Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The treatment of wood leachate using constructed wetlands Frankowski, Kevin Anthony 2000

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2000-0194.pdf [ 20.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0063749.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0063749-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0063749-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0063749-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0063749-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0063749-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0063749-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0063749-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0063749.ris

Full Text

T H E T R E A T M E N T O F W O O D L E A C H A T E U S I N G C O N S T R U C T E D W E T L A N D S by KEVIN ANTHONY FRANKOWSKI B.Sc, The University of Calgary, 1994 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Science in the F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES; D E P A R T M E N T OF C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G ; Environmental Engineering Division; Pollution Control & Waste Management Program. We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2000 © Kevin Anthony Frankowski, 2000 THE TREATMENT OF WOOD LEACHATE USING CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS KEVIN FRANKOWSKI DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ABSTRACT Rainfall percolating through wood chip piles, hog fuel, and log storage areas will leach naturally-occurring chemicals from the wood. This leachate is often characterised by high carbon content, strong colour, and high concentrations of tannin and lignin, resin acids and phenolics. This can be very toxic to aquatic life, and has serious implications from an environmental discharge viewpoint. It can lead to regulatory problems for facilities operators. Research was conducted in a series of phases at a cedar processing site near Mission, British Columbia. It was determined that cedar leachate was amenable to biological treatment. Chemical and ecotoxicological characterization was performed, and combined with the data obtained from treatment screening trials, laboratory-scale constructed wetlands were designed and tested. These constructed wetlands were able to achieve a 90% reduction in toxicity and removal rates of >90% for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 80% for chemical oxygen demand (COD). A pilot-scale program demonstrated that constructed wetlands were able to treat the cedar leachate under field conditions. Initial data obtained during winter operations produced removal rates for toxicity on the order of 50%. BOD and COD removal was slightly less. The system still needs to undergo optimization, but preliminary results indicate several factors which may yield significant improvements in system performance. Thus, it has been demonstrated that a wetland-based biological treatment process is potentially a practical and cost-effective treatment technique for wood leachate. Unit treatment costs are much lower than other technologies; effective physio-chemical treatment techniques are 10 - 30 times more expensive, conventional biological treatments at least 6 times. Also, many of the conventional biological systems have failed to demonstrate effective treatment performance for this type of wastewater. Kevin Frankowski iii U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A B S T R A C T In addition to its cost-effective performance, this constructed wetlands system operates in a passive manner. It requires minimal operational attention and infrastructure. No chemical addition or by-products handling is needed. Possible applications include the collection and treatment of wood leachate from chip piles, wood waste landfills, and hog fuel piles, and the treatment of wood extractives in stormwater runoff from log yards, dryland sorts and staging areas. This system is ideally suited for those applications which require effective, economic treatment of fluctuating runoff loads containing a broad, and often changing, spectrum of contaminants. Kevin Frankowski iv U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i i List of Tables vii List of Figures viii List of Abbreviations / Acronyms ix Acknowledgements x 1.0 Problem Formulation 1 1.1 Project Context 1 1.2 Solid Waste Storage and Disposal 1 1.3 BC's Forest Products Industry 4 1.4 Research Scope and Objectives 6 2.0 Literature Review: State of the Technology 9 2.1 Leachate Generation at Wood Processing Sites 9 2.2 Leachate Control and Treatment 11 2.2.1 Minimization 11 2.2.2 Collection 12 2.2.3 Standard treatment techniques 13 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems 16 2.3.1 Basic features and design premises 16 2.3.2 Scope of contaminant targets 18 2.3.3 System effectiveness and constraints 19 2.3.4 Distribution and use of the technology 21 3.0 Research Site Acquisition & Startup 23 3.1 Justification of Research Focus 23 3.2 Site Acquisition and Legalities 23 3.3 Project Site Description 24 3.3.1 Location and Current Conditions 24 3.3.2 Ownership and History 26 4.0 Cedar Leachate Characterization 27 4.1 Introduction 27 4.2 Methods and Materials 27 4.2.1 Sampling Protocols 27 4.2.2 Analysis protocols 28 4.3 Results and Discussion 30 4.3.1 Physical parameters 30 4.3.2 Chemical parameters 33 4.3.4 Biological parameters 37 4.4 Conclusions 44 Kevin Frankowski v U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S 5.0 Screening Trials 47 5.1 Introduction 47 5.2 Methods and Materials 47 5.3 Results and Discussion 48 5.4 Conclusions 52 6.0 Bench-scale Treatment with Microcosm Wetlands 53 6.1 Introduction 53 6.2 Methods and Materials 53 6.2.1 Test setup and conditions 53 6.2.2 Monitoring 55 6.3 Results and Discussion 56 6.4 Conclusions 60 7.0 Pilot-scale Treatment 61 7.1 Introduction 61 7.2 Methods and Materials 62 7.2.1 Design considerations 62 7.2.2 Construction 65 7.2.3 Establishment and baseline evaluation 68 7.2.4 Commission and operations 69 7.2.5 Monitoring and sampling 70 7.3 Results and Discussion 71 7.3.1 Baseline conditions 71 7.3.2 Performance 72 7.3.3 Construction and operating costs 78 7.4 Conclusions 82 8.0 General Synopsis and Recommendations 83 9.0 Literature Cited 85 Appendix A Exclusion-of-Liability Agreements 95 Appendix B Fraser River Flood Gauge Data 103 Appendix C Calculation of Theoretical Oxygen Demands 105 Appendix D . l Raw Data: Leachate Characterization 107 Appendix D.2 Raw Data: Screening Trials 119 Appendix D.3 Raw Data: Bench-Scale Testing 127 Appendix D.4 Raw Data: Pilot-Scale Trials 135 Kevin Frankowski vi U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Range of composition measured in municipal landfill leachates 14 Table 4.1 Sample collection, preservation and storage specifications 28 Table 4.2 Cedar leachate characterization data 31 Table 4.3 Concentrations of individual volatile fatty acids (C2- C6) 36 Table 4.4 Oxygen demand ratios 38 Table 6.1 Performance summary for laboratory wetlands 57 Table 7.1 Pre-operational characterization of the pilot-scale constructed wetlands 72 Table 7.2 Characterization of slough (dilution) water 73 Table 7.3 Summary ofpilot-scale removal performance for targeted parameters 74 Table 7.4 Removal of volatile fatty acids (C2- C6) in pilot-scale wetlands 74 Table 7.5 Summary of pilot-scale field data 74 Table 7.6 Summary of pilot-scale removal performance for solids and nutrients 76 Table 7.7 Material costs for the pilot-scale constructed wetland facility 79 Table 7.8 Cost comparisons of different leachate treatment technologies 80 Masters Thesis LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Sequence and relationship of research components 7 Figure 2.1 Wood chip barge-loading facility 10 Figure 2.2 Schematic of multi-layer municipal landifll liner system 13 Figure 3.1 General plan of study site 24 Figure 3.2 Cedar leachate pool, viewed from top of hog fuel pile 25 Figure 3.3 Cedar shake and shingle mills alongside the Fraser River 26 Figure 4.1 Intensity of cedar leachate colour over a pH range 33 Figure 4.2 pH-dependant colour change in cedar leachate (note the dilutions) 35 Figure 4.3 Spectral response of raw leachate (UV-visible light) 35 Figure 4.4 Spectral response of tannic acid (UV-visible light) 35 Figure 4.5 Extended BOD of cedar leachate 39 Figure 5.1 Aerated batch reactors 48 Figure 5.2 Screening trial water quality data: dissolved oxygen 49 Figure 5.3 Screening trial water quality data: conductivity 50 Figure 5.4 Screening trial water quality data: pH 51 Figure 5.5 Effect of inoculants on leachate toxicity reduction 52 Figure 6.1 Schematic of the lab microcosms 53 Figure 6.2 Cattail root mat in lab microcosm 54 Figure 6.3 Room blank microcosm 54 Figure 6.4 Reduction of cedar leachate toxicity in laboratory constructed wetlands 56 Figure 6.5 Effect of influent dilution on tannin and lignin removal performance 58 Figure 6.6 Spectral response of laboratory constructed wetland effluent 59 Figure 7.1 Constructed wetland pilot-scale facility 61 Figure 7.2 Schematic of field-scale constructed wetland cell 62 Figure 7.3 Lateral discharge collector 63 Figure 7.4 Unplanted control cell (viewedfrom discharge end) 63 Figure 7.5 Influent dosing tank 64 Figure 7.6 Detailed site plan ofpilot-scale facility 65 Figure 7.7 Preparation of greenfield site 67 Figure 7.8 Excavation of wetland cells 67 Figure 7.9 Levelling of backfilled soil in preparation for planting 67 Figure 7.10 Cattails ready for transplanting 67 Figure 7.11 Pump installed in locking pump shelter 68 Figure 7.12 Established vegetation in constructed wetland cell 71 Figure 7.13 Reduction of cedar leachate toxicity in pilot-scale constructed wetlands... 73 Kevin Frankowski viii U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS The following abbreviations and acronyms have been used throughout this document: A P H A American Public Health Association BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CER Controlled Environment Room COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DO Dissolved Oxygen DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon DIC Dissolved Inorganic Carbon FSF Free-Surface Flow wetland (see Surface-Flow wetland) G C L Geosynthetic Clay Liner HDPE High Density Polyethylene plastic HRT Hydraulic Residence Time ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma spectrometer L C 5 0 Lethal Concentration: 50% O & M Operations and Maintenance P V C Polyvinyl Chloride plastic R B C Rotating Biological Contactor SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor SF Surface Flow wetland SPE Solid-Phase Extraction SSF Sub-Surface Flow wetland TDS Total Dissolved Solids ThOD Theoretical Oxygen Demand TIE Toxicity Identification Evaluation TSS Total Suspended Solids VFAs Volatile Fatty Acids Kevin Frankowski ix U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people for their time, knowledge, skills, and other generous contributions that they provided me during the course of this research. Without their collective support and assistance, this endeavour would not have been realized. From the beginning, Dr. Ken Hall, my graduate supervisor, was willing to listen to my grandiose plans and optimistic ideas. His exceptional, unwavering support and insightful guidance were essential to the success of this project. The intense interest, enthusiasm and boundless energy with which he approached this enterprise surpassed what I had expected from a supervisor. It was a real pleasure being one of his students. I am also indebted to Dr. Sheldon Duff, of the Department of Chemical Engineering, who took a genuine and personal interest in the project, and who contributed not only valuable time, suggestions and encouragement, but who also provided the project with additional funding when an unexpected need arose. His actions were instrumental in bringing this project to fruition and I am most grateful for all of his support and generosity. Primary funding was provided by the British Columbia Science Council, via a GREAT scholarship, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), via a Graduate Student Scholarship. The Network of Centres of Excellence -Sustainable Forest Management (SFM- NCE) program provided some critical supplementary funding. Steve Wynnyk, in conjunction with Jack Davidson and the B C Shake and Shingle Association, provided access to the research site and offset some of the materials and construction costs. Barry Azeuedo, Wilbert Yang and Ray Rob from the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks all provided informative guidance and helpful information. My thanks to Elizabeth Steele, who provided me with expert guidance to resources available in the Forest Alliance B C library collection. I am grateful to the University of British Columbia Civi l Engineering Department for accepting me into the Environmental Engineering program and providing me with ample opportunity to develop plenty of grey hairs from all the demanding course work. Needless to say, access to the laboratory facilities which the Department provided was a fundamental part of the this project. However, the immense value in this resource resided not with the technical gadgetry, but with the very knowledgable and helpful laboratory staff. The technical guidance and support from Susan Harper and Paula Parkinson was always marvellous, as was their patience as I, once again, brought another set of smelly samples into the lab. Angelika Kama and Priscilla Yuen also provided many hours of very able assistance with both laboratory analyses and field work. Credit must be given to Harald Schrempp, who provided me with access to the Department's shop facilities and who was always willing to lend a hand or answer "just Kevin Frankowski x U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S one more" of my many questions. A heartfelt thanks to Kelly Lamb and the front office staff for successfully guiding me through the jungle of forms, requisitions, and other administrative mazes that are a necessary evil of university life. Two industry sponsors provided support in crucial areas. EVS Environment Consultants supported this research by providing access to their ecotoxicology laboratory Jennifer Stewart kindly allowed me to set up several experiments in the Controlled Environment Rooms, despite their odorous nature. Dr. Howard Bailey and James Elphick were incredibly helpful and always had time for my questions. Their continued interest in the project was very gratifying. Envirowest Consultants Limited (ECL) generously agreed to act as my industrial collaborator for the BC Science Council GREAT award, and as a result the project benefited greatly from the ideas, enthusiasm and design experience of Ward Prystay. Finally, I need to acknowledge the immense amount of support I received from friends and family, who allowed themselves to be cajoled and/or coerced into giving up a Saturday to come and shovel gravel, dig cattails, or lay some pipe. There isn't enough space to list all you individually, but you know who you are, and I am grateful for all your support. Above all, I would like to thank my lovely wife for her vast contributions, in the form of fresh ideas, support and encouragement, hard labour, and on those frustrating days when nothing else seemed to work, her unfailing patience and understanding. Thanks Everyone! Kevin Frankowski x i U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION 1.1 Project Context Access to sources of clean water is an essential requirement for both humans and wildlife. Unfortunately, many industrial processes produce contaminated wastewater. Many others influence nearby water quality indirectly through mechanisms such as stormwater runoff and airborne transport. As we continue to recognize ways to protect our natural resources, and as we accumulate knowledge about just how much of an integral part water plays in almost all ecosystems (National Research Council 1992), a growing recognition will occur among industry, government and the public that responsible stewardship of our aquatic resources is a major factor in the success of any integrated resource management plan. Protection of our aquatic resources must encompass more than just controlling direct effluent discharges into our surface waters. Stormwater runoff, agricultural discharges, seepage of contaminants into groundwater aquifers, and other forms of nonpoint source pollution must also receive sufficient attention if we are to maintain sustainable sources of clean water. 