PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE ”DATE DUE I DATE DUE

 

DEC 1 $72004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuopss-p. 1 5

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR USE AS A PART OF A DAIRY
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

By

Kevin Arthur Kowalk

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Biosystems Engineering

2002

ABSTRACT

CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR USE AS A PART OF A
DAIRY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

By
Kevin Arthur Kowalk

Animal waste disposal is of increasing concern due to larger and more
concentrated livestock operations with less land available for manure application.
Many treatment systems exist which treat the water effectively but are too
expensive or labor intensive to be feasible for most farms. Wetlands provide an
inexpensive and non-labor intensive means by which to treat wastewater and are
favorable to farmers in many ways. A small—scale study investigated the
feasibility of treating dairy lagoon effluent using a wetland treatment system with
advanced phosphorus removal as a step in the treatment process.

Wastewater effluent from a solid separator and an anaerobic lagoon were
applied to a small-scale wetland treatment system consisting of six sets of
wetland cells with different retention times (6 and 12 day) and substrates (pea-
stone, lava rock, and pea-stone/Septisorb mixture). Concentrations of nutrients
were recorded at different stages of the wetland system and evaluated to aid in
the development of design parameters for a pilot scale wetland treatment
system. Pollutant reductions of 96% for phosphorus, 39% for total inorganic
nitrogen, and 75% for COD were accomplished. It was concluded that the pea-
stone substrate performed the best in phosphorus and COD reduction while the

lava rock substrate performed the best in total inorganic nitrogen reduction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge Professor William Northcott for
his guidance and help. Much of my direction and success would have
been a greater challenge without him.

I would also like to thank Dr. Ted Loudon of the Agricultural
Engineering Department and Professor Syed Hashsham of Environmental
Engineering, both of Michigan State University, for serving on the
guidance committee.

Gracious appreciation is extended to Brandon Glaza for all of his
insight and help on the project. To all of my friends and colleagues I have
met and worked with at Michigan State University — thank you.

Lastly, thank you to my family and friends, with a special thank you
to Shelby, for supporting me and being there for everything during my time
at MSU. Your support and caring mean more to me than you will ever

know.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables
List of Figures
Nomenclature
1. Introduction

2. Review of Literature
2.1 Waste Water Characterization
2.2 Waste Water Treatment Options
2.3 Constructed Wetland
2.3.1 Plant Types
2.3.2 Constructed Wetland Types
2.4 Mechanisms for Pollutant Removal in Wetlands
2.4.1 Nitrogen
2.4.2 Phosphorus ,
2.4.3 Advanced Phosphorus Removal
2.4.4 Biochemical/Chemical Oxygen Demand
2.5 Previous Investigations
2.5.1 Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewaters in
Engineered Reed Bed Systems
2.5.2 Suitability of a Treatment Wetland for
Dairy Wastewaters
2.5.3 Experiences with Two Constructed Wetlands
For Treating Milking Center Wastewater in a
Cold Climate
2.5.4 Performance of a Constructed Wetland for
Dairy Waste Treatment in LaGrange County, Indiana
2.6 General Design Parameters
2.7 Constructed Wetland Costs

3. Design Rationale

4. Experimental Design
4.1 Wetland Design
4.2 Analysis and Variables
4.3 Analysis of Nutrients (NO3', NHJ, PO.,') and COD

5. Results and Discussion
5.1 Wetland Data
5.1.1 Phosphorus
5.1.2 Nitrogen

vi

viii

20

21
26

29

32
32
37
39

4O
4O
4O
46

5.1.3 COD
5.1.4 Weather Influence
5.2 Pilot Scale Wetland Design
5.2.1 Green Meadows Pilot Scale Design
6. Conclusions
7. Recommendations for Further Study

References

Appendices

56
6O
61
66
69
71
72

76

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 5.1 Phosphorus Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle ......... 41

TABLE 5.2A Average Phosphorus Concentration Through ........................ 42
The Wetland System

TABLE 5.28 Average Phosphorus Reduction at the Outlet ........................ 42
of each Wetland Stage

TABLE 5.3 T-Test of Significance for Phosphorus Reduction ................... 43
Compared to Influent Concentration

TABLE 5.4A T-Test Results for Statistical Significance of ........................... 45
Phosphorus Concentration between Substrates

TABLE 548 T-Test Results for Statistical Significance of .......................... 45
Phosphorus Reduction between Wetland Stages

TABLE 5.5 Ammonium Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle ............ 46

TABLE 5.6A Average Ammonium Concentration Through ......................... 47
Wetland System

TABLE 5.68 Average Ammonium Reduction at the Outlet ........................ 47
of each Wetland Stage

TABLE 5.7 T-Test of Significance for Ammonium Reduction .................... 48
Compared to Influent Concentration

TABLE 5.8A T-Test Results for Statistical Significance of .......................... 50
Ammonium Concentration between Substrates

TABLE 588 T-Test Results for Statistical Significance of .......................... 5O
Ammonium Reduction between Wetland Stages

TABLE 5.9 Nitrate Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle .................. 51

TABLE 5.10 Average Nitrate Concentration and % Reduction .................... 52

TABLE 5.11 T-Test of Significance for Nitrate Reduction ........................... 53

Compared to Influent Concentration

TABLE 5.12A T-Test Results for Statistical Significance of ......................... 54
Nitrate Concentration between Substrates

vi

TABLE 5.128 T-Test Results for Statistical Significance of ......................... 54
Nitrate Reduction between Wetland Stages

TABLE 5.13 Total Inorganic Nitrogen Concentration ................................ 55
TABLE 5.14 COD Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle ..................... 56
TABLE 5.15 Average COD Reduction and k-values ................................. 56
TABLE 5.16 T-Test of Significance for COD Reduction ............................. 57

Compared to Influent Concentration

TABLE 5.17A T-Test Results for Statistical Significance of ......................... 59
COD Concentration between Substrates

TABLE 5.178 T-test Results for Statistical Significance of Total .................. 59
Percentage Reduction of COD Between Substrates

TABLE 5.18 Average K Values for Ammonium & COD ............................. 62

vii

HGURE1J
HGUREZJ
HGURE22
HGURE23
HGUREZA
HGURE4J
HGURE42

FIGURE 4.3

FIGURE 4.4
FIGURE 4.5
FIGURE 5.1
FIGURE 5.2
FIGURE 5.3
FIGURE 5.4

FIGURE 5.5

FIGURE 5.6

FIGURE 5.7

FIGURE 5.8

FIGURE 5.9

LIST OF FIGURES

Green Meadows Wastewater Flow Chart ............................... 3
Surface Flow Wetland Cell .................................................. 9
Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cell .......................................... 11
Nitrogen Removal Mechanisms in a Wetland ........................ 14
Phosphorus Removal Mechanisms in a Wetland .................... 16
Sub-Surface Wetland Cell (Baffles) ..................................... 34
Phosphorus Trap Diagram ................................................ 35
Constructed Wetland System and Wastewater ...................... 36
Flow Pattern

Constructed Wetland Set-up .............................................. 36
Sampling Points in Wetland System .................................... 38
Average Phosphorus Concentration .................................. 44
Total Phosphorus Reduction versus Time ............................. 46
Average Ammonium Concentration ................................... 49
Average COD Concentration .............................................. 58
Precipitation and Evapo-Transpiration Data ........................... 60

(MAWN Weather Station; Bath, MI)

Nutrient Concentration Reduction (Ammonium) ..................... 61
Corresponding to Rainfall and Evapo-Transpiration
Effects

Wetland Area versus Influent Concentration .......................... 63
for 10,000 gal/day of Dairy Wastewater
Wetland Area versus Wastewater Flow ................................ 64
for Influent Concentration of 3,000 mg/L
Wetland Area versus Influent Concentration .......................... 65

for 10,000 gal/day of Dairy Wastewater

viii

NOMENCLATURE

Kowalk (Chapters 2 and 3)

BOD
COD
EPA
NH4+
N03-
N2
N02-
N20
NH3
PO4'
PVC

MAWN

Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Environmental Protection Agency
Ammonium

Nitrate

Dinitrogen gas

Nitrite

Nitrous Oxide

Ammonia

Phosphate

Polyvinylchloride

Michigan Automated Weather Network

Drizo et al., 1997 (Section 2.4)

Fe

Al

Mn

Iron
Aluminum

Manganese

K_adlec and Knigh_t, 1996 (Chapter 2)

kg
ha

k

mg

Kilogram
Hectare
First order areal uptake constant [m/yr]

Milligrams

Kadlec and Knight, 1996 (Chapter 2) Continued

0*

C

03“3

Q.

tm

><§3>L

>

Ci

Ce

Background concentration [mg/l]
Concentration of pollutant [g/m3]
Grams

Meter

Volumetric Flow Rate [m3/d]
Days

Timeld]

Time period for averaging [d]

Indicates time averaging value

Indicates flow weighted value

Net chemical reduction rate [g/mzld]
Wetland Surface Area [m2]

Wetland width [m]

Distance from inlet end [m]

Flow rate per unit width [m2/d]
Hydraulic loading rate [m/d]

Inlet concentration [mg/l]

Target outlet concentration [mg/I]

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Livestock operations produce a number of wastes that require appropriate
disposal or reuse. Many farmers store dairy wastewaters in anaerobic lagoons
and dispose of the water through irrigation onto cropland, and by evaporation.
The disadvantages of this type of system are that wastewater is extremely high in
nitrogen, phosphorus, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and suspended
solids. It can clog irrigation lines, overload the soil with nutrients, and damage
young plants. Runoff from livestock farms on which excessive nutrient loadings
(phosphorus and nitrogen) are generated, has been linked to downstream
eutrophication of surface waters.

Some large-scale livestock operations are exploring alternative means by
which to treat the wastewater. Different types of treatment options exist, such as
anaerobic or aerobic digestion, activated sludge, and treating the effluent with
ferric, aluminum, or calcium salts to precipitate phosphorus from the wastewater
(Kadlec and Knight, 1996). While these systems have been proven to work, they
are generally used for municipalities and are expensive and/or labor intensive.
These systems also use electricity, plastics, concrete, and chemicals to reduce
the pollution, which can result in other waste products.

Livestock waste management is tightly constrained by economics. It is
necessary to develop inexpensive and sustainable management practices which

require low energy inputs (Cronk, 1996). One treatment option that has proved

to require little energy and still is effective in providing treatment for a variety of
municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastewaters is a constructed wetland
system. Wetland systems are generally more economical and less labor
intensive than the wastewater treatment systems in use for municipalities (Kadlec
and Knight, 1996; Hammer, DA, 1989). For municipal systems, Kadlec and
Knight (1996) cite construction costs for North American surface flow wetlands
ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per hectare, with a median of $44,600. Sub-
surface wetland systems cost about eight times more, due to the need for gravel
fill. Once established, the operation and maintenance costs for constructed
wetlands can be lower than for alternative treatment options, generally less than
$1 ,500/ha/year, including the cost of pumping, mechanical maintenance, and
pest control (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).

According to Kadlec and Knight (1996), an irreversible first-order model
does not fit wetland pollutant reduction. Two parameters, an areal uptake rate
constant (k) and a background concentration (C*), are significant. The
parameters allow projection of long-term average behavior of a wetland. The k-
C* parameters effect the wetland area necessary for the reduction of specified
pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, COD) to the required level, and can be used for
both surface flow and sub-surface flow wetland sizing.

A treatment system based on wetlands has the potential to supply a clean
source of irrigation water while reducing the use of groundwater for daily
livestock use by re—circulation. It can also provide more storage volume for

wastewater, reduce odors associated with wastewater storage and disposal, and

reduce the threat of eutrophication to surrounding surface waters. However,
wetland systems are not the entire answer for managing livestock waste; pre-
treatments or post-treatments may need to be incorporated in order to maintain
optimal system operation. The goal of this study is to investigate the potential of
constructed wetlands, as an element of a larger system, for waste management.
An example of such a system, (proposed for Green Meadows Farm in Elsie,

Michigan), is shown in Figure 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land Application Recycled Water Irrigation
1 r. :
Composting Wetland
I f I I I? f f_ _________ _‘
I . l I I . ,
l ' : I : | l :
I I r I i I Phosphorus :
I I I I I ' Separahon I
I : I I I : ‘ :
I I I L ------------- I I I .
I l I I I | I .
l ‘ I I L | . .
: I : SOIId I : I
: I : Separation I I f"""
' I L--S-IIPI3I3---- I r":::::.‘._}£¢fi‘f..1 I
: ‘ 1 1 1 I :
I
I : Digesher I
..... J . l
I I A a l
I 1 I I I
I ' 1 : g
I I Comminutor I :
I I l I I
I T I :
120000 : : : ‘
I I I I

 

thImsIDty
Lagoo n 1
U

Figure 1.1: Green Meadows Wastewater Flow Chart

The constructed wetland component of the waste management system in
Figure 1.1 follows other components such as a sand/manure separator, a solid
separator, an anaerobic digester, a phosphorus separator, and a lagoon storage
unit. These components are not necessary as a whole, but may be coordinated
to bring an effective means of waste management to individual farms. The
wetland in Figure 1.1 acts as the finishing treatment to the other types of
systems.

There has been a significant amount of research conducted on the use of
constructed wetlands for wastewater remediation. This project investigated the
use of a constructed wetland as a component of a system, and in particular
looked at three different substrates and two different retention times in order to
establish the best combination for dairy wastewater treatment.

The primary objectives of this research were: 1) to determine the optimal
retention time and substrate makeup of the constructed wetland, 2) to determine
the areal rate constants for pollutant reduction, and 3) to determine the wetland

area for a pilot scale treatment system.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 WASTE WATER CHARACTERIZATION
Wastewaters from intensive agricultural activities (cattle feedlots, swine
operations, and dairies) typically have higher concentrations of organic matter
and nutrients than treated municipal effluent (Geary and Moore, 1999). Dairy
wastewater is characteristically high in nitrogen, phosphorus, biochemical and
chemical oxygen demand (BOD & COD), and suspended solids. The average
concentrations of these pollutants in dairy wastewater have been documented
(Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Ahn et a/., 2001):
o nitrogen: 100-150 mg/l (nitrite, nitrate, ammonium, organic nitrogen)
o phosphorus: 150-200 mg/I
o COD: 30,000 mg/l
o suspended solids: 1-2°/o total solids
According to Part 651 of the Agricultural Waste Management Field
Handbook published by the EPA (1996), 5 to 10 gallons per day of fresh water
are used for each cow in a milking center in which flushing is used for waste
disposal. Where manure flush cleaning, and automatic cow washers are
employed, water usage can be 150 gallons per cow, per day, or more (EPA,
1996). At Green Meadows Dairy farm, wastewater inputs come from the flushing
of the milking parlor, holding pen, and hospital area. The dilution is primarily due

to the water added in the sand-manure separator and in the dumping of the cow

drinkers, (each adds about 1 gallon per day per cow). All other wastes are
scraped and not flushed. Waste characterization for the Green Meadows farm
as measured by Ahn et al. (2001), and information provided by Green (2002),
show the waste stream to be more concentrated than an average dairy operation
clue to the smaller amounts of water used for a scraping as opposed to a flushing
system.
2.2 WASTE WATER TREATMENT OPTIONS

There are many treatment options to consider for dairy wastewater,
including anaerobic digestion and anaerobic lagoons. These options often
depend on economic situations. Treatments that are operated on an average
dairy farm include; sand/manure separation, solids separation, anaerobic
lagoons, land application, etc. None of these options can remove the nutrients
from the wastewater to a suitable level for recycling or land application. Land
application can be limited due to high phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the soil
prior to treatment and the need for a lower concentration of nutrients being
applied with the irrigation water. Treatments which have been explored to treat
the wastewater, such as activated sludge, anaerobic or aerobic digestion, and
treatment with salts, have been proven to work but are expensive and labor
intensive (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Wetlands provide an inexpensive, low-
energy input to agriculture and add other advantages to the overall picture.
These advantages include high treatment efficiency, minimum maintenance, low
energy requirements, tolerance to variable loads, benefits to wildlife, aesthetically

pleasing landscapes, and no chemical requirements. Constructed wetlands

could potentially replace a wastewater lagoon and they could replace or precede
land application of wastewater (Cronk, 1996). While a constructed wetland is not
the only answer for a finishing treatment of wastewater on dairy farms, it seems
to be the least costly treatment.
2.3 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND

A constructed wetland is an ecological system that combines physical,
biological and chemical treatment mechanisms in removing pollutants from
wastewater as it flows through the wetland (Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), 1999; Thomas et al., 1995). In numerous studies, wetland systems have
been shown to greatly reduce BOD, suspended solids, and soluble nutrients from
livestock lagoon water (Cronk, 1996; Tanner, 1994; Hammer et al., 1993; Hill et
al., 1995). Because of the high rate of biological activity, a wetland can transform
common pollutants into harmless byproducts and essential nutrients (Kadlec and
Knight, 1996). The wetland components that affect wastewater decontamination
are the substrate (sand, gravel, etc), the vegetation (Phragmites australis,
Scn'pus, Typha, In's, Glyceria, Schoenop/ectus, etc), and the rhizosphere (root
zone) organisms (Drizo et al., 1997).
2.3.1 PLANT TYPES

The vegetation of a wetland is primarily hydrophytic, which is adapted for
wet conditions. Many other plant types thrive under these conditions and are
suited for treatment wetlands. Kadlec and Knight (1996) have listed nutrient
removal potential among wetland plant species. Nitrogen uptake ranges from

125 kg/ha/year for Sci/pus up to 5,850 kg/ha/year for Eichhornia crassipes.

Phosphorus removal ranges from 18 kg/ha/year for Scirpus up to 1,125
kg/ha/year for Eichhomia crassipes. While some plants have demonstrated the
ability to take up large amounts of nutrients, most take longer periods of time to
establish. However, the vegetation of a wetland is not designed for nutrient
uptake but rather to enhance settling of solids and promote microbial growth
(Pullin and Hammer, 1991).

Phragmites austra/is, or common reed, is the most widely used plant in
constructed wetlands; it is used in this study. The common reed consists of rigid
aerial shoots, normal roots, and flexible vertical and horizontal rhizomes. lts
benefits in wastewater treatment are based on its ability to pass oxygen from the
leaves through the root stems and rhizomes and out from the fine hair roots into
the root zone. This causes the concentration of organisms to be significantly
higher in the rhizosphere than in the surrounding soil by providing the microbes
(bacteria, fungi, algae, and protozoa) a place to attach as they alter and remove
nutrients for their growth cycles. The microbes also serve as predators which
destroy pathogenic organisms (Langston and VanDevender, 1998).

When water passes through the root zone, it can be compared to the flow
over a trickling filter in a wastewater treatment plant (Biddlestone et al., 1991).
The aerobic and anaerobic conditions in the root zone caused by the passing of
oxygen through the plant aid the nitrification and de-nitrification processes in

driving the nitrogen removal in the wetland.

2.3.2 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND TYPES

Constructed wetlands may be of two types, surface or sub-surface flow.
Surface flow wetlands closely resemble natural wetlands in appearance; they
contain aquatic plants that are rooted in a soil layer on the bottom of the wetland
with a combination of open-water areas, emergent vegetation, and varying water
depths (EPA 1999; Kadlec and Knight, 1996; Wood, 1995). The water flows
through the wetland and is treated by the leaves and stems of the emergent
plants. Surface flow wetlands have become the desirable type due to the low
cost of installation and attraction of wildlife. Figure 2.1 presents a diagram of a

surface flow wetland cell.

Vegetation

(
I!

f

Water Flow

 

fig/

Treatment by

Leaves and Stems CD

of Emergent Plants \ /

@en Water Zona

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.1: Surface Flow Wetland Cell

Sub-surface wetlands do not mirror natural wetlands because they have
no standing water. They contain a bed of media (gravel, sand, crushed rock,
etc.) that has been planted with aquatic plants. When properly designed and
operated, wastewater stays beneath the surface of the media and flows in
contact with and is treated by the roots and rhizomes of the plants (EPA, 1999;
Wood, 1995). Sub-surface wetlands have demonstrated higher rates of
contaminant removal than surface flow wetlands (Lorion, 2001). This has lead to
many treatment wetlands designed as sub-surface flow. Other advantages of
sub-surface flow include less contact with human and wildlife populations,
reduction of odors associated with wastewater, and less potential for insect
(Mosquito) infestation due to the water staying under the surface of the substrate.
See Figure 2.2 fora diagram of a sub-surface flow wetland

cell.

10

Vegetation

\
(it

Water Level {\7 Treatment by Roots “I
Below Surface ' { and Rhizomes of Plants]L

/

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.2: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cell

Oxygen enters the substrate in both types of wetlands through direct
atmospheric diffusion and through plant leaves and the root system, resulting in a
mixture of aerobic and anaerobic conditions (Kadlec and Knight, 1996).
Wetlands remove pollutants through mechanisms such as sorption, nitrification,
de-nitrification, and volatilization.

Recently, different types of wetlands have been introduced in series to
provide enhanced pollutant removal (White, 1995). Skarda et al. (1994) used
wetland cells which contained deep center zones, acting as surface and sub-
surface flow wetlands combined, in order to provide an anaerobic area in the
unplanted wetland sections. Reductions of 50-55% for nitrogen and phosphorus

were obtained as well as 40-45% reduction of BOD/COD. Martin and Moshiri,

11

(1994), found significant reductions in phosphorus (69.5%) and ammonia
nitrogen (98%) in an in—series constructed wetland system used to treat landfill
leachate. Sub-surface flow wetland cells, which in the past incorporated soil
based substrates, experienced clogging problems and therefore have not been
recommended except for tertiary polishing of effluents with low nutrient
concentrations (Hammer, 1994). The use of a larger substrate in sub-surface
flow wetlands has improved their ability to treat wastewater. Drizo et al. (1997)
used shale as a substrate in a sub-surface flow wetland system to remove
phosphorus and ammonium. The sub-surface wetlands proved effective by
completely removing ammonium, removing phosphorus by 98-100% and
removing nitrate by 85-95% without encountering clogging problems within the
wetland. Overall, surface flow and sub-surface flow wetlands both have
advantages and disadvantages.
2.4 MECHANISMS FOR POLLUTANT REMOVAL IN WETLANDS

Constructed wetlands are highly complex systems which separate and
transform contaminants by physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms that
may occur simultaneously or sequentially as the wastewater flows through the
wetland. In the following sections, the removal mechanisms for the contaminants
of concern are discussed.
2.4.1 NITROGEN

Nitrogen compounds are among the principal constituents of concern due
to their role in eutrophication, their effect on the oxygen content of the receiving

waters, and their benefits to plant growth (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). In the

12

I wetland studies in the past, it has been shown that they are very efficient at
removing nitrogen from wastewater, with removal rates of greater than 80
percent (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Nitrogen is removed primarily by the
nitrification/de-nitrification cycle, with nitrification being the rate limiting process.
Nitrogen enters constructed wetlands in particulate and dissolved organic and
inorganic forms (NH4I, or NOg'). Particulate forms are removed through settling
and burial, while the dissolved forms are removed by volatilization, plant and
microbial uptake, and either nitrification or de-nitrification to N2 or N20 gas
(Reddy and D’Angelo, 1997). These processes occur as follows:

0 Nitrification: NH4I ——> NOg', N07]

0 De-Nitrification: N03‘ ——> N2, N20 (gases)

0 Volatilization: NHII —’ NH3 (gas)

The removal of NH4I is largely dependent on the oxygen supply. With the
substrate usually saturated and anaerobic, it is the role of the plants to supply the
oxygen and subsequent aerobic regions (Drizo et al., 1997). Thorough
oxygenation of the substrate leads to the presence of both anaerobic and aerobic
regions; each is important in the enhancement of the nitrification and de-
nitrification cycles (Zhu and Sikora, 1995). See Figure 2.3 for the nitrogen

removal mechanisms in a wetland.

