HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chung, J.-B. Articles by Lee, Y.-D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chung, J.-B. Articles by Lee, Y.-D. Agricola Articles by Chung, J.-B. Articles by Lee, Y.-D. Related Collections Watershed and Landscape Processes Surface Water Quality Biogeochemical Processes Lysimeter/Rhizosphere Studies Bioremediation and Biodegradation Water Pollution

Removal of Organic Matter and Nitrogen from River Water in a Model Floodplain

^a Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Daegu University, Gyeongsan 712-714, Korea
^b Department of Agronomy, Daegu University, Gyeongsan 712-714, Korea
^c Department of Environmental Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 712-749, Korea

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of floodplain filtration. If contaminated river water is sprayed over the floodplain, organic matter in the water is expected to be decomposed by microbes using O2 as an electron acceptor and a reducing layer is expected to develop beneath the oxidizing surface layer due to the depletion of oxygen in the surface layer. Ammonium in the river water is expected to be converted to NO3 in the oxidizing surface layer and then the NO3 leached down in the reducing layer can be removed by denitrification with the further degradation of organic matter.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental model floodplain filtration system.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD) at various flow rates of river water in the model floodplain filtration system. Flow Rates I, II, and III were 40.8, 54.4, and 68.0 mm d–1, respectively. Error bars indicate standard deviation.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Removal of NO3–N at various flow rates of river water in the model floodplain filtration system. Flow Rates I, II, and III were 40.8, 54.4, and 68.0 mm d–1, respectively. Error bars indicate standard deviation.