1.2 Solid Waste Storage and Disposal The responsible long-term storage and disposal of any solid waste presents a suite of challenges that must be addressed by environmental engineers, facility operators and regulators. The control and treatment of leachate is foremost among these issues. Leachate is produced when water (or other liquid) percolates through a matrix of solid materials, such as crushed rock, landfill waste, or wood chips. The liquid extracts various compounds from the solid matrix and the resulting leachate contains a mixture of suspended solids and dissolved substances (Davis and Cornwell 1998; Shams and Brockway 1994). Kevin Frankowski 1 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 P R O B L E M F O R M U L A T I O N 1.2 Solid Waste Storage and Disposal While much attention has been paid to leachate control and treatment in municipal landfills and mine tailings piles, insufficient attention has been paid to proper disposal of solid waste from the wood processing industry, which includes wood chips, process trimmings, shredded bark, and sawdust from various saws, planes, and other process machinery. This material, when stored unprotected outside and exposed to precipitation, will produce a leachate that is often characterized by a high carbon content, high oxygen demand, strong colour, an array of dissolved metals, and low levels of nitrate, ammonia and nitrogen (Borga et al. 1996; Slagle 1976; Taylor et al. 1996; Thomas 1977). Naturally-occurring compounds, such as resin acids, tropolones, flavonoids, stilbenes, tannins and lignins, and various steroids and terpenoids, are present in wood. They are used by the trees as structural glues, hormonal controls, and chemical defences against predation by insects, fungi and microbes, and are liberated by the leaching process (Eaton and Hale 1993; Laks 1991; Rowe and Conner 1979). The resulting leachate is often very toxic to aquatic and other life forms (Bailey et al. 1999; Borga et al. 1996; Cameron 1982; Eaton and Hale 1993; Inamori et al. 1991; Taylor et al. 1996). Within a forest ecosystem, the same leachate hazard does not exist. The natural rate of tree death and degradation ensures that the fallen wood is not an environmental liability. This is due to two factors. Firstly, the forest floor supports a complex array of bacterial and fungal systems specifically adapted for degrading these organic materials. They sequester and metabolize the complex wood chemicals, rendering them into simpler, nontoxic compounds. In addition, the forest soil communities at any given location only have to deal with one, or possibly a handful of fallen trees at any given time. The wood waste generated by a mechanical processing industry far outpaces both the temporal and spatial abilities of the natural mechanisms that would normally facilitate degradation. Hence the need for the processing industry to recognize how it has affected the naturally-occurring treatment mechanisms and commit itself to implementing the necessary remedies. Since the rate of natural degradation is limited by such factors as temperature, nutrient availability, and oxygen supply, implementing and optimizing a solution requires Kevin Frankowski 2 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 P R O B L E M F O R M U L A T I O N 1.2 Solid Waste Storage and Disposal attention be paid to these details. Unless properly contained and treated, this toxic runoff will flow into either the nearest stream, lake or other open aquatic environment, or it will percolate down into the groundwater aquifers. Either way, contamination of our water supplies results, and this can lead to public health concerns, degradation of dependent ecosystems, and destruction of associated natural resources (e.g., commercial and tourism fisheries) (Al et al. 1995; Schermer and Phipps 1976; Shams and Brockway 1994; Slagele 1976; Sweet and Fetrow 1975; Triton 1993). Leachate collection and control techniques are fairly well established, largely due to advances in engineering practices for municipal landfills (see Section 2.2 for details). However many existing wood waste disposal sites fail to take advantage of the state of the art, owing mainly to their age. Many were developed prior to the full realization that something as seemingly innocuous as wood may pose an environmental threat, and therefore these disposal sites were often selected rather casually and without any implementation of liner or leachate collection systems. Not only are collection and control measures inadequate at many of these sites, but finding a suitable treatment system can also be a problem. Developing a treatment technology specifically suited for wood leachate has received very little attention. Schermer and Phipps (1976) reported that passage through soil provided some attenuation, but the soil displayed a finite capacity for treatment and once sufficient leachate has passed through to exhaust this capacity, no more treatment was delivered. This treatment capacity began to diminish markedly over time, often in as little as 20 days under field conditions. Recycling the leachate back through the wood waste, in order to maximize naturally-occurring oxidation reactions and promote condensation of tannins into biologically-inactive precipitates, was shown to be ineffective (Schermer and Phipps 1976). In another study, Thomas (1977) reported that laboratory-scale aerated lagoons were unsuccessful at removing toxicity from cedar leachate. Kevin Frankowski 3 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 P R O B L E M F O R M U L A T I O N 1.3 BCs Forest Products Industry Better success might be achieved by adapting an existing treatment technology from other applications. However, this also has its problems. The treatment technologies currently available from municipal landfill practices are often economically unrealistic for wood processing sites. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, wood processing sites usually occupy a fairly extensive area, and therefore have the potential to generate large quantities of runoff. Often it is not just the chip or waste piles which generate leachate, but also the uncovered work areas, since they are usually littered with an accumulation of fine woody debris. Thus, a treatment system with a high unit treatment cost will impose a significant economic burden upon such a facility, especially i f it is located in a region which receives abundant precipitation. Secondly, the remoteness of many of these facilities severely increases the cost of installing and maintaining a complex treatment plant. Convenient access to chemical additives, availability of trained operators, and proper by-products handling also require additional consideration in these remote locales. The scope of this problem is not insignificant. In regions where forestry is a dominant sector, wood processing facilities and their associated waste streams can represent a major source of the region's contaminant loading. Recognizing this diffuse source of pollution and responding to it in an economically and environmentally responsible manner is important. Failure to respond may result in serious environmental consequences. In addition, the increasingly stringent regulatory environment amplifies the need for industry to demonstrate due diligence. However, implementing technologies which are not fiscally realistic may result in a decrease in the industry's ability to compete in a global marketplace, resulting in the local economy experiencing undue economic stress. 1.3 BC's Forest Products Industry The forest products industry is British Columbia's largest, far out-shadowing any other sector of this province's economy. In 1998, the $15 billion industry represented over 14% of the province's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Forest products represented 46% Kevin Frankowski 4 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 P R O B L E M F O R M U L A T I O N 1.3 BC's Forest Products Industry of BC's total manufacturing shipments. This accounted for 51% of the province's total export sales. As BC's largest industrial employer, forestry provides 15% of the province's workforce with employment (PricewaterhouseCoopers 1999). Given the size of both the industry and the province, it is not surprising that its activities cover a very extensive geographical area. The scope of the industry is huge and the associated environmental management must be taken very seriously, especially considering how many other industries and activities are dependent upon the health of this landscape. The forest industry's processing facilities are a major feature in this management task. Close to 500 primary processing mills exist within B C and are responsible for handling most of the wood harvested each year (65.0 million m 3 in 1998) (COFI 1999). The handling, storage and eventual disposal of the waste by-products and residuals is an enormous task. The wood waste from saw mills alone has been estimated at close to 2.8 million bone dry tonnes (bdt) per year (McCloy 1997). To this total must be added the waste generated by the chipping, panel, pulp and other types of mills. Furthermore, in addition to these mills, an unknown number of storage / transportation staging areas and chip piles at various barge loading facilities also require waste management mechanisms, especially with regard to leachate / runoff control and treatment. Compared to the industry as a whole, the cedar shake and shingle sector is small. There are only 39 mills and most of them are much smaller than facilities typical of other sectors (Ministry of Forests 1999). However, in some ways, this adds to, rather than diminishes, the problem. Unable to access the same economies of scale available to some of the other processors, much of the expensive treatment technology is simply beyond their means. Cedar is generally recognized as having more potent extractives and more toxic leachates than other commercial temperate wood species (Eaton and Hale 1993; McDaniel et al. 1989; Thomas 1977). One of the reasons why cedar is used for shake and shingles is its strong rot-resistance. This resistance is imparted by the various chemicals that the cedar tree produces as a defence against microbial and insect attack, Kevin Frankowski 5 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION 1.4 Research Scope and Objectives and it is these chemicals which also contribute to the high toxicity of its leachate. Thus, if cedar processors are going to address their leachate generation and runoff problems in a fiscally realistic manner, they need access to a treatment technology that is both economic and effective. 1.4 Research Scope and Objectives The intent of this research thesis was to address the issue of wood leachate and determine whether suitable control and treatment technologies are feasible. In the interests of time and funding, the scope of this research was restricted to wood waste leachate from cedar processing facilities. However, the results are likely to be equally applicable to leachates and runoff from facilities processing other wood species and operating in temperate regions other than BC. This research proposed the development and demonstration of a wood leachate treatment technology that met the objectives outlined below. A. Performance objectives: A. 1 Provide effective treatment which reduces the acute toxicity of the leachate to the point where it no longer poses an immediate threat to aquatic life. A. 2 Through the same treatment process, reduce the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and other associated pollutants so that the treatment effluent will result in compliance with anticipated discharge regulations. B. Design objectives: B.l An effective treatment design which is dependable and robust. B.2 A system which is easy to operate and requires minimal operator training or intervention. B.3 Inexpensive to implement, operate, and maintain, with a minimum of chemical additions, process monitoring, or by-products handling required. Kevin Frankowski 6 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 P R O B L E M F O R M U L A T I O N 1.4 Research Scope and Objectives ^Literature Review: V Target; Assess the current state of the technology and . determine whether appropriate technologies exist! for the control and treatment of wood leachate. Unit Scale: Relevant Thesis Section: 2.0 Research Site Acquisition and Startup: Target; Identify research gaps, obtain funding, secure access to an appropriate research site. Unit Scale: Relevant Thesis Section: 3.0 Leachate Characterization: Target: Characterize the wood leachate with respect to its ecotoxicblogy and chemistry. Unit Scale: Relevant Thesis Section: 4.0 Screening Trials: Target: Determine whether the wood leachate was amenable to biological treatment. Unit Scale: Relevant Thesis Section: 5.0 (Bench-Scale Testing: Target: Demonstrate the appropriateness of constructed wetlands for the treatment of wood leachate (re; Objectives A.l &A.2). M i (foil Unit Scale: Relevant Thesis Section: 6.0 ifr Pilot-Scale Trials: Target: Evaluate the performance of the constructed wetland treatment system under field conditions (re; Objectives A.] -A.2& B.l -B.3). / Unit Scale: Relevant Thesis Section: 7.0 Figure 1.1 Sequence and relationship of research components Kevin Frankowski 7 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 1.0 P R O B L E M F O R M U L A T I O N /. 4 Research Scope and Objectives The research was comprised of a sequence of components, as outlined in Figure 1.1. Note that each of the components depends upon the information and conclusions of its predecessor. Thus, rather than assemble this Masters thesis in the traditional manner, with one section each for Methodology, Results, and Discussion, it was more appropriate to assign each of these components an independent section. Within each of these sections, the methodology specific for that section could be discussed. Similarly, the results for each component could be presented immediately and discussed within the context of the relevant section. This provided a more logical presentation, since many of the design factors discussed in the methodologies depended on the results and conclusions of the previous component. Each of the components had sufficiently different methodologies that repetition of document content is minimal. Kevin Frankowski 8 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 L I TERATURE REVIEW: STATE O F T H E T E C H N O L O G Y 2.1 Leachate Generation at Wood Processing Sites The manner in which the trees are cut, handled, stored and milled has a strong influence on what environmental effects occur during the process life cycle. Since wood is a fairly impervious material, it is exposed to the elements for much of its storage and transportation. During handling, much of the bark is inadvertently stripped from the logs, especially in dryland sorting yards. In fact, unless specific steps are taken to minimize its buildup, most wood processing areas become underlain by a compacted layer of shredded bark and other woody debris that accumulates over time and is crushed beneath the constant traffic of yard machinery. After being graded and sorted, raw logs are stored in piles to await processing, with little attempt to shield them from the often-substantial rains. Even in this fairly compact state, the wood will produce a toxic, extractive-laden leachate (Taylor et al. 1996). As the wood is processed into smaller and smaller pieces, their surface-area-to-volume ratio increases substantially, and this accelerates the rate at which the wood chemicals can be leached out. Prior to entering the main process train, any remaining bark and major surface irregularities on the logs are removed by a set of debarking machines. The stripped bark, which is especially rich in wood extractives (Rowe and Conner 1979), is usually disposed of in the same manner as the rest of the process waste. As the logs are split, sawn, and / or planed during the milling process, sawdust and trimmings are produced. Even with today's thinner saw blades, the amount of sawdust produced is substantial. What to do with this waste product is a challenge that has yet to be fully resolved. Open-air burning in beehive burners or unmodified silo burners is almost completely phased out as a legal option, due to associated air pollution, especially particulate matter Kevin Frankowski 9 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Leachate Generation at Wood Processing Sites (Waste Management Act 1996). Placing it in a municipal landfill is prohibitively expensive and not a popular option, as these landfills are attempting to conserve what limited space they still have left. Even using the material as a mulch on walking trails or in equestrian corrals is facing increased scrutiny as the effects of the leachate are being noticed on nearby vegetation. So far the most promising application seems to be using the wood waste as a fuel in electrical cogeneration incinerators, but to date there is only one approved incinerator in the whole province dedicated to using wood waste for this purpose (i.e., Prince George). Pulp mills often have cogeneration boilers into which wood waste can sometimes be fed, but the capacity of wood use in these boilers rarely exceeds the volume of wood waste produced by the mills themselves (Bob Beaty, personal communication). Some efforts have been made to develop other technologies to convert the waste wood into useful products (e.g., charcoal, activated carbon, compost and other soil amendments, cat litter), but no market / technology combination has yet emerged that can utilize the vast quantities of waste produced. In the meantime, the wood waste piles up. The wood waste consists of only a small portion of the total wood that enters the mills. Most of it exits as processed product and is transported to market. However, even at this stage there is the potential for leachate problems. Once again, much of the wood is transported in a manner which exposes it to precipitation. Loads of dimensional lumber are increasingly being wrapped before being transported, but this is not always practical for other products. Wood chips are sometimes transported in enclosed or covered trailers, but when they arrive at either the barge-loading facility or pulp mill, they are stored in large exposed piles (Figure 2.1). Cedar shakes and shingles are tied into bundles which are then stored in large open areas. In fact, Fi8ure 1 1 W o o d chiP barge-loading facility during the summer it is required to sprinkle the shake and shingle storage areas with water, to reduce the fire risk. This, of course, produces more leachate. Kevin Frankowski 10 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2.2 Leachate Control and Treatment Some wood processing facilities, in an attempt to reduce the toxicity of their runoff and prevent process chemicals such as antisapstain chemicals from entering nearby aquatic environments, covered certain sections of their work / storage areas with galvanized roofing to shield them from the rain. Unfortunately, the zinc which washed off the metals roofs increased the overall toxicity of the runoff (Bailey et al. 1999). How does one proceed when faced with a challenge such as this, where even seemingly benign materials such as metal roofing and untreated wood are contributing unacceptable levels of toxins to the receiving environment? As with other examples of pollution control, a three-step process is required. First, the contaminant(s) of concern need to be identified, and the sources elucidated. Secondly, the production of the contaminant(s) must be minimized as much as is practical. With regards to runoff and leachate, this means minimizing the infiltration of precipitation into storage and waste piles, and subsequently, the uncontrolled release into the groundwater and open aquatic environments. However, as illustrated by the galvanized roofing example, there is often a practical limit to the extent these measures can be taken before the net benefits become compromised. The final step is to implement a treatment technique appropriate for the remaining discharges. A l l three of these steps are necessary for the comprehensive and effective management of such a situation. As with other examples of nonpoint source pollution, capturing and controlling the problem as close to its generation site as possible will secure the greatest benefits, since it reduces both the exposure time and the exposure area of the pollutant(s) to the receiving environment. 2.2 Leachate Control and Treatment 2.2.1 Minimization Usually the most desirable pollution control measure is minimizing the generation of the waste in the first place (Davis and Cornwell 1998; Gardner 1997). Less generation means less ultimate treatment capacity is required. Since the primary raw material of leachate is infiltrating precipitation (and in some cases, groundwater), leachate Kevin Frankowski 11 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2.2 Leachate Control and Treatment minimization procedures are concerned with reducing this infiltration. In the simplest terms, this may involve covering the solid waste pile with plastic tarps (Gardner 1997; Triton 1993). Another option includes placing the solid waste under a roof or similar shelter (Davis and Cornwell 1998). Large municipal landfills and similar installations use a system of daily covers (usually soil, but occasionally plastic sheeting), followed by a sophisticated, multi-layer final cover that is designed not only to prevent infiltration, but also to control gas emissions and provide structural stability to the upper surface of the landfill (Passos et dl. 199>4; US EPA 1991b; US EPA 1993). 