaller events with low influent phosphate concentrations (3.7–39.4  μg/L). Nonroutine maintenance improved the hydraulic performance of the pond perimeter IESF and, after a rinsing event, also improved phosphate retention rates to an average of 45%. There are believed to be at least two reasons for this difference in performance between the two IESFs: First, the traditional IESF was treating agricultural tile drainage with a low particulate phosphorus concentration, while the pond-perimeter IESF had a degrading mat of filamentous algae transported onto the surface, creating a source of phosphate that was not quantified. Second, the pond-perimeter IESF had treated a relatively large volume of water for its size, resulting in substantial flow-through in the filter within 5 years of operation. This is greater than anticipated for an IESF, and may have partially caused the reduction in performance.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleMonitoring and Maintenance of Phosphate Adsorbing Filters
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume144
dc.journal.issue1
dc.journal.titleJournal of Environmental Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001296
dc.page5017007
dc.treeJournal of Environmental Engineering:;2018:;Volume ( 144 ):;issue: 001
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record