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH; (gas) N2 & N 2O( (gases

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I
.5 §
E 9
E c
_ é’ BI”
Nitrogen In: 9*;/
NH4I,NO3' \39
:> NItrIficatIon f /ROOI
Zone
Settling
\ \ \
{ Particulate Nitrogen} Substrate
Wetland Cell

Figure 2.3: Nitrogen Removal Mechanisms in a Wetland

Nitrogen removal rates of up to 99% can be accomplished. Drizo et al.
(1997) showed that virtually complete removal of ammonium occurred in
wetlands planted with Phragmites, while unplanted wetlands yielded a removal
efficiency of 40-75 percent. In the same experiment, phosphorus removal was
nearly complete in both the planted and unplanted cells. Therefore, the
contribution of Phragmites to nitrogen removal is large (between 25 and 60
percent), with little effect on phosphorus removal. According to Zhu and Sikora
(1995), most wetland studies have been conducted in natural wetland soil. Their
research was based on a gravel substrate and results showed that removal

efficiencies were near 100 percent for nitrogen in planted cells, and lower for

14

unplanted cells. It was believed that the larger pore space allowed more oxygen
to penetrate into the substrate and aid in nitrification. Effective removal of
nitrogen requires long retention times (8 to 33 days) or a large wetland area (Zhu
and Sikora, 1995).

2.4.2 PHOSPHORUS

Phosphorus (P04) is considered the major limiting nutrient for freshwater
systems. It is a concern to dairy farmers due to its high concentrations in
wastewater and its role in eutrophication of surface water. The use of
constructed wetlands to remove phosphorus has provided mixed results, most
likely due to the fact that the key removal mechanism for soluble phosphorus is
sorption on the wetland substrate and to a lesser extent, plant uptake (Kadlec
and Knight, 1996).

Most soils can adsorb phosphorus, including those used in constructed
wetlands (gravel or coarse sand), but the storage is quickly saturated under an
increase in phosphorus loading (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). When the surface
attachment sites available for phosphorus uptake are filled, the soluble
phosphorus flows through the wetland without further treatment. Materials which
contain aluminum, calcium, iron, or magnesium complexes and have large
surface areas (such as clay minerals or peats) quickly and tightly bind soluble
phosphorus (Faulkner and Richardson, 1989). Therefore, research has focused
on substrates that have a high sorptive capacity for phosphorus and adding

aluminum oxides or iron to the normal substrates to enhance phosphorus uptake.

15

While not the main removal pathways for phosphorus, plant and
microorganism uptake do occur. Organisms within the wetland, (such as fungi,
protozoa, algae, and bacteria), require phosphorus for growth and incorporate it
into their tissues. Phosphorus removal by harvesting biomass of wetland plants
has not proven feasible (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). It is difficult to harvest rooted
emergent plants in wetlands, and when successful, relatively small amounts of
phosphorus have been reclaimed in the harvested biomass (Kadlec and Knight,

1996). See Figure 2.4 for the phosphorus removal mechanisms in wetlands.

Phosphorus In:
P04, Dissolved Phosphate (DP) r
Particulate Phosphate ( PP)

 

%

K

W“
9 We.

    
  
 

 

 

 

 

 

/

— I54 Sorption &
(u .5 . .
.9 g Sedimentation
E a [Micro-organisms
2 '6
o 9

o.
Chemically Substrate

Bound P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wetland Cell

Figure 2.4: Phosphorus Removal Mechanisms in a Wetland

16

2.4.3 ADVANCED PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Immobilization of phosphorus can occur through chemical precipitation with
metals (Fe, Al, Mn) and incorporation into organic matter (Drizo et al., 1997).
Research conducted by James et al.(1992) established that adding small
amounts of steel wool to peat (6% steel wool) can remove up to 95% of applied
phosphorus; steal wool enhanced phosphorus sorption more than preformed
rust; and adding steel wool to peat is more effective than mixing it with sand. It
was also concluded that phosphorus sorption on iron oxides in sand and peat
requires that aerobic conditions be maintained because microbial reduction of
iron in the absence of oxygen as an electron acceptor releases soluble
phosphorus to effluent.
2.4.4 BIOCHEMICAL/CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a measure of the amount of
oxygen that bacteria will consume while decomposing organic matter under
aerobic conditions. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) does not differentiate
between biologically available and inert organic matter, but is a measure of total
quantity of oxygen required to oxidize all organic material into carbon dioxide and
water. COD values are always greater than BOD values because it accounts for
a larger group of compounds. Wastewater from livestock operations is extremely
high in BOD and COD as compared to domestic sewage (Biddlestone et al.,
1991). COD of municipal wastewater ranges from 250 to 1,000 mg/l while the
COD of dairy wastewater ranges from 2,500 to 40,000 mg/l (Kadlec and Knight,

1996). The BOD and COD of waste that is discharged into surface waters

17

accelerates bacterial growth and consumes oxygen levels in the rivers, leading to
eutrophication and lethal oxygen levels for fish and aquatic insects.

The organic matter, or carbon, interacts strongly with wetland ecosystems.
The carbon cycle in wetlands is strong and typically provides carbon exports from
the wetland to receiving ecosystems. In general, the amounts of carbon cycled
in the wetland far exceed the quantities added in wastewater (Kadlec and Knight,
1996). Therefore, substantial carbon reduction can be obtained from wastewater
when cycled through a wetland ecosystem. Settling of particulates and
breakdown of soluble BOD/COD are the main pathways for removal of
BOD/COD added to wetlands during microbial respiration (Reddy and D’Angelo,
1997)

Geary and Moore (1999) showed that significant amounts of BOD are
removed using a treatment wetland for dairy wastewater, with a mean monthly
reduction of 61 percent. Studies by Niswander (1997) and Knight et al. (1996)
reported BOD reductions of 52 percent and 68 percent, respectively. Reductions
in BOD that have been reported in constructed wetland studies are due to the
detention provided by storage, the presence of plants assisting with
sedimentation and filtration, and various decomposition processes (Geary and
Moore, 1999).

2.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
2.5.1 Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewaters in Engineered Reed Bed Systems
Biddlestone, et al. (1991) investigated the use of horizontal flow reed beds

to treat milking parlor washings and yard runoff at a dairy farm. Limestone

18

chippings were used as the matrix of the wetlands and rhizome cuttings from
Phragmites for the plant material. The rhizome cuttings proved to be an
unsuccessful means of plant propagation (only an 18 percent success rate).
With little root growth associated with the unsuccessful propagation, BOD
reduction suffered with a removal efficiency of just 17 percent. With improved
root growth after one year, the BOD reduction increased to 49 percent. The
reeds flourished above ground but poor penetration of the roots into the matrix
and black anaerobic conditions were observed below the surface. The reed bed
design did not apply to high strength effluents with their substantial oxygen
requirements as compared to dilute wastewaters. The oxygen in the system
needed to be increased, and thus down-flow beds were introduced. The down-
flow beds consisted of reeds planted in a thin sand layer placed above a pea-
stone substrate. The open nature of the matrix and the down-flow draining of the
system improved the overall BOD reduction by improved filtration of solids.
2.5.2 Suitability of a Treatment Wetland for Dairy Wastewaters

Geary and Moore (1999) studied constructed wetlands as part of a waste
management system for dairy parlor water. The waste management system
originally consisted of a solids separator and an anaerobic lagoon followed by
land application. A 100 cubic meter wetland was introduced after the lagoon and
waste was gravity fed into the wetland which was planted with three types of
wetland plants including Phragmites australis. The retention time of the
wastewater in the wetland was 10-14 days due to wide fluctuations in rainfall and

water use within the dairy. Significant BOD reduction was obtained with an

19

average reduction of 61 percent. Variable but smaller reduction was achieved for
total nitrogen, (43 percent), phosphorus (28 percent), and nitrate (26 percent).
The phosphorus reduction efficiencies decreased after four months, most likely
due to the sorption sites of the soil slowly being filled to capacity. The wetland
also proved to be oxygen limited, which reduces the nitrification process of the
wetland.
2.5.3 Experiences with Two Constructed Wetlands for Treating Milking Center

Wastewater in a Cold Climate

Holmes et al. (1995) conducted research on two cold-climate wetlands
used to treat dairy wastewater. One of the wetlands, located in Wisconsin,
treated wastewater from a 50 head dairy farm; a pre-treatment settling tank was
used. The wetland was planted with river bulrush, giant burreed, and soft-stem
bulrush. The wastewater was directed to the wetland from the dairy milkhouse;
due to water-conserving practices, the average daily water use was only 200
gallons. The wetland successfully treated the wastewater with reductions of 75
percent in COD, 90 percent in BOD, 80 percent in phosphorus, and 75 percent in
nitrogen. A difficulty faced with this system was that the flow of water did not
keep the cells sufficiently moist, thereby reducing the plant height.
2.5.4 Performance of a Constructed Wetland for Dairy Waste Treatment in

LaGrange County, Indiana

Reaves et al. (1994) studied the performance of a constructed wetland
which treated dairy waste in Lagrange County, Indiana. A three celled surface

flow wetland was installed to treat wash-water from a dairy barn. The wetland

20

cells were approximately 200 feet by 20 feet. Hydric topsoil was used as the
substrate in which cattails and smartweed were planted. Wastewater from barn
wash-water and yard runoff was collected on a settling pad to remove solids prior
to flow into the wetland. After one year of operation, significant reductions in the
concentrations of BOD (50-75%), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (62-89%), and total
suspended solids (65%) were found. Problems encountered in the system
included excessive solid accumulation, insufficient water availability, lack of
vegetation, and direct sunlight upon open water. The problems were detrimental
to system performance. Solid build-up occurred within the first third of each cell,
and shortened the life of the wetland. After the excessive solid load
accumulated, the wetland became a shallow primary lagoon instead of a
secondary treatment system. Insufficient water, solid build up and cattle-grazing
led to a lack of vegetation. The cell which had the best plant growth also showed
the best pollutant removal, suggesting vegetation played a role in system
performance. Algal blooms were the result of open water areas receiving
sunlight. This led to increased levels of total suspended solids in the outflow.
2.6 GENERAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Constructed wetland design is based on a number of constraints, including
site conditions (climate, geography, soils and geology, groundwater, biological
conditions, etc), characterization of the water to be treated (nutrients, BOD/COD,
etc.), treatment goals, pre-treatment requirements, and post-wetland water-

quality requirements (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). The most constraining of these

21

requirements is the size of the wetland needed to reduce pollutants to an
acceptable level.

According to Kadlec and Knight (1996), an irreversible first-order model
does not fit wetland pollutant reduction due to the reduction of pollutants being
dependant upon establishment of the root system within the wetland. Two
parameters, an areal uptake rate constant (k) and a background concentration
(C*), are significant. The parameters allow projection of long-term average
behavior of a wetland. The k-C* parameters effect the wetland area necessary
for the reduction of specified pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, COD) to the
required level, and can be used for both surface flow and sub-surface flow
wetland sizing.

Wetlands are designed for conditions after the start-up period, when
adaptations have ceased and the system is in a steady-state. Time averaging of
the performance of a wetland avoids the description of details involving short-
term fluctuations (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). The definitions of time averaging
can be applied to the water and chemical mass balances and lead to the
definitions of the flow-weighted average concentration and the time average

concentrations:

1‘

m

_ II'"
C=—— JCdt (21)
0

22

 

a — ’m -0
_ I... _ T (2.2)
i IQd’ Q
rm 0
where

o C = concentration, g/m3

0 Q = volumetric flow rate, m3/day

- t = time, day

0 tm = time period for averaging, day
0 _ = indicates time averaging value

0 A = indicates flow-weighted average value

With inflows and influent concentrations of dairy wastewater being generally
constant, short averaging periods can be used. The resulting ecosystem mass

balance obtained is:

é§52=_3=—M5—C0
dA

where:
o J = net chemical reduction rate, g/mZ/day
. A = wetland surface area, m2
If a wetland operates under relatively steady flow conditions, the averaging

designation is dropped. When precipitation and evapo-transpiration are in

23

balance over the averaging period, the volumetric flow of the wetland does not

vary and the Q will be constant. Thus:
dC

Next, the area and shape of the wetland are considered. Most constructed
wetlands are rectangular. The area upstream of a given point in the wetland, A,
is equal to:
A = Wx (2.5)
where:

o W = wetland width, m

o X = distance from inlet end, m

From equations 2.4 and 2.5:

dC dC
QE=AE=—k(C—C*) (2.6)
where:

o A = flow rate per unit width, = Q/W , m2/day

Introduction of the fractional distance from the inlet to the outlet, y=x/L yields:

dC
q-C-i—=-k(C-C*) (2.7)

y

24

where:

o q = hydraulic loading rate, m/d
Application of equation 2.7 requires integration from the wetland inlet, where the
concentration is CI, to an intermediate distance y, where the concentration is C.

The resulting equation is the concentration profile throughout the wetland:

(Kg—£1, _ _£
C. _ C * q y (2.8)

At the outlet, where the concentration is Ce:

1 Ce—C _ k
“ Ei‘c‘ “; <2-9>
where

0 Ce = outlet target concentration, mg/L

0 CI = inlet concentration, mg/L

0 C* = background concentration, mg/L

. k = first-order areal rate constant, m/yr

o q = hydraulic loading rate, m/yr
Rearrangement (and unit conversion) gives the area of the wetland required for a
particular pollutant:

0.0365*Q C, —C*

 

25

where

o A = required wetland area, ha

0 Q = water flow rate, m3/day
With k, the design flow rate and the projected influent and effluent concentrations
for each pollutant known, the wetland areas required to provide the target outlet
concentration can be calculated. The required wetland area is the largest of the
individual required areas for each pollutant.
2.7 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND COSTS

Constructed wetlands provide an inexpensive method to dairy wastewater

management compared to traditional wastewater treatment processes (Kadlec
and Knight, 1996; Cronk, 1996; EPA, 1999; Geary and Moore, 1999; Hammer,
DA, 1989). Constructed wetlands require low-cost earthwork, piping and
pumps, and only a few concrete structures. They are inexpensive to operate and
maintain (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Because of the natural processes at work in
a wetland treatment system, little fossil-fuel energy and no chemicals are
necessary (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). The costs of construction and operation of

a constructed wetland include capital costs as well as maintenance costs.

26

The major items included in the capital costs of a constructed wetland are (EPA,

1999):

Land Costs

Sfielnvesfigafion

Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation and Earthwork

Liner

Media

Plants

Inlet & Outlet Structures

Fencing

Miscellaneous piping, pumps, etc.

Engineering, legal, and contingencies

The capital costs are directly dependent on the treatment area of the

system (EPA, 1999). The unit costs are the same for both surface flow and sub-

surface flow wetlands with the exception of the media (these are more for sub-

surface flow due to more substrate being used (EPA, 1999)). According to

Kadlec and Knight (1996), capital costs for surface flow wetlands range

between$10,000 and $100,000 per hectare ($4,000 and $40,000 per acre), with

a median of $44,600 per hectare ($18,000 per acre). Costs for sub—surface flow

wetlands are higher, with a median of $358,000 per hectare ($145,000 per acre).

Some costs (such as land, investigation, and earthwork) are negligible when

considering agricultural waste management wetlands. Most agricultural

27

operations have land and equipment available for wetland construction, therefore
the average cost for a constructed wetland for agricultural wastewater
management is lower than for a municipal system. The operation costs of
constructed wetland systems are similar to those of a facultative pond. The EPA
(1999) found that the average annual cost for operation of a constructed wetland

system was $3,000 per hectare in 1998 ($1,200 per acre).

28

CHAPTER 3

DESIGN RATIONALE

Both surface flow and sub-surface flow wetland types have proven to
effectively reduce pollutants in previous studies (Drizo et al., 1997; Geary and
Moore, 1999; Biddlestone et al., 1991; Reeves et al., 1994). Recent studies
have focused on using sub-surface and surface flow wetlands in series (White,
1995), while others, such as (Skarda et al., 1994) have tried incorporating deep
and shallow zones in order to gain the advantages of both surface and sub-
surface wetlands.

In order to gain the advantages of both sub-surface and surface flow
wetlands, this study focuses on using them in series to gain the anaerobic and
aerobic zones which drive the nitrification and de-nitrification processes. Baffles
were inserted in order to increase contact time between the wastewater and the
rhizosphere organisms within the wetland. This increases the number of
anaerobic and aerobic zones through which the wastewater passes.

The planting and propagation of wetland plants is an important step in the
design of a wetland. Improper or poor propagation can lead to poor initial
pollutant reduction (Biddlestone et al., 1991). In order to avoid poor propagation
of the reeds in this study, the plants were grown from rhizomes and were
matured in a greenhouse for four months before transplanting into the wetland

cells.

29

A design feature that is important to pollutant reduction and wetland
lifetime is the substrate makeup. Oxygen depletion in the substrate occurred in
studies conducted by Biddlestone et al. (1991) and Geary and Moore (1999) due
to the small pore space of the soil and little root penetration into the matrix. In an
attempt to increase the oxygen in this system, a pea-stone substrate and a lava
rock substrate were used to increase the pore space and allow greater root
penetration into the matrix. The sub-surface and surface flow cells act as a
down-flow system because the outlet of the cell is at the bottom of the soil matrix.
With evaporation of water, oxygen is able to enter the top portion of the substrate
to decrease the anaerobic conditions. The substrate make-up can also aid in
solids removal and avoidance of clogging. Reaves et al. (1994) experienced
solids accumulation which was detrimental to the wetland vegetation and
decreased the lifespan of the wetland. In an attempt to remove the remaining
solids, the sub-surface flow wetland cells (where the wastewater entered the
wetland system) contained an unplanted pea-stone entry column that acted as a
trickling filter for removal of solids before they reach the planted portion of the
wetland. Wastewater was also gathered from an anaerobic lagoon which follows
a solid-liquid separator; the wastewater contained approximately 1-2% solids at
this point.

The major obstacle faced in the reduction of phosphorus in agricultural
wastewaters is the sorption sites of the wetland substrate becoming filled quickly
and soluble phosphorus flowing through the wetland freely. Geary and Moore

(1994) experienced a decrease in the phosphorus removal after four months and

30

attributed that to the sorption sites being filled. In order to combat the
phosphorus loading of the wetland, this study used an amended substrate
(Septisorb) and advanced phosphorus removal in the form of a phosphorus
trap/filter at the end of the wetland system. The phosphorus trap/filter was
designed based on the work of James et al., 1992, who found that small amounts
of steel wool, added to peat, increased the number of sorption sites for
phosphorus.

Wetland flow is another important factor to consider in the design of the
wetland. Holmes et al. (1995) faced the difficulty of inconsistent flow, which did
not keep the wetland cells sufficiently moist. The dry conditions were detrimental
to the vegetation and therefore limited the effect of the vegetation on the wetland
system. In this study, the wetland does not depend on a variable flow, therefore
allowing the moisture of the plants to stay above a detrimental state. Wastewater
was applied at a regular dose every six days with evaporation as the only means

of water loss during that period.

31

CHAPTER 4

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

4.1 WETLAND DESIGN

A small-scale wetland treatment system to receive and treat dairy
lagoon wastewater was constructed at the Green Meadows Dairy farm in Elsie,
Michigan. The effluent from a manure liquid-solid separator and an anaerobic
lagoon at Green Meadows farm were used for the wastewater supply in this
study. Because the wastewater at Green Meadow Dairy Farm is more
concentrated than an average dairy wastewater (Green, 2002), it was diluted at a
4:1 ratio.

One of the goals of this study was to investigate the effects of different
wetland substrates on pollutant removal. Therefore, this study examines a
mixture of Septisorb (a specially formulated peat granule designed for the
removal of dissolved heavy metals, phosphates, BOD, fecal coliforms,
suspended solids, and organics from septic tank effluent) and pea gravel
substrate, a lava rock substrate, and a pea-stone substrate to determine their
sorptive efficiencies and/or capacities.

The design of the wetland system incorporates both sub-surface and
surface flow wetland types in order to determine their ability to remove pollutants
while working in tandem. The cells were constructed of Rubbermaid 0.568 cubic

meter (150 gallon) feed tanks with PVC piping for drainage. Baffles were

32

constructed of 2.54 cm (1 inch) foam insulation board. The total pore space of
each wetland cell equals approximately 0.189 cubic meters (50 gallons).

Plug flow was assumed to occur in each wetland cell. Plug flow infers that
the water maintains a constant velocity of flow in every part of the system; it
allows a residence time to be defined which is the same for every streamline.
The wastewater first flowed into the sub-surface cell of each set of cells (6 sets in
all, including duplicates). The sub-surface wetland cells are baffled in order to
control the flow of water through the wetland. Water is forced into the wetland
through an unplanted section of substrate which acts as a trickling filter to
remove the remaining settle—able solids before they reach the planted portion of
the wetland. The first baffle routes the water through the bottom 15.24 cm (6
inches) of the wetland cell. The flow is next forced over a baffle and through the
upper 15.24 cm (6 inches) of substrate before it is gravity fed to the drain. This
design forces the water to have extended contact time with the roots and I
rhizomes of the plants. The total depth of the sub—surface flow wetland cells is
55.88 cm (22 inches). Figure 4.1 shows the design of the baffled sub-surface

wetland.

33

 

 

/

Water Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drain Pipe

Water Flow

Figure 4.1: Sub-Surface Wetland Cell (Baffles)

The water then flowed via a head control device into the surface flow
wetland cells. The surface flow cells have a substrate depth of 46 cm (18
inches). The water pours out of the surface flow wetland cell and into the
phosphorus trap/filter for advanced phosphorus removal. The same phosphorus
trap design was used for all three treatments. Each phosphorus trap/filter is 53
cm (21 inches) tall and is constructed of 15 cm (6 inch) PVC piping. Equal
volumes of peat and filter sand (3.8 liters) were mixed into each trap/filter along
with two sections of steel wool, each weighing 14 grams. The water flows,
unsaturated, down through the peat and sand mixture and through the steel wool

to a drain in the bottom of the PVC pipe. Figure 4.2 presents a diagram of the

34

‘1

r“:-

phosphorus trap and Figure 4.3 shows the wetland treatment system flow.

Figure 4.4 provides a diagram describing constructed wetland setup.

Wetland Effluent

Peat and Filter /

\ Steel Wool
Sand Mixture \

Replaceable Filter

 

: > P-Trap Effluent

 

 

6 inch PVC Plp/

Figure 4.2: Phosphorus Trap Diagram

35

 

 

WW... J r ,

Sub-Surface Flow \

Wetland Cell

 

 

 

 

 

Surface Flow
Wetland Cell

 

 

 

Phosphorus Trap

Wastewater Out

Figure 4.3: Constructed Wetland System and Wastewater Flow Pattern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pea-Stone / Septisorb Lava Rock Pea-Stone
SSF SSF SSF SSF SSF SSF
SF SF SF SF SF SF
@ @

Figure 4.4: Constructed Wetland Set-up

36

4.2 ANALYSIS AND VARIABLES

The wetland system was set up so that different hydraulic-retention times
and different substrates could be analyzed. The short retention time consisted of
six days for the sub-surface cell, and six days for the surface flow cell. The long
hydraulic-retention time consisted of twelve days in each wetland cell. Water
flowed unsaturated through the phosphorus trap/filter. Two sets of cells
incorporated a pea stone substrate, two sets had a substrate of pea stone with
10% Septisorb by weight, and the final two cells consisted of a lava rock
substrate. The substrates were differed to test their capacity for phosphorus
uptake and their available surface area for microbe attachment. The phosphorus
trap/filter at the end of the treatment process consisted of a peat and filter sand
mixture with two removable discs of steel wool.

Treatment cells were planted with Phragmites austra/is (Common Reed).
Reeds matured in a greenhouse for three months before transplanting them into
the wetland system. Each treatment cell set received a regular dose of
approxiametly 95 liters (25 gallons) every six days. The lagoon effluent was
applied for four months (June through October 2002). Rainfall data during this
period was obtained from the Michigan Automated Weather Network (MAWN)
station in Bath, Michigan, in order to get a close estimate of the additional water
that entered the system.

Composite water samples were taken at each stage of the wetland
system: at the start of a cycle (batch), at six and twelve days in sub-surface cell,

at six and twelve days in surface flow cell, and before and after the phosphorus

37

 

trap/filter. Figure 4.5 shows points in the wetland system where samples were

taken.