2.2.2 Collection Even with the most sophisticated of leachate minimization systems, some leachate will be produced. Moisture present in the waste may be liberated as the wastes undergo compaction and degradation; precipitation may enter the landfill during its active life (i.e., waste placement); and moisture may leak past the final cover barriers. Therefore it is necessary to install an adequate leachate collection system. Many variants exist, but they all follow the same basic premise: prevent infiltration of the leachate into the substrate below the solid waste (and ultimately into the groundwater), and provide some means of removing the accumulated leachate. Leachate infiltration into the substrate is controlled through the use of impermeable liners. These liners can be constructed of a variety of materials, including synthetic membranes (made of plastics such as PVC, HDPE, CPE, or E P D M , at least 30-60 mils thick); compacted clays (with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than l x l O 7 cm/s); or geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), which are a geosynthetic material impregnated with a layer of bentonite, or other low-conductivity clays (US EPA 1988a). It is not uncommon for an installation to use a combination of these materials in an effort to utilize of their various strengths and advantages. It is also becoming more common to include a leak detection system below the liners, to allow an appropriate response, should the containment system become compromised (Davis and Cornwell 1998; Millano and Hahn 1997; Schneck 1994; US EPA 1989). Figure 2.2 is a schematic of a typical installation. Kevin Frankowski 12 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW: STATE O F T H E T E C H N O L O G Y 2.2 Leachate Control and Treatment Figure 2.2 Schematic of multi-layer municipal landifll liner system (not to scale; adapted from US EPA 1988a) Since the liner system is relatively impermeable, leachate migrating downward will accumulate above it. In order to prevent the liner from being subjected to excessive hydraulic pressures, a drainage system is installed between the solid waste and the liners. This can be accomplished by a layer of course gravel, synthetic geogrid drainage tiles, or a network of perforated drainage pipes supported within a layer of coarse sand. It is usually necessary to provide a protective layer between the underdrain system and the bottom of the solid waste, to prevent any physical damage from occurring during waste placement or compaction. This is often done by placing a permeable geotexile over the drainage system and then a layer of sand (US EPA 1993). Regardless of its construction, this drainage layer should posses a hydraulic conductivity of greater than l x l O 2 cm/s (US EPA 1993). By sloping the drainage layer (> 2%), the leachate moves through it to predetermined collection points along the outside edge of the landfill. From here the leachate is conducted to a treatment system. 2.2.3 Standard treatment techniques The choice of leachate treatment techniques depends primarily upon what substance(s) are to be removed from the leachate, the target effluent concentrations, and what facilities are available or feasible for that locale. Additional considerations include the volume of leachate requiring treatment, its flow characteristics (i.e., intensity of variations on a seasonal, diurnal, etc., basis), whether any of the leachate's characteristics (e.g., low alkalinity; lack of biodegradable carbon; toxicity) make it incompatible with specific treatment methods, and what the local design experience / preferences may be. Kevin Frankowski 13 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 L ITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF T H E T E C H N O L O G Y 2.2 Leachate Control and Treatment Much of the existing leachate treatment experience is from municipal landfill systems. Leachate from these landfills often has high levels of BOD, COD, nitrogenous compounds and various metals (Table 2.1) (Diamadopoulos et ol. 1997; Gettinby et al. 1996; Horan et al. 1997; Robinson 1999; Stroshein and Fryklind 1996). Its pH is usually acidic and insufficient alkalinity can be a problem. The primary treatment objectives are usually BOD and COD reduction, and eventual conversion of the nitrogenous compounds to nitrogen gas. It may be necessary to adjust the pH and supplement the alkalinity, but Table 2.1 Range of composition measured in municipal landfill leachates Parameter Concentration pH 3.7 - 11.5 conductivity [uS/cm] 960 - 16 800 alkalinity (as CaC0 3) 0 - 22 800 hardness (as CaCC"3) 500 - 22 800 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5) 11 - 57 000 chemical oxygen demand (COD) 20 - 750 000 total suspended solids (TSS) 10 - 700 total dissolved solids (TDS) 590 - 45 000 ammoniacal -N 1 - 1700 nitrate -N < 0.1 - 50 nitrite -N < 0.3 -25 ortho-phosphate -P < 0.5 - 154 metals: Al 1.5 - 2.7 As 0.0006 - 1.6 Ca 10 - 7200 Cu < 0.005 -9.9 Cd 0.0005 - 17 Fe < 0.5 - 2820 Pb 0.002 - 12.3 Ni 0.01 - 130 Zn < 0.1 - 370 Toxicity2 > 0.064 % - >100% NOTES 1. All values reported in mg/L, unless otherwise noted. 2. Acute toxicity, reported as 96hr LC 5o Sources: Andreottola and Cannas 1992; Diamadopoulos et al. 1997; Gettinby et al. 1996; Horan et al. 1997; Kristensen 1992; Lu et al. 1985; Robinson 1999; Stroshein and Fryklind 1996; Tchobanoglous et al. 1993 Kevin Frankowski 14 U B C C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2.2 Leachate Control and Treatment this is usually a simple matter of dosing the influent with slaked lime (Ca(OH)2), soda ash (Na 2C0 3) or caustic soda (NaOH). Lime addition can also be used to precipitate some of the dissolved metals (Horan et dl. 1997). Some of the more common treatment methods are activated-sludge reactors, oxidation ditches, trickling filters, sequencing batch reactors (SBRs), rotating biological contactors (RBCs), membrane bioreactors, activated carbon absorption and wet-air oxidation (Diamadopoulos et al. 1997; Dollerer and Wilderer 1996; Ehrig and Stegmann 1987; Horan et al. 1997; Ince 1998; Peters 1996; Robinson 1999; Shams and Brockway 1994; Steensen 1997; Weber and Holtz 1987). With the exception of advanced chemical oxidation and activated carbon, they are all adaptations of standard domestic wastewater treatment techniques. In fact, in situations where the volume of leachate is small relative to total plant inflow (< 5%), it may be acceptable practice to pump the untreated leachate directly into the municipal domestic wastewater treatment plant (Diamadopoulos et al. 1997; Wreford 1995). With stronger leachates, the biological processes may suffer toxicity from elevated concentrations of leachate components such as metals or certain organics (Manoharan et al. 1992; McArdle et al. 1988), in which case, process adaptations or an alternative treatment technique are needed. Many of the treatment techniques (e.g., activated carbon, wet-air oxidation) have substantial unit operating costs (McArdle et al. 1988). Leachate from mine tailings and other waste rock is another area that has received a considerable amount of attention. This leachate is typified by high levels of dissolved metals (Cu, Pb, Cd, As and Zn being the most deleterious), often accompanied with very low pH levels (< 3.0) (Knapp 1987; Makos and Hrncir 1995; Paine 1987). Due to the acute toxicity of these metals and the low pH levels, the traditional treatment technologies used for municipal landfill leachate often suffer excessive microbe fatality and are rendered ineffective. Other techniques need to be employed. One technique is to use lime addition as a pretreatment for pH adjustment and precipitation of the dissolved Kevin Frankowski 15 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W : S T A T E O F T H E T E C H N O L O G Y 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems metals (Vachon et al. 1987). Other options include using bioreactors containing populations of alkali-generating microbes, such as iron-reducing or sulphate-reducing bacteria (Kalin et al. 1991), or using a variety of constructed wetland treatment systems, which are more tolerant of the extreme pH and metals content. They employ a suite of aerobic and anaerobic mechanisms to remove the metals from the wastewater and are able to moderate the pH (Eger 1994; Frandsen and Gammons 1999; Karathanasis and Thompson 1993; Pantano et al. 1999; Thomas et al. 1999). 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems 2.3.1 Basic features and design premises Constructed wetland treatment systems operate on the premise that certain features of natural wetlands are capable of removing contaminants from water and that these features can be replicated and optimized in an artificial wetland constructed solely for the purpose of treating wastewater. A constructed wetland mimics its natural counterpart in many respects, including the presence of aquatic vegetation, saturated (anaerobic) soils, and quiescent flow of water either through a soil or gravel substrate (i.e., subsurface-flow wetlands) or through vegetation stalks and root mats on the surface of the soil substrate (surface-flow wetlands). However, in contrast to natural systems, a constructed wetland is usually well-delineated and has a more regular shape, which allows a more predictable and controllable flow regime. In addition, in order to properly contain the wastewater and provide better control over its hydrology, constructed wetlands are usually lined with impermeable geosynthetics, although properly engineered clay liners can also be used i f no chemical incompatibilities exist with the wastewater constituents. Water depth is typically between 20 - 80 cm. Removal of particulate matter (and any associated compounds) is achieved through settling, as a result of the quiescent flow conditions present throughout the whole system. Nutrient removal (i.e., N H 4 + , N0 3 ", P 0 4 3 ) is achieved as a result of microbial Kevin Frankowski 16 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF T H E T E C H N O L O G Y 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems communities utilizing the nutrients to meet their metabolic requirements, and thus there is usually no buildup of these compounds within the system. Similar metabolic fates await biodegradable fractions such as BOD and certain classes of organic compounds (Ellis et al. 1994). Inorganic constituents such as metals are immobilized through a combination of reductive and oxidative chemical reactions, many of which are microbially-mediated (Eger 1994). In most cases, the macrophyte vegetation does not take up a significant amount of nutrients, organic pollutants, or metals (Albers and Camardese 1993a; Albers and Camardese 1993b; Cacadorefa/. 1996; Keller et al. 1998; Lacki et al. 1992; Mungur et al. 1997; Reed et al. 1995), but nevertheless it does play an important role in ensuring that the other components within the system are able to perform their removal functions efficiently. The primary roles of the macrophytes are to provide a physical structure for the microbial communities to adhere to, to act as a supplementary carbon source for these communities, to provide a supply of detrital organic matter (the humic material is required for various complexing reactions), and to create aerobic microenvironments in the vicinity of their roots (Cacador et al. 1996; Hammer 1997; Otte et al. 1995; Van den Berg 1998). Due to the saturated nature of wetland soils, the substrates usually have too little oxygen in them to support the growth of rooted vegetation without some provision for oxygen transport. Wetland plants overcome this oxygen deficiency in the substrate by developing extensive internal lacunae or aernchyma, which are networks of tubular channels, the function of which is to transport oxygen down to the root system and remove any gaseous respiratory by-products back up to the atmosphere (Hammer 1997). The net effect of this gas transport system is that the root network of the plant is aerobic, while the surrounding bulk sediment is generally anaerobic. Due to diffusion of oxygen out of the root tissues, a thin layer of aerobic sediment forms around each root fibre (the rhizosphere) (Armstrong et al. 1990; Hammer 1997; Otte et al. 1995). This rhizosphere is a very important contributor to the efficiency and adaptability of constructed wetland treatment systems. Kevin Frankowski 17 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems 2.3.2 Scope of contaminant targets Since microbial populations are the source of many of the actual removal mechanisms, the range of possible contaminant sources that constructed wetland systems can be used for is quite broad. Domestic wastewater, agricultural effluent (swine, poultry and cattle feedlots; dairy wash water), wineries, food processing effluent, greenhouse effluent, aquaculture discharges, agricultural non-point source runoff, contaminated groundwater, mine drainage, municipal landfill leachate, military / industrial chemical sites, petrochemical facilities, textile (dye) wastewaters, pulp mill effluents, and urban stormwater runoff have all been successfully treated with constructed wetlands (Best et al. 1999; Burgoon et al. 1999; Crites et al. 1988; Davies and Cottingham 1994; Eger 1994; Ellis et al. 1994; Johnson et al. 1999; Karpiscak et al. 1999; Kemp and George 1997; Knight et al. 1999; Kowalik et al. 1998; Loer et al. 1997; Maddox and Kingsley 1989; Mitchell et al. 1990; Prystay 1997; Raisin et al. 1997; Rochfort et al. 1997; Sakadevan and Bavor 1999; Sands et al. 1999; Sansanayuth et al. 1996; Scholes et al. 1998; Sikora et al. 1997; Simi and Mitchell 1999; Tanner et al. 1995; Thut 1989; US EPA 1988b). The contaminants of concern ranged from heavy loadings of conventional pollutants such as suspended solids, BOD, COD, pathogens, and nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) to more severe pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides, acids, heavy metals, complex organics, crude petroleums, explosives residuals, chlorinated VOCs (volatile organic compounds), solvents, and hydrocarbons (Chong et al. 1999; Crites et al. 1997; Davies and Cottingham 1994; Davis 1995; Eger 1994; Johnson et al. 1999; Knight et al. 1999; Mitchell et al. 1990; Moore et al. 1999; Pardue et al. 1999; Scholes et al. 1998; Sikora et al. 1997; Tanner et al. 1995; Zoh and Home 1999). In fact, as long as there exists a mesophilic microbial consortia which is capable of metabolizing / immobilizing a specific contaminant (or class of contaminants), there is a good chance that a constructed wetland system will be an effective treatment. This is because the wetland environment hosts all three types of microbial communities, aerobic, Kevin Frankowski 18 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W : S T A T E O F T H E T E C H N O L O G Y 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems anaerobic and facultative, usually within close proximity to one another. As long as their temperature, electron acceptor and nutritional requirements are met, most microbes have the capability to live within a wetland environment. The remaining task is to adjust the system's ecology in order to optimize the presence and functioning of the specific organisms which are performing the desired task. 2.3.3 System effectiveness and constraints Common removal efficiencies reported for properly operating constructed wetlands range from 75% to >99% for the full range of contaminants targeted (Adcock et al. 1999; Cooper 1999; Maeseneer and Cooper 1997; Makos and Hrncir 1995; Mungur et al. 1997; Tanner et al. 1995). While loading rates will depend upon the nature of the wastewater, rates as high as 512 lb BOD5/acre/day [574 kg/ha/day] (with maintained removal rates of >90%) have been reported (Behrends et al. 1999). As with other treatment technologies, much depends upon ensuring that the system is designed properly and is being used as intended. The major advantages that are commonly cited for constructed wetlands include reduced costs and simpler operations and maintenance (Denny 1997; Haberl 1999; Mitchell et al. 1990). While costs will vary with locale, constructed wetlands are typically half to one-tenth the cost of conventional water treatment systems, with some of this cost allocated for land acquisition (Kadlec and Knight 1996). Imaginative design can often reduce this cost even further by making use of marginal land along development edges and other existing corridors. Unlike mechanical systems, constructed wetlands have estimated design lives of 30 - 100+ years (Kadlec and Knight 1996; Webb et al. 1998). Their maintenance requirements are minimal, largely related to ensuring that the physical infrastructure is functioning as intended (e.g., inlet and outlet weirs) and, with proper design and construction, little remedial action is expected (Hammer 1997). Since their primary energy source is the sun, with water movement usually supplied by gravity (Hammer 1997; Kadlec 1999), constructed wetlands can be designed with little or Kevin Frankowski 19 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W : S T A T E O F T H E T E C H N O L O G Y 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems no need for additional sources of energy. Little or no chemical addition is required by this passive mode of treatment. By-products such as sludges, precipitates, or spent absorbents are rarely produced by wetland systems, thereby eliminating the need for costly handling procedures (Batchelor and Loots 1997; Reed et al. 1995). A major functional advantage that constructed wetlands have over most other treatment techniques is the intentional coexistence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions within the same reactor basin. The heterogeneous distribution of fine macrophyte root hairs within the bulk sediment ensures that there is a rich and complex distribution of aerobic rhizospheres within the anaerobic sediment. This patchwork facilitates those reaction cascades which need to switch between oxidative and reductive environments (e.g., conversion of ammonia to elemental nitrogen) (Hammer and Bastian 1989; Xue et al. 1999). Since constructed wetlands are analogues of an ecotone environment, a certain amount of disturbance is necessary for their maintenance and proper functioning (Hammer and Bastian 1989). This makes them ideally suited for applications with dynamic flow rates, such as leachate and stormwater runoff management (Bastian and Hammer 1993; Kadlec and Knight 1996). Another capacity that they serve in the