Comparative assessment of LECA and Spartina maritima to remove emerging organic contaminants from wastewater

Ana Rita Ferreira, Paula Guedes, Eduardo P. Mateus, Alexandra B. Ribeiro, Nazaré Couto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The present work aimed to evaluate the capacity of constructed wetlands (CWs) to remove three emerging organic contaminants with different physicochemical properties: caffeine (CAF), oxybenzone (MBPh), and triclosan (TCS). The simulated CWs were set up with a matrix of light expanded clay aggregates (LECA) and planted with Spartina maritima, a salt marsh plant. Controlled experiments were carried out in microcosms using deionized water and wastewater collected at a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), with different contaminant mass ranges, for 3, 7, and 14 days. The effects of variables were tested isolatedly and together (LECA and/or S. maritima). The presence of LECA and/or S. maritima has shown higher removal (around 61–97%) of lipophilic compounds (MBPh and TCS) than the hydrophilic compound (CAF; around 19–85%). This was attributed to the fact that hydrophilic compounds are dissolved in the water column, whereas the lipophilic ones suffer sorption processes promoting their removal by plant roots and/or LECA. In the control (only wastewater), a decrease in the three contaminant levels was observed. Adsorption and bio/rhizoremediation are the strongest hypothesis to explain the decrease in contaminants in the tested conditions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7208-7215
Number of pages8
JournalEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research
Volume24
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2017
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Constructed wetlands
  • Emerging organic contaminants
  • LECA
  • Spartina maritima
  • Wastewater

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative assessment of LECA and Spartina maritima to remove emerging organic contaminants from wastewater'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this