Sample Point , ; f
X i% f Sample Point

/

/
Sample Point
(6 Day)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Point

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

Sample Point
(6 Day)

 

Sample Point

Figure 4.5: Sampling Points in Wetland System

The batch, twelve day, and phosphorus trap samples were gathered by
sampling the natural flow from the inlets and outlets of the wetland and the
phosphorus trap. The six day samples were gathered from stand pipes in the
wetlands that were located near the drain pipe of each cell. Three well volumes
were purged before sampling to insure the uniformity of the water sample. The
water samples were sent to the Soil and Plant Nutrient Laboratory in the Crop
and Soil Sciences Department at Michigan State University and analyzed for

ortho-PO4' as phosphorus, N03’ as nitrogen, and NH4+ as nitrogen.

38

 

4.3 ANALYSIS OF NUTRIENTS (NOg', NH4I, P04) and COD

The nitrate concentration in a sample was determined with a copperized
cadmium column (Method 353.2 of the EPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes). The ammonium concentration was determined using the
Salicylate Method (Nelson, 1983). The phosphorus concentration was
determined by the QuikChem Method 10-115-01-1-A (EPA, 1983). COD
analysis was performed using a closed reflux, colorimetric method (Greenberg et

aL,1992)

39

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experimental data were collected from the pilot scale constructed wetland
system at Green Meadows Dairy farm. Water quality data included samples
taken at six points in the wastewater treatment process. These samples
accounted for six and twelve day retention times, assuming that plug flow
occurred. Due to mixing of influent with wastewater applied in previous doses,
six-day samples were found to be inaccurate and therefore were not analyzed.
Water samples were checked for phosphate (PO4’), nitrate (NOg'), ammonium
(NH4I), and COD.

5.1 WETLAND DATA

Samples were taken at the outlet of each stage of the wetland cycle.
Influent samples refer to the diluted wastewater stream taken from the anaerobic
lagoon. Samples were taken from the outfall of the sub-surface flow wetland and
the surface flow wetlands. Phosphorus trap (PT) samples were taken at the
outlet. Sampling began after a dilute wastewater was applied for four months in
order to establish the plants and nitrifying microorganisms in the wetland.

5.1.1 PHOSPHORUS

Selected results for phosphorus from one cycle of wastewater through the
treatment system are shown in Table 5.1. One cycle refers to wastewater that
has flowed through all three stages of the treatment process (24 days total). The

data shows the concentrations for each substrate type through each step of the

40

 

wetland treatment process (Batch, SSF, SF, and PT). The percentage reduction

(%) for each wetland type is shown along with the percentage reduction for the

total system.

TABLE 5.1 Phosphorus Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phosphorus Concentration
Date In Stage A 8 AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
7/1/2002 BaFch 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3
SSF 3 0.8 1.9 8.9 8.2 8.55 3 3.1 3.05
SF 1.8 0.23 1.015 5.3 5.6 5.45 0.8 0.32 0.56
PT Out 0.55 0.45 0.5 7.45 6.1 6.775 0.14 0.31 0.225
% RED SSF 80 95 88 42 46 44 80 80 80
% RED SF 40 71 47 40 32 36 73 90 82
% RED TOTAL 96 97 97 51 60 56 99 98 99

 

70-8: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate

C,D: Lava Rock Substrate

E,F: Pea-Stone Substrate
All Concentrations in mg/l (ppm)
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (Batch - SSF Concentration)/Batch)

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (SSF-SF Concentration)/SSF Concentration)

PT: Phosphorus Trap

The average phosphorus reduction for the wastewater cycle was 97% for

the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, 56 % for the lava rock substrate, and

99% for the pea-stone substrate.

The average phosphorus concentration at each stage of the treatment

system is shown in Table 5.2A.

41

 

Table 5.2A Average Phosphorus Concentration Through the Wetland System

 

 

 

Septisorb/

Pea-Stone Std. Dev. Lava Rock Std. Dev. Pea-Stone Std. Dev.
Batch (ppm) 21.98 6.38 21.98 6.38 21.98 6.38
SSF (ppm) 6.39 5.01 12.45 5.30 5.80 3.97
SF (ppm) 2.75 2.30 8.53 2.94 2.01 1.51
PT Out (ppm) 1.58 0.91 10.05 4.12 0.92 0.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concentration means based on 28 samples for Batch and SSF, 24 samples for SF and PT
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap

Std. Dev.: Standard Deviation

Concentration in mg/l (ppm)

From Table 5.2A it is clear that the Septisorb and pea-stone and the pea-stone
substrates reduce phosphorus better than the lava rock substrate. Due to the
variability of the influent wastewater, comparing the substrate concentration may
not be as accurate as comparing the percentage reduction. Table 5.28 shows
the average percentage reduction for the substrates after each stage of the

treatment system.

Table 5.28 Average Phosphorus Reduction at the Outlet of each Wetland Stage

 

 

 

Septisorb/

Pea-Stone Lava Rock Pea-Stone
% Reduction SSF 73 44 74
% Reduction SF 72 12 59
% Reduction Overall 93 57 96

 

 

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

The average reduction of phosphorus over the entire sampling period was 93%
for the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, 57% for the lava rock, and 96% for the
pea-stone. A t-test (assuming unequal variances) was performed to determine if

the concentrations at the different stages of the wetland were significantly

42

different compared to the influent concentration. Table 5.3 presents the results
of the t-test.

Table 5.3 T-Test of Significance for Phosphorus Reduction Compared to Influent

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concentration

Substrate Septisorb / Pea-Stone

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 5.79227E—08 1.72582E-08 2.80718E-08
Significant Yes Yes Yes
Substrate Lava Rock

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 3.69813E-05 9.56691 E-07 2.52817E-06
Significant Yes Yes Yes
Substrate Pea-Stone

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 5.30186E-08 1 .76315E-08 1.89302E-08
Significant Yes Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

SSF: Sub-surface Flow
SF: Surface Flow

Effluent concentrations were significantly different than influent concentrations at
an or equal to 0.05 for all three substrates. Figure 5.1 provides a graphical view
of the average phosphorus concentration at each stage of the wetland treatment

system.

43

 

 

 

 

“g 25.00 .. ...-.. -

g I

3 I

g 20.00.»-.7‘ , - , ~ ,, ,. i

.5 .

N

I: j. . .

5 15:00 ' 7 ‘7 T 7' ”“""“” ’ ' ’ ’ CISeptisorb

8 j ILava Rock
8 1000 r ‘ _.__._._ ~ {9339908.
m .

3

I- 9.

,2 5.00 ~— " —~-—

D.

(D

o

f 0.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Batch SSF
System Stage

Figure 5.1 Average Phosphorus Concentration

Reductions of phosphorus in this study (93% and 96%) are equal to or greater
than phosphorus reductions in studies by Drizo et al., 1997 (98%), Reaves et al.,
1994 (89%), and Skarda et al., 1994 (55%). The pea-stone and the Septisorb
and pea-stone mixed substrates removed phosphorus at a greater percentage
than the lava rock substrate. This is likely due to the lava rock substrate having
less sorptive sites for phosphorus adsorption. T-tests (assuming unequal
variances) were performed in order to determine the statistical significance
between substrates and wetland stages for phosphorus reduction. Table 5.4A
shows the statistical difference between substrates for the mean phosphorus
concentration while Table 5.48 illustrates the statistical significance between

wetland stages for the percent reduction of phosphorus.

44

Tabl

Coni

Tab

beti

Re:

GM

rec

I30;

Iii
I10

Sig

Table 5.4A T Test Results for Statistical Significance of Phosphorus

Concentration between Substrates

 

 

Substrate SSF SF Total |
Septisorb/Pea-Stone 6.39 a 2.75 a 1.58 a

Lava Rock 12.45 b 8.53 b 10.05 b

Pea Stone 5.80 a 2.01 a 0.92 c

 

 

Concenration in mg/L (ppm)
a,b,c: Show statistically significant difference
by column

Table 5.48 T Test Results for Statistical Significance of Phosphorus Reduction

between Wetland Stages

 

 

Stage Sept/Pea Lava Pea-Stonel
SSF 72.73 a 44 a 74.43 a
SF 71.83 a 11.95 b 59 b

 

 

Reduction in %

a,b: Show statistically significant difference

by column
Results from the statistical tests show that the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate
and the pea-stone substrate reduce the phosphorus in the wastewater
significantly more than the lava rock, through both wetland stages. The total
reduction is statistically different for each substrate. The results indicate that the
pea-stone substrate performs the best in terms of phosphorus removal. The
Septisorb had little effect on phosphorus reduction over the period of sampling.
There is no significant difference between the sub-surface flow and the surface
flow wetlands for the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, while there is a
significant difference between the wetland types for both the lava rock and pea-

stone substrates. In these cases the sub-surface flow cell removed a greater

percentage than the surface flow cell.

45

Phosphorus reduction decreased over time in each substrate due to the

filling of available sorption sites. The results are illustrated in Figure 5.2.

110...... . .

100 , --— -

90

80 ‘-

70 r .- - ,.-- -2..- 2..

Phosphorus Concentration

 

50

60 ._ .........L,. 21*“, L. 2, v, 7 ._- W .. L. .L z-

 

 

7/23/02 8/12/02
Sample Date

6/13/02 7/3/02

9/1/02 9/21/02

Figure 5.2 Total Phosphorus Reduction versus Time

5.1.2 NITROGEN

'— -Linear (PeaQoIIE) “

lr———Linefiar (Sept/Pea)

Results for ammonium concentration from one cycle of wastewater are

shown in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Ammonium Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amnonium Concentration
Date In Stage A 8 AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
6/25/02 Batch 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57
SSF 200.6 198.13 199.365 208.12 129.12 168.62 102.01 163.67 132.84
SF 140.13 128.75 134.44 85.45 107.11 96.28 137.63 107.33 122.48
PT(OUT) 96.39 90.81 93.6 21.4 75.43 48.415 92.12 57.95 75.035
% RED SSF -2 -1 -1 -6 34 14 48 17 32
% RED SF 30 35 33 59 17 43 -35 34 8
% RED TOTAL 51 54 52 89 62 75 53 71 62

 

fiSeptisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
C, D: Lava Rock Substrate

E, F: Pea-Stone Substrate
Concentration in mg/l (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (Batch - SSF Concentration)/8atch)

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (SSF-SF Concentration)/SSF Concentration)

PT: Phosphorus Trap

46

 

The average ammonium reduction for this cycle of wastewater was 52%
for the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, 75% for the lava rock substrate, and
62% for the pea-stone substrate. The average ammonium concentration at each
stage of the treatment system is shown in Table 5.6A.

Table 5.6A Average Ammonium Concentration Through Wetland System

 

 

 

Sept/Pea Std. Dev Lava Rock Std. Dev. Pea-Stone Std. Dev.

Batch 230.96 102.57 230.96 102.57 230.96 102.57
12 SSF 174.16 40.28 149.77 31.82 179.79 65.84
12 SF 160.31 25.74 119.51 32.81 166.70 52.92
PT 84.27 24.96 67.22 27.52 93.95 _ 48.38

 

 

Concentration means based on 28 samples for Batch and SSF, 24 samples for SF and PT

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap

PT: Phosphorus Trap

Concentration in mg/l (ppm)

Std. Dev.: Standard Deviation

Due to the variability of the influent wastewater, a comparison of the substrates
by concentration is not as accurate as a consideration of the percentage
reduction. Table 5.68 shows the average percentage reduction in ammonium in

each wetland stage.

Table 5.68 Average Ammonium Reduction at the Outlet of each Wetland Stage

 

 

 

 

 

Ammonium 12 Day Averages ‘
Sept/Pea Lava Pea
%Reduction SSF 12 29 10
%Reduction SF 8 16 10
% Reduction Total 64 70 60

 

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

The average ammonium reduction during the entire sampling period was 64% for

the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, 70% for the lava rock substrate, and 60%

47

 

for the pea-stone substrate. A t-test (assuming unequal variances) was
performed to determine if the concentration at the different stages of the wetland
were significantly different compared to the influent concentration. Table 5.7
presents the results of the t-test for significance of ammonium concentration.

Table 5.7 T-Test of Significance for Ammonium Reduction Compared to Influent

Concentration

 

 

 

 

 

 

Substrate Septisorb / Pea-Stone

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.0496 0.00798 2.06003E-05
Significant Yes Yes Yes
Substrate Lava Rock

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.00342 0.000297 5.93136E-06
Significant Yes Yes Yes
Substrate Pea-Stone

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.045155 0.016108 4.09965E-05
Significant Yes Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

SSF: Sub-surface Flow
SF: Surface Flow

Effluent concentrations were significantly different than influent concentrations at
an a equal to 0.05 for all three substrates. Figure 5.3 provides a graphical
representation of the ammonium concentration at each stage of the wetland

treatment system.

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 250.00 —~.~ W-.M-awa_-.-.-_..-_.--__-._- w.-. --
Q
5 _.
I: 200.00 «-—-- ‘ L—~— —__.__e .__.. - _ .-..___-,_ 22-- .___.z-z_z.____
2 -
a
g I I III—I : _____»______ .._ . _ __
5 150.00 I-~— _ ~-—~* —-‘"“ {41; r" "m u ” “'"fi’" ,DSethPea i
2 v .. “ :ILava
8 100-00 ~-~ ~—— —» a _..-.______._.__ PPea-Sjgrgj
E ‘ (we
I: ._._: fi- . . _,___.,:,
0 50-00 .. ‘- .5; '3-
< 0.00 .
Batch SSF SF PT

Stages of Treatment

Figure 5.3 Average Overall Ammonium Concentration

Ammonium reductions in this study (64%, 70%, and 60%) were equal to or
greater than ammonium reductions in studies by Skarda et al., 1994 (45%),
Reaves et al., 1994 (70%), and Drizo et al., 1997 (75%). The lava rock substrate
reduced the ammonium concentration the most in the wetland cells. This was
likely due to more nitrifying bacteria being present on the larger surface area of
the lava rock than the other substrates. The phosphorus traps removed a large
amount of ammonium in each test set. This was likely caused by the ammonium
attaching to the peat and sand mixture while the wastewater flows through the
trap and is nitrified to nitrate in the subsequent aerobic conditions.

In order to determine the statistical significance between substrates and
wetland stages for ammonium reduction, t-tests (assuming unequal variances)
were performed. Table 5.8A illustrates the statistical difference between

substrates for the mean ammonium concentration while Table 5.88 shows the

49

statistical significance between wetland stages for the percent reduction in

ammonium.

Table 5.8A T Test Results for Statistical Significance of Ammonium

Concentration between Substrates

 

 

 

 

Stage
Substrate SSF SF Total
Septisorb/Pea-Stone 174.16 a 160.31 a 84.27 a
Lava Rock 149.77 b 119.51 b 67.23 b
Pea Stone 179.78 a 166.70 a 93.95 a

 

 

Concentration in mg/L (ppm)

a,bz Shows statistically significant difference

by column

Table 5.88 T Test Results for Statistical Significance of Ammonium Reduction

between Wetland Stages

 

 

 

 

Substrate
Stage Sept/Pea Lava Pea-Stone
SSF 12.04 a 29.38 a 9.96 a
SF 8.36 a 15.82 b 10.22 a

 

 

Reduction in %

a,b: Shows statistically significant difference

by column

Results from the statistical tests show that the lava rock substrate reduces

ammonium in the wastewater significantly more than the Septisorb and pea-

stone and the pea-stone substrates throughout the entire treatment system.

There was no significant difference in the reduction between the wetland stages

for the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate and the pea-stone substrate. Also, the

sub-surface flow wetland cell reduced ammonium more than the surface flow

wetland cell for the lava rock substrate.

50

 

 

Table 5.9 Nitrate Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle

Results for nitrate from one cycle of wastewater are shown in Table 5.9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ Nitrate Concentration
Date In Stage A B AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
6/25/02 Batch 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
SSF 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.54 0.31 0.43 0.10 0.12 0.11
SF 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06
PT (OUT) 21.69 88.54 55.12 48.12 68.15 58.14 25.63 74.54 50.09
% RED SSF 52 71 62 35 63 49 88 86 87
% RED SF 100 79 92 100 45 80 40 50 45
l RED TOTAL -2498 -10504 -6501 -5663 -8062 -6862 -2969 -8827 -5898
AB: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
C,D. Lava Rock Substrate

EF: Pea-Stone Substrate

Concentration in mg/l (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (Batch - SSF Concentration)/Batch)

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (SSF-SF Concentration)/SSF Concentration)

PT: Phosphorus Trap

Influent nitrate concentration was low, as is expected in dairy wastewater since
there is little opportunity for nitrification. The average nitrate reduction through
the wetland system was 92% for the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, 80% for
the lava rock substrate, and 45% for the pea—stone substrate. The phosphorus
trap produced a spike in the nitrate levels from 0.03 mg/L to 55.12 mg/L in the
Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, from 0.09 mg/L to 58.14 mg/L in the lava rock
substrate, and from 0.06 mg/L to 50.09 mg/L in the pea-stone substrate. The
spike was likely due to the ammonium in the wastewater attaching to the peat
and sand mixture of the phosphorus trap/filter, with subsequent nitrification taking
place under aerobic conditions within the phosphorus trap. The nitrate was
washed from the system with the next flow of wastewater through the

phosphorus trap/filter. The average overall nitrate reductions are shown in Table

5.10.

51

Table 5.10 Average Nitrate Concentration and % Reduction

 

 

 

Sept/Pea Std.Dev. Lava Rock Std. Dev. Pea-Stone Std. Dev.
Batch 0.49 0.54 0.49 0.54 0.49 0.54
SSF 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.15 0.13
SF 0.10 0.11 0.30 0.33 0.11 0.14
PT 108.01 53.87 74.05 47.22 113.07 102.33
%RED SSF 65 60 57
%RED SF 6 -115 -42
% RED TOT -25582 -9620 -24397

 

Concentration means based on 28 samples for Batch and SSF: 24 samples for SF and PT
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (Batch - SSF Concentration)/Batch)
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells (% = (SSF-SF Concentration)/SSF Concentration)
PT: Phosphorus Trap

Concentration in mg/I (ppm)

Std. Dev.: Standard Deviation

 

The average nitrate reductions through the sub-surface flow wetland cells were

65%, 60%, and 57% for the Septisorb and pea stone substrate, lava rock
substrate, and pea-stone substrate, respectively. A t-test (assuming unequal
variances) was performed to determine if the concentrations at the different
stages of the wetland were significantly different compared to the influent

concentration. Table 5.11 presents the results of the t-test for significance of

nitrate concentration.

52

Table 5.11 T-Test of Significance for Nitrate Reduction Compared to Influent

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concentration

Substrate Septisorb / Pea-Stone

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.034974 0.009301 3.03708E-09
Significant Yes Yes Yes
Substrate Lava Rock

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.054166 0.12244 4.78516E-08
Significant No No Yes
Substrate Pea-Stone

Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.016934 0.011168 1.35364E-05
Significant Yes Yes Yes

 

 

 

 

S—STF': Sub-surface Flow

SF: Surface Flow
Effluent concentrations were significantly different than influent concentrations at
an a equal to 0.05 for the Septisorb and pea-stone and the pea-stone
substrates, while the lava rock substrate was not significantly different. Each
substrate showed a significant difference between the influent and effluent
concentrations of nitrate due to the increase occurring in the phosphorus trap.
Nitrate concentrations in the wastewater effluent of 0.1 mg/L in this study are
similar to nitrate effluent concentrations in studies conducted by Skarda et al.,
1994 (0.1 mg/L), and Reaves et al., 1994 (0.2 mg/L).

T—tests (assuming unequal variances) were performed in order to

determine the statistical significance between the substrates and wetland stages
for nitrate reduction. Table 5.12A shows the statistical difference between the

substrates for the mean nitrate concentrations. Table 5.12B illustrates the

53

statistical significance between the wetland stages for the percent reduction of
nitrate.
Table 5.12A T Test Results for Statistical Significance of Nitrate Concentration

between Substrates

 

 

Stage
Substrate SSF SF Total
Septisorb/Pea-Stone 0.20 a 0.10 a 108.01 a
Lava Rock 0.24 a 0.30 a 74.05 a
Pea Stone 0.15 a 0.11 a 113.07 a

 

 

 

 

Concentration in mg/L (ppm)
a,bz Show statistically significant difference
by column

Table 5.128 T Test Results for Statistical Significance of Nitrate Reduction

between Wetland Stages

 

 

 

Substrate
Stage Sept/Pea Lava Pea-Stone
SSF 64.71 a 59.77 a 56.64 a
SF 6.44 a -114.75 b -42.15 b

 

 

 

Reduction in %

a,b: Show statistically significant difference

by column
The statistical tests show that there is no significant difference in the
concentration of nitrate between the three substrates. in the lava rock and the
pea-stone substrates, the surface flow wetland was significantly different from the
sub-surface flow. The concentration increased on average in the surface flow
wetland cell. This is likely due to the ammonium in the wastewater being nitrified,
either as it freely drains into the surface wetland cell, or within the wetland

because of oxygen diffusion in to the surface and oxygen transport through the

plants to the root zone.

54

Total inorganic nitrogen (ammonium and nitrate) is the main concern to
farmers who will use wetland effluent for irrigation onto cropland. Irrigation water
is applied on a nitrogen basis if it is low in phosphorus. Table 5.13 shows the
overall nitrogen concentrations in the influent and effluent from the system.

Table 5.13 Overall Nitrogen Concentrations

 

Sept/Pea Lava Rock Pea-Stone
lnorg. N Influent 231.47 231.47 231.47

NH);+ Influent 230.96 230.96 230.96

 

 

 

 

N05 Influent 0.49 0.49 0.49
lnorg. N Efflluent 192.28 141.27 207.02
NH4+ Effluent 84.27 67.22 93.95
NO3- Effluent 108.01 74.05 113.07
Tot. N % Red. 17 39 11

 

Concentrations in mg/L Total inorganic Nitrogen

Lava rock removes significantly more total inorganic nitrogen in this study. Total
inorganic nitrogen removals of 17, 39 and 11 percent were slightly lower than
total inorganic nitrogen removals in studies performed by Reaves et al., 1994
(36%), and Skarda et al., 1994 (50%). The reductions of 17, 39, and 11 percent
could be increased with a re-circulation of the wastewater through the system.
This would prove successful due to the conversion of ammonium to nitrate which
takes place in the phosphorus trap, and subsequent de-nitrification of nitrate in

the wetland cells.

55

. .- ..
Nab QC 58¢ : x

 

5.1.3 COD
The results for COD concentration from one wastewater dosing cycle are shown

in Table 5.14.

Table 5.14 COD Concentration Through One Dosing Cycle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ehte: 7/25’2002 COD Concentrations (rrg/L)

A B AVG (A88) c 0 AVG (030) E F AVG (E&F)
Batch 1920.24 1920.24 1920.24 1920.24 1920.24 1920.24 1920.24 1920.24 1920.24
SSF 1032.03 1896.91 1464.47 913.41 903.53 908.47 636.65 661.36 649.01
SF 1423.93 1733.82 1578.88 977.66 639.12 808.39 495.80 770.09 632.95
PTOut 893.65 1365.63 1129.64 641.59 708.31 674.95 498.27 698.43 598.35
% Reduction 53 29 41 67 63 65 74 64 69
kvdue (Total) 3.43 1.52 2.37 4.92 4.48 4.69 6.07 4.54 5.24
E Septisorb and PeaStone Substrate
CD Lava Rock Substrate

E,F: PeaStone Substrate

Concentration in rrg/l (ppm) / Avg. Total Reduction in %
SSF: SubSurfaoe Flow Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: PhosphorusTrap

COD reduction was 41% for the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate, 65% for the
lava rock substrate, and 69% for the pea-stone substrate. The average COD
reduction and k-values for the sub-surface flow wetland are shown in Table 5.15.