landscape is the dampening and desynchronization of hydraulic shock loads to aquatic receiving environments. The primary complaint directed against constructed wetlands is the fact that they require a large area, or "footprint", per unit of treatment. The need for lower throughput or loading rates, compared to conventional systems, has also been a concern in the past, although this is becoming less of a concern with some of the more efficient systems that have been developed lately (Behrends et al. 1999; Cooper 1999). A more subtle constraint is the fact that constructed wetlands are complex systems and therefore an in-depth knowledge of system ecology and a solid understanding of expected wastewater characteristics are necessary if proper design is going to be achieved and result in an effective facility which is easy to maintain and operate. It must be realized that this is a developing technology and therefore our knowledge and experience concerning certain aspects may be limited. The only way to overcome this is to design, build and operate Kevin Frankowski 20 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF T H E TECHNOLOGY 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems more of these systems in a disciplined manner, and thus gain the necessary experience to improve future designs. It is important to realize that constructed wetland treatment systems are not the pollution control panacea that some promoters bill them. As with any other technology, they have applications for which they are suited and they rely upon proper design and application of their inherent features in order to deliver effective performance. If designed and operated properly, they can be an efficient and reliable treatment means for a large variety of contaminants. Since constructed wetlands harness some of the many reactions that take place within intricate natural wetland ecosystems, they themselves are very complex systems. Much research and operating experience needs to be accumulated before we can understand the full capabilities of these systems. Therefore, it is a mistake to quickly group "constructed wetlands" together as a minor footnote in a description of modern water treatment technologies. There may be as much difference between the design and operation of a constructed wetland system treating acid mine drainage and a constructed wetland system removing nitrates from groundwater as there are differences between an activated sludge treatment system and an SBR plant. Closer attention to the design premises, operating conditions, and performance results will yield a better understanding of the full scope of solutions that constructed wetland systems can offer to the environmental engineering profession. This better understanding will lead to more rigorous designs, which will lead to improved performance and an increase in mechanistic knowledge, which in turn will allow this technology to be employed with more precision and confidence. It would be suboptimum engineering i f we failed to make use of such a versatile and powerful tool which is so well suited for many of the environmental contamination challenges that we are currently facing. 2.3.4 Distribution and use of the technology Constructed wetland treatment systems have been in limited use since at least the 1910's (Hiley 1990). Using natural wetlands for waste treatment and disposal, a practice that is Kevin Frankowski 21 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2.3 Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems no longer endorsed, goes back for as long as sewage has been collected (Kadlec and Knight 1996). However, it is only within the last 20-30 years that constructed wetland treatment systems have received the attention of a large number of researchers and a formal body of knowledge on their design and operation has begun to develop (Cole 1998; Haberl 1999). Currently over 500 constructed wetlands treatment systems are in use in Europe and more than 600 in the United States (Cole 1998). Their application in developing nations is increasing as the cost and versatility benefits are being recognized (Haberl 1999). Today they are being used throughout the world, from the tropics (Braungart et al. 1997; Polprasert et al. 1996) to the arctic (Jokela and Pinks 1998, Pries 1994). With the necessary design modifications, they are proving to be useful in an extremely wide range of conditions. Freshwater, estuarine, and saltwater systems all have their own features which make them appropriate for specific applications (Cacador et al. 1996; Chu et al. 1998; Reed et al. 1995). They have been used by single cottages and large towns (Burgan and Sievers 1994; Schoenerkle et al. 1997). They have solved waste management problems for modern chemical plants and rural villages in developing nations (Haberl 1999; Sands et al. 1999). In Europe it is not uncommon to use them as an integral component of a treatment plant which contains more conventional unit processes such as RBCs or SBRs (Griffin et al. 1999; Robinson 1999). No mention has been found in the literature of constructed wetland systems being used to treat wood leachate, but two other sites in western Canada are known to be currently developing systems for industrial use; Chemainus, BC and Drayton Valley, Alberta; both are Weyerhaeuser mills (EnviroLink Newsletter, October 1999; Mike Woods, personal communication). Kevin Frankowski 22 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 3.0 RESEARCH SITE ACQUISITION & STARTUP 3.1 Justification of Research Focus As described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, the exisiting leachate containment and collection technology was sufficiently established to address the current needs of the forest industry. Leachate treatment technologies also existed, but they failed to adequately meet the needs of the forest products industry, especially the smaller processors, specifically with regards to design objectives such as those outlined in Section 1.4 (i.e., Objectives B . l to B.3). Constructed wetlands were selected as an appropriate technology for evaluation based upon their performance in other applications. Their ability to treat a wide range of contaminants beyond the conventional targets (e.g., BOD, TSS, nutrients, pathogens), combined with their reputation for inexpensive, robust and efficient operations, gave them the greatest potential for meeting both the performance and the design objectives stated for this research. 3.2 Site Acquisition and Legalities Once the research was refined to the point of selecting constructed wetlands as the technology for further evaluation, it was necessary to acquire a research site and a source of wood leachate. After several months of inquiry, a research site was eventually located in October 1997 and permission was secured from the landowners, Steve and John Wynnyk, in conjunction with Jack Davidson of the BC Shake and Shingle Association, to conduct research on a cedar processing site. Shortly thereafter it was learned that litigation concerning activities at that site was potentially imminent and that the research activities may have been viewed as constituting an involvement in these activities. The basic issue of the potential litigation surrounded the release of the toxic leachate into the environment (which contravened the Waste Management Act) and the fact that a pool of the leachate had collected in a Kevin Frankowski 23 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 3.0 R E S E A R C H SITE ACQUISITION & STARTUP 3.3 Project Site Description commercial cotton wood plantation on the adjacent property. Three months were spent garnering agreements from the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the various other stakeholders, which established that my activities were not party to the previous activities at that site, and therefore, that neither I nor the University of British Columbia could be identified as a member of the liable parties (see Appendix A for the agreements of exclusion of liability). As part of this agreement, it was stipulated that all experimental wetland cells built at the site would be lined with impermeable liners, and that all effluent produced by these treatment wetlands would be collected and pumped back onto the cedar wood waste pile, thereby constituting a "recycle onto the work site", and not a "discharge to the environment". 3.3 Project Site Description 3.3.1 Location and Current Conditions The study site was located near Mission, British Columbia, 75 kilometres east of Vancouver, B C , Canada. This area was characterized by a marine coastal climate with CHESTER STREET :X. ^ ^ * ^ AGRICULTURAL FIELDS SLOUGH PROPERTY LINE • z m \ I1 WETLAND CELLS >. DOSING TANK , v *{ , ' v LEACHATE POOL , " ? " \ j * " O w . -- WOOD MILLS LSON STREET U "N^  MATSQUI ISLAND . SCALE 100 m Figure 3.1 General plan of study site Kevin Frankowski 24 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 3.0 RESEARCH SITE ACQUISITION & STARTUP 3.3 Project Site Description mild, wet winters and cool, drier summers. Mean daily temperatures ranged between 18°C in July to 2°C in January (Environment Canada 1982). The area was a rural setting, with several small wood processing mills (mostly cedar shake and shingle mills) located along a narrow belt on the north bank of the Fraser River (Figure 3.1). Located on 4.1 hectares, the study site had a large pile (approximately 170 m in diameter and over 20 m high) of miscellaneous untreated cedar wood waste. It ranged from sawdust and chips, to bark and off-specification shakes and shingles, and is referred to by the wood processing industry as 'hog fuel'. Since the cedar hog fuel pile (the Pile) was exposed to the elements, substantial amounts of precipitation fell upon it (approximately 1630 mm annually, with 70% occurring during October - March; Triton, 1993). Due to its absorbent nature, most of the precipitation that fell on the Pile leached through. A pool of leachate, approximately 20 m by 70 m, had formed on the west side of the Pile and extended onto the adjacent property (Figure 3.1). The leachate was very dark in colour and often had patches of fine white bubbles visible on its surface. A very strong, rank smell emanated from the leachate pool. There were numerous dead trees standing throughout the pool (Figure 3.2) Figure 3.2 Cedar leachate pool, viewed from top of hog fuel pile {note the author standing beside the pool} Due to the Pile's proximity to the Fraser River (-60 m), there was concern about the effects of this leachate entering the river, which is British Columbia's most important salmon river (Fraser 1995). Directly underlying the pile was a natural aquitard consisting of silt and clay, ranging from 0.9 to 4.1 m deep. Beneath this aquitard were two aquifers, consisting predominantly of sand and sandy-clay. The top aquifer was thin and discontinuous; the lower one was at least 6.0 m thick throughout the site (Triton 1993). Kevin Frankowski 25 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 3.0 R E S E A R C H SITE ACQUISITION & STARTUP 3.3 Project Site Description Given the site's precipitation patterns and the size of the pile, Triton (1993) calculated a hydrologic mass balance for the pile and determined that approximately 23 000 m3 of leachate were produced on an annual basis. Of this total volume, it was estimated that about 1 000 m 3 entered the leachate pool and then infiltrated into the ground. The remaining 22 000 m3/yr penetrated the relatively thin aquitard beneath the pile and entered the aquifers. Aside from when the Fraser River flooded, no overland drainage was observed from either the leachate pool or the Pile. 3.3.2 Ownership and History The area was under private ownership and parcels were leased to the various small independent wood processing facilities (Figures 3.1 and 3.3). The Pile, which was located at the west end of this stretch of mills, was started in a natural depression at the end of the property. Since few legal disposal options currently exist in BC for hog fuel, several of the small mills in the local area decided to pool their cedar wood waste in an effort to gain a sufficient quantity to enable them to either sell it as fuel to electrical cogeneration facilities or use it as a raw material for some other industrial process (e.g., charcoal production). Unfortunately, none of these enterprises were realized and the large hog fuel Pile persisted. Finally in 1999, a pulp mill in Powell River agreed to accept the cedar and burn it, along with other fuel, in their cogeneration boiler The hog fuel was then being delivered to the pulp mill via barge on an "as-requested" basis. Figure 3.3 Cedar shake and shingle mills alongside the Fraser River (looking east from top of the Pile) Kevin Frankowski 26 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 CEDAR LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION 4.1 Introduction Between October 1997 and December 1999, samples were periodically obtained from the cedar leachate pool and subjected to both chemical and ecotoxicological characterization. The chemical analysis work was conducted in the Environmental Laboratory of the Department of Civi l Engineering at the University of British Columbia. Ecotoxicological analysis was supported by EVS Environment Consultants of North Vancouver, B C , who provided me with access to the facilities in their toxicology laboratory. 4.2 Methods and Materials 4.2.1 Sampling Protocols Accepted standard sampling protocols were followed for all sampling trips. Surface grab samples of the cedar leachate were taken as needed from the east bank of the leachate pool, adjacent to the side of the Pile (Figures 3.1). Due to site and legal constraints, the pool was only accessible from this location. Sufficient sample volumes were collected in appropriate pre-cleaned containers to meet the needs of the analyses (Table 4.1). Each sample container was rinsed twice with sample prior to filling. Every attempt was made to collect samples with a minimum of disturbance to the sampling location. In an effort to collect representative samples, any floating debris or surface films were avoided. A l l samples were labelled and their temperature and other parameters of interest recorded, (e.g., pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductivity). The samples were preserved as appropriate (Table 4.1) and transported immediately, without any head space. Blanks were utilized as needed. Laboratory storage was at 4°C, in the dark. A l l analyses were conducted as soon as was possible, within the holding times recommended by the various test protocols (Table 4.1). Kevin Frankowski 27 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.2 Methods and Materials Table 4.1 Sample collection, preservation and storage specifications Analysis Field temperature, pH, DO, conductivity Physical solids colour Chemical Minimum Sample Volume 50 mL 200 mL 500 mL Container Preservation HDPE1 HDPE refrigerate2 refrigerate Max. Holding Time 1 days 48 hours acidity / alkalinity 200 mL HDPE refrigerate 24 hours hardness & total metals 500 mL HDPE (A)3 nitric acid to pH < 2 6 months carbon (organic & total) 100 mL Glass sulphuric acid to pH < 2 & refrigerate 7 days ammonia (NH3 -N) 500 mL HDPE sulphuric acid to pH < 2 & refrigerate 7 days nitrate + nitrite (NOx"-N) 200 mL HDPE sulphuric acid to pH < 2 & refrigerate 2 days ortho-phosphate (P043 -P) 100 mL HDPE sulphuric acid to pH < 2 & refrigerate 28 days chemical oxygen demand (COD) 100 mL HDPE refrigerate, analyze as soon as possible 2% phosphoric acid (1 drop per mL)4 7 days volatile fatty acids (VFAs) 50 mL Glass 7 days tannins and lignins 500 mL HDPE refrigerate, analyze as soon as possible 7 days Biological biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 1 L HDPE refrigerate toxicity (rainbow trout 96hr LC50) 40 L HDPE refrigerate NOTES 1. HDPE = high density polyethylene plastic 2. refrigeration was in the dark at 4°C 3. HDPE (A) = acid-washed HDPE container (nitric acid) 4. as per Supelco, Inc. GC Bulletin 751G Sources: APHA (1995); Environment Canada (1990) 6 hours 5 days 4.2.2 Analysis protocols Standard analysis protocols were followed in all cases (see Table 4.2 for specifics). The field parameters (i.e., temperature, DO, pH, specific conductivity) were measured in situ with the appropriate meters (Table 4.2). The acute toxicity of the cedar leachate was evaluated using the standard rainbow trout 96-hour L C 5 0 procedure (Environment Canada 1990). In essence, a series of dilutions are prepared from the sample and 10 rainbow trout {Oncorhynchus mykiss) juveniles are exposed to each sample dilution for a period of 96-hours (under standard conditions of temperature, DO, etc.). By observing how many mortalities occur in which concentrations, a calculation can be performed to determine the concentration at which 50% of the exposed test organisms will die within the 96-hour period. This "lethal concentration" is reported as the L C 5 0 . Kevin Frankowski 28 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 CEDAR LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION 4.2 Methods and Materials All other laboratory analyses were performed using the standard methodologies noted in Table 4.2. Hardness was calculated from the ICP measurements of total calcium and magnesium, as per Standard Methods (APHA 1995), because the leachate was too highly coloured to be able to see the visual titration endpoint indicators. The colorimetric analyses for COD and tannin and lignin were not affected by the colour of the raw leachate because in order to bring these values within the range of these two tests, sufficient dilutions were required which rendered the test solutions essentially colourless. Spectral response of the raw leachate was determined by spectrophotometer scans (190 -820 nm), using a Spectronic Unicam UV300 UV-visible spectrophotometer. Leachate samples were diluted with distilled water as necessary to bring them within instrument range and the results were later corrected for this dilution factor. Data was downloaded to diskette and processed using Microsoft Excel. When presenting results, it is often desirable to make comparisons to standard or "typical" situations in order to provide a context for interpretation. Unfortunately, making comparisons between different leachates is fraught with uncertainty, since their compositions vary so widely (Table 2.1). Waste composition in municipal landfills differs greatly between locales, and this affects the leachate composition. Other influences such as rainfall, temperature, and landfill operating practices also play a role (Tchobanoglous et al. 1993). As a result, there is not a "typical" composition for municipal landfill leachate. Much less information is available for wood leachates, which in itself makes defining a "typical" wood leachate difficult. However, wood leachates also vary widely in their composition, although to a somewhat lesser extent than municipal landfill leachates (Cameron 1982; Schermer and Phipps 1976; Slagel 1976; Thomas 1977). Composition will depend upon a number of factors such as wood species, which parts of the tree are exposed (i.e., bark versus sapwood) and how finely divided the wood is (i.e., surface-area-to-volume ratio). For some parameters, conditions such as ambient pH or landfill age are important, yet these are not always reported. Kevin Frankowski 29 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 CEDAR LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION 4.3 Results and Discussion Therefore leachates usually do not provide a very useful baseline for comparison. In this report illustrative comparisons will be made between the cedar leachate and other leachates where possible. However, in an effort to provide a more meaningful context, domestic wastewater (i.e., raw sewage) will more often be used as a base of comparison. Although domestic wastewater and wood leachate have completely different sources, there are several reasons why this is still a meaningful comparison. Firstly, although domestic sewage will vary in composition with time and location, the range of this variation in much less than the range of compositional variation observed in leachates. Thus, it is possible to define a "typical" domestic wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). Secondly, a vast amount of experience has been accumulated in the characterization and treatment of domestic wastewater. Numerous environmental discharge regulations have their roots in mitigating the effects of sewage on receiving environments. Finally, many of the leachate treatment techniques are adapted from standard domestic wastewater treatment processes. This inherent commonality with domestic sewage allows it to be used as a solid base from which to compare other wastewaters and make predictions regarding their possible effects on receiving environments. It needs to be remembered, of course, that there are fundamental differences between domestic sewage and industrial wastewaters and that comparing them is not equivalent to equating them. 4.3 Results and Discussion 4.3.1 Physical parameters In addition to its dark appearance and strong smell, the leachate which collected in the pool at the base of the Pile was characterized by a very consistent set of physical parameters. Observations were conducted for more than two years and only slight variations where observed in the various aspects being monitored. No obviously discernible seasonal patterns were observed. While only assessed qualitatively, such characteristics as odour, visual appearance of the leachate, and pool size did not change appreciably over the duration of the project (with the exception of the general flooding which occurred, due to the Fraser River inundating the area during the summer of 1999 -Kevin Frankowski 30 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 CEDAR LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION 4.3 Results and Discussion Table 4.2 Cedar leachate characterization data Parameter Units Average Std. Dev n Methodology Field temperature (ambient) "C 13.0 3.0 1 probe: YSI Model 55 DO Meter dissolved oxygen (ambient) mg/L 0.4 0.1 1 probe: YSI Model 55 (air-calibrated) pH (ambient) - 3.56 0.16 7 probe: Orion Model 230A pH meter specific conductivity uS/cm 903 237 6 probe: YSI Model 33 SCT Meter Physical pH (at saturated DO) - 3.8 n/a 1 gentle aeration, monitored by pH & DO probes Solids: - - - - -Settlable mL/L < 0.5 n/a 1 Std Mthd1 : # 2540F Total mg/L 6552 n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2540B Fixed (total) mg/L 960 n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2540E Volatile (total) mg/L 5592 n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2540E TSS (Total Suspended Solids) mg/L 21 16 9 Std Mthd: # 2540D Fixed (suspended) mg/L 9 10 9 Std Mthd: # 2540E Volatile (suspended) mg/L 12 11 9 Std Mthd: # 2540E TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) mg/L 6508 n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2540C Fixed (dissolved) mg/L 955 n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2540E Volatile (dissolved) mg/L 5553 n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2540E Colour: - - - - -Apparent (at ambient pH) APHA C U : 1000 n/a 1 visual comparison (Helige aqua-tester) True (at ambient pH) APHA CU 1000 n/a 1 filtered (0.45um), then Helige aqua-tester True (at pH >8.5) APHA CU 20000 n/a 1 filtered (0.45um), then Helige aqua-tester Chemical alkalinity (as CaC03) mg/L 0 acidity (as CaC03) mg/L 2651 hardness (as CaC03) mg/L 387 total metals: - -aluminum mg/L 19 calcium mg/L 83 copper mg/L < 0.1 iron mg/L 75 magnesium mg/L 44 nickel mg/L < 0.1 lead mg/L < 0.4 zinc mg/L 0.4 dissolved organic carbon (DOC) mg/L 3800 dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) mg/L < 0.1 ammonia (NH 3 -N) mg/L 0.96 nitrate + nitrite (NOx"-N) mg/L 0.17 ortho-phosphate (PO 4 3' -P) mg/L 3.24 total phosphorus mg/L 4.0 chemical oxygen demand (COD) mg/L 14116 volatile fatty acids (VFAs), C 2 - C 6 mg/L 1673.7 tannins and lignins (as tannic acid) mg/L 2874.4 n/a n/a (because pH < 4.5) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2310B (pH titration) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 2340B (calculated) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan3) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 5310B (NDIR detector4) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 5310B (NDIR detector) 0.82 7 Lachat Quik-Chem5 (Method #10-107-06-01) 0.22 7 Lachat Quik-Chem (Method #10-107-04-01) 0.73 8 Lachat Quik-Chem (Method #10-115-01-01) n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 3120B (ICP scan) 4074 8 Std Mthd: # 5220D (closed reflux) 492.4 7 G C 6 re; Supelco, Inc. GC Bulletin 751G 742.7 9 Std Mthd: # 5550B (colorimetric) Biological biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5) mg/L biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5) mg/L toxicity (adjusted to pH = 4.5 - 5.0) % v/v 3110 n/a 1 Std Mthd: # 5210B; unseeded 5555 1847 9 Std Mthd: # 5210B; seeded7 1.4 1.0 7 Rainbow trout 96hr LC508 NOTES 1. Std Mthd = Standard Methods (APHA 1995) 2. APHA CU = APHA colour units 3. ICP = inductively coupled spectrometer 4. NDIR = non-dispresive infrared (Model used = Shimadzu TOC-500) 5. Lachat Quik-Chem 8000 automated flow-injection ion analyzer 6. GC = gas chromatograph (Model used = HPGC 5880A) 7. BOD seed = 0.1 g of pool-side soil per 300 mL BOD bottle 8. L C 5 0 = lethal concentration which causes mortality in 50% of test organisms Kevin Frankowski 31 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion once the floodwaters receded, conditions returned to what they had been previously). The physical parameters which were measured did not exhibit large variations either (Table 4.2). The pH of leachate in the pool was consistently around 3.5, which places it at the lower extreme of the range observed for municipal landfill leachates (Table 2.1). Even in the middle of winter, the cedar leachate was fairly warm (13°C), presumably heated by the composting occurring within Pile. The level of dissolved oxygen present in the pool was consistently less than the DO meter could reliably measure (i.e., <1 mg/L). Compared to untreated domestic wastewater, the leachate contained a very high level of TDS and a very low level of TSS (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). Over 99% of the solids present in the leachate were dissolved solids and 85% were dissolved volatile solids (i.e., soluble organic compounds) (Table 4.2). In the context of water treatment, "solids" are defined as any matter, other than water, which is present in the liquid. In practice, this means all materials not having a significant vapour pressure (i.e., nonvolatile) when heated to 103 - 105°C, since these materials are lost during the analysis procedure (Sawyer et al. 1994). Thus, the vast majority of the contaminants present in this leachate were in a soluble form. This was reflected in other parameters such as specific conductivity. Even the colour was caused by soluble compounds, as shown by comparing the "apparent" and "true" colour values (Table 4.2). Unfortunately, this lack of suspended solids meant that very little treatment would be achieved through the use of flocculation / settling. In essence, any suspended solids which did seep out of the Pile had already been removed in the leachate pool, which acted as a settling pond, and the leachate was left with its soluble contaminants. The leachate was highly coloured (Table 4.2), and the colour exhibited the interesting property of being strongly pH-dependent (Figures 4.1 and 4.2), which suggested that it was largely due to some form of weak acid which, as pH changed, caused a shift in its protonation, and therefore its spectral properties. Considering the leachate's source and appearance, these acids were presumably similar to some of the highly-coloured, organic acids found in pulp mill effluent. Kevin Frankowski 32 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion While these organic acids represent a diverse, and to some extent, still unknown group of compounds, their colour, or more precisely, their spectral properties can sometimes be used to characterize them and gain some understanding about their composition. Since specific functional groups on molecules will have certain spectral responses, spectroscopy can be used as an identification tool. The presence of absorbance peaks Figure 4.1 Intensity of cedar leachate colour over a pH range at specific wavelengths is indicative of specific compounds or functional groups (Dyer 1965). The intensity of the absorbance is governed by the concentration of those compounds. (This premise is the foundation of all colorimetric analyses, including the Standard Methods for COD and tannin and lignin.) Spectrophotometer scans of the raw leachate gave very consistent results, with a very characteristic shape (Figure 4.3). The general shape is strikingly similar to that produced by a pure solution of tannic acid (Figure 4.4). The characteristic double peak is seen for many substituted organics, and the wavelengths of this pair of absorbance peaks have been used to define a "fingerprint" for a list of substituted functional groups (Dyer 1965). For both tannic acid and the raw leachate, the primary peak occurs at 210 nm, followed by a secondary peak at 278 nm. This matches most closely to the spectral fingerprint of a polyphenols compound containing a hydroxyl group (Dryer 1965). Thus, spectrophotometer scans of the raw leachate could potentially be used as a quick and inexpensive preliminary characterization tool, to help guide more detailed analyses. 4.3.2 Chemical parameters The organic acid hypothesis was further supported by the very strong acidity which was measured (Table 4.2). Since the pH was below 4.5, by definition (APHA1995) no Kevin Frankowski 33 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 CEDAR LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION 4.3 Results and Discussion Figure 4.2 pH-dependant colour change in cedar leachate (note the dilutions) {left-right: pH 3.0, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 (all 10% v/v) andpH 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0 (all 2% v/v)} 250 200 § 150 | 100 50 \ 190 290 -Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 -Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 -Dec 10/99 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 Figure 4.3 Spectral response of raw leachate (UV-visible light). Figure 4.4 Spectral response of tannic acid (UV-visible light). Kevin Frankowski 34 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion alkalinity was present. The degree of hardness (387 mg/L) fell within the "very hard water" classification (APHA1995). With the exception of calcium and magnesium (i.e., hardness) and iron (a common, relatively innocuous metal) and aluminum, there were low concentrations of metals present in the leachate. A previous study on this same leachate observed a similar composition in 1992 (Triton 1993) (see Appendix D . l for details). From a toxicological perspective, any trace metals which were present would have had a lower toxicity due to the high hardness of the leachate (Borgmann 1983). However, aluminum was present in high concentrations, possibly due to mobilization from the native soils by the acidic leachate. Despite the mitigating effects of hardness, aluminum concentrations could still have been sufficient to be toxic (Howard Bailey, personal communication). Although many wood leachates are nutrient-poor, it has been reported that some wood leachates can have a sufficient nutrient supply to cause eutrophication problems in local receiving environments (Thomas 1977). The cedar leachate at this research site was very nutrient-poor. Although some ortho-phosphate (3.2 mg/L) was present, it was very little in relation to the very high organic carbon that was present (3800 mg/L); the ortho-phosphatexarbon ratio was only 0.0012. Even a dilute domestic wastewater will typically have an orfho-phosphatexarbon ratio at least ten times as high (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). The nutrientxarbon ratios for ammonia and nitrates were even lower. This meant that while the leachate had a very high carbon load, there were few nutrients available to supply any of the biological systems which may have been capable of degrading it. (This is in sharp contrast to many municipal landfill leachates, which have solubilized so much nitrogen from the food and other waste that the nitrogenous concentrations are high enough to be toxic to most aquatic life and may represent the primary pollutant of concern.) Similar to landfill leachate, the COD of the cedar leachate was extremely high (>14 000 mg/L), especially when compared to the typical COD of raw sewage (500 -1000 mg/L) (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). The COD test is used to determine the total Kevin Frankowski 35 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion amount of oxygen required to carry out all the oxidation reactions within a sample, without regard to the biodegradability of the compounds (Sawyer et al. 1994). While some smaller, simpler compounds, such as volatile fatty acids (VFAs), may be more easily biodegraded than larger, more recalcitrant compounds such as tannin and lignin, this cannot be detected by the COD test. However, the COD measurements are important because they provide an approximation of the total carbon-load present. VFAs are short-chain fatty acids and their size can be denoted by the number of carbon atoms they contain; the smallest V F A is acetic acid, with only two carbons (i.e., C,). VFAs are produced as by-products of certain fermentation (i.e., anoxic metabolism) processes. The leachate had very high concentrations (>1650 mg/L), and it was these abundant VFAs which were responsible for its strong smell. Examining the individual V F A concentrations (Table 4.3), the smaller compounds (e.g., acetic acid (C2)) were more abundant than the larger acids (e.g., hexanoic acid (C6)). This is as expected, since the smaller molecules are simpler and would be involved with more common, less specialized metabolic applications. Table 4.3 Concentrations of individual volatile fatty acids (C2- C6) Parameter Average1 Std. Dev. n Total ( C 2 - C 6 ) 1674 492 1 Acetic acid 753 211 7 Propionic acid 328 97 7 Butyric acid + Iso-butyric acid 314 130 7 Valeric acid 169 108 7 n-Hexanoic acid 110 28 7 NOTES 1. Al l values reported in mg/L The VFAs are a very easily degraded carbon source and their presence in the leachate provided an alternative food source for those microbial communities which may have had trouble degrading more recalcitrant compounds. The cedar leachate also had a very high concentration of tannin and lignin (>2800 mg/L), which is not surprising, considering its source. This class of compounds is noted for its resistance to biological degradation and Kevin Frankowski 36 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion is also suspected as one of the primary toxicants in many wood leachates (Bailey et al. 1999; Eaton and Hale 1993). The theoretical oxygen demand (ThOD) that these two classes of compounds represent can be calculated from their balanced oxidation reactions (see Appendix C) and this can be compared against the total oxygen demand of the leachate (i.e., COD). In this way, an estimation can be obtained for the proportion of total COD that is represented by these two classes of compounds (Table 4.4). It should be realized that while each V F A (C 2 to C 6) was measured independently, this was not the case with tannin and lignin. Standard Method #5550B (APHA 1995) measures the abundance of aromatic hydroxyl groups (present on tannin and lignin) and reports the concentration in terms of tannic acid. In other words, tannic acid is being used as a surrogate compound to represent what is a very large, diverse, and to some extent, still unknown group of compounds (no alternate, easily-applied analytical method was available). Thus, the ThOD calculated for tannin and lignin will only be an estimation of their actual oxygen demand, and this demand may change over time, undetected, i f the concentration of the overall group remains the same but the relative concentrations of the different tannins or lignins change. This should be kept in mind when interpreting the ThOD results. The ratio of total V F A ThOD to COD was 0.16 (Table 4.4). This means that approximately 16% of the overall COD was due to VFAs. Similarly, the ratio of the tannin and lignin ThOD to COD was 0.21. Taken together, the total ThOD of these two compound classes accounts for only 37% of the COD. From a mass balance perspective, this means that only -37% of the total oxidizable load present in this leachate was attributable to these compounds. Another 63% was due to unknown compounds. This becomes important when trying to understand and optimize a treatment process. 