Table 5.15 Average COD Reduction and K-Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COD Averages
Avgs Sept/Pea Std. Dev. Lava Rock Std. Dev Pea-stone Std. Dev
Batch 2348.46 1336.80 2348.46 1336.80 2348.46 1336.80
SSF 890.81 415.88 708.97 199.12 743.52 287.83
SF 1131.45 320.39 812.99 411.98 697.48 261.77
PT 1023.87 259.74 722.69 267.28 596.23 194.11
% RED TOT 63 19 75 15 75 12
L k value SSF 4.63 5.78 5.54

 

 

 

Concentration means based on 28 samples for Batch and SSFT4 samples for SF and PT
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap

Concentration in mg/l (ppm)

56

Average COD reductions of 63%, 75%, and 75% were attained for the Septisorb
and pea-stone substrate, the lava rock substrate, and the pea-stone substrate
respectively. T-Tests (assuming unequal variances) were executed to determine
if the concentration at the different stages of the wetland were significantly
different compared to the influent concentration. Table 5.16 presents the results
of the t-test for significance of COD concentration.

Table 5.16 T-Test of Significance for COD Reduction Compared to Influent 1

 

Concentration

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Substrate Septisorb / Pea-Stone
Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.000911407 0.0018939 0.0012295
Significant Yes Yes Yes
Substrate Lava Rock
Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T-Statistic 0.000425817 0.0006826 0.0004951
Significant Yes Yes Yes
Substrate Pea-Stone
Stage SSF SF TOTAL
T—Statistic 0000545909 0.0004566 0.0003106
wificant Yes Yes Yes

 

SSF: Sub-surface Flow
SF: Surface Flow

Effluent concentrations were significantly different than influent concentrations at
an a equal to 0.5 for all three substrates. Figure 5.4 presents the average COD

concentration at each stage of the treatment system.

57

 

2500.00 “WWW. WW. -_._.. 2-2.2-...

2000.00 . — MW- ,, ,., 7 . .2 .. 2 .2. .- ,

 

1500.00 1r— 1: _____.v, ~—- : .._ _,_ :— "“““ M“—‘“ lDSethPea-Stone '
ii. _' ILava Rock :
2:699:90; -_-

 

1000.00 ..._. f!»

 

COD Concentration (mg/L)

500.00 _, “ E.

 

 

 

 

 

0.00

 

  

Batch SSF SF
Treatment Stages

Figure 5.4 Average COD Concentration
The COD reduction of 75% found in the lava rock and the pea-stone substrates
is equal to or greater than reduction found in studies by Skarda et al., 1994
(50%), and Reaves et al., 1994 (62%). The COD concentration was reduced
initially in the sub-surface flow wetland cells and experienced a slight increase
after the surface flow cell. This was likely due to solids flushing through the
system. The COD may also have increased due to peat material washing away
from the phosphorus trap/filter.

in order to determine statistical significance between substrate and
wetland stage for COD reduction, t-tests (assuming unequal variances) were
executed. Table 5.17A shows the statistical difference between substrates for
the mean COD concentration. Table 5.17B illustrates the statistical significance

between the substrates for the percent reduction of COD.

58

Table 5.17A T Test Results for Statistical Significance of COD Concentration

between Substrates

 

 

Stage
Substrate SSF SF Total
Septisorb/Pea-Stone 890.81 a 1131.45 a 1023.87 3
Lava Rock 708.97 a 812.99 b 722.69 b
Pea Stone 743.52 a 697.48 b 596.23 b

 

 

 

 

Concentration in mg/L (ppm)

a,b: Show statistically significant difference
by column

Table 5.173 T Test Results for Statistical Significance of Total Percentage

Reduction of COD between Substrates

 

 

°/o Reduction
Substrate Total
Septisorb/Pea-Stone 62.75 a
Lava Rock 75 b
Pea Stone 75.25 b

 

 

 

 

a,bz Show statistically significant difference

Table 5.17A shows that there is no significant difference between the three
substrates in COD reduction through the sub-surface flow wetland cell. The
COD concentrations are significantly higher in the Septisorb and pea-stone
mixed substrate than the other substrates after the surface flow cell and at the
end of the treatment system. This can likely be attributed to the Septisorb and
other organic matter washing through the system. Table 5.17B shows that the
pea-stone and lava rock substrates performed significantly better than the

Septisorb and pea-stone mixed substrate for overall reduction in COD.

59

5.1.4 WEATHER INFLUENCE

The effects of weather (precipitation and evapo-transpiration) were studied
in order to determine if significant changes in the nutrient concentration occurred
due to fluctuations in water supplied to the wetland system by precipitation and
evapo-transpiration. Weather data was collected from the Michigan Automated
Weather Network weather station in Bath, Michigan. See Appendix B for
complete weather data for the entire sampling period.
Figure 5.5 represents the precipitation and evapo-transpiration data for the

sampling period.

1.600

1.400 »- - - , ,, - - ;

 

1.200 L___L.- _-___¥7 ,-, .7 7 --_L. .. .L_.fi_

1.000 ___.,__ .___ —— V, ,, ,, "W-“ —— —-——-

f—o—“‘ "é? ‘
I + Pre_c_i_p_ .

 

0.800 - —- — 1-, ,, , -~ -—

0.600 .__,- - ._... _.- _- -. L -. _. ___,.

PreciplEvap (in)

 

 

 

 

0.400 «- __M__,,__ T .

 

 

0.200 1“

 

  

 

 

0.000 '
6/13/2002 7/3/2002 7/23/2002 8/12/2002 9/1/2002 9/21/2002 10/11/2002

Date

 

Figure 5.5 Precipitation and Evapo—Transpiration Data (MAWN Weather Station;

Bath, Ml.)

In order to determine if reductions of nutrients increased or decreased due

to dilution of the wastewater caused by precipitation and evapo-transpiration, the

60

nutrient reductions were graphed along with the precipitation and evapo-

transpiration data (See Figure 5.6).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

800 -—-~- —--r~ -. -.. w—W -- - ~ --~~--»- ~----_.._-,”Mm-.-”_..___-.L.--- '—— 1.60
LE--. ,- L . -LL _ ___-..-._--, .. _jLu .. .......__.0.
70.0 X 1.40
X
60.0 -————-—-- —-—I— e u - -———_~—— ——~- 1.20
X
c . ___
’3, 50.0 v 0 -- x — ———X— — —— —~—— —— 1.00 E r———,,SSF,ava
3 +_____ _ -Lrfi 7g” _ - _ g kflx‘ _ ___ ___0 " +SSFP93
E 40.0 080 g j+RainIaII
X X " --—,:r—~~ET
0 30.0 - -- —' %Miiiii - - 7 ~7 - » ,, . K
a~ § r x x x 060
20.0 — -- , - - 0.40
‘ . X
10.0 ‘ua , Jig“ "05‘: . w I: .‘—~ -~ g - 0 20
0.0 o 0 J o f." u ‘ é _ 0.00
7/3 7/23 8/12 9/1 9/21 10/11
Date

Figure 5.6 Nutrient Concentration Reduction (Ammonium) Corresponding to
Rainfall and Evapo-Transpiration Effects
There were three rainfall events with precipitation of over 0.4 inches with which to
compare ammonium reduction. It shows that the nutrient reduction was not
effected by rainfall and evapo—transpiration. There was no increase in the
reduction during periods of heavy rainfall which could have effected the results
by diluting the wastewater within the wetland, thereby reducing the concentration
of ammonium. Evapo-transpiration also appears to have no effect on the nutrient
concentration in a wetland system.
5.2 PILOT SCALE WETLAND DESIGN

Wetland design is based on the areal uptake constant (k value) for a
target pollutant (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). In the case of constructed wetlands

for dairy wastewater management, phosphorus, nitrogen, and COD are the main

61

pollutants of concern. K values were determined for both COD and ammonium.
Phosphorus was not considered because the main pathway for phosphorus
reduction is adsorption to the soil substrate. Areal uptake constants (K values)
for each substrate were determined for the sub-surface flow wetland type using
equation 2.10. Background concentrations of 1 mg/L and 100 mg/L were used
for ammonium and COD based on research conducted by Kadlec and Knight,
1996. The k values are shown in Table 5.18.

Table 5.18 Average K Values for Ammonium & COD

ISSF Septisorb Lava Rock Pea-Stone]

Ammonium 0.87 1.70 0.54
COD 4.65 5.78 5.54
SSF: Sub—Surface Flow Wetland Cells
k values in m/yr

 

Ammonium reduction occurred mainly in the phosphorus trap of the
wetland system, and therefore COD k-values will be used to size a pilot scale
constructed wetland for dairy wastewater remediation.

Figure 5.7 shows the area required for the three wetland substrates
studied (Septisorb / Pea-stone, Lava Rock, Pea-stone) for increasing influent
concentrations (500 mg/L — 5000 mg/L) at a constant flow rate of 37,854 L/day

(10,000 g/d) with a target effluent COD concentration of 500 mg/L.

62

2.00 MM-
1.80 W -— ,,,v , W me, ~— ~ W ~~ H .2”, — —

 

 

 

1.50.______. WW ~ , , , W WWW— ~ ,, -— ——_'
1.40 , W ,- ,. - -_ ___.-- . — - ,_ /~i
120- --—~ -- ~- --—- ~ ~ + ‘ --—~-~--— -- - 1 glgp‘mséa
1.001» W I —~-- ——~/———~— WWW ,, W ,, v WWW? 4— r—l-LavaRocki
0.80 ,. W ,_ - z/W—WW—W—WW —- —---—— WWW—WWW F+EE§QQEJ

‘ __H
0.50 W”- /____,,, ,2 W W , .__,--. W?

0.40 ,__ ,,_.2._..__.._ -quu, ,,_--,,. , L , ,,_, _LL ., L-

Area (acres)

 

020+ W ,, 2--., .7 .. L- , i
0.00

 

 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Influent Concentration (mg/L)

Figure 5.7 Wetland Area versus Influent Concentration for 10,000 gal/day of
Dairy Wastewater
As the influent COD concentration increases, the area required for reduction to
500 mg/L COD increases. The increase slows as the COD concentrations rise.
Lava rock requires the least amount of area for a wetland for COD removal due
to its slightly lower k value than pea-stone.

Figure 5.8 shows the area requirement for the three wetland substrates for
increasing flows of 37,854 L/d to 208,197 L/d (10,000 g/d — 55,000 g/d), at a
constant influent COD concentration of 3,000 mg/L and a target effluent

concentration of 500 mg/L.

63

 

m

Fig

3.0

As

in:

U!

bar

9 0g) .2m.2-fl .--,“W--.---.--fl- .-. - _--..H , _H - ,2_ , -. ,2.. .. -- , ,, --.u - ...“-_.-,
800
700

€100-~
T--O—Sept./Pea
'—I—Lava Rock ,'
E+_ . Bea-Stensl

500-

 

 

 

400~-

Area (acres)

300~
200-

 

100

 

000 i . . i 1
10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000

 

Wasterwater Flow (gal/day)

Figure 5.8 Wetland Area versus Wastewater Flow for Influent Concentration of
3,000 mg/L

As the wastewater flow increases, the wetland area needed for treatment
increases. Lava rock requires the smallest area. At lower flows, i.e. 37,854 L/d
(10,000 g/d), the area required for each substrate is similar (< 1.5 acres). At
larger flows, i.e. 189,270 L/d (50,000 g/d), the area required for the lava rock and
the pea-stone substrates is six acres and for the Septisorb and pea-stone
substrate, less than eight acres.

Target effluent concentrations of the wetlands can be changed if the water
use will be different. For instance, a higher concentration of COD could be
allowed for irrigation while a lower concentration would be used for flushing
barns. A decrease in the target effluent concentration will increase the area

requirements of the wetland. Figure 5.9 shows the wetland area versus the

64

 

A
Q
1
l
l
I
\

Fig

W35
/a Va

SiOne

influent concentration for a 37,854 L/d (10,000 g/d) dairy farm if the effluent

concentration is 250 mg/L.

3.00 ----.__. .__-___ -_---._.- -_ -.-- 222 -.- --2____
l

Area (acres)

 

 

0.00

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Influent Concentration (mg/L)

Figure 5.9 Wetland Area versus Influent Concentration for 10,000 gal/day of
Dairy Wastewater

Comparing Figure 5.9 and 5.7 shows that wetland area requirements are
increased by approximately one half acre with a decrease of 250 mg/L in the
target effluent concentration.

Even though the lava rock substrate performs the best when considering
ammonium reduction and requires less land for treatment, it may not always be
the best choice. Phosphorus and nitrogen reduction must also be taken into
account when designing a wetland system. In this study, the Septisorb and pea-
stone and the pea-stone substrates both removed more phosphorus from
wastewater than did the lava rock substrate. COD reduction is the largest in the
lava rock substrate and the pea-stone substrate with the Septisorb and pea-

stone substrate the reducing as well. Therefore, the substrate options must be

65

weighed for each dairy farm since farms will differ in the nutrient needs for
irrigation and the nutrient loading of the soil.

Pilot scale wetland design must also take into account the order of the
treatments. In this study, the phosphorus trap nitrified ammonium to nitrate. The
trap was located at the end of the treatment system. Nitrate is a major concern
for surface and groundwater contamination, and therefore must be lowered
before release to surface waters, irrigation, or flushing. Total inorganic nitrogen
is the main concern to agriculture and may need to be reduced before being land
applied. In order to account for these concerns the order of the treatment stages
can be switched. The phosphorus trap can be located between the sub-surface
and surface flow wetland cells in order to both remove phosphorus and nitrify the
ammonium to nitrate which in turn can be reduced in a following cell. Another
way to reduce the nitrate and total inorganic nitrogen is to re-circulate the water
through the wetland. This would be advantageous by both reducing COD further
and keeping a constant flow of wastewater to the wetland to assure that the
system does not dry out.

5.2.1 Green Meadows Pilot Scale Design

Pilot scale wetland design for Green Meadows Dairy farm in Elsie,
Michigan is based on one tenth of the approximate daily wastewater produced on
the site. This equates to a wastewater flow of 37,854 liters per day (10,000 g/d)
for the constructed wetland to handle. Flow determines the size of each wetland
cell. The pilot scale system will incorporate two sub-surface flow cells along with

a phosphorus trap. The sequence of the treatments will be the same as the

66

sequence used in this study. A sub-surface flow cell will be followed by a second
sub-surface flow cell which will be followed by the phosphorus trap. This second
wetland cell could be a surface flow cell if economic restrictions require a lower
cost wetland. In order to reduce the nutrients to a further extent, the wastewater
will be stored in a pond and re-circulated and/or re-circulated directly through the
wetland system.

Two substrates will be used for the pilot scale design. Due to its high
removal rate for phosphorus and COD, its solids removal and its lower cost, pea-
stone will be used in the first sub-surface flow wetland cell. Lava rock will be
employed in the second sub-surface flow cell because of its high total inorganic
nitrogen and COD removal capacity. Pea-stone may also be used in the second
sub-surface flow wetland cell due to its low cost. Most of the ammonium
conversion will take place in the phosphorus trap and with re-circulation
denitrifying the nitrate; therefore, lava rock may not be needed. The phosphorus
trap will be comprised of a sand and peat mixture with steel wool.

The size of the wetland cells are determined by the k value for COD.
Using an average influent COD estimation of 3,000 mg/L, the sub—surface flow
‘ wetland cell (pea-stone) will be 0.5 hectare (1.22 acres) in size according to
figure 5.7 and equation 2.10; the second sub-surface flow wetland cell (lava rock
or pea-stone) will have approximately the same size.

The phosphorus trap size is based on the sorption isotherms of
phosphorus on peat and steel wool; steel wool can adsorb 100% of added

phosphorus up to a level of 32.2 milligrams of phosphorus per gram of steel wool

67

while peat can adsorb 2.2 milligrams of phosphorus per gram of peat (James et
al., 1992). Peat with 6% steel wool added can adsorb up to 4 milligrams of
phosphorus per gram of material (peat and steel wool mixture) (James et al.,
1992). A peat and steel wool mixture will be amended with filter sand in order to
improve the hydraulic conductivity of the material, and thus the drainage. Equal
volumes of peat and filter sand will be used.

The phosphorus trap is designed to handle the pilot scale flow of 37,854
liters per day (10,000 g/d) at a phosphorus concentration of 2 mg/L flowing from
the second wetland cell. This equates to a total phosphorus load of 75,700 mg/d
of phosphorus reaching the phosphorus trap. According to the reduction
isotherm for peat with 6% steel wool, adsorption sites in one cubic meter will be
filled in approximately three days. Therefore, the dimensions of the phosphorus
trap should be one meter deep, 30 meters long and 30 meters wide (900 m3).
The phosphorus trap has an estimated lifetime of 2,700 days. The approximate

amounts of peat, sand, and steel wool needed for one cubic meter of phosphorus
trap material are;

. Peat 120lbs

. Sand: 1600 lbs

0 SteelWool: 7le

The trap will be designed so that the water will enter the surface of the
trap uniformly, using a pressure closed system, and flow downward thru the

media to a drain pipe. This will provide the oxygen needed for nitrification of

ammonium.

68

 

 

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

A constructed wetland was investigated for use as a part of a dairy
wastewater management system. The following steps were taken to determine
its feasibility:

. A small scale wetland treatment system was designed and constructed
at the Green Meadows Dairy Farm in Elsie, Michigan.

0 Data was collected on nutrient (phosphorus, ammonium, nitrate) and
COD reductions for three separate substrates (Septisorb/Pea-stone
mixture, Lava Rock, Pea-Stone) for a 12 day retention time, over a
period of three months.

. A pilot scale wetland system was designed.

Each substrate and wetland type showed a statistically significant reduction of
phosphorus. The Septisorb and pea-stone substrate and the pea-stone
substrate had a significantly larger reduction in phosphorus than the lava rock.
The sub-surface flow wetland cells removed significantly more phosphorus than
did the surface flow cells in both the lava rock substrate and the pea-stone
substrate, while the surface and sub-surface flow cells did not show a significant
difference in the Septisorb and pea-stone substrate. Each substrate and wetland
type showed a statistically significant reduction of total inorganic nitrogen. The
lava rock substrate had a significantly larger reduction of total inorganic nitrogen

than did the other substrates. Nitrification of ammonium occurred mainly in the

69

phosphorus trap filter under aerobic conditions which promoted an increase in
effluent nitrate from the system. Significant reductions of COD were obtained in
the sub-surface flow cells of each of the substrates. The lava rock and the pea-
stone substrates removed significantly more COD then the Septisorb and pea-
stone substrate.

An optimal pilot scale design for a wastewater flow 10,000 g/d with an
influent COD concentration of 3,000 mg/L and a target effluent concentration of
500 mg/L yields a necessary wetland area of 1.22 acres. Effluent concentrations
of phosphorus and ammonium can be expected to be reduced by greater than
90% and 70% respectively. Re-circulation of the wetland effluent will provide a
greater reduction in total inorganic nitrogen by denitrifying the nitrate produced in

the phosphorus trap.

70

CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

The recommendations for future study arezExamine the period of time
necessary to effectively fill all of the phosphorus sorption sites on several
substrates.

1) Examine the effects on pollutant removal of providing additional
oxygen to the wetland system by pumping air into, or draining water
from, the wetland cell.

2) Determine the mechanisms involved in the nitrification of
ammonium to nitrate that occurs in the phosphorus trap.

3) Verify if re-circulation of wetland effluent will further reduce pollutant
concentrations.

4) Determine if concentrated wastewater streams are detrimental to

wetland system performance.

71

REFERENCES

72

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ahn, C.H., M. Loerop, S. McElmurry, M. Mir, M. Rodriguez, 2001. Phosphorus
Reduction in Manure Waste at Green Meadow Farms. ENE 806 — Feasibility
Study and Design. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Biddlestone, A.J., K.R. Gray, G.D. Job, 1991. Treatment of Dairy Farm
Wastewaters in Engineered Reed Bed Systems. Process Biochemistry. 26:
265-268.

Cronk, J.K. 1996. Constructed Wetlands to treat wastewater from dairy and
swine operations: a review. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment. 58: 97-114.

Drizo, A., CA. Frost, K.A. Smith, J. Grace, 1997. Phosphate and Ammonium
Removal by Constructed Wetlands with Horizontal Subsurface Flow, Using Shale
as a Substrate. Water Sci. Tech. 35: 95-102.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Constructed Wet/ands Treatment of
Municipal Wastewaters. EPA/625/R-99/010. National Risk Management
Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, US. EPA.
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. Part 651 of the Agricultural Waste
Management Filed Handbook. 210-AWMFH, 4/92.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. Methods 353.2 and 365.1.

Faulkner, S.P., C.J. Richardson. 1989. Physical and Chemical Characteristics
of Freshwater Wetland soils. In: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. D.A. Hammer (Ed) Lewis
Publishers, Inc., New York, NY.

Geary, PM. and J.A. Moore, 1999. Suitability of a Treatment Wetland for Dairy
Wastewaters. Water Sci. Tech. 40: 179-185.

Green, Craig 2002. Personal Contact. Green Meadow Farms, Elsie, Ml.

Hammer, DA. 1989. Constructed Wet/ands for Wastewater Treatment:
Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. Lewis Publishers, Inc., New York, NY.

Hammer, 1994. Guidelines for Design, Construction and Operation of
Constructed Wetlands for Livestock Wastewater Treatment. In: Proceedings of a
Workshop on Constructed Wet/ands for Animal Waste Management. April 4-6,

1994, Lafayette, Indiana.

73

Hammer, D.A., B.P. Pullin, T.A. McCaskey, J. Eason, and V.W.E. Payne. 1993.
Treating Livestock Wastewaters with Constructed Wetlands. In Constructed
Wetlands for Water Quality Improvements, 343-347, ed. G.S. Moshiri. Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hill, D.T., V.W.E. Payne, SR. Kown. 1995. Evaluation of Free-Water-Surface
Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Poultry Lagoon Effluent. Trans.ASAE
39(6): 2113-2117

Holmes, B.J., B.J. Doll, CA. Rock, G.D. Bubenzer, R. Kostinec, L.R. Massie,
1995. Experiences with Two Constructed Wetlands for Treating Milking Center
Wastewater in a Cold Climate. In: Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface.
K. Steele (Ed) Lewis Publishers Inc., New York, NY.

James, B.R., M.C. Rabenhorst, G.A. Frigon. 1992. Phosphorus Sorption by
Peat and Sand Amended with Iron Oxides or Steel Wool. Water Environment
Research. 64(5):699-705.

Kadlec, RH. and R.L. Knight, (Eds) 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Lewis
Publishers, Inc. New York, NY.

Knight, R.L., Payne, V., Borer, R.E., Clarke, RA. and Pries, J.H. 1996. Livestock
Wastewater Treatment Database, prepared for EPA Gulf of Mexico Program.

Langston, J. and VanDevender, K., 1998. Constructed Wetlands: An Approach
for Animal Waste Treatment. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR.

Lorion, Renee, 2001. Constructed Wetlands: Passive Systems for Wastewater
Treatment. Technology Status Report prepared for the USEPA Technology
Innovation Office. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Martin, CD. and Moshiri, GA, 1994. Nutrient Reduction in an In-Series
Constructed Wetland System Treating Landfill Leachate. Water Sci. Tech. 29:

267-272.

Nelson, D. W., 1983. Determination of Ammonium in KCI Extracts of Soils by the
Salicylate Method. Commun. In Soil Sci. Plant Anal, 14(11): 1051-1062.

Niswander, SF. 1997. Treatment of Dairy Wastewater in a Constructed Wetland
System: Evapo-transpiration, Hydrology, Hydraulics, Treatment Performance and
Nitrogen Cycling Processes, PhD thesis, Department of Bio-resource
Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Pullin, B.P., D.A. Hammer. 1991. Aquatic Plants Improve Wastewater
Treatment. Water Environmental Technologies, 36-40.

74

Reaves, R.P., P.J. DuBowy, B.K. Miller, 1994. Performance of a Constructed
Wetland for Dairy Waste Treatment in LaGrange County, Indiana. In:
Proceedings of a Workshop on Constructed Wetlands for Animal Waste
Management. April 4-6, 1994, Lafayette, Indiana.

Reddy, K.R., E.M. D’Angelo, 1997. Biogeochemical Indicators to Evaluate
Pollutant Removal Efficiency in Constructed Wetlands. Water Sci. Tech. 35(5):
1-10.

Skarda, S.M., J.A. Moore, S.F. Niswander, M.J. Gamroth, 1994. Preliminary
Results of Wetland for Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewater. In: Proceedings of
a Workshop on Constructed Wet/ands for Animal Waste Management. April 4-6,
1994, Lafayette, Indiana.

Tanner, CC. 1994. Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewaters in Horizontal and Up-
FIow Gravel-Bed Constructed Wetlands. Water Sci. Tech. 29(4): 85-93.

Thomas, P.R., P. Glover, T. Kalaroopan. 1995. An Evaluation of Pollutant
Removal from Secondary Treat Sewage Effluent Using a Constructed Wetland
System. Water Sci. Tech. 29(4): 87-93.

White, K.D. 1995. Enhancement of Nitrogen Removal in Subsurface Flow
Constructed Wetlands Employing a 2-stage Configuration, and Unsaturated
Zone, and Re-circulation. Water Sci. Tech. 32(3): 5967.

Wood, Y. 1995. Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control:
Fundamentals to their Understanding. Water Sci. Tech. 32(3): 21-29.

Zhu, T. and F.J. Sikora, 1995. Ammonium and Nitrate Removal in Vegetated

and Un-vegetated Gravel Bed Microcosm Wetlands. Water Sci. Tech. 32(3):
219-228.

75

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDICES

Experimental Data

Weather Data

Wetland Photographs

Pilot Scale Wetland Design Data

Statistical Data Tables

76

 

APPENDIX A

Experimental Data

77

Data Tables for Phosphorus Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phosphoms Concentrations and REductions
Date In Stage A B AVG (AB) c 0 AVG (on) E F AVG (EF)
6/25/2002 Batch 57.50 57.50 57.50 57.50 57.50 57.50 57.50 57.50 57.50
SSF 6.70 7.30 7.00 24.60 19.50 22.05 5.60 1.80 3.70
SF 0.50 0.50 0.50 3.90 6.00 4.95 0.40 2.00 1.20
PT OUt 0.80 1.30 1.05 3.20 6.50 4.85 0.60 1.00 0.80
% RED SSF 88 87 88 57 66 62 90 97 94
% RED SF 93 93 93 84 69 78 93 -11 68
% RED TOTAL 99 98 98 94 89 92 99 98 99
7/1/2002 Batch 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3
SSF 3 0.8 1.9 8.9 8.2 8.55 3 3.1 3.05
SF 1.8 0.23 1.015 5.3 5.6 5.45 0.8 0.32 0.56
PT OUt 0.55 0.45 0.5 7.45 6.1 6.775 0.14 0.31 0.225
% RED SSF 80 95 88 42 46 44 80 80 80
% RED SF 40 71 47 40 32 36 73 90 82
% RED TOTAL % 97 97 51 60 56 99 98 99
7/8/02 Batch 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1
SSF (12) 2.5 2.6 2.55 7.6 9.4 8.5 3.7 0.9 2.3
SF(12) 0.29 0.3 0.295 8.08 12.9 10.49 0.18 0.39 0.285
PT(OUT) 0.4 0.36 0.38 7.3 8.35 7.825 0.11 0.3 0.205
% RED SSF 88 87 87 62 53 58 82 % 89
% RED SF 88 88 88 -6 -37 -23 95 57 88
% RED TOTAL _28 98 98 64 58 61 99 99 9L
7/15/02 Batch 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7
SSF (12) 0.25 1.19 0.72 5.2 6 5.6 0.36 0.39 0.375
SF(12) 2.45 1.98 2.215 10.4 10.3 10.35 1.05 1.65 1.35
PT(OUT) 0.35 1 0.675 4.5 10 7.25 0.38 0.85 0.615
% RED SSF 99 93 96 71 66 68 98 I 98 98
% RED SF ~880 -66 -208 -100 -72 -85 -192 -323 -260
% RED TOTAL 98 94 % 75 44 59 98 95 97
7/19/02 Batch 28. 3 28. 3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.3
SSF (12) 0.44 1.9 1.17 9.08 12.9 10.99 2.1 0.65 1.375
SF(12)
PT(OUT) No Samples Taken
% RED SSF 98 93 96 68 54 61 93 98 95
% RED SF
% RED TOTAL
7/25/02 Batch 14.75 14.75 14.75 14.75 14.75 14.75 14.75 14.75- 14.75
SSF (12) 4.15 4.58 4.365 15.3 15.9 15.6 5 5 5
SF(12) 3.4 3.1 3.25 14.6 19.5 17.05 1.6 2.4 2
PT(OUT) 1.7 2.2 1.95 12.3 14.2 13.25 1 1.1 . 1.05
% RED SSF 72 69 70 «4 -8 -6 66 66 66
°/o RED SF 18 32 26 5 -23 -9 68 52 60
% RED TOTAL 88 85 87 17 4 10 93 93 93

 

 

 

A, B: Septisorb andPea—Stone Substrate
C,D: Lava Rock Substrate

E,F: Pea—Stone Substrate

All Conwntrations in mg/I (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap

78

"-L‘V

Phosphorus Tables

 

Ms Concentrations andReductions

 

Date In % A 8 AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
7/31/02 Batch 16.44| 16.44] 16.44 | 16.44] 16.44] 16.44 | 16.44] 16.44] 16.44
SSF (12) No Samples Taken
SF(12) 4.6 3.8 4.2 8 7.5 7.75 2.7 0.5 1.6
PT(OUT) 1.4 1.9 1.65 12.9 15.4 14.15 1.1 1.5 1.3
"/0 RED SSF
°/o RED SF
% RED TOTAL 91 88 90 22 6 14 93 91 92

 

8/6/02 gob 24.525 24.525 24.525 24.525 24.525 24.525 24.525 24.525 24.525
SSF(12) 7.8 7.6 77 13 20.1 16.55 9.7 10 9.85

SF( 12) 0.4 0.3 0.35 8.4 7.4 7.9 2 0.9 1.45

PT(OUT) 2.8 2.8 2.8 14 9 11.5 0.8 1 0.9

% RED SSF 68 69 69 47 18 33 60 59 60
% RED SF 95 96 95 35 63 52 79 91 85
% RED TOTAL 89 89 89 43 63 53 97 96 96

 

8l12/02 Batch 30.45 30.45 30.45 30.45 30.45 30.45 30.45 30.45 30.45
SSF(12) 1.6 2.5 2.05 8.4 9.5 8.95 5.2 9.7 7.45

SF(12) 7 7 _ 7 16.4 14.4 15.4 3.7 6.5 5.1

PT(OUT) 1.8 3.6 2.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 1.1 1.8 1.45
% RED SSF 95 92 93 72 69 71 83 68 76
% RED SF —338 -180 -241 -95 —52 -72 29 33 32
% RED TOTAL 94 88 91 45 45 45 96 94 95

 

8119/02 Batch 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
SSF (12) 17.1 6.8 11.95 8.4 7.2 7.8 6.7 8.8 7.75

SF( 12) 5.4 3.8 4.6 10 9.5 9.75 2.8 5.8 4.3

PT(OUT) 1.2 2.7 1.95 16 13.6 14.8 1.6 2.5 2.05

% RED SSF 52 81 66 76 80 78 81 75 78
% RED SF 68 44 62 -19 ~32 -25 58 34 45
% RED TOTAL 97 92 95 55 62 58 95 93 94

 

8/23/02 Batch 25.15 25.15 25.15 25.15 25.15 25.15 25.15 25.15 25.15
SSF(12) 17.1 14.8 15.95 17.1 17.1 17.1 14 12.3 13.15

SF(12) 3.8 6.8 5.3 4 5.3 4.65 2 4.6 3.3

PT(OUT) 2 1.8 1.9 8 3.7 5.85 0.6 1.2 0.9

% RED SSF 32 41 37 32 32 32 44 51 48
% RED SF 78 54 67 77 69 73 86 63 75
% RED TOTAL 92 93 92 68 85 77 98 95 96

 

8729/02 Batch 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25 18.25
SSF(12) 9.5 9.7 9.6 16.4 15.6 16 12.6 10 11.3

SF(12) 1.8 1.8 1.8 9.4 8.7 9.05 1.3 3.6 2.45
PT(OUT) 1.7 1.7 1.7 9.2 7.3 8.25 0.9 2 1.45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% RED SSF 48 47 47 10 15 12 31 45 38

% RED SF 81 81 81 43 44 43 90 64 78

% RED TOTAL 91 91 91 50 60 55 95 89 92
AB: Septisorb and Pea—Stone Substrate

 

C,D: Lava Rock Substrate

E,F: Pea-Stone Substrate

All Concentrations in mg/l (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap 79

Phosphorus Tables

 

Phosphorus Concentrations and Reductions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date In Stage A B AVG (AB) c 0 AVG (on) E F AVG (EF)

975/02 Batch 21'.'7""'2"'1".'7" 21.7 " '2"1.'7 "2'1.'7"—21.7 "—21.7 —21.7 '_2'1.7"_
SSF(12) 13.5 7.8 10.7 2.5 7.5 5 3 3.5 3.25
SF(12) 1.3 1.3 1.3 9.2 8.7 8.95 1.5 4 2.75
PT(OUT) 2 2 2 8.7 10 9.35 0.7 1.1 0.9

%REDSSF 37 54 51 88 55 77 86 84 85

%RED SF 90 83 88 -268 -15 -79 50 -14 15

% RED TOTAL 91 91 91 50 54 57 97 95 96

9/11/02 Batch 24.55 24.55 24.55 24.55 24.55 24.55 24.55 24.55 24.55
SSF(12) 5.5 5.5 5.5 15 14.1 14.55 9.2 5.2 7.7
SF(12)
PT(OUT)

% RED ss1= 78 78 78 39 43 41 53 75 59

%RED SF

% REDTOTAL

9717/02 Batch 15.05 15.05 15.05 15.05 15.05 15.05 15.05 15.05 15.05
SSF(12) 9.4 9.4 9.4 17.3 15.9 17.1 6.8 3 4.9.
SF(12)
PT(OUT)

%REDSSF 38 38 38 —15 -12 -14 55 80 57

% RED sr=

%REDTOTAL

 

AB: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
C,D: Lava Rock Substrate
E,F: Pea-Stone Substrate
All Concentrations in mg/l (ppm)
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells
PT: Phosphorus Trap

80

 

Data Tables for Ammonium Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arrmonium Concentrations and mom
‘ Date In A B AVG (AB) C D AVG (CE) E F AVG (EF)
6/25/02 Batch 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57 196.57
SSF (12) 200.6 198.13 199.365 208.12 129.12 168.62 102.01 163.67 132.84
SF(12) 140.13 128.75 134.44 85.45 107.11 96.28 137.63 107.33 122.48
PT(OUT) 96.39 90.81 93.6 21.4 75.43 48.415 92.12 57.95 75.035
% RED SSF -2 -1 -1 -6 34 14 48 17 32
% RED SF 30 35 33 59 17 43 -35 34 8
% RED TOTAL 51 54 52 89 62 75 53 71 62
k value SSF -0.09 —0.04 -0.06 -0.25 1.87 0.68 2.93 0.82 1.75
kvalue SF 1.60 1.92 1.76 3.97 0.83 2.50 -1.34 1.88 0.36
kvalue PT 1.67 1.56 1.62 6.29 1.57 3.09 1.79 2.76 2.19
k value Total 3.18 3.45 3.31 10.01 4.28 6.27 3.38 5.46 4.30
7/1/02 Batch 157.32 157.32 157.32 157.32 157.32 157.32 157.32 157.32 157.32
SSF (12) 201.5 132.99 167.245 116.6 113.76 115.18 138.99 101.68 120.335
SF(12) 142.97 170.09 156.53 83.06 109.56 96.31 196.07 162.79 179.43
PT(OUT) 69.43 82.32 75.875 81.93 100.68 91.305 125.58 135.23 130.405
% RED SSF -28 15 -6 26 28 27 12 35 24
% RED SF 29 -28 6 29 4 16 -41 -60 49
% RED TOTAL 56 48 52 48 36 42 20 14 17
kvalue SSF -1.10 0.75 —0.27 1.34 1.45 1.39 0.55 1.95 1.20
kvalue SF 1.53 -1.10 0.30 1.52 0.17 0.80 -1.53 -2.10 -1.78
k value PT 3.23 3.24 3.24 0.06 0.38 0.24 1.99 0.83 1.42
k value Total 3.66 2.89 3.26 2.92 1.99 2.43 1.00 0.67 0.84
7/8/02 Batch 164.36 164.36 164.36 164.36 164.36 164.36 164.36 164.36 164.36
SSF (12) 124.95 95.37 110.16 142.41 91.05 116.73 100.4 94.91 97.655
SF(12) 197.59 124.59 161.09 108.75 100.58 104.665 148.83 117.21 133.02
PT(OUT) 18.59 106.19 62.39 44.21 50.72 47.465 100.44 109.06 104.75
°/o RED SSF 24 42 33 13 45 29 39 42 41
% RED SF -58 -31 -46 24 -10 10 -48 -23 -36
°/o RED TOTAL 89 35 62 73 69 71 39 34 36
k value SSF 1.22 2.43 1.79 0.64 2.64 1.53 2.20 2.45 2.32
k value SF -2.04 -1.19 -1.70 1.20 -0.45 0.49 -1.76 -0.94 -1.38
k value PT 10.69 0.71 4.24 4.05 3.08 3.55 1.76 0.32 1.07
k value Total 9.87 1.95 4.33 5.89 5.27 5.57 2.20 1.83 2.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m Septisorb and Pea—Stone Substrate
CD Lava Rock Substrate

E, F: Pea-Stone Substrate

All Concentrations in mg/l (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap

k value : Areal Rate Constant (m/yr)

81

Ammonium Tables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ArnmoniumConoentrationsandReductions
Date In A 8 AVG (AB) c D AVG (00) E F AVG (EF)
7/15/02 Batch 115.47 115.47 115.455 115.47 115.47 115.455 115.47%??5‘7455"
SSF(12) 159.88 154.32 152.1 148.1 142.9 145.5 154.1 187.28 175.59
SF(12) 159.57 179.45 174.555 99.48 118.34 108.91 157.73 131.53 144.68
PT(OUT) 99.52 72.27 85.945 29.75 50.75 40.25 155.25 55.4 105.325
% RED SSF 45 -33 -39 .27 -23 -25 41 51 -51
%REDSF 0 -15 -8 33 17 25 4 30 18
% RED TOTAL 14 38 25 74 55 55 -33 52 10
kvalue SSF «1.68 -125 -147 -107 0.91 099 -153 -212 -1.83
kvalue SF 0.01 057 0.33 1.78 0.84 1.29 0.18 1.57 0.87
kvalue PT 2.38 4.05 3.15 5.45 3.80 4.48 0.07 3.88 1.42
kvalue Total 0.70_ 2.14 1.35 5.15 3.73 4.78 -1.28 3.33 0.45
" 7'/'19/02 Batch 150.27 150.27 150.27 150.27 150.27 150.27 '150.2'7"'150.27"'1'502'7l
SSF(12) 158.88 135.03 147.455 112.28 118.58 115.43 172.27 175.68 173.975
SF(12)
PT(OUT) NoSamplesTaken
%REDSSF 1 15 8 30 25 28 -7 -10 -9
%REDSF
% REDTOTAL
kvalue SSF 0.04 0.73 0.37 1.59 1.34 1.45 0.32 041 037
kvalue SF
kvalue PT
kvalue Total
' '7/25/02Batch 180.76 180% 180.76 180.76 180.76 18075—18075 180.75 180.75
SSF(12) 208.96 211.5 210.23 145.72 150.74 153.73 210.35 187.89 199.12
SF(12) 152.55 158.31 155.435 127.44 151.25 144.35 155.77 138.48 152.125
PT(OUT) 75.87 72.58 74.275 90.93 107.54 99.235 89.92 90.8 90.35
%REDSSF -15 -17 -15 19 11 15 -15 4 -10
% RED SF 27 25 25 13 0 5 21 25 24
% RED TOTAL 58 50 59 50 41 45 50 50 50
kvalue SSF 055 .070 057 0.93 0.52 0.72 057 0.17 043
kvalue SF 1.40 1.29 1.34 0.53 0.01 0.28 1.05 1.35 1.20
kvalue PT 3.12 3.48 3.30 1.51 1.81 1.57 2.73 1.89 2.33
kvalue Total 3.88 4.07 3.97 3.07 2.32 2.58 3.12 3.07 3.09

 

 

 

 

 

 

C, D: Lava Rock Substrate
E,F: Pea—Stone Substrate

All Concentrations in rng/l (ppm)
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap
k value : Areal Rate Constant (m/yr)

__A, B: Sept ""sorb"—and PeE'Stone Substrate

82

.-

Ammonium Tables

 

B

Ammonium Concentrations and Rgductions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date In Stage A AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
7/31/02 Batch 203.64] 203.64] 203.64 [203.64] 203.64T 203.64 | 203.64 | 203.64] 203.64
SSF (12) No Samples Taken
SF(12) 156.18 132.02 144.1 80.9 71.13 76.015 158.49 125.34 141.915
PT(OUT) 76.71 96.26 86.485 80.44 72.73 76.585 103.32 63.37 83.345
% RED SSF
% RED SF
% RED TOTAL 62 53 58 60 64 62 49 69 59
k value ssf ‘
k value sf
k value pt 3.18 1.41 2.28 0.03 -0.10 —0.03 1.91 3.06 2.38
k value Total 4.36 3.34 3.82 4.15 4.60 4.37 3.03 5.22 3.99
8/6/02 Batch 262.43 262.43 262.43 262.43 262.43 262.43 262.43 262.43 262.43
SSF (12) 279.22 201.2 240.21 173.92 175.15 174.535 340.21 323.22 331.715
SF(12) 167.29 108.94 138.115 172.19 92.87 132.53 186.05 166.11 176.08
PT(OUT) 45.86 45.86 45.86 80.59 89.28 84.935 159.08 71.38 115.23
°/o RED SSF 6 23 8 34 . 33 33 -30 -23 -26
% RED SF 40 46 43 1 47 24 45 49 47
% RED TOTAL 83 83 83 69 66 68 39 73 56
kvalue ssf -0.28 1.18 0.39 1.83 1.80 1.81 -1.15 -0.93 -1.04
k value sf 2.28 2.74 2.46 0.04 2.83 1.23 2.68 2.96 2.82
k value pt 5.80 3.89 4.95 3.39 0.18 1.99 0.70 3.78 1.89
k value Total 7.80 7.80 7.80 5.27 4.81 5.03 2.23 5.81 3.67
8/12/02 Batch 428.22 428.22 428.22 428.22 428.22 428.22 428.22 428.22 428.22
SSF (12) 175.12 187.2 181.16 154.34 155.67 155.005 181.15 195.86 188.505
SF(12) 194.16 187.15 190.655 179.05 163.94 171.495 341.2 292.34 316.77
PT(OUT) 128.86 64.47 96.665 71.84 113.26 92.55 59.96 49.16 54.56
°/o RED SSF 59 56 58 64 64 64 58 54 56
% RED SF -11 0 -5 -16 -5 -11 88 -49 -68
% RED TOTAL 70 85 77 83 74 78 86 89 87
k value ssf 3.97 3.68 3.82 4.54 4.50 4.52 3.82 3.48 3.65
k value sf -0.46 0.00 -0.23 -0.66 023 -0.45 -2.82 -1.78 -2.31
k value pt 1.83 4.76 3.03 4.08 1.65 2.75 7.76 7.97 7.86
k value Total 5.34 8.44 6.63 7.96 5.92 6.82 8.77 9.67 9.19

 

A,B: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate

C, D: Lava Rock Substrate
E,F: Pea-Stone Substrate
All Concentrations in mg/I (ppm)
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap

k value : Areal Rate Constant (m/yr)

83

 

Ammonium Tables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ammonium Concentrations and Reductions
Date In Stage A B AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
8/19/02 Batch 416.51 416.51 416.51 416.51 416.51 416.51 416.51 416.51 416.51
SSF (12) 174.65 188.79 181.72 134.27 129.03 131.65 264.86 166.74 215.8
SF( 12) 197.37 180.38 188.875 155.8 143.96 149.88 346.18 274.53 310.355
PT(OUT) 125.91 74.44 100.175 60.67 91.16 75.915 189.97 187.05 188.51
% RED SSF 58 55 56 68 69 68 36 60 48
% RED SF ~13 4 -4 ~16 ~12 ~14 ~31 ~65 ~44
% RED TOTAL 70 82 76 85 78 82 54 55 55
k value SSF 3.86 3.52 3.69 5.04 5.21 5.12 2.01 4.07 2.92
k value SF -0.54 0.20 -0. 17 -0.66 -0.49 -0.58 ~1. 19 222 -1.62
k value PT 2.00 3.95 2.83 4.22 2.04 3.04 2.67 1.71 2.22
R value Total 5.32 7.67 6.34 8.59 6.77 7.59 3.49 3.56 3.52
8/23/02 Batch 354.2 354.2 354.2 354.2 354.2 354.2 354.2 354.2 354.2
SSF (12) 342.44 299.71 321.075 262.76 254.96 258.86 416.67 396.04 406.355
SF(12) 173.18 127.79 150.485 86.5 74.16 80.33 120.06 127.16 123.61
PT(OUT) 113.47 29.68 71.575 20.47 38 29.235 31.27 39.16 35.215
°/o RED SSF 3 15 9 26 28 27 ~18 ~12 ~15
°/o RED SF 49 57 53 67 71 69 71 68 70
°/o RED TOTAL 68 92 80 94 89 92 91 89 90
k value SSF 0.15 0.74 0.44 1.33 1.46 1.39 072 050 —0.61
k value SF 3.03 3.79 3.37 4.95 5.51 5.22 5.54 5.05 5.29
k value PT 1.89 6.58 3.32 6.55 3.02 4.57 6.06 5.29 5.65
kvalue Total 5.07 11.12 7.13 12.83 9.99 11.19 10.88 9.85 10.34
8/29/02 Batch 361.89 361.89 361.89 361.89 361.89 361.89 361.89 361.89 361.89
SSF (12) 285.5 211.33 248.415 199.17 203.89 201.53 329.78 293.75 311.765
SF(12) 183.26 183.26 183.26 148.31 125.97 137.14 183.04 185.28 184.16
PT(OUT) 79.92 79.92 79.92 88.04 81.24 84.64 85.18 139.65 112.415
% RED SSF 21 42 31 45 44 44 9 19 14
% RED SF 36 13 26 26 38 32 44 37 41
°/o RED TOTAL 78 78 78 76 78 77 76 61 69
k value SSF 1.05 2.39 1.67 2.65 2.55 2.60 0.41 0.93 0.66
k value SF 1.97 0.63 1.35 1.31 2.15 1.71 2.62 2.05 2.34
k value PT 3.71 3.71 3.71 2.33 1.96 2.16 3.42 1.26 2.20
k value Total 6.73 6.73 6.73 6.30 6.66 6.47 6.45 4.24 5.20

 

 

 

 

KB: Septisorb and Pea—Stone Substrate

C, D: Lava Rock Substrate
E,F: Pea-Stone Substrate
All Concentrations in mg/l (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap
R value: Areal Rate Constant (m/yr)

84

 

Ammonium Tables

 