4.3.4 Biological parameters In contrast to COD, BOD is a measure of the oxygen demand of all the biologically mediated reactions occurring in a water sample (Sawyer et al. 1994). In a practical sense, Kevin Frankowski 37 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion this means that the consumption (i.e., demand) of oxygen by the microbial communities is measured under standard conditions of temperature, light, and oxygen and nutrient availability. Any compounds which are not biodegradable will theoretically not exert an oxygen demand under these test conditions, and thus the test gives a measure of the amount of oxygen that will be consumed under optimal aerobic conditions as the wastewater undergoes complete biodegradation. Of course, this assumes that the proper microbial communities (i.e., those capable of metabolizing the waste under mesophilic aerobic conditions) are present. If the water sample is lacking these organisms, they must be added ("seeded") before comparable results will be obtained. Typical domestic wastewaters have a 5-day BOD of-200 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). The cedar leachate sampled from the pool had a seeded 5-day BOD of >5500 mg/L (Table 4.2). This was not unexpected, given the very high COD values discussed earlier Comparatively, there was a BOD : COD ratio of 0.40 (Table 4.4), which is within the lower end of the range typically reported for domestic wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). Thus, approximately 40% of the COD is attributable to easily biodegradable substances. Considering that cedar wood is not a readily biodegradable material, this BOD : COD ratio was surprisingly high. Landfill leachate often has a much lower ratio, indicative of the higher proportion of recalcitrant compounds. Table 4.4 Oxygen demand ratios Ratio Average Std. Dev. n ThOD(VFA): COD 0.16 0.03 6 ThOD(T&L): COD 0.21 0.02 6 ThOD(VFA + T & L ) : COD 0.37 0.05 6 ThOD(VFA): BOD 0.40 0.06 6 B O D : C O D 0.40 0.08 8 In the same way that the ThOD of known compounds can be compared against the total oxygen demand (i.e., COD), a comparison can be made between the ThOD of readily biodegradable compounds and the BOD. VFAs are considered to be readily biodegradable. Their ThOD, compared against the seeded BOD 5 data gave a ThOD : BOD ratio of 0.40 (Table 4.4). Thus, 60% of the biodegradable load in this leachate was due to unknown compounds. Kevin Frankowski 38 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion It is interesting to note that when the BOD tests were not provided with a seed, the measured BOD was almost half of what was measured otherwise (Table 4.2, Figure 4.5). The seed used in these BOD tests was forest soil taken from the banks of the leachate pool. The theory was that the microbial communities present in a forest soil would be adapted to metabolizing wood chemicals, including some of the extractives that are toxic to other lifeforms, and thus should provide a good inoculant for the development of an appropriate microbial community. Only the equivalent of 0.1 g (moist weight) of soil was added to each 300 mL BOD bottle, thereby preventing this seed from interfering with the BOD results, either in the form of additional oxygen demand, or via providing a substantial amount of bonding sites (on clay particles, etc.) on to which various contaminants could possibly adsorb onto. Seeded blanks were used in every BOD test, and they consistently had an oxygen demand of < 1.0 mg/L (all sample results were corrected for this small background oxygen demand). The BOD results that have been reported so far are all 5-day BOD results, the standard test length. However, this only captures a portion of the total oxygen demand of a wastewater, since some compounds will take longer than five days to metabolize, and thus will still exert an oxygen demand beyond this point. It is generally considered that by Day 20, >99% of the ultimate BOD will have been exerted (Metcalf and Eddy 1991; Sawyer et al. 1994). However, when an extended BOD test was performed on the cedar leachate, it appeared as if this pattern did not hold true for this wastewater At Day 20, the BOD exertion curve appeared to be still rising (i.e., slope > 1.0) (Figure 4.5). However, it is doubtful that this was due to a very low overall BOD kinetic rate constant (k), as might be expected for a recalcitrant industrial wastewater. Figure 4.5 Extended BOD of cedar leachate Kevin Frankowski 39 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7000 0 5 10 15 20 4 .0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion Examination of the seeded data for Day 0 to Day 12 suggested a BOD reaction rate in the order of 0.5 d*1, which is extremely fast; the typical rate for domestic wastewater is between 0.10 - 0.17d'' (Metcalf and Eddy 1991; Sawyer et al. 1994). However, this would suggest that by Day 5, almost all of the ultimate BOD would have been exerted, and no more oxygen should be required beyond this point. From the way that the BOD exertion curve (Figure 4.5) rose steeply, reached a plateau, and then began to rise again, it implied that the ultimate BOD was actually higher than the Day 0 - Day 12 data suggested and that the microbial communities may have been switching food sources, using easily degraded sources first (e.g., the VFAs), and then switching to more recalcitrant materials, possibly the lignins or other complex organic molecules, which they continued to degrade at a slow rate over a longer time period. In addition to possible hints about microbial community dynamics, the oxygen demand kinetics also provided us with information about the short-term behaviour of this wastewater. Since the BOD for this leachate was so high and the short-term kinetic rate constant so fast, the leachate would be expected to have a very "aggressive" oxygen demand. This was supported by the very low DO concentration of the leachate pool. It gained further anecdotal support when the fish toxicity tests were being set up. It was extremely difficult to achieve a sufficient dissolved oxygen level in the test solutions. In order to meet the requirements of the test protocols (Environment Canada 1990), it was necessary to aerate the samples at the maximum allowable rate. If the air supply ever failed, the test sample would very quickly go anoxic (and the test would have to be redone). In an aquatic receiving environment, this characteristic means that, aside from any toxicity which may be present due to its chemical composition, this wastewater would, from an oxygen supply perspective alone, impose a substantial stress upon any organisms (fish, zooplankton, etc.) which came in contact with it inside its nearfreld mixing zone. In order to separate such stressors as oxygen demand from the question of composition-based toxicity, laboratory toxicity tests are employed. These toxicity tests are conducted Kevin Frankowski 40 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion under stringently-defined standardized conditions, including specifications ensuring that sufficient oxygen is supplied to the test organisms. The resulting conditions are such that any observable negative effects to the test organisms (e.g., zooplankton, algae, juvenile fish) are due to composition-based toxicity present in the sample. As determined by the rainbow trout 96-hour L C 5 0 test procedure (Environment Canada 1990), the cedar leachate had an L C 5 0 of 1.4% v/v (± 1.0) (Table 4.2). This was consistent with what was measured over seven years earlier for this same leachate (Triton 1993) (see Appendix D. l ) . Toxicities reported in the literature for other wood leachates ranged from 0.48% to >100%, as measured by the rainbow trout 96-hour bioassay procedure (Cameron 1982; Schermer and Phipps 1976; Slagel 1976). Several factors may be responsible for this range in observed toxicities. Wood species has a profound effect on leachate toxicity (Schermer and Phipps 1976; Slagel 1976; Thomas 1977). Different parts of the tree also produce considerable differences in leachate toxicity, with bark and heartwood generally being the source of the more toxic leachates (Schermer and Phipps 1976; Slagel 1976). Adjusting for these various influences when comparing the variously reported toxicities is usually not possible. Whether the wood waste is of bark or heartwood origin or what species it is from may not be known, since most wood waste is very heterogeneous and has a variety of sources. Landfill age is also a factor, as older wood waste landfills usually generate less toxic leachate (Schermer and Phipps 1976). However, the exact rate at which toxicity diminishes with landfill age is not something that is easily determined, and in all likelihood is very site-specific. Studies such as Schermer and Phipps (1976) had noted that in small, experimental wood waste landfills, leachate strength diminished rapidly, sometimes in as little as 80 days. In contrast, the composition of the leachate emanating from this Pile had changed little in more than seven years (Triton 1993) (see Appendix D. 1). Possible reasons for this contrast include differences in the pattern and total amount of rainfall, the size of the landfills, and their internal conditions. Higher internal Kevin Frankowski 41 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion temperatures and more acidic conditions may cause more pronounced degradation of the wood, thereby liberating more wood chemicals to the leaching process. The toxicity of wood leachate may also be pH-dependent, which would further complicate meaningful comparisons between different leachates. Observations made during this research indicate that the toxicity of the cedar leachate increased with decreasing pH. Just as the colour was affected by changing pH, so may the toxicity be affected. However, separating what is pH-dependent toxicity versus what is organism stress induced solely by low pH is not easy. Various observations indicated that pH-induced stress began to occur at a pH below 4.5. Above a pH of around 6.0, the toxicity of the cedar leachate seemed to diminish markedly. However, the data is limited (see Appendix D. l ) and more rigorous testing needs to be done before this characteristic can be established with certainty. Attempts were made to establish the identity of the toxicants through the use of toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) (US EPA 1991a), but problems were encountered because the leachate contained such high concentrations of the compounds being examined that column breakthrough occurred quickly when using the commercially available solid phase extraction (SPE) separation columns. It would be necessary to construct custom columns of a much larger size in order to collect a sufficient volume for bioassay testing. Despite the need for more research in order to determine the exact identities of the toxicants in this leachate, it is still possible to make some preliminary conclusions concerning toxicant identity. Toxic thresholds have been established for many compounds (US EPA 1999), and these can be compared against their measured concentrations in this leachate. While copper and zinc, two trace metals reputed for their toxicity, were not present in significant concentrations, aluminum was present in sufficient concentrations to be a potential toxicant. The concentrations of the individual VFAs were also measured. However, very limited information was available on their Kevin Frankowski 42 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.3 Results and Discussion toxicity to fish. Acetic acid was shown to be toxic to rainbow trout above a threshold of 315 mg/L, while propionic acid had a rainbow trout toxic threshold of 67 mg/L (US EPA 1999). However, no information was provided regarding what pH these tests were conducted at or whether the toxicity of these compounds changed with pH. Assuming no pH-effects, both of these compounds were present at toxic concentrations in the cedar leachate. It has been suggested that tannin and lignin may represent another of the major organic toxicants in wood leachate (Bailey et al. 1999). While their toxicity seems to be influenced by the species of wood they are extracted from, this class of compounds has been shown to be toxic to fish at concentrations as low as 15 mg/L (Power 1987). The concentrations measured in this cedar leachate were almost 200 times stronger than this threshold (Table 4.2). Lignans, a class of compounds similar to lignins, have been reported as having a more mild toxicity to fish (toxic threshold =60 mg/L) (Peters et al. 1976). Tropolones, an extractive found in cedar heartwood, are much more toxic (toxic threshold =0.3 mg/L) (Peters et al. 1976). Interestingly, tropolone toxicity is greatly reduced when the pH is increased towards neutrality (Slagel 1976). Since the Standard Methods analysis for tannin and lignin (Method #5550B, A P H A 1995) detects aromatic hydroxyl groups, it is unable to distinguish between tropolones and true tannin and lignin. Also, tropolones will be retained on an SPE column along with tannin and lignin and will thus travel with tannin and lignin during any TIE procedure based on SPE fractionation. Using a TIE procedure based on molecular size exclusion may assist in better separating the respective roles of these organics in the toxicity of wood leachate, since tropolones are much smaller molecules (~C7 - C 1 4 ) than tannin and lignin (~C 2 0 - >C,0 0). While aluminum, tannin and lignin, possibly all the VFAs, and probably tropolones were present at toxic concentrations within this leachate, the overall toxicity of the leachate is a more complex issue than just the simple summation of these various compounds. Interactions often occur between compounds which effect their toxicity (Marking 1985). If two compounds have a greater toxicity when they are present together, compared to the Kevin Frankowski 43 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.4 Conclusions sum of their individual toxicities, they are considered to have a "synergistic" or "cooperative" toxicity. If the opposite is true, and the combined presence results in a decrease in toxicity, compared to the sum of the individual toxicities, this is considered an "antagonistic" interaction. Antagonism may occur, for example, i f two toxic compounds form a non-bioavailable complex when present together in the same solution. It is known that many organic compounds will form chelation complexes with certain metals. Tropolones are strong chelators of iron, and possibly aluminum, and this diminishes their toxicity (Peters et al. 1976). Since the cedar leachate had high concentrations of both iron and aluminum, the measured toxicity may have been less than it could have been, had these metals been absent. This becomes very important when trying to optimize a treatment process, since a unit process which removes only selected toxicants (e.g., metals) may fail to provide a decease in toxicity, since the net effect may be the removal of antagonistic interactions and the remaining toxicants are now able to exert their full toxic effect. In some cases, an increase in observed toxicity is even possible. A similar phenomenon may occur i f the intermediate breakdown products of some compounds are more toxic than the parent compounds. Thus, i f a treatment process is only performing a portion of the degradation cascade, the effluent may be more toxic than the influent. 4.4 Conclusions The cedar leachate from the Pile could be considered an industrial wastewater that was at least an order of magnitude stronger than raw domestic wastewater It was acidic, nutrient-poor, and had a very high, and aggressive, oxygen demand. Even when its oxygen demand was accounted for, it was still very toxic. This toxicity was unlikely caused by trace metals or ammonia, due to their low concentrations in this leachate. The exception was aluminum, which may represent one of the toxicants. Other possible toxicants include VFAs, tropolones, and tannin and lignin. Complex interactions among the many constituents of this leachate are likely, making the exact determination of the various toxicants an intricate process. Kevin Frankowski 44 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.4 Conclusions Most of the contaminants present were soluble organics (85% by mass), and the lack of suspended solids presented little opportunity to provide treatment via flocculation or settling techniques. The leachate's strong colour, and possibly its toxicity, were strongly pH-dependent. Substantial concentrations of VFAs and tannin and lignin were present, but these only accounted for -37% of the COD. Surprisingly, the leachate had a BOD : COD ratio similar to domestic wastewater, but this was where the resemblance ended. Other wood leachates reported in the literature had similar characterizations, but there existed a broad enough range of reported values that it would be advisable to perform individual characterizations prior to developing any site-specific treatment and control recommendations. This is especially prudent when considering that such site-specific factors as mobilization of metals from native soils may play a very important role in a leachate's toxicity and treatability. Further research is needed to clarify several issues surrounding the specific causes of the toxicity in this leachate. It is recommended that molecular size exclusion procedures be used in order to determine whether the organic compound toxicity resides with the smaller or larger molecular compounds (e.g., tropolones versus tannin and lignin). Establishing whether tropolones are responsible for much of the observed toxicity will greatly assist in monitoring and optimizing any treatment process. Also, the toxicity of isolated reagents such as individual VFAs, tannic acid or specific tropolones can be tested directly, thereby providing a standard against which to compare the environmental samples. These synthetic analogues of wood leachate could also be manipulated to determine how their toxicity is affected by changes in pH and how much of a role is played by antagonistic and synergistic interactions. The role of aluminum should be elucidated. Additionally, a more detailed study of the long-term exertion of BOD would provide useful information regarding the pattern of microbial degradation and address the substrate-switching hypothesis outlined above. During the course of the long-term BOD Kevin Frankowski 45 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 4.0 C E D A R L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N 4.4 Conclusions test, concentrations of various leachate components (e.g., VFAs, small and large molecular class compounds) could be monitored to see how they change, especially in relation to the BOD exertion pattern. In addition to information on degradation kinetics, this will provide valuable insights into what types of organisms are responsible for any observed biodegradation. Kevin Frankowski 46 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 5.0 S C R E E N I N G TRIALS 5.1 Introduction The first step in the development of a biological treatment system to treat the cedar leachate was to establish whether the leachate was amenable to biological degradation. Thomas (1977) reported an inability to treat cedar leachate using laboratory-scale (45 litre) completely-mixed aerobic reactors. The reactors were seeded with biological sludge taken from an activated sludge system treating bleached kraft pulp mill effluents and had a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 14 days. Schermer and Phipps (1976) observed satisfactory treatment when the leachate was passed through a column of soil, but the treatment performance diminished quickly over time, with breakthrough occurring in a little as 20 days. This implies that the treatment was accomplished by a physical absorption-type mechanism and its capacity would be limited by the mass loading it experienced, in a manner similar to ion-exchange or activated carbon systems. In December 1997, screening trials were conducted to determine whether any of several environmental inoculants had an ability to biodegrade the cedar leachate. Samples of macrophytes, fungi, and soil were collected from the site and used to seed small completely-mixed aerobic reactors. Changes in toxicity were monitored over time. The work was performed at the laboratory facilities of EVS Environment Consultants. 