Arrmoniurn Concentrations deeductions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date In A 8 AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
9/5’02 Batch 199.04 199.04 199.035 199.04 199.04 199.035 199.04 199.04 199.035
SSF(12) 112.48 138.12 125.3 122.09 107.06 114.575 131.1 155.04 143.07
SF(12) 154.96 154.96 154.96 133.91 138.46 136.185 175.78 160.95 168.365
PT(OUT) 10.43 10.43 10.43 33.13 39.04 36.085 51.79 12.79 32.29
% REDSSF 43 31 37 39 46 42 34 22 28
°/o RED SF ~38 ~12 ~24 ~10 ~29 ~19 ~34 4 ~18
% REDTOTAL 95 95 95 83 80 82 74 94 84
kvalue SSF 2.54 1.63 2.06 2.18 2.77 2.46 1.86 1.11 1.47
kvalue SF ~1.43 051 -0.95 041 ~1.15 -0.77 ~1.31 -0.17 -0.73
kvalue PT 12.37 12.37 12.37 6.29 5.69 5.97 5.47 11.55 7.43
kvalue _J'otal 13.48 13.48 13.48 8.05 7.31 7.66 6.03 12.49 8.17
9/11/02 Batch 201.25 201.25 201.245 201.25 201.25 201.245 201.25 201.25 201.245
SSF(12) 172.13 172.13 172.13 175.17 171.25 173.21 194.66 181.22 187.94
SF(12)
PT(OUT)
‘ %REDSSF 14 14 14 13 15 14 3 10 7
°/o REDSF
%REDTOTAL
kvalue SSF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.62 0.72 0.67 0.15 0.47 0.30
kvalue SF
kvalue PT
kvalue Total
9/17/02 Batch 111.02 111.02 111.02 111.02 111.02 111.02 111.02 111.02 111.02
SSF(12) 172.4 172.4 172.4 179.76 182.93 181.345 185.27 169.7 177.485
SF(12)
PT(OUT)
% RED SSF ~55 ~55 ~55 ~62 65 ~63 ~67 ~53 ~60
% REDSF
%REDTOTAL
kvalue SSF ~1.96 ~1.96 ~1.96 ~2.15 ~2.23 219 228 ~1.89 ~2.09
kvalue SF
kvalue PT
flue Total

 

AB: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
CD Lava Rock Substrate
EF: Pea-Stone Substrate
All Cormntrations in mg/l (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap
kvalue : Areal Rate Constant (m/yr)

85

 

 

Data Tables for Nitrate Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NtrateConoentrationsanT Reductions
Dateln Stage A B AVG (AB) c D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
5725/02 Batch 0.835 0.835 0.835 0.835 0.835 0.835 0.835 0.835 0.835
SSF (12) 0.4 0.24 0.32 0.54 0.31 0.425 0.1 0.12 0.11
SF(12) 0 0.05 0.025 0 0.17 0.085 0.05 0.05 0.05
PT(OUT) 21.59 88.54 55.115 48.12 58.15 58.135 25.53 74.54 50.085
%REDSSF 52 71 52 35 53 49 88 85 87
%REDSF 100 79 92 100 45 80 40 50 45
% RED TOTAL ~2498 40504 5501 5553 5052 -6862 2959 5827 5898
—7/1/02 -LBatd1 0.395 0.395—T95 0.395 0.395’07395—‘0'39'5 0.395 0.39571
SSF (12) 0.07 0.1 0.085 0.3 0.2 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.055
SF(12) 0 0.02 0.01 1.29 0.33 0.81 0.05 0.04 0.045
PT(OUT) 80.5 53.81 57.205 5.44 5.53 5.985 7.94 15.73 11.835
%REDSSF 82 75 78 24 49 37 85 87 86
%REDSF 100 80 88 530 55 224 17 20 18
%REDTOTAL 20305 43523 45914 4277 4553 4415 4910 ~3882 2895
7/8/02 Batch 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
SSF(12) 0.05 0 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.055 0.03 0.05 0.045
SF(12) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.19 0.15 0.17 0 0.085
PT(OUT) 42.51 33.51 38.01 7.1 4.42 5.75 39.22 24.08 31.55
%REDSSF 86 100 93 86 83 84 91 83 87
%REDSF 200 #DIV/O! 500 450 217 491 457 100 59
%REDTOTAL 42045 9474 40750 4929 4153 4545 41105 5780 5943
7715/02 Batch 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225" " 0.22"5""
ssr= (12) 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03
SF(12) 0.21 0 0.105 0.14 0 0.07 0.05 0 0.025
PT(OUT) 133.75 114.15 123.95 1359311238 124.555 533.08 148.37 340.725
%REDSSF 78 87 82 87 87 87 91 82 87
% REDSF 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 17
% RED TOTAL 59349 ~50638 54993 50758 49847 55302 235824 55842 451333
___—k7/19/02 Batch 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
SSF(12) 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.54 0.2 0.42 0.1 0.18 0.14
SF(12)
PT(OUT) NoSan'ples Taken
%REDSSF 38 45 41 421 31 45 55 38 52
%REDSF
% RED TOTAL

 

C,D. Lava Rock Substrate
E, F: Pea-Stone Substrate

All Concentrations in mg/l (ppm)

 

___—_—
A,B: Septisorb and PmTStone Substrate

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: thphoms Trap

86

 

 

Nitrate Tables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nitrate Cormntrations and Reductions
Date In Stige A B AVG (AB) C D AVG (CD) E F AVG (EF)
7/25’02 Batch 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
SSF (12) 0.24 0 0.12 0.09 0.25 0.17 0.27 0.15 0.21
SF(12) 0.38 0.12 0.25 0.87 0.83 0.85 0.19 0 0.095
PT (OUT) 157.76 155 156.38 12.24 9.98 11.11 80.24 85.24 82.74
°/o RED SSF ~100 100 0 25 ~108 42 ~125 ~25 ~75
% RED SF ~58 #DlV/Ol ~108 ~867 ~232 400 30 100 55
% RED TOTAL ~131367 ~129067 ~130217 -10100 6217 -9158 66767 -70933 68850
7/31/02 Batdw 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
SSF (12) No Sarrples Taken
SF(12) 0.05 0 0.025 0.21 0.04 0.125 0 0.02 0.01
PT(OUT) 124.04 65.29 94.665 78.96 73.27 76.115 22.4 33.59 27.995
% RED SSF
% RED SF
% RED TOTAL ~103267 ~54308 ~78788 65700 60958 63329 ~18567 27892 23229
876/02 Batch 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
SSF (12) 0.34 0.35 0.345 0.38 1.24 0.81 0.46 0.44 0.45
SF(12) 0 0.05 0.025 0.62 0.16 0.39 0.05 0.03 0.04
PT(OUT) 101.35 101.35 101.35 72.13 69.82 70.975 55.66 69.77 62.715
% RED SSF 0 ~3 ~1 ~12 ~265 ~138 ~35 ~29 ~32
% RED SF 100 86 93 63 87 52 89 93 91
% RED TOTAL -29709 -29709 29709 21115 20435 20775 -16271 ~20421 48%
8/12/02 fiBatch 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22
SSF (12) 0.06 0.09 0.075 0.18 0.17 0.175 0.09 0.19 0.14
SF(12) 0.21 0.24 0.225 7.57 0.26 3.915 0.43 0.4 0.415
PT(OUT) 41.6 162.54 102.07 129.6 103.95 116.775 249.48 203.58 226.53
% RED SSF 97 96 97 92 92 92 96 91 94
% RED SF 250 ~167 200 4106 ~53 2137 -378 411 ~196
% RED TOTAL ~1774 -7222 4498 6738 4582 6160 41138 9070 40104
8/19/02 Batch 3.165 3.165 3.165 3.165 3.165 3.165 3.165 3.165 3.165
SSF (12) 0.19 0.16 0.175 0.18 0.15 0.165 0.07 0.16 0.115
SF(12) 0.13 0.76 0.445 1.5 1.9 1.7 0.37 0.25 0.31
PT(OUI) 119.76 149.52 134.64 136.17 101.62 118.895 59.14 57.87 58.505
% RED SSF 94 95 94 94 95 95 98 95 96
% RED SF 32 ~375 -154 -733 4167 ~930 429 ~56 ~170
°/o RED TOTAL 6684 4624 4154 4202 6111 ~3657 ~1769 ~1728 ~1748

 

CD. Lava Rock Substrate
E,F: Pea-Stone Substrate

All Concentrations in mg/l (ppm)

h—_ -
A,B: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate

SSF: Sub-Surface Florv Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: PhosphorusTrap

87

 

 

Nitrate Tables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nitrate ConoentrationsandReductions
Date In A B AVG (AB) c D AVG (c0) E F AVG (EF)
8/23/02 Batch 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7—07' 0'7
SSF(12) 0.48 0.41 0.445 0.33 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.34 0.295
SF(12) 0.21 33.51 16.86 0.23 0.11 0.17 19.52 1.8 10.55
PT(OUT) 78.99 147.02 113.005 88.61 111.43 100.02 334.51 115.24 225.375
%REDSSF 31 41 35 53 70 51 54 51 58
%REDSF 55 5073 6689 30 48 37 ~7708 429 5514
%REDTOTAL 41184 20903 45044 42559 45819 44189 47687 45505 52095
8/29/02 Batch' 0' 72 —0.72" 0.72 _0_‘.72 0.72 0.72" 0.72 "0'.'72"" 0.72
SSF(12) 0.35 0.3 0.325 0.81 4.59 2.7 0.19 0.75 0.47
SF(12) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.21 0.19 2.92 0.03 1.475
PT(OUT) 154.04 154.04 154.04 89.55 58.17 73.85 244.55 72.84 158.7
% REDSSF 51 58 55 43 538 275 74 4 35
%REDSF 97 97 97 79 95 93 4437 95 214
%REDTOTAL 22583 ~22683 22583 42338 -7979 40158 ~33867 40017 21942
9/5/02"""‘Batch 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
SSF (12) 0.49 0.78 0.535 0.38 5.22 2.8 7.47 0.57 4.07
SF(12) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.15 13.57 0.03 6.85
PT(OUT) 239.44 239.44 239.44 151.15 91.39 125.27 255.11 314.79 289.95
% REDSSF 9 44 48 30 557 419 4283 24 554
% REDSF 90 94 92 47 98 95 0 95 58
% RED TOTAL 4241 44241 44241 29743 45824 23283 48994 58194 53594
F"_"_9/11/02 Batch 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
SSF (12) 0 0 0 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.055
SF(12)
PT(OUT)
%REDSSF 100 100 100 90 81 85 97 85 91
%REDSF
%REDTOTAL »
9/17/02 Batch 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0155" 0.155
SSF (12) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.13 0.115 0.03 0.86 0.445
SF(12)
PT(OUT)
% REDSSF 70 70 70 39 21 30 82 421 -170
%REDSF
%REDTOTAL

 

 

 

C,D. Lava Rock Substrate
E,F: Pea-StoneSubstrate

All Concentrations in rng/I (ppm)

 

—
AB: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells

SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PTzPhosphorusTrap

88

Data Tables For COD Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TDEe: COD Concentrations (mg/L)

@2002 A B AVG (A88) c D AVG (C&D) E F AVG (E&F)
Batch 251159251159 2511.59 2511.59 2511.59 2511.59 251159251159 2511.59
SSF Q2) 257.35 848.07 557.72 563.89 390.91 477.40 315.78 514.47 415.53
SF(12) 1580.61 511.94 1096.28 700.90 740.44 720.57 555.30 505.58 585.99
PTOut 119759127419 1235.89 503.21 885.23, 594.72 555.10 757.73 555.42
Reduction (%) 52 73 51 80 55 72 78 70 74
kvalue (Total) 3.49 3.19 3.33 7.92 4.95 5.20 7.38 5.75 5.49
3/25/2002 A B AVG (A88) c D AVG (C8D) E F AVG (E&F)
Batch 192024192024 1920.24 192024192024 1920.24 192024192024 1920.24
SSF(12) 1032.03189591 1454.47 913.41 903.53 908.47 535.55 551.35 549.01
SF(12) 142393173382 1578.88 977.55 539.12 808.39 495.80 770.09 532.95
PTOut 893.55 1355.53 1129.54 541.59 708.31 574.95 498.27 598.43 598.35
Reduction (%) 53 29 41 57 53 55 74 54 59
kvalue(Total) 3.58 1.51 2.52 5.37 4.85 5.10 5.73 4.93 5.74
8/6/2002 A B AVG (A88) 0 D AVG (C8D) E F AVG (E&F)
Batch 312937312937 3129.37 312937312937 3129.37 3129.37 3129.37 3129.37
SSF(12) 559.93 587.23 578.58 504.53 503.21 553.87 527.92 446.38 487.15
SF(12) 846.69 792.33 819.51 589.70 532.85 561.28 389.54 354.95 372.25
PTOut 531.71 715.00 573.35 455.25 394.48 425.37 280.81 345.05 312.94
Reduction (%) 80 73 78 85 87 85 91 89 90
kvalue(Total) 7.70 7.05 7.37 9.48 10.32 9.88 12.48 11.13 11.75
8/19/2002 A B AVG(A&B) c D AVG(C&D) E F AVG(E&F)
Batch 5434.95 5434.95 5434.95 5434.95 5434.95 5434.95 5434.95 5434.95 5434.95
SSF(12) 111029107154 1090.97 887.75 529.31 758.53 1125.31125553 1190.92
SF(12) 121425118844 1201.35 151397188175 1697.86 571.55 505.05 588.31
:TOut 111772105170 1089.71 957.33 959.75 953.55 572.15 442.94 507.55
Reduction (%) 79 80 80 82 82 82 89 92 91
kvalue(Total) 7.34 7.59 7.45 8.10 8.03 8.06 10.74 12.15 11.39
9/5/2002 A B AVG (A8B) c D AVG (C8D) E F AVG (E&F)
Batch 194277194277 1942.77 194277194277 1942.77 194277194277 1942.77
SSF(12) 132504120502 1255.53 1052.55 732.19 892.42 951.09 1002.29 981.69
SF (12) 1249.51 1270.11 1259.81 1035.53 555.55 845.55 1114.45 947.35 1030.91
PTOut 1444.07 864.95 1154.51 1313.50 559.57 941.54 735.77 597.14 555.95
@uction (%) 25 73 41 32 71 52 52 59 55
kvalue (Total) 1.40 3.89 2.47 1.85 5.05 3.47 4.71 5.80 5.22
fizSeptisorb

C, D: Lava Rock Substrate
E,F: Pea-Stone Substrate
All Concentrations in rng/l (ppm)
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells
PT: Phosphorus Trap

89

 

 

COD Tables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date: COD Concentrations (mg/L)

9/11/2002 A B AVG (A&B) C D AVG (C8D) E F AVG (E&F)
Batch 2238.35 2238.35 2238.35 2238.35 2238.35 2238.35 2238.35 2238.35 2238.35
SSF Q2) 903.12 878.22 890.67 762.74 563.48 663.11 717.54 755.95 736.75
SF (12) 113635113182 1134.09 932.56 622.35 777.46 1097.85 851.05 974.45
PTOut 841.99 878.22 860.11 740.10 531.78 635.94 986.90 683.49 835.20
Reduction (%) 62 73 62 67 76 72 56 69 63
kvalue (Total) 4.69 4.48 4.58 5.34 7.08 6.13 3.90 5.75 4.73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AB: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
C,D: Lava Rock Substrate

E, F: Pea-Stone Substrate

All Concentrations in mg/I (ppm)

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland Cells
SF: Surface Flow Wetland Cells

PT: Phosphorus Trap

 

90

91

APPENDIX B

Weather Data

“7

I?!“
3'...“

"'17 " do.

 

Weather Data Collected From Michigan Agricultural Weather Network Weather

Station, Bath, Ml.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Avg. Rel Total Total Estimated
Air Temp Precip Humidity Wind Solar Rad. PET
Date Max Min (in) (%) (mi/day) (ly/day) (in/day)

6/25/2002 91.4 59.5 0.02 74.4 62.2 485.1 0.251
6/26/2002 83.8 68.6 0.09 75.3 128.5 516.8 0.307
6/27/2002 80.6 60.0 0.00 71.8 119.6 471.5 0.267
6/28/2002 84.8 51.4 0.01 72.9 39.9 656.2 0.249
6/29/2002 88.7 54.3 0.00 69.1 57.8 635.2 0.276
6/30/2002 90.3 60.0 0.00 70.2 64.2 533.2 0.264
7/1/2002 92.0 66.8 0.00 72.8 69.0 572.1 0.270
7/2/2002 89.8 65.8 0.12 68.9 94.4 652.0 0.320
7/3/2002 90.9 63.1 0.00 69.3 84.8 541.0 0.283
7/4/2002 91.0 67.7 0.01 59.6 91.7 606.0 0.299
7/5/2002 77.0 50.4 0.00 68.9 86.2 536.3 0.235
7/6/2002 83.3 46.6 0.00 71.0 33.5 532.2 0.207
7/7/2002 88.9 50.3 0.05 64.7 40.0 626.4 0.254
7/8/2002 90.3 55.7 0.07 68.3 79.4 553.3 0.283
7/9/2002 81.4 64.0 0.07 84.7 105.2 342.0 0.224
7/10/2002 75.3 51.0 0.00 62.6 124.1 615.4 0.278
7/11/2002 77.6 43.0 0.00 68.2 67.2 634.3 0.239
7/12/2002 80.8 39.7 0.00 62.3 36.3 689.0 0.236
7/13/2002 86.9 43.2 0.00 62.0 40.6 687.0 0.26
7/14/2002 86.1 46.6 0.07 61.7 53.2 676.9 0.269
7/15/2002 88.6 50.4 0.00 72.6 64.6 377.2 0.215
7/16/2002 90.0 58.2 0.10 72.8 45.2 482.8 0.227
7/17/2002 85.9 59.0 0.00 71.7 78.5 477.5 0.247
7/18/2002 86.1 62.5 0.01 80.5 51.4 326.8 0.184
7/19/2002 83.5 58.3 0.02 78.1 62.5 423.1 0.209
7/20/2002 88.2 50.7 0.00 68.0 35.4 558.5 0.229
7/21/2002 91.1 66.0 0.07 71.1 126.4 289.3 0.254
7/22/2002 92.0 71.4 0.19 72.9 137.5 477.4 0.302
7/23/2002 73.6 46.9 0.00 74.1 123.1 596.1 0.254
7/24/2002 79.7 40.9 0.00 69.2 62.7 616.4 0.235
7/25/2002 78.9 48.5 0.00 69.0 60.2 454.6 0.198
7/26/2002 86.0 64.8 0.65 78.5 100.1 495.5 0.273
7/27/2002 81.8 59.8 0.12 86.9 72.4 310.2 0.183
7/28/2002 85.0 68.9 0.95 84.5 125.9 251.3 0.234
7/29/2002 85.6 68.1 0.57 87.1 91.0 301.7 0.214
7/30/2002 86.0 64.0 0.00 78.4 68.0 614.9 0.27
7/31/2002 89.9 63.6 0.00 72.6 55.3 615.9 0.268
8/1/2002 88.6 62.5 0.00 72.3 109.4 500.1 0.291
8/2/2002 82.5 57.8 0.07 73.2 94.6 619.0 0.28
8/3/2002 86.9 50.4 0.00 72.5 64.2 630.7 0.265

 

92

 

 

 

 

 

*Total Avg. Rel Total Total Estimated ‘
Air Temp Precip Humidity Wind Solar Rad. PET
Date Max Min (in) (%) (mi/day) (ly/day) (in/day)
8/4/2002 88.5 64.4 0.00 74.3 64.5 365.5 0.213
8/5/2002 81.6 64.9 0.00 74.8 91.0 429.1 0.234
8/6/2002 70.7 46.6 0.00 69.8 116.0 553.9 0.228
817/2002 74.6 40.1 0.00 75.5 76.3 526.5 0.202
8/8/2002 78.9 40.2 0.00 73.0 54.6 604.7 0.218
8/9/2002 82.6 45.0 0.00 71.2 35.7 600.1 0.215
8/10/2002 86.1 48.4 0.00 68.3 70.7 577.1 0.255
8/11/2002 88.4 58.9 0.07 73.2 65.8 487.9 0.239
8/12/2002 88.6 58.6 0.02 78.9 89.6 511.5 0.267
8/13/2002 86.8 66.0 0.20 80.4 120.7 392.2 0.266
8/14/2002 75.9 67.0 0.31 85.7 130.8 214.4 0.197
8/15/2002 82.6 61.4 0.00 79.0 132.3 363.1 0.25
8/16/2002 82.9 61.3 0.10 78.7 127.7 287.4 0.229
8/17/2002 84.2 61.4 0.00 80.7 157.8 272.0 0.257
8/18/2002 77.9 51.3 0.00 64.4 87.7 490.1 0.222
8/19/2002 71.2 48.9 0.46 89.0 56.5 195.6 0.108
8/20/2002 77.6 45.0 0.00 76.6 50.2 544.5 0.195
8/21/2002 82.1 46.5 0.00 73.0 98.1 502.7 0.242
8/22/2002 77.5 66.0 0.23 87.3 123.1 179.1 0.183
8/23/2002 71.8 65.3 0.27 93.4 44.2 84.1 0.088
8/24/2002 78.5 59.1 0.01 86.7 58.4 285.1 0.153
8/25/2002 80.7 53.1 0.00 83.9 35.3 423.5 0.167
8/26/2002 83.2 50.6 0.00 76.8 32.6 520.3 0.191
8/27/2002 79.4 53.0 0.00 84.2 115.8 442.0 0.229
8/28/2002 76.6 45.1 0.00 75.5 78.4 537.7 0.209
8/29/2002 82.2 51.2 0.00 80.1 44.0 459.5 0.184
8/30/2002 81.8 49.5 0.00 77.4 46.2 500.9 0.193
8/31/2002 84.1 46.9 0.00 75.7 44.5 488.2 0.194
9/1/2002 86.6 49.9 0.00 71.8 67.0 459.2 0.218
9/2/2002 82.6 65.8 0.00 75.5 116.0 252.3 0.212
9/3/2002 81.1 50.7 0.00 61.4 136.3 499.8 0.272
9/4/2002 81.2 46.3 0.00 67.8 80.2 520.3 0.223
9/5/2002 78.5 46.2 0.00 78.7 47.8 485.9 0.178
9/6/2002 86.8 45.6 0.00 69.3 65.6 490.7 0.223
9/7/2002 92.4 49.0 0.00 67.2 48.4 483.4 0.221
9/8/2002 92.6 54.0 0.00 67.9 44.2 458.0 0.209
9/9/2002 91.3 50.9 0.00 72.5 31.4 412.5 0.183
9/10/2002 88.1 57.9 0.03 74.4 107.9 343.8 0.236
9/11/2002 75.4 44.9 0.00 67.2 104.3 455.9 0.205
9/12/2002 77.9 37.4 0.00 67.9 55.0 475.3 0.177
9/13/2002 79.5 42.5 0.00 71.7 46.0 397.7 0.159
9/14/2002 85.7 44.8 0.00 66.1 48.1 406.7 0.182
9/15/2002 66.6 45.2 0.00 84.4 89.5 59.5 0.086

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Avg. Rel Total Total Estimated
Air Temp Precip Humidity Wind Solar Rad. PET
Date Max Min (in) (%) (mi/day) (ly/day) (in/day)

9/16/2002 75.4 36.1 0.00 74.6 40.7 466.9 0.153
9/17/2002 83.3 38.0 0.00 71.4 38.6 434.2 0.169
9/18/2002 77.0 49.2 0.17 88.0 74.7 156.6 0123
9119/2002 86.5 66.0 1.44 84.6 144.1 255.6 0.243
9/20/2002 77.0 65.3 0.13 87.3 168.1 136.0 0.203
9/21/2002 79.0 52.4 0.00 73.0 125.6 439.7 0.229
9/22/2002 55.4 40.7 0.01 88.2 52.6 82.6 0.046
9/23/2002 64.8 34.6 0.00 74.7 52.1 3436.0 0.108
9/24/2002 62.9 36.9 0.00 69.7 78.7 354.2 0.12
9/25/2002 71.7 31.0 0.00 75.7 53.7 383.2 0.132
9/26/2002 74.9 39.2 0.00 80.0 42.4 293.7 0.118
9/27/2002 72.1 51.8 0.00 84.9 85.5 244.9 0.133
9/28/2002 71.8 36.8 0.00 70.4 61.0 321.3 0.128
9/29/2002 77.6 54.1 0.00 71.8 103.5 239.8 0.168
9/30/2002 84.1 62.6 0.00 60.7 153.6 339.7 0.263
10/1/2002 84.5 67.6 0.00 68.0 164.8 307.0 0.27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94

 

 

APPENDIX C

Wetland Photographs

 

95

 

Photo 2: Constructed Wetland System at Green Meadows Dairy Farm

96

 

     

4

Photo SETConstructe'El Wetland System at Green Meadows Farm

Photo 4: Constructed Weatlnd System at Green Meadows Farm 7

97

 

_\

-.u
i

Photo 5: Septisorb/Pea Gravel Weland Cells (Duplcate)

 

 

100

 

3‘»

t.‘ ,
n I
'1u'te-~ '

.~ '1.
"$61:

. g, .‘ '
l’etsor‘fqzrcr (.253 imstrew 9....)

 

 

Photo1 1 .h 7 Lagoon Effl

   

unt to be Applied to Wetland

101

APPENDIX D

Pilot Scale Wetland Design Data

102

Wetland Design Data Tables for Variable Influent COD Concentration with

Constant Wastewater Flow of 10,000 gal/d and Target Effluent Concentration of

 

 

d

 

500 mg/L

Required Required Water Water
K value Concentrations (mgIL) Wetland Wetland Flow F low

Substrate mlyr Influent Effluent Bikgrnd Area (ha) Area (acres) Rate (m’rd) Rate
Septisorb! 4.63 500 500 100 0.00 0.00 37.85 10000
Pea-Stone 4.63 1000 500 100 0.24 0.60 37.85 10000
4.63 1500 500 100 0.37 0.92 37.85 10000
4.63 2000 500 100 0.46 1.15 37.85 10000
4.63 2500 500 100 0.53 1 .32 37.85 10000
4.63 3000 500 100 0.59 1 .46 37.85 10000
4.63 3500 500 100 0.64 1.58 37.85 10000
4.63 4000 500 100 0.68 1.68 37.85 10000
4.63 4500 500 100 0.72 1 .77 37.85 10000
4.63 5000 500 100 0.75 1.85 37.85 10000
Lava Rock 5.78 500 500 100 0.00 0.00 37.85 10000
5.78 1000 500 100 0.19 0.48 37.85 10000
5.78 1500 500 100 0.30 0.74 37.85 10000
5.78 2000 500 100 0.37 0.92 37.85 10000
5.78 2500 500 100 0.43 1 .06 37.85 10000
5. 78 3000 500 100 0.47 1.17 37.85 10000
5.78 3500 500 100 0.51 1.26 37.85 10000
5.78 4000 500 100 0.54 1 .35 37.85 10000
5. 78 4500 500 100 0. 57 1 .42 37.85 10000
5.78 5000 500 100 0.60 1.48 37.85 10000
Pea-Stone 5.54 500 500 100 0.00 0.00 37.85 10000
5.54 1000 500 100 0.20 0.50 37.85 10000
5.54 1500 500 100 0.31 0.77 37.85 10000
5.54 2000 500 100 0.39 0.96 37.85 10000
5.54 2500 500 100 0.45 1.10 37.85 10000
5.54 3000 500 100 0.49 1.22 37.85 10000
5.54 3500 500 100 0.53 1 .32 37.85 10000
5.54 4000 500 100 0.57 1 .40 37.85 10000
5.54 4500 500 100 0.60 1.48 37.85 10000
5.54 5000 500 100 0.62 1.54 37.85 10000

 

 

103

 

 

Wetland Design Data Tables for Variable Wastewater Flow with Constant Influent
COD Concentration of 3,000 mg/L and Target Effluent Concentration of 500 mg/L

 

 

 

Required Required Water Water
K value Concentrations (mgIL) Wetland Wetland Flow Flow
Substrate mlyr Influent Effluent Bclrgrnd Area (ha) Area (acres) Rate (m’rd) Rate (g/d)
Septisorb/ 4.63 3000 500 100 0.59 1.46 37.85 10000
Pea-Stone 4.63 3000 500 100 0.89 2.19 56.775 15000
4.63 3000 500 100 1 . 18 2.92 75.7 20000
4.63 3000 500 100 1 .48 3.65 94.625 25000
4.63 3000 500 100 1.77 4.38 113.55 30000
4.63 3000 500 100 2.07 5.11 132.475 35000
4.63 3000 500 100 2.36 5.84 151.4 40000
4.63 3000 500 100 2.66 6.57 170.325 45000
4.63 3000 500 100 2.96 7.30 189.25 50000
4.63 3000 500 100 3.25 8.03 208.175 55000
Lava Rock 5.78 3000 500 100 0.47 1.17 37.85 10000
5.78 3000 500 100 0.71 1.76 56.775 15000
5.78 3000 500 100 0.95 2.34 75.7 20000
5.78 3000 500 100 1 .18 2.93 94.625 25000
5.78 3000 500 100 1.42 3.51 113.55 30000
5.78 3000 500 100 1.66 4.10 132.475 35000
5.78 3000 500 100 1.89 4.68 151.4 40000
5.78 3000 500 100 2.13 5.27 170.325 45000
5.78 3000 500 100 2.37 5.85 189.25 50000
5.78 3000 500 100 2.60 6.44 208.175 55000
Pea-Stone 5.54 3000 500 100 0.49 1.22 37.85 10000
5.54 3000 500 100 0.74 1.83 56.775 15000
5.54 3000 500 100 0.99 2.44 75.7 20000
5.54 3000 500 100 1 .24 3. 05 94.625 25000
5.54 3000 500 100 1.48 3.66 113.55 30000
5.54 3000 500 100 1.73 4.27 132.475 35000
5.54 3000 500 100 1.98 4.88 151.4 40000
5.54 3000 500 100 2.22 5.49 170.325 45000
5.54 3000 500 100 2.47 6.10 189.25 50000
5.54 3000 500 100 2.72 6.71 208.175 55000

 

104

 

 

Wetland Design Data Tables for Variable Influent COD Concentration with
Constant Wastewater Flow of 10,000 gal/d and Target Effluent Concentration of
250 mg/L

 

 

 

 

 

Required Required Water Water

K value Concentrations (mgIL) Wetland Wetland Flow Flow

Substrate mlyr Influent Effluent Bcklrnd Area (ha) Area (acres) Rate (m3ld) Rate( d
Septisorb/ 4.63 500 250 100 0.29 0.72 37.85 10000
Pea-Stone 4.63 1000 250 100 0.53 1.32 37.85 10000
4.63 1500 250 100 0.67 1.65 37.85 10000

4.63 2000 250 100 0.76 1.87 37.85 10000

4.63 2500 250 100 0.83 2.04 37.85 10000

4.63 3000 250 100 0.88 2.18 37.85 10000

4.63 3500 250 100 0.93 2.30 37.85 10000

4.63 4000 250 100 0.97 2.40 37.85 10000

4.63 4500 250 100 1.01 2.49 37.85 10000

4.63 5000 250 100 1.04 2.57 37.85 10000

Lava Rock 5.78 500 250 100 0.23 0.58 37.85 10000
5.78 1000 250 100 0.43 1.06 37.85 10000

5.78 1500 250 100 0.53 1.32 37.85 10000

5.78 2000 250 100 0.61 1.50 37.85 10000

5.78 2500 250 100 0.66 1.64 37.85 10000

5.78 3000 250 100 0.71 1.75 37.85 10000

5.78 3500 250 100 0.75 1.84 37.85 10000

5.78 4000 250 100 0.78 1.92 37.85 10000

5.78 4500 250 100 0.81 2.00 37.85 10000

5.78 5000 250 100 0.83 2.06 37.85 10000

Pea-Stone 5.54 500 250 100 0.24 0.60 37.85 10000
5.54 1000 250 100 0.45 1.10 37.85 10000

5.54 1500 250 100 0.56 1.38 37.85 10000

5.54 2000 250 100 0.63 1.56 37.85 10000

5.54 2500 250 100 0.69 1.71 37.85 10000

5.54 3000 250 100 0.74 1.83 37.85 10000

5.54 3500 250 100 0.78 1.92 37.85 10000

5.54 4000 250 100 0.81 2.01 37.85 10000

5.54 4500 250 100 0.84 2.08 37.85 10000

5.54 5000 250 100 0.87 2.15 37.85 10000

 

105

 

 

 

Wetland Design Data Tables for Variable Wastewater Flow with Constant COD
Influent Concentration of 3,000 mg/L and Target Effluent Concentration of 250

 

 

mg/L
Required #Required Water Water
K value Concentrations (mgIL) Wetland Wetland Flow Flow
Substrate mlyr Influent Effluent Bckjmd Area (ha) Area (acres) Rate (m3ld) Rate ( d
Septisorb’ 4.63 3000 250 100 0.88 2.18 37.85 10000
Pea-Stone 4.63 3000 250 100 1.33 3.28 56.775 15000
4.63 3000 250 100 1.77 4.37 75.7 20000
4.63 3000 250 100 2.21 5.46 94.625 25000
4.63 3000 250 100 2.65 6.55 113.55 30000
4.63 3000 250 100 3.09 7.64 132.475 35000
4.63 3000 250 100 3.54 8.74 151.4 40000
4.63 3000 250 100 3.98 9.83 170.325 45000
4.63 3000 250 100 4.42 10.92 189.25 50000
4.53 3000 250 100 4.85 12.01 208.175 55000
Lava Rock 5.78 3000 250 100 0.71 1.75 37.85 10000
5.78 3000 250 100 1.06 2.62 56.775 15000
5.78 3000 250 100 1.42 3.50 75.7 20000
5.78 3000 250 100 1.77 4.37 94.625 25000
5.78 3000 250 100 2.12 5.25 113.55 30000
5.78 3000 250 100 2.48 6.12 132.475 35000
5.78 3000 250 100 2.83 7.00 151.4 40000
5. 78 3000 250 100 3.19 7. 87 170. 325 45000
5.78 3000 250 100 3.54 8.75 189.25 50000
5.78 3000 250 100 3.89 9.62 208.175 55000
Pea-Stone 5.54 3000 250 100 0.74 1.83 37.85 10000
5.54 3000 250 100 1.11 2.74 56.775 15000
5.54 3000 250 100 1.48 3.65 75.7 20000
5.54 3000 250 100 1.85 4.56 94.625 25000
5.54 3000 250 100 2.22 5.48 113.55 30000
5.54 3000 250 100 2.59 6.39 132.475 35000
5.54 3000 250 100 2.95 7.30 151.4 40000
5.54 3000 250 100 3.32 8.21 170.325 45000
5.54 3000 250 100 3.69 9.13 189.25 50000
5.54 3000 250 100 4.06 10.04 208.175 55000

 

 

 

106

 

APPENDIX E

Statistical Data Tables

107

Ammonium Concentrations with Outliers

 

Batch

Septisorb/ Pea-Stone

SSF 12

SF12

PTOut

SSF 12

Lava Rock

SF 12

PTOut

SSF12

Pea-Stone

SF 12

PTOut

 

 

Mean
Std

196.57
157.32
164.36
116.465
160.27
180.76
203.64
262.43
428.22
416.51

354.2
361.89
199.04
201.25
111.02
181.49

230.96
102.57

200.6
198.13
201.5
132.99
124.95
95.37
169.88
154.32
158.88
136.03
208.96
211.5
279.22
201.2
175.12
187.2
174.65
188.79
342.44
299.71
285.5
211.33
112.48
138.12
172.13
172.4

189.75
58.60

140.13
128.75
142.97
170.09
197.59
124.59
169.67
179.46
152.56
158.31
156.18
132.02
167.29
108.94
194.16
187.15
197.37
180.38
173.18
127.79
183.26
154.96

160.31
25.74

96.39

90.81

69.43

82.32

18.59

1%.19
99.62

72.27

75.87

72.68

76.71

96.26

45.86

128.86
64.47
125.91
74.44

113.47
29.68

79.92

10.43

77.63
31.67

208.12
129.12
116.6
113.76
142.41
91.05
148.1
142.9
112.28
118.58
146.72
160.74
173.92
175.15
154.34
155.67
134.27
129.03
262.76
254.96
199.17
203.89
122.09
107.%
175.17
171.25
179.76
182.93
157.56
41.92

85.45
107.11
83%
109.56
108.75
100.58
99.48
118.34
127.44
161.26
80.9
71.13
172.19
92.87
179.05
163.94
155.8
143.96
86.5
74.16
148.31
125.97
133.91
138.46

119.51
32.81

21.4
75.43
81.93
100.68
44.21
50.72
29.76
50.76
90.93
107.54
80.44
72.73
80.59
89.28
71.84
113.26
60.67
91 . 16
20.47

88.04
81.24
33.13
39.04

67.22
27.52

102.01
163.67
101.68
138.99
94.91
100.4
187.28
164.1
175.68
172.27
187.89
210.35
323.22
340.21
195.86
181.15
166.74
264.86
396.04
416.67
293.75
329.78
131.1
155.04
194.66
169.7
185.27
181.22
204.45
87.69

137.63
107.33
162.79
196.07
117.21
148.83
131.63
157.73
138.48
165.77
125.34
158.49
166.11
186.05
292.34
341.2
274.53
346.18
127.16
120%
183.04
185.28
175.78
160.95

179.42
66.90

92.12
57.95
125. 58
135.23
100.44
109%
155.25
55.4
89.92
90.8
103.32
63.37
159.08
71.38
59.96
49.16
189.97
187.05
31.27
39.16
85.18
139.65
51.79
12.79

93.95
48.38

 

Boxplot

Quartile 1 163.338

Quartile 3 285.373

122.035
Upper Bound 468.425

Lower Bound ~19.715

OUtIi

 

155.46
207.1
51.635
284.55
78.008

140.84
180.15
39.31
239.115
81.875

69.43
96.39
26.96
136.83
28.99

 

127.3
176.32
49.023
249.85
53. 761

91.2775 42.9175

145.048 88.35

53.77 45.4325
225.703 156.499

10.625 ~25.231

 

161.51
223.98
62.465
317.68
67.815

136.13 57.3125
185.473 127.993
49.3425 70.68
259.486 234.013
62.1163 ~48.708

 

 

108

 

Ammonium Concentrations without Outliers; P-Values for T-test to Determine
Statistical Significance from Influent Concentration

Mean
Std Dev.

T Test P Value

 

Septisorb/ PeaStone

Batch SSF 12

SF 12

PTOut

SSF12

LavaRock
SF 12

Pea-Stone
PT Out SSF 12 SF 12

PTOut

 

 

1%.57
157.32
164.36

116.465

160.27
180.76
203.64
262.43
428.22
416.51
354.2
361.89
199.04
201.25
111.02
181.49

230.96
102.57

 

200.6

198.13
201.5

132.99
124.95
95.37

169.88
154.32
158.88
136.03
208.96
211.5
279.22
201.2

175.12
187.2

174.65
188.79
211.33
112.48
138.12
172.13
172.4

174.16
40.28

140.13
128.75
142.97
170.09
197.59
124.59
169.67
179.46
152.56
158.31
156.18
132.02
167.29
108.94
194.16
187.15
197.37
180.38
173.18
127.79
183.26
154.96

160.31
25.74

96. 39
90.81
69.43
82.32
1%. 19
99.62
72.27
75.87
72.68
76.71
96.26
45.86
128.86
64.47
125.91
74.44
113.47
29.68
79.92

84.27
24.96

 

208.12
129.12
116.6
113.76
142.41
91.05
148.1
142.9
112.28
118.58
146.72
160.74
173.92
175.15
154.34
155.67
134.27
129.03
199.17
203.89
122.09
107%
175.17
171.25
179.76
182.93

149.77
31.82

85.45
107.11
83%
109.56
108.75
100.58
99.48
118.34
127.44
161.26
80.9
71.13
172.19
92.87
179.05
163.94
155.8
143.96
86.5
74. 16
148.31
125.97
133.91
138.46

119.51
32.81

21.4
75.43
81.93
100.68
44.21
50.72
29.76
50.76
90.93
107.54
80.44
72.73
80.59
89.28
71.84
113.26
60.67
91 . 16
20.47

38
88.04
81 .24
33.13
39.04

67.22
27.52

 

102.01
163.67
101.68
138.99
94.91
100.4
187.28
164.1
175.68
172.27
187.89
210.35
195.86
181.15
166.74
264.86
396.04
293.75
131.1
155.04
194.66
169.7
185.27
181.22

179.78
65.84

137.63
107.33
162.79
196.07
117.21
148.83
131.63
157.73
138.48
165.77
125.34
158.49
166.11
186.05
341.2
274.53
127.16
120%
183.04
185.28
175.78
160.95

166.70
52.92

92. 12
57.95
125.58
135.23
100.44
109%
155.25
55.4
89.92
90.8
103.32
63.37
159.08
71.38
59.96
49.16
189.97
187.05
31.27
39. 16
85.18
139.65
51 .79
12.79

93.95
48.38

 

Reduction from lnfl uent

0.0496

0.00798 2.1E—05 0.0034 0.0003 5.9E—% 0.0452

109

0.01611 4.1E—05

 

 

Ammonium °/o Reductions with Outliers

Mean
Std Dev

Quartile 1
Quartile 3
IQR

Upper Bound
Lower Bound
outlier

 

 

F' .

 

 

 

Septisorbfia-Stone Lava Rock Pea-Stone
SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL
~2 30 51 -6 59 89 48 ~35 53
~1 35 54 34 17 62 17 34 71
~28 29 56 26 29 48 12 ~41 20
15 ~28 48 28 4 36 35 ~60 14
24 ~58 89 13 24 73 39 ~48 39
42 ~31 35 45 ~10 69 42 ~23 34
~46 0 14 ~27 33 74 ~41 4 0
~33 ~16 38 ~23 17 56 ~61 30 52
1 27 58 30 13 50 ~7 21 50
15 25 60 26 0 41 ~10 26 50
~16 40 62 19 1 60 ~16 45 49
~17 46 53 1 1 47 64 -4 49 69
-6 ~1 1 83 34 ~16 69 ~30 ~88 39
23 0 70 33 ~5 66 ~23 ~49 73
59 ~13 85 64 ~16 83 58 ~31 86
56 4 70 64 ~12 74 54 ~65 89
58 49 82 68 67 85 36 71 54
55 57 68 69 71 78 60 68 55
3 36 92 26 26 94 ~18 44 91
15 13 78 28 38 89 ~12 37 89
21 ~38 95 45 ~10 76 9 ~34 76
42 ~12 44 ~29 78 19 ~4 61
43 39 83 34 74
31 46 80 22 94
14 13 3
~55 15 10
~62 ~67
-65 ~ ~53
12.04 8.36 63.86 22.75 15.82 69.88 5.57 ~2.23 57.58
32.00 31.53 20.69 33.89 28.31 15.41 35.88 46.96 25.13
~5 ~12.75 53 13 -8.75 61.5 -16.5 ~39.5 46.5
39.25 33.75 82 44.25 32 80.75 35.25 36.25 74.5
44.25 46.5 29 31.25 40.75 19.25 51.75 75.75 28
105.63 103.5 125.5 91.125 93.125 109.63 112.88 149.875 116.5
~71.375 ~82.5 9.5 ~33.875 ~69.875 32.625 ~94.125 ~153.125 4.5

 

 

 

 

110

Ammonium °/o Reductions without Outliers

Mean
Std Dev.

 

 

 

 

 

Septisorb / Pea-Stone Lava fik Pea-Stone
SSF 12 SF 12 PT 001 SSF 12 SF 12 PT Out SSF 12 SF 12 PT Out
~2 30 51 -6 59 89 48 ~35 53
~1 35 54 34 17 62 17 34 71
~28 29 56 26 29 48 12 ~41 20
15 ~28 48 28 4 36 35 ~60 14
24 ~58 89 13 24 73 39 ~48 39
42 ~31 35 45 ~10 69 42 ~23 34
~46 0 14 ~27 33 74 ~41 4 52
~33 ~16 38 ~23 17 56 ~61 30 50
1 27 58 30 13 50 ~7 21 50
15 25 60 26 0 41 ~10 26 49
~16 40 62 19 1 60 ~16 45 69
~17 46 53 1 1 47 64 -4 49 39
-6 -1 1 83 34 ~16 69 58 71 73
23 0 70 33 -5 66 54 68 86
59 ~13 85 64 ~16 83 36 44 89
56 4 70 64 ~12 74 60 37 54
58 49 82 68 67 85 9 ~34 55
55 57 68 69 71 78 19 ~4 91
3 36 92 26 26 94 34 89
15 1 3 78 28 38 89 22 76
21 ~38 95 45 ~10 76 3 61
42 ~12 44 ~29 78 10 74
43 39 83 ~67 94
31 46 80 ~53
14 13
~55 15
12.04 8.36 63.86 29.38 15.82 69.88 9.96 10.22 60.09
32.00 31.53 20.69 24.48 28.31 15.41 36.92 41.46 22.43

 

111

 

 

 

 

T~Test Tables for Ammonium

T~test for Substrate Comparison

 

SSF Comparison
S-L L-P S-P

 

PVaIue 0.01231 0.0255 0.36259

SF Comparison
S—L L-P S—P

 

PVaIue 1.3E-05 0.0005 0.30704

Total Comparison
S-L L-P S-P

 

PVaIue 0.01988 0.0242 0.20099

 

 

S: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
L: Lava Rock Substrate

P: Pea-Stone Substrate

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland

SF: Surface Flow Wetland

T~Test for Wetland Stage Comparison

 

 

P ValueJ
Septisorb / Pea-Stone 0.34567
Lava Rock 0.04292
Pea-Stone 0.49153

 

 

 

112

%- ..._.........._..”