5.2 Methods and Materials In a laboratory Controlled Environment Room (CER) set at 20 °C, with a 16:8 hr (lightdark) photoperiod, thirty-two aerated batch reactors (1 L acid/acetone-washed glass jars) were set up. A concentration series was prepared from the leachate (100, 10, l%v/v, plus a distilled water blank) and distributed over eight identical sets of reactors (i.e., each set represented one dilution series). This setup allowed three environmental inoculants, plus a non-inoculated control, to be Kevin Frankowski 47 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 5.0 S C R E E N I N G TRIALS 5.3 Results and Discussion tested in replicate. The inoculants (pool-side soil, duckweed, and fungi) were all sampled from the field site at locations which were periodically exposed to the leachate. The biological systems they represented would have had the opportunity to adapt to the contaminants in the leachate, and therefore they all represented potential seeds specifically suited for this wastewater. Each 1 L reactor in a dilution series was supplied with 20 g (moist weight) of one of the inoculants, with the exception of the two control sets, which were not inoculated. The batch reactors (Figure 5.1) were aerated continuously to maintain saturated DO levels. Changes in water quality (pH, DO, and conductivity) were monitored daily. After eleven days of aeration, the cultures were allowed to settle and then were poured through a 250 Lim sieve to remove any suspended material. The acute toxicity of the filtrate was determined using a modified rainbow trout bioassay (as per Bailey et al. 1999). After the toxicity results were obtained, the solutions were sieved (250 Lim) and subjected to a UV-visible spectrophotometer scan (190 - 820 nm) as described in Section 4.2, in case any general differences could be detected in spectral response between the various treatments. Figure 5.1 Aerated batch reactors This test matrix allowed each inoculant to be tested in a range of leachate strengths, and its performance compared against the same range of leachate dilutions which had only received aeration (i.e., the control sets). In this way, it was possible to separate reductions in toxicity that were due to degradation caused by aerobic organisms indigenous to the leachate or physical factors such as air-stripping from those reductions that were solely due to the addition of inoculant material. 5.3 Results and Discussion Monitoring of water quality in the reactors provided assurance that the desired test conditions were being maintained and that the replicate sets of reactors were performing in a similar fashion (see Appendix D.2 for raw data). With the exception of one day of Kevin Frankowski 48 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 5.0 S C R E E N I N G TRIALS 5.3 Results and Discussion o 8 * (1/fiLU) UeSAXQ pOA|OSSIQ S * § # o T t H TJ CO CO s s I I* • 8 * ; — o s ! "a cu eg C 0 5 u cj % Si c 2 a CU I s ~S S K 3 C* O co co OJ o (1/6LU) UABAXQ P O A J O S S I Q o o o o (l/fiui) usf lAxo paAjOSSia a 5 B 3 .§1 S a cj I -a cj q < "a 2 5 Kevin Frankowski 49 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 5.0 S C R E E N I N G TRIALS 5.3 Results and Discussion (uia/Sn) AiiAjionpuoo (iuo/sn) A||A|janpuoo 11 y | e o u R Is a a u s 5 c . 3 "5 5 S K 3 (LiiD/sn) AifAiionpuoo (uia/sn) A;|A|pnpuoo s e 3 5 | 8 •2 be R i E a o K "13 s 3 Kevin Frankowski 50 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 5.0 S C R E E N I N G TRIALS 5.3 Results and Discussion Kevin Frankowski 51 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 5.0 S C R E E N I N G TRIALS 5.4 Conclusions insufficient aeration in the 100% reactors, DO was consistently maintained above saturation until the aeration was turned off at the end of the test (Figure 5.2). Conductivity remained largely unchanged in all treatments (Figure 5.3). In the 10% and 1% concentrations, pH rose to close to neutral in all treatments except the control sets. The 100% concentrations experienced negligible change in pH. In the control sets, pH in the 10% and 1% concentrations exhibited a gradual, and fairly limited rise, presumably indicative of the removal of volatile acids due to air-stripping (Figure 5.4). Although not measured quantitatively, the strong smell characteristic of this leachate was quite pronounced when the bioreactors were initially started, but diminished rapidly, and after a few days was hardly detectable. After eleven days of treatment, pool-side soil produced the greatest reduction in toxicity (Figure 5.5). Duckweed was also effective, but to a lesser extent. The fungal inoculants actually increased the toxicity and even their distilled water Raw Leachate Fungal Inoculant Figure 5.5 Effect of inoculants on leachate toxicity reduction (using aerated 1 L batch reactors; HRT= 11 days) controls (i.e., 0% leachate) showed toxicity. This may have been the result of toxic compounds being leached from the fungal tissues. The control series produced only a slight reduction in toxicity, indicating that aeration alone would not prove an effective treatment technique. No readily interpretable differences between the various treatments were revealed by the spectrophotometer scans (see Appendix D.2). 5.4 Conclusions Based on the above results, the cedar leachate was amenable to biological treatment. Two of the environmental inoculants tested were able to substantially reduce the toxicity beyond what was afforded by aeration alone, with pool-side soil providing the better toxicity reduction. For these reasons, pool-side soil was selected as the inoculant when the biological treatment of the cedar leachate was studied further Kevin Frankowski 52 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6.0 BENCH-SCALE TREATMENT WITH MICROCOSM WETLANDS 6.1 Introduction Having established that cedar leachate was amenable to biological toxicity reduction, it was necessary to determine whether constructed wetlands were capable of performing this treatment. Bench scale testing of wetland microcosms inoculated with pool-side soil was performed in February and March 1998, with a repetition of these tests in April and May 1999. Water quality parameters (pH, DO, conductivity) and changes in toxicity were monitored in these batch reactors. The second set of microcosms was also used to gather more detailed data about specific parameters such as tannin and lignin concentrations. The microcosms were set up in the laboratory facilities at EVS Environment Consultants and analytical work was performed in the Environmental Laboratory at the University of British Columbia. 6.2 Methods and Materials 6.2.1 Test setup and conditions Eight small wetlands were constructed as laboratory batch microcosms (Figure 6.1) and placed in a 22°C CER. Clean 38 L glass fish tanks (25 cm x 50 cm x 30 cm deep) were provided with a 1 cm base of clean silica sand, upon which was placed a 4 cm thick mat of dense root fibres from Broad-leaved Cattails (Typha latifolia) that had been harvested from a nearby pond. A l l soil present in the root mats had been intentionally washed out during harvesting. The root mats contained no emergent vegetation, since they were \ I ( I Emergent macrophytes (cattails) Root mat (with soil inoculant) Sand Figure 6.1 Schematic of the lab microcosms Kevin Frankowski 53 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6.0 B E N C H - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T W I T H M I C R O C O S M W E T L A N D S Figure 6.2 Cattail root mat in lab microcosm 6.2 Methods and Materials harvested prior to the spring emergence of the cattails. A l l dead stalks from the previous season's growth were trimmed away for ease of handling. The root mats were divided so as to ensure that several large tuber-like root stalks were present in each microcosm, but the majority of the mats were comprised of a dense network of very fine root hairs (Figure 6.2). On top of the root mat was placed a thin layer (<2 cm) of pool-side soil, to act as an inoculant (see Section 5.0 for discussion regarding selection of inoculant). Two replicate concentration series (75%, 50%, and 10%o v/v) were prepared from the leachate. Randomly selected tanks each received 15 L of one these dilutions. A pair of tanks (complete with root mat, etc.) were filled with 15 L of dechlorinated city tap water each and served as replicate controls. In addition, one tank with just sand, 15 L of dechlorinated water and a bubble pump served as "room blank". Should any effects (e.g., toxicity) appear in the control tanks, this blank would allow separation of those effects caused by the cattail root mat or soil inoculant from those effects caused by materials used in construction of the microcosm or general conditions present in the test room (e.g., contaminants in the aeration supply). Gro-light tubes were placed over the microcosms, to provide simulated sunlight. Unfortunately, this rack of lights could not be connected to the room's photoperiod timer, so the microcosm wetlands received light 24 hours a day. This did not appear to have any negative effects on the cattails. Bubble circulators were installed in each tank (Figure 6.3) and adjusted to provide a slow circulation of the leachate through the batch reactor while providing the minimum possible aeration (an attempt to simulate anticipated field conditions, Figure 6.3 Room blank microcosm where no supplementary aeration would exist). {Note the bubble pump} Kevin Frankowski 54 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6.0 B E N C H - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T W I T H M I C R O C O S M W E T L A N D S 6.2 Methods and Materials When the second set of microcosms were constructed and tested (April - May 1999), all construction and conditions were the same as the 1998 setup, with the following exceptions: 1. The concentrations series was 50%, 25%, 10% v/v; 2. The CER was set to a temperature of 15°C; 3. The setup was monitored for 29 days, rather than 18 days. 4. Small subsamples were obtained from each reactor on Day 8 and Day 16. 6.2.2 Monitoring Water quality parameters (pH, DO, conductivity) were monitored regularly (see Appendix D.3 for raw data). Changes in acute toxicity were determined by occasionally taking a 500 mL subsample from each reactor and performing a modified rainbow trout bioassay using 2 fish per beaker (as per Bailey et al. 1999). In order to ensure that the fish tests met the DO levels specified by the protocol, each beaker was gently aerated. Since evapotranspiration would result in a decrease in bioreactor water level over time, the necessary small amounts of dechlorinated tap water to compensate for this were added as needed to each reactor, thereby preventing evapoconcentration of the contaminants. This is common practice in microcosm work (Howard Bailey, personal communication). After completion of the bioreactor trials, the reactor water (i.e., "final effluent") was collected from each microcosm as part of the tear down procedure. BOD tests were performed on these samples. For the 1999 microcosms, these samples were also analysed for COD. The analytical methodologies were as described in Section 4.0. In the 1999 microcosm experiment, the additional subsamples that were taken after eight and sixteen days were analysed for tannin and lignin, as described in Section 4.2. Spectrophotometer scans was also performed on the raw samples, in order to measure the spectral response of the reactor solution, as described in Section 4.2. Kevin Frankowski 55 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6.0 B E N C H - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T W I T H M I C R O C O S M W E T L A N D S 6.3 Results and Discussion 6.3 Results and Discussion Monitoring of water quality in the reactors provided assurance that the desired test conditions were being maintained and that the replicate sets of reactors were performing in a similar fashion (see Appendix D.3 for raw data). With respect to these parameters, the systems performed similarly to what was observed in the screening trial soil-inoculated bioreactors (see Section 5.2); conductivity remained largely unchanged and pH became more neutral. However, the microcosms differed from the aerated bioreactors in their DO levels. Since the cattails provided less oxygen transfer than the mechanical aerators, the DO levels were lower (as low as 1.5 mg/L at the higher leachate concentrations). This did not seem to affect the cattails. Within a few days of startup, cattail shoots began to appear in all the microcosms. The plants grew very vigorously (as much as 7 cm per day) and there was little observable difference between the plants growing in the higher leachate concentrations (i.e., 75%) compared to the lower leachate concentrations (i.e., 10%). 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5 10 15 20 Treatment period (days) Figure 6.4 Reduction of cedar leachate toxicity in laboratory constructed wetlands Due to the spartan setup of the toxicity bioassays, the results were interpreted in a pass/fail fashion (i.e., they determined whether a tested concentration was toxic or nontoxic), rather than depending upon them to deliver higher resolution information (i.e., an exact L C 5 0 ) . This resulted in the data being interpreted in a conservative (i.e., worst-case) fashion. As shown by Figure 6.4, there was a steady decrease in toxicity with increasing treatment time. It should be noted that this figure incorporates data from both the 1998 and 1999 microcosms, and there were no major differences in their detoxification rates, despite the fact that the 1999 microcosm was operating 7 degrees cooler (i.e., at 15°C, rather than 22°C). The difference between the 15-day and 18-day results in Figure 6.4 is not significant, since the pass/fail nature of the data could not provide resolution as to when a particular concentration became nontoxic 25 30 1998 x1999| Kevin Frankowski 56 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6.0 B E N C H - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T W I T H M I C R O C O S M W E T L A N D S 6.3 Results and Discussion (i.e., the results are conservative, and the actual rate of detoxification may have had a steeper slope than these data indicate). Combining the data from both sets of microcosms, the performance of the laboratory constructed wetlands are summarized in Table 6.1. Overall, removal performance of the monitored parameters was very good. BOD and COD %-removals compare very favourably with the performance of conventional treatment plants (e.g., activated sludge, trickling filters, RBCs) treating domestic sewage (Metcalf and Eddy 1991) and are comparable to the performance of some of the more exotic treatment techniques for treating leachate from hazardous waste landfills (McArdle et al. 1988). As could be expected, toxicity and tannin and lignin Table 6.1 Performance summary for laboratory wetlands experienced better removal with increased reaction times. The tannin and lignin removal performance seemed to be inhibited at higher influent concentrations (Table 6.1). Since the tannin and lignin data were obtained from bioreactors operating at different influent concentrations, it was not meaningful to compare them directly. However, since the original influent dilution factors were known, these could be used to standardize the data, based on 100% influent strength (i.e., the concentration data could be multiplied by the original dilution factors). This provided a data set which was "normalized", or corrected for dilution factors, and thus the data points could be compared directly with each other and with the constituent concentrations measured in the original raw leachate. While each reactor continued to reduce tannin and lignin concentrations over time, those reactors that had been fed a more dilute influent were able to achieve a better overall removal (Figure 6.5). This indicates that the higher strength leachate was experiencing a Average Parameter %-Removal Std. Dev. Toxicity 8-day H R T 78% 0% 15-day H R T 90% 0% 29-day H R T 93% 0% B O D 5 (25 day H R T ) 94% 3% C O D (29 day H R T ) 80% 3% Tannin and Lignins 8-day H R T : 10% influent 83% 1% 25% influent 67% 1% 50% influent 63% 4% 16-day H R T : 10% influent 87% 0% 25% influent 71% 0% 50% influent 67% 3% Kevin Frankowski 57 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6.0 B E N C H - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T W I T H M I C R O C O S M W E T L A N D S 6.3 Results and Discussion § a E E 1500 a Day 8 • Day 16 10% (a) 10% (b) 25% (a) 25% (b) 50% (a; 50% (b) Original influent dilution Figure 6.5 Effect of influent dilution on tannin and lignin removal performance {corrected for dilution factor} reduced treatment efficiency. This may be due to toxic effects of a higher leachate concentration. Another possibility is that there were not a sufficient number of microbes present that were capable of degrading all the tannin and lignin present at higher concentrations (i.e., the degradation process was operating at maximum capacity, given current population levels). Thus, with time their populations should increase, resulting in an improved treatment efficiency. Diminished treatment performance at higher influent concentrations was also observed in the spectrophotometer results (Figure 6.6). A substantial difference is seen between the Day 8 and Day 16 results for the 25% reactors (Figure 6.6b). The 10% reactors (Figure 6.6a) show a much-reduced secondary peak (the "shoulder"), and, unlike the 25% case, a higher variation between the replicate reactors. The 50% reactors (Figure 6.6c) show less of a difference between Day 8 and Day 16, and the secondary peak is still very pronounced. Taken together with the tannin and lignin data, these results seem to indicate that more efficient performance is achieved with a more moderate influent concentration. It is interesting to note the peaks in all three sets of the spectrophotometer results (Figure 6.6a-c) have the same general pattern as the peaks observed for the raw leachate (Figure 4.2). This indicates that the same types of compounds were present. However, the peaks from the microcosm samples are much broader than those from the raw leachate. This may be a result of many similar peaks overlapping at slightly different wavelengths, Kevin Frankowski 58 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6 .0 B E N C H - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T W I T H M I C R O C O S M W E T L A N D S 6.3 Results and Discussion Figure 6.6a Influent leachate strength = 10% 190 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 •10ADay8 10B Day 8 -10ADay16 •10B Day 16 190 Figure 6.6b Influent leachate strength = 25% 290 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 -25ADay8 25B Day 8 -25ADay16 -25BDay16 Figure 6.6c Influent leachate strength = 50% -50ADay8 50B Day 8 -50ADay16 -50B Day 16 190 290 390 490 590 690 Wavelength (nm) 790 Figure 6.6 Spectral response of laboratory constructed wetland effluent (UV-visible light) Kevin Frankowski 59 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 6.0 B E N C H - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T W I T H M I C R O C O S M W E T L A N D S 6.4 Conclusions which would indicate that the samples from the bioreactors contain a more complex mix of compounds than what was present in the original leachate, possibly indicative of more degradation intermediaries being present. Compared to the other two sets of microcosms, the 25% reactors have a broader primary peak, comprised of several overlapping peaks (i.e., the various tips overlap, producing a broad, jagged look to the peak top) (Figure 6.6b, versus 6.6a and 6.6c). This may indicate that of the three sets of reactors, the 25% reactors have the most degradation intermediaries present. Overall, the spectrophotometer data seem to indicate that an influent strength of 25% will produce the clearest differences with changing retention time. In other words, the inherent degradation systems in the 25% reactor seemed to be operating at maximum capacity. In the 10% reactors, the influent may have been too weak to push the degradation systems to their maximum capacity and it seems that the 50% influent overwhelmed this capacity. These reactors did not produce as "tight" a response to changing conditions as did the 25% reactors and thus an influent strength of 25% was likely to yield the best results in further studies. 