 

 

Phosphorus Concentrations with Outliers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sepfisorb/Pea—Stone LavaRod< FeaStone
Batch SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut
57.5 5.7 0.5 0.8 24.5 3.9 3.2 5.5 0.4 0.5
15.3 7.3 0.5 1.3 19.5 5 5.5 1.8 2 1
20.1 3 1.8 0.55 8.9 5.3 7.45 3 0.8 0.14
17.7 0.8 0.23 0.45 8.2 5.5 5.1 3.1 0.32 0.31
28.3 2.5 0.29 0.4 7.5 8.1 7.3 3.7 0.18 0.11
14.75 2.5 0.3 0.35 9.4 12.9 8.35 0.9 0.39 0.3
15.44 0.25 2.45 0.35 5.2 10.4 4.5 0.35 1.05 0.38
24.53 1.19 1.98 1 5 10.3 10 0.39 1.55 0.85
30.45 0.44 3.4 1.7 9.1 14.5 12.3 2.1 1.5 1
35.5 1.9 3.1 2.2 12.9 19.5 14.2 0.55 2.4 1.1
25.15 4.15 4.5 1.4 15.3 8 12.9 5 2.7 1.1
18.25 4.58 3.8 1.9 15.9 7.5 15.4 5 0.5 1.5
21.7 7.8 0.4 2.8 13 8.4 14 9.7 2 0.8
24.55 7.5 0.3 2.8 20.1 7.4 9 10 0.9 1
15.05 1.5 7 1.8 8.4 15.4 15.7 5.2 3.7 1.1
2.5 5.4 3.5 9.5 14.4 15.7 9.7 5.5 1.8
17.1 3.8 1.2 8.4 10 15 5.7 2.8 1.5
5.8 3.8 2.7 7.2 9.5 13.5 8.8 5.8 2.5
17.1 5.8 2 17.1 4 8 14 2 0.5
14.8 1.8 1.8 17.1 5.3 3.7 12.3 4.5 1.2
9.5 1.3 1.7 15.4 9.4 9.2 12.5 1.3 0.9
9.7 7 2 15.5 8.7 7.3 10 3.5 2
13.5 2.5 9.2 8.7 3 1.5 0.7
7.8 7.5 8.7 10 3.5 4 1.1
5.5 15 9.2
9.4 14.1 5.2
17.3 6.8
15.9 3
M323) 24.35 5.39 2.75 1.58 12.45 9.31 10.05 5.80 2.20 0.99
Std 11.04 5.01 2.15 0.905 5.3 3.9 4.12 3.97 1.74 0.59
Boxplot
Quartile1 17.07 2.5 0.5 0.85 8.35 7.05 7.3 3 0.875 0.5
Quartile3 25.725 9 3.8 2 15.525 10.325 13.7 9.325 3 1.125
I 9.555 5.5 3.3 1.15 8.175 3.275 5.4 5.325 2.125 0.525
UpperBound 41.208 18.75 8.75 3.725 28.788 15.238 23.318.8125 5.1875 1.9125
LowerBound 2.5875 —7.25 4.45 6.875 5.9125 2.1375 2.3 6.4875 2.3125 -0.1875
outlier

113

 

Phosphorus Concentrations without Outliers; P-Values for T~test to Determine
Statistical Significance from Influent Concentration

 

 

Septisorb/Fea—Stone LavaRod< Pei-Stone

Batch SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut
15.3 5.7 0.5 0.8 24.5 3.9 3.2 5.5 0.4 0.5
20.1 7.3 0.5 1.3 19.5 5 5.5 1.8 2 1
17.7 3 1.8 0.55 8.9 5.3 7.45 3 0.8 0.14
28.3 0.8 023 0.45 8.2 5.5 5.1 3.1 0.32 0.31
14.75 2.5 0.29 0.4 7.5 8.1 7.3 3.7 0.18 0.11
15.44 2.5 0.3 0.35 9.4 12.9 8.35 0.9 0.39 0.3
24.53 0.25 2.45 0.35 5.2 10.4 4.5 0.35 1.05 0.38
30.45 1.19 1.98 1 5 10.3 10 0.39 1.55 0.85
35.5 0.44 3.4 1.7 9.1 14.5 12.3 2.1 1.5 1
25.15 .19 3.1 2.2 12.9 8 14.2 0.55 2.4 1.1
18.25 4.15 4.5 1.4 15.3 7.5 12.9 5 2.7 1.1
21.7 4.58 3.8 1.9 15.9 8.4 15.4 5 0.5 1.5
24.55 7.8 0.4 2.8 13 7.4 14 9.7 2 0.8
15.05 7.5 0.3 2.8 20.1 14.4 9 10 0.9 1
1.5 7 1.8 8.4 10 15.7 5.2 3.7 1.1
2.5 5.4 3.5 9.5 9.5 15.7 9.7 2.8 1.8
17.1 3.8 1.2 8.4 4 15 5.7 5.8 1.5
6.8 3.8 2.7 7.2 5.3 13.5 8.8 2 0.5
17.1 6.8 2 17.1 9.4 8 14 4.5 1.2
14.8 1.8 1.8 17.1 8.7 3.7 12.3 1.3 0.9
9.5 1.3 1.7 15.4 9.2 9.2 12.5 3.5 2
9.7 7 2 15.5 8.7 7.3 10 1.5 0.7
13.5 2.5 8.7 3 4 1.1

7.8 7.5 10 3.5

5.5 15 9.2

9.4 14.1 5.2

17.3 6.8

15.9 3
Mean 21.98 5.39 2.75 1.58 12.45 8.53 10.05 5.80 2.01 0.92
Std Dev. 5.38 5.01 2.30 0.91 5.30 2.94 4.12 3.97 1.51 0.50

 

 

 

T Test P Value
Reduction from Influent

5.8E—08 1.7E-08 2.8E-08 4E~05

 

114

 

1E-% 2.5E-06 5.3E-08 1.8E-08 1.9E—08

 

 

 

Phosphorus °/o Reductions with Outliers

Mean

Std Dev
Boxplot
Quartile 1
Quartile 3
IQR

Upper Bound
Lower Bound
outlier

 

Septisorbfiea-Stone
SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL

Lava Rock

Tea-Stone

 

 

 

88 93 99 57 84 94 90 93 98
87 93 98 66 69 88 97 ~1 1 99
80 40 96 42 40 51 80 73 99
95 71 97 46 32 60 80 90 98
88 88 98 62 -6 64 82 95 99
87 88 98 53 ~37 58 96 57 99
98 ~880 98 71 ~100 75 98 ~192 98
93 ~66 94 66 ~72 44 98 ~323 95
99 18 88 68 5 17 93 68 93
93 32 85 54 ~23 4 98 52 93
72 95 91 4 35 22 66 79 93
69 96 88 ~8 63 6 66 91 91
68 ~338 89 47 ~95 43 60 29 97
69 ~180 89 18 ~52 63 59 33 96
95 68 94 72 ~19 45 83 58 96
92 44 88 69 ~32 45 68 34 94
52 78 97 76 77 55 81 86 95
81 54 92 80 69 62 75 63 93
32 81 92 32 43 68 44 90 98
41 81 93 32 44 85 51 64 95
48 90 91 10 ~268 50 31 50 95
47 83 91 15 ~16 60 45 ~14 89
37 88 60 86 97
64 65 54 84 95
78 39 63
38 43 75
~15 55
~12 80
72.73 ~7.77 93.00 44.00 -7.23 53.04 74.43 30.23 95.63
21.46 221.12 4.16 29.62 80.27 23.13 18.35 100.03 2.72
55 34 89.5 28.5 ~35.75 44.75 62.25 33.25 93.75
91 88 97 66.5 43.75 63.25 87 84.25 98
36 54 7.5 38 79.5 18.5 24.75 51 4.25
145 169 108.25 123.5 163 91 124.13 160.75 104.38
1 ~47 78.25 ~28.5 ~155 17 25.125 ~43.25 87.375

 

 

 

115

 

 

Phosphorus % Reductions without Outliers

Mean
Std Dev.

 

Septisorb / Pea-Stone

SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL SSF 12 SF 12 TOTAL

 

 

88 93 99
87 93 98
80 40 96
95 71 97
88 88 98
87 88 98
98 18 98
93 32 94
99 95 88
93 96 85
72 68 91
69 44 88
68 78 89
69 54 89
95 81 94
92 81 88
52 90 97
81 83 92
32 92
41 93
48 91
47 91
37

64

78

38

72.73 71.83 93.00
21.46 41.89 4.16

 

Lava Rock Pea-Stone

57 84 94 90 93
66 69 88 97 ~1 1
42 40 51 80 73
46 32 60 80 90
62 ~6 64 82 95
53 ~37 58 96 57
71 ~100 75 98 68
66 ~72 44 98 52
68 5 17 93 79
54 35 22 98 91
-4 63 43 66 29
~8 ~52 63 66 33
47 ~19 45 60 58
18 ~32 45 59 34
72 77 55 83 86
69 69 62 68 63
76 43 68 81 90
80 44 85 75 64
32 ~16 50 44 50
32 60 51 ~14
10 60 31

15 54 45

88 86

65 84

39 63

43 75

~15 55

~12 80

44.00 11.95 57.41 74.43 59.00
29.62 53.93 18.61 18.35 31.96

 

98
99
99
98
99
99
98
95
93
93
93
91
97
96
96
94
95
93
98
95
95
89
97
95

95.63
2.72

 

116

 

 

T~Test Tables for Phosphorus

T~test for Substrate Comparison

 

 

SSF Comparison
S-L L-P S-P
P Value 4E-05 1.2E-06 0.31591

SF Comparison
S-L L-P S-P
P Value 4E-09 9.1E-11 0.10513

Total Comparison
S-L L-P S-P

P Value 2E~10 5.6E-11 0.00249
8: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
L: Lava Rock Substrate
P: Pea-Stone Substrate
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland
SF: Surface Flow Wetland

 

 

T~Test for Wetland Stage Comparisor

 

 

P Value]
Septisorb / Pea-Stone 0.44976
Lava Rock 0.01319
Pea-Stone 0.03111

 

 

 

117

 

 

Nitrate Concentrations with Outliers

 

Septisorb’PeaStone Lava Rock Pea—Stone
Batch SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut
0.0835 0.4 0 21.69 0.54 0 48.12 0.1 0% 25.63
0. 395 0.24 0.05 88.54 0.31 0.17 68.15 0.12 0% 74.54
0.35 0.07 0 80.6 0.3 1.29 5.44 0% 0.05 7.94
0.225 0.1 0.02 53.81 0.2 0.33 6.53 0.05 0.04 15.73
0.29 0.05 0.15 42.51 0.05 0.13 7.1 0.03 0.17 39.22
0.12 0 0.15 33.51 0% 0.19 4.42 0% 0 24.08
0.12 0.05 0.21 133.76 0.03 0.14 136.93 0.02 0.05 533.08
0.34 0.03 0 114.16 0.03 0 112.38 0.04 0 148.37
2.2 0.18 0.38 157.76 0.64 0.87 12.24 0.1 0.19 80.24
3.165 0.16 0.12 155 0.2 0.83 9.98 0.18 0 85.24
0.7 0.24 0.05 124.04 0.09 0.21 78.96 0.27 0 22.4
0.72 0 0 65.29 0.25 0.04 73.27 0.15 0.02 33.59
0.54 0.34 0 101.35 0.38 0.62 72.13 0.46 0.05 55.66
0.62 0.35 0.05 101.35 1.24 0.16 69.82 0.44 0.03 69.77
0.17 0% 0.21 41.6 0.18 7.57 129.6 0.09 0.43 249.48
0.09 0.24 162.54 0.17 0.26 103.95 0.19 0.4 203.58
0.19 0.13 119.76 0.18 1.5 136.17 0.07 0.37 59.14
0.16 0.76 149.52 0.15 1.9 101.62 0.16 0.25 57.87
0.48 0.21 78.99 0.33 0.23 88.61 0.25 19.52 334.51
0.41 33.51 147.02 0.21 0.11 111.43 0.34 1.8 116.24
0.35 0.01 164.04 0.81 0.17 89.55 0.19 2.92 244.56
0 3 0.05 239.44 4.59 0.21 58.17 0.75 0.03 72.84

 

 

0.49 0.38 0.2 161.15 7.47 13.67 265.11
0.78 5.22 0.1 91.39 0.67 0.03 314.79
0 0% 0.02
0 0.12 0.09
0.05 0.1 0.03
0.05 0.13 0.86

Mean 0.67 0.20 1.65 108.01 0.61 0.72 74.05 0.47 1.67 130.57
Sthev 0.87 0.19 7.12 53.87 1.25 1.54 47.22 1.39 4.72 131.78
Boxplot

Quartile1 0.195 0.05 0.0125 68.715 0.115 0.1375 39.15 0% 0.03 37.8125
Quartile3 0.66 0.3425 0.21 148.895 0.38 0.6725 105.82 0.2875 0.3775 213.825
IQR 0.465 0.2925 0.1975 80.18 0.265 0.535 66.67 0.2275 0.3475 176.0125
UpperBound 1.3575 0.7813 0.5%3 269.165 0.7775 1.475 205.825 0.6288 0.89875 477.8438
LOVIBI’BOUl'Id ~05025 ~0.3888 ~02838 ~51.555 6.2825 6.665 60.855 -0.2813 -0.4913 ~226.2%
outlier

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118

Nitrate Concentrations without Outliers; P-Values for T~test to Determine
Statistical Significance from Influent Concentration

 

Septisorb/PeaStone Lava Rock Pea-Stone
Batch SSF 12 SF12 PTO.rt SSF 12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut
0.0835 0.4 0 21.69 0.54 0 48.12 0.1 0% 25.63
0.395 0.24 0.05 88.54 0.31 0.17 68.15 0.12 0% 74.54
0.35 0.07 0 80.6 0.3 1.29 5.44 0% 0.05 7.94
0.225 0.1 0.02 53.81 0.2 0.33 6.53 0.05 0.04 15.73
0.29 0.05 0.15 42.51 0.05 0.13 7.1 0.03 0.17 39.22
0.12 0 0.15 33.51 0.06 0.19 4.42 0.06 0 24.08
0.12 0.05 0.21 133.76 0.03 0.14 136.93 0.02 0.05 148.37
0.34 0.03 0 114.16 0.03 0 112.38 0.04 0 80.24
2.22 0.18 0.38 157.76 0.64 0.87 12.24 0.1 0.19 85.24
0.7 0.16 0.12 155 0.2 0.83 9.98 0.18 0 22.4
0.72 0.24 0.05 124.04 0.09 0.21 78.96 0.27 0 33.59
0.54 0 0 65.29 0.25 0.04 73.27 0.15 0.02 55.66
0.62 0.34 0 101.35 0.38 0.62 72.13 0.46 0.05 69.77
0.17 0.35 0. 05 101.35 0.18 0.16 69.82 0.44 0.03 249.48
0% 0.21 41.6 0.17 0.26 129.6 0.09 0.43 203.58
0.09 0.24 162.54 0.18 0.23 103.95 0.19 0.4 59.14
0.19 0.13 119.76 0.15 0.11 136.17 0.07 0.37 57.87
0.16 0.21 149.52 0.33 0.17 101.62 0.16 0.25 334.51
0.48 0.01 78.99 0.21 0.21 88.61 0.25 0.03 116.24
0.41 0. 05 147.02 0.81 0.2 111.43 0.34 0.03 244.56
0.35 164.04 0.38 0.1 89.55 0.19 72.84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.3 239.44 0% 58.17 0.02 265.11
0.49 0.12 161.15 0.09 314.79
0. 78 0.1 91 .39 0.03
0 0.13
0
0.05
0.05
Nban 0.49 0.20 0.10 108.01 0.24 0.30 74.05 0.15 0.11 113.07
Std Dev. 0.54 0.19 0.11 53.87 0.19 0.33 47.22 0.13 0.14 102.33
TTestPVaIue 0.035 0.0093 3.04E—09 0.05417 0.1224 4.79E-08 0.0169 0.01117 1.35E-05

Reduction from Influent

119

 

Nitrate % Reductions with Outliers

Mean
Std Dev.

 

 

 

Boxplot
Quartile 1
Quartile 3

IQR
Upper Bound
Lower Bound

 

outlier

Septisorb/PeaStone LavaRock Pea-Stone
SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut SSF12 SF12 PTOut
52 100 2498 35 100 5553 88 40 2959
71 79 40504 53 45 5052 86 50 5827
82 100 20305 24 -330 4277 85 17 4910
75 80 43523 49 55 4553 87 20 6882
85 200 42045 85 450 4929 91 457 41105
100 520 9474 83 217 4153 83 100 5780
78 100 59349 87 557 60758 91 450 ~236824
87 58 50538 87 100 49847 82 100 65842
38 100 431357 421 557 40100 55 30 55757
45 85 429057 31 232 5217 38 100 -70933
400 250 403257 25 0 55700 425 89 48557
100 457 54308 408 87 50958 25 93 27892
0 32 29709 42 4105 21115 55 ~378 45271
5 575 29709 255 53 20435 29 411 20421
97 55 4774 92 -733 5738 95 429 41138
95 5073 -7222 92 4157 4582 91 55 9070
94 97 6684 94 30 4202 98 ~7708 4759
95 97 4524 95 48 5111 95 429 4728
31 90 41184 53 79 42559 54 0 47587
41 94 20903 70 95 45819 51 95 45505
51 22683 43 47 ~12338 74 53 53857
58 44241 638 98 -7979 0 95 40017
9 30 29743 ~1283 48994
44 557 45824 24 58194
100 90 97
70 81 85
39 82
21 421
54.19 415.50 55094.50 21.32 544.00 47903.00 41.14 408.18 53248.38
49.10 1809.03 39252.35 212.95 908.79 20353.57 270.55 1541.51 49012.59
38.75 475.25 49038.75 12.75 505.5 20505 5 440.25 48013.75
92.25 97 9731.5 85.25 71.25 4487 88.75 92 5315.25
53.5 272.25 39307.25 73.5 375.75 15118 94.75 232.25 39698.5
172.5 505.375 49229375 195.5 535.375 19590 230.875 440.375 51232.5
415 583.53 4079995 97.5 570525 44782 ~148.13 488.53 4075515

 

120

 

 

Nitrate O/o Reductions without Outliers

 

 

Yr

 

Septisorb’Pea-Stone Lava Rock Pea-Stone
SSF 12 SF 12 PTOut SSF 12 SF 12 PT Out SSF 12 SF 12 PTOut
52 100 2498 35 100 6663 88 40 ~2969
71 79 ~10504 63 45 6%2 86 50 6827
82 100 20305 24 630 ~1277 85 17 ~1910
75 80 ~13523 49 65 ~1553 87 20 6882
86 ~200 ~12046 86 -160 ~1929 91 467 ~111%
100 620 ~9474 83 217 ~1 163 83 100 6780
78 100 ~59349 87 ~367 ~10100 91 ~150 65842
87 ~58 ~5%38 87 100 6217 82 100 66767
38 100 ~103267 31 667 ~21 1 15 66 30 ~70933
45 86 64308 25 232 20435 38 100 ~18567
100 ~250 ~29709 ~12 0 6738 ~125 89 27892
0 ~167 29709 92 87 4582 ~25 93 -16271
-3 32 ~1774 92 ~53 4202 ~35 ~378 ~20421
97 56 ~72 94 ~733 ~3111 ~29 ~111 ~11138
96 97 6684 95 30 ~12559 96 ~56 9070
94 97 4624 53 48 ~15819 91 429 ~1769
95 90 -1 1 184 70 79 ~12338 98 0 ~1728
31 94 20903 30 95 -7979 95 96 47687
41 22683 90 47 29743 64 ~83 ~165%
51 ~44241 81 98 ~16824 51 96 ~33867
58 39 74 -10017
9 21 0 48994
100 97 ~58194
70 85
82
Mean 64.71 6.44 ~25582.25 59.77 ~114.75 ~9620.45 56.64 42.15 ~24397.26
Std Dev. 32.44 140.45 25594.84 31.43 277.45 7816.61 56.15 181.37 23361.49

 

 

 

121

T~Test Tables for Nitrate

T~test for Substrate Comparison
SSF Comparison
S-L L-P S-P
P Value 0.25569 0.0308 0.1139

 

 

SF Comparison
S-L L-P S-P
P Value 0.00787 0.0124 0.401

Total Comparison

S-L L-P S-P
P Value 0.01435 0.0528 0.418
S: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
L: Lava Rock Substrate
P: Pea-Stone Substrate
SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland
SF: Surface Flow Wetland

 

 

 

 

T~Test for Wetland Stage Comparison

 

 

 

[ P Value
Septisorb / Pea-Stone 0.05075
Lava Rock 0.00575
Pea-Stone 0.01415

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5545
95.3 {0.9; www.mm- @053. made $4.34. 9.5mm 8%.; mmfiom inadmm $94.wa 05.3w. www.mmm cczom L7.526..
mnmdmr 8.949 Emmi 0.249 ammo? 8.33. No.39. 8.8? 3:? Noam: 80.08? New? BONE)» venom Loan:
mm._.~ www.mmm 8058 8.9% m9 www.mnm mtfimm womxmm msem mmmsmm £863 805m 853 m0.
.8 90.8.2. mmfimnm mmfim mm 8948 movdmm mmmemw DE 5599 meadow? «New: $0.38 moztmao
muse wave? mENom 8.4% 98 mmmdmw wmmemo $5QO 31% www.mmm 80009 8.25 www.mwom 45:54.0
5.96m
Esme 5.va teem «Exam no.3 mmsmm 3...? N39 No.3 ESmm mmdmm 8.va 8.0m? >50 Em
made 8.0% 94.30 «mews «4.: Same moNom Radon mndo mmnwor 3.5: 8.55 wmdmmw com—2
8 93mm mo. So 853 on mm. 5m mm.m~m mince. mu «anm mm. 5 E $.me
mm memm 3.39. ems: no to: mmdmm end? No 8.3% 3.8: mfmom
mo 3.5m 853 089 K 558 8.8m m _. .82. ms 85% 3.92.9 8.89
No Kenn 94.3: 848 mm 029 8.89 35.59 mm 5.33 5.94.9 36m?
mm va3 8.8m 039 mm 958 3.59 2”de om p.59 3.8: 40:?
mm ofimnm mmfib mew: mm mmxmm 3.99 mesmm an NBC: 3.35. 8.9:.
mm 8.9%. 84mm were: Em 944mm omNmm 5.QO me mi and? 3&8 mmwmmm
S 5.0mm vmdwm mmxmm mm 869 n .mwm 3.30 cm E. 50 8.on 8.QO RN49.
we 96% Set 9:8 mm Enos Nfimmm Show mm no.8? «went. 5.0m? 3.va
3 R254 Qmmv 86mm mm am. So 8N3 Sam 3 mm madam 8.83. no .Nmop nmdm S
on mnxmn Show $.va mm mmbmw SSE 3.8m mu m P .Emw 3.? 5 5.me vmdmg
we fimmm memo $.um om 58m meg Show. mm 8.3: 5.83 8.5.5. mm. P EN
4<._.O.r 50 .5 we “_m we ”_ww ._<._.O._. SO .5 NF “_m we 0mm ._<._.OP 50 En. NF um we 0mm 295m
.5552 s\e 5:05-me 554.com o\e xoom mam... cozosfi axe 5:06-30 \ Eowzqow

 

20:50 5:5 20:03va o\o =30... w mcozmbcmocoo 000

123

 

E535 Eot :0_U:05m

 

 

 

 

 

124

 

 

 

_‘moood 9500.0 @0006 moood mooood mvoood marood vmwwood 580.0 m:_m> n. “55% ._.
SEN? 3.3.. K. _‘oN $.an mod mmfimw mmdmm N F .8? No.9. Edmm mNNmN CNN; m P .mmv 550 Em
mmnm mmdmm mVNmm NmQK Donn modww mad 5 5.8m man 5.39 mv. rm? r Edam 8&va c555.
mm gimme mo. wow mmwmm mm. me 918m mu NNdww
mm mama mmNmow 3 N K 0N town mmNNm ENS mm mm. 3m mm. Fm: Nuanw
mm 3 Nam 85% ”moor um ~9QO 8N8 m r .Nmn MK 8.5m @009 _‘ NV .mom
mm ROAR Q31... F mo. 5m E QM Fm? 8.80 @939. mm NOVEL. :AKNF No.00NF
mm 3N3 Show m.mmN_. mm endow .8de Fm .mmm ow n. 59 rmwvmr vomwmw
mm 3 NS om. Em ”mm: mm momma Ed me mmxwm 2 NE: 3 3.8:. v0. :9.
mm 863... 8.3m @003 um mv.vmm owNmm Fmfiom mm m: mmérmw mmdw E.
5 5.8m vmdmm NmNNm mm omomv 5QO 8.30 ow K. 50 mmNmm mmNmm mm .meN
5 mvdmm 86K mm. 50 mm Fm .85 N P .mmm mm .mom mm monom— mwcvw 8.me ENE?
VB nmdmv mwmv @096 mm mm. 30 8&3 Sim 5 mm mmdmm mmdmvw mone nmdm Fm
on mnkmn wohom infirm mo mmoww Stews 5.0mm an a F .vnww vm. r 5 59% VNdew
mm 7mg 080 3.05 cm Eden mdon 8.me mm $.an F 5.0me omNmm mm... EN
4<._.O._. 50 .5 NF mm N? ”am ._<.PO._. 50 ._.n_ N? mm NF “_wm ._<._.O._. 50 ._.n_ NF um NF ”_ww coumm
cowozumm o\o 5:05.551 canon—05m o\o gown—gm; cosoznmm o\o 5c9w-55n_ \Eowsamw
cozmbcmocoo

E522. 80: 500505005 _mozmzflw 55.5950 2 “55:. .05 m5:_5>-n_ ”5.55:0 £5, 30303051 £3 mcozmbc5ocoo 00.0

T-Test Tables for COD

T-test for Substrate Comparison

 

 

P Value

P Value

P Value

P-Value

SSF Comparison
S-L L-P S-P

 

0.058777 0.36795 0.12727

SF Comparison
S-L L-P S-P

 

0.008076 0.16304 0.000544

Total Comparison
S-L L-P S-P

 

0.005226 0.09987 9.33E-05

% Reduction
S-L L-P S-P
0.030618 0.47783 0.035913

 

S: Septisorb and Pea-Stone Substrate
L: Lava Rock Substrate

P: Pea—Stone Substrate

SSF: Sub-Surface Flow Wetland

SF: Surface Flow Wetland

125

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllflllllllll

3 1293 02493