6.4 Conclusions Constructed wetlands were able to treat the cedar leachate. Under optimal laboratory conditions, a substantial reduction in toxicity was observed, with a 90% removal achieved in 15 days. Therefore this technology shows significant promise for fulfilling research objective A . l (see Section 1.4). The BOD and COD results suggest that this technology would also be able to meet its other the performance-based criteria (objective A.2, Section 1.4). In order to address the design objectives (B.l to B.3, Section 1.4), it was necessary to evaluate the technology under field conditions. This would also provide a more realistic setting for the evaluation of its treatment performance, including response to seasonal changes in temperature and plant growth / decomposition dynamics. Kevin Frankowski 60 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.1 Introduction It was demonstrated that under optimal laboratory conditions, constructed wetlands were capable of providing efficient treatment of cedar leachate, including substantial reductions in acute toxicity and BOD. However, it was still necessary to determine how this performance would translate to a larger scale facility operating under field conditions. To this end, six pilot-scale treatment wetlands were designed and constructed at the research site (Figure 7.1). These experimental cells would allow a controlled evaluation of this technology under more realistic operating conditions. Additionally, they would provide the capability for various simultaneous manipulations to be performed during process optimization. Figure 7.1 Constructed wetland pilot-scale facility {as viewed from top of hog fuel pile} Kevin Frankowski 61 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.2 Methods and Materials 7.2 Methods and Materials 7.2.1 Design considerations Design of the pilot scale facility occurred in May 1998, with the assistance of Ward Prystay and Envirowest Consultants Limited (ECL). Based on the available literature, the lab results obtained to date, and previous design and field experience, several options were considered. The final cell design was a hybrid system which incorporated 3 basic elements (Figure 7.2); a) a small forebay, b) a planted surface-flow (SF) section (also referred to as free-surface flow (FSF) by some authors), and c) a small, unplanted subsurface flow (SSF) section just prior to effluent discharge. In the interests of promoting a simple and predictable hydrology, the cells were rectangular. Bank-full dimensions were 17.5 m long by 5.5 m wide. Longitudinal Profile Emergent macrophytes (cattails) 20 mil PVC liner Free-surface component: backfilled native soil (4 cells planted with cattails) / Effluent (to discharge slandpipes) Inlet bay (for flow dispersion and solids settling) Subsurface component: 40 mm washed gravel (unplanted) Length (bank-Jull): 17.5m Width (hank-full): 5.5m The forebay was intended to provide a small settling basin, just in case any suspended solids entered the influent stream (during pumping, etc.). It also assisted in ensuring that the Figure 7.2 Schematic of field-scale constructed wetland cell influent entered the main treatment train in as evenly distributed and quiescent a fashion as possible. The majority of the treatment was expected to occur in the large surface-flow section, where the influent would flow over the surface of the soil substrate and through the root mats and stalks of the emergent vegetation. The subsurface section, just prior to discharge, was intended as a small polishing unit, bringing the wastewater in contact with an attached biofilm community as it flowed through a gravel matrix, and Kevin Frankowski 62 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.2 Methods and Materials screening out any large suspended matter, such as algae or detritus, which may have been picked up during passage through the surface-flow section. A lateral effluent collection pipe would be buried near the bottom end of the gravel section and attached to the discharge pipe, which travelled through the base of the end berm. In addition to the lateral effluent collection pipe (Figure 7.3), influent would be dispersed by a lateral spreader bar (Figure 7.4). These measures were intended to promote an even sheet-flow through the system, resulting in a basin-wide plug-flow hydrology, thereby maximizing effective reactor volume and minimizing hydraulic short-circuiting (Persson et al. 1999). A regular bathymetry, with a flat bottom, trapezoidal profile (side slopes =35°), and an even depth (except for the forebay) also contributed to this end. The vegetation was to be planted in lateral bands in order to ensure that flow resistance was distributed evenly across the full width of the wetland. Figure 7.3 Lateral discharge collector (prior to gravel placement) Figure 7.4 Unplanted control cell (viewedfrom discharge end) {Note gravel subsurface-flow section, the lateral influent spreader, and the valve-controlled influent pipe } Kevin Frankowski 63 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.2 Methods and Materials Due to their local availability and demonstrated ability to survive and grow in the cedar leachate, Broad-leaved Cattails (Typha latifolia ) were the emergent macrophytes selected for the surface-flow component of the cells. Design water depth was 40 cm, as measured to the top of the planting substrate. This depth would be adjustable via a swivelling elbow-type level-control standpipe (Hammer 1997). A substantial freeboard was provided, which gave the ability to subject the wetland cells to a range of water depths. At design depth, total reactor volume was 20 m 3. Hydraulic retention time could be controlled independently in each of the six cells via separate influent valves (Figure 7.4). Four of the six cells would be planted, thus providing two replicate sets for experimental manipulation. The other two cells would be identical in construction to the rest, with the exception of being unplanted, and would serve as a replicate set of experimental controls. This would enable the separation of those effects due to the presence of plants and specific experimental manipulations for all other effects, including leachate-soil interactions. Cedar leachate would be pumped from the leachate pool to a dosing tank situated so as to provide sufficient head pressure to deliver the influent to the six treatment cells via gravity feed (Figures 7.5 and 7.6). Dilution water from a nearby slough (Figure 3.1) would also be pumped to the dosing tank, thereby allowing influent dilution strength to be controlled as desired. The mixing ratios into the tank would be governed by timer-controlled pump switches. Effluent was to be collected into a single sump and pumped back onto the Pile (Figure 7.6), as per the constraints explained in Section 3.2. The six cells used in this research project had a total treatment capacity of 120 m 3 at design depth. With an HRT of 7 days, this would enable them to process 6 240 m3/yr. Figure 7.5 Influent dosing tank {Note the electrical pump controls} Kevin Frankowski 6 4 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.2 Methods and Materials DOSING TANK Figure 7.6 Detailed site plan ofpilot-scale facility {Note: "Inoculated" = planted & inoculated} The hog fuel pile had an estimated leachate production of 23 000 m3/yr (Triton 1993), which meant that this pilot-scale facility represented approximately 25% of full-scale requirements, well within the range recommended for pilot-scale studies (McArdle et al. 1988). 7.2.2 Construction Construction of the pilot-scale facility began in May 1998. By the end of June, construction of the wetland cells had been completed as per design specifications and, aside from monitoring activities, they were left alone during their establishment period (see Section 7.2.3). In the meantime, construction of the necessary piping and pumping facilities continued. Due to an unexpected need to fund the installation of electrical lines into the site, completion of construction was delayed by almost a year. This delay severely reduced that amount of time allotted for field testing. Another substantial delay was caused when the Fraser River flooded the site on June 16, 1999 (crested the banks at 5.1 m, as measured by Environment Canada's gauge station in Mission) (see Appendix B for river gauge data). The flood waters did not completely recede from the site until the Kevin Frankowski 65 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.2 Methods and Materials end of August. Construction was finally completed in October 1999. With the exception of the initial excavation of the basins (2 days; May 1998) and the eventual installation of the power lines and related electrical connections (3 days; March 1999), all the construction was performed by volunteer labour (i.e., Kevin Frankowski, with the generous assistance of many others - please see Acknowledgments). After the greenfield site had been cleared (Figure 7.7) and the excavation of the wetland cells was completed (Figure 7.8), each cell was lined with 20 mil (0.5 mm) PVC. The planting substrate, native clay-loam, was backfilled to a depth of 30 cm (Figure 7.9). Perforated 100 mm PVC (Schedule 40) pipe formed the lateral effluent collector (Figure 7.3) and was connected to a swivelling discharge standpipe (non-perforated 100 mm P V C (Schedule 40)) (as per Hammer 1997). The liner penetrations were sealed with flanging and clay plugs. Washed gravel (40 mm) was used for the complete depth of the subsurface section in each cell (Figure 7.2). Cattails were harvested by hand from local roadside ditches (with the permission of the local Public Works Engineering Department) and transplanted into four randomly chosen cells. Each cell received 120 plants, placed in 10 equally-spaced lateral rows, thus giving a planting density of about 3 plants/m2. Due to logistical constraints, an extensive root mat could not be harvested and transplanted with these cattails. However, each plant had at least 10 cm of a tuber-like root mass, as well as a small mat of associated root hairs (Figure 7.10), and a root mat would develop in situ over time. Immediately upon completing transplantation, each cell, with its standpipe closed, was filled with clean river water. This water would be replenished as needed during the entire establishment phase. A temporary pipeline (-400 m) was assembled between the river and the wetland cells. A portable 5.5 hp gasoline-powered pump delivered the water. In order to deliver the cedar leachate from the pool to the dosing tank (Figures 3.1, 7.6), a pump was installed beside the leachate pool. Similarly, one was installed beside a nearby slough in order to supply dilution water to the dosing tank. A third pump was installed at Kevin Frankowski 66 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT Kevin Frankowski 67 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.2 Methods and Materials the sump tank, for delivery of the final effluent back to the Pile (Figure 7.6). Due to the need for unattended and autonomous operation, electrical pumps were required. G & L 1 hp centrifugal pumps (Model NPE; 230V single-phase) were selected. Liquid-end construction was completely Type 304 stainless steel, to avoid any corrosion problems due to the low pH of the leachate. A wooden pump shelter, with a concrete floor, embedded mounting bolts, and a locking lid, was built and installed for each of the three pumps (Figure 7.11). Since they were not self-priming, each pump was also fitted with a brass foot valve. Approximately equidistant between the slough and the leachate, the dosing tank was connected to the slough and leachate pool pumps via 30 mm polyethylene piping (-100 m for each pipeline). The dosing tank was an old 10 000 L steel tank (provided by the landowner), that had previously Figure 7.11 Pump installed in locking pump shelter been used to store fire control water (Figure 7.5). Mixing ratios were set via timer-controlled pump switches. A float switch inside the dosing tank signalled the switch controls when the tank needed refilling. Tank head pressure was sustained so that influent was delivered continuously to the cells (via 30 mm polyethylene piping). Every effort was made to provide all pipe runs with as straight and level a path as possible. This necessitated building several small support-ways to span some low areas. 7.2.3 Establishment and baseline evaluation Once the four wetland cells had been planted and filled with clean river water, the cattails recovered from their minor transplant shock within a few days. Water level was monitored and additional water was pumped into the cells as needed (e.g., once every month or so). Since the cells had no outflow, the only loss of water was through evapotranspiration. A l l the cells were sampled several times and analysed for nutrients, TSS, tannin and lignin, BOD, COD and toxicity. In addition, qualitative observations on the state of establishment were made several times throughout the year. Kevin Frankowski 68 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.2 Methods and Materials 7.2.4 Commission and operations Due to the delays encountered during construction, the resulting financial and time constraints allowed only a brief period (October - December 1999) of field trials. The experimental manipulation examined during these field trials was the effect of inoculation on treatment performance. Based upon results from the screening trials (Section 5.3) and comparisons of unseeded versus seeded BOD tests (Section 4.3.4), pool-side soil had been established as an effective inoculant. Therefore, it was hypothesized that inoculating one pair of planted cells with pool-side soil should result in improved treatment performance, relative to the other pair of planted (but non-inoculated) cells. The unplanted, non-inoculated controls were expected to provide only minimal treatment. The hypothesis further expected that over time, the set of planted, non-inoculated cells would gradually develop the necessary microbial communities and thus the differences in performance between these two cells and the two inoculated cells would eventually disappear. As soon as construction had been completed to the point of the facility being serviceable, the field trials were begun. Prior to using the dosing tank, it was thoroughly flushed out several times, to ensure that any contaminants which may have been present in the tank from prior usage would not be introduced into the treatment wetlands. Several days prior to introducing influent into the cells, two of the planted cells were randomly selected and a slurry of pool-side soil was distributed evenly throughout their central surface-flow section. Each of the two cells received 50 kg (moist weight) of the soil, or an equivalent of 2.5 g per litre of reactor volume. The microcosm results (Section 6.2) indicated that an HRT of 8 - 15 days produced a measurable removal of toxicity and the other parameters that were monitored. In order to maximize data generation, an HRT of seven days was selected for the field-scale operations. This also allowed a convenient weekly cycle in which to perform all the associated laboratory work. The influent concentration of 25% was selected based on the Kevin Frankowski 69 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.2 Methods and Materials microcosm results, especially the spectrometer results (Figure 6.6), which seemed to indicate that treatment capacity was maximized at this concentration. To reduce the shock loading effect to the wetland cells, a gradual start-up procedure was followed. Over a two week commissioning period, the leachate concentration (i.e., the mixing ratio) was increased, up to the operational concentration of 25%. The influent displaced the clean water that was previously present from the establishment phase. During the commissioning period, the HRT was gradually reduced to 7 days. At the end of this two-week period, the pilot-scale facility was experiencing the intended operational conditions and weekly monitoring began. 7.2.5 Monitoring and sampling Effluent from each cell, along with a single influent sample from the dosing tank, was sampled every week. The leachate pool and the slough were also sampled in case these data would be needed to address any unexpected results. Samples were collected in the manner outlined in Section 4.2. At each location, sample temperature, pH, DO and specific conductivity were also measured, using the same field probes as described in Section 4.2. A l l samples, including appropriate blanks, were analysed for TSS, BOD, COD, tannin and lignin, toxicity, VFAs, and nutrients (i.e., N H 3 , NO x , P0 4 ) , using the same methods as those discussed Section 4.2 (raw data is provided in Appendix D.4). With the exception of toxicity, all the analyses were performed at the University of British Columbia. Toxicity analysis was performed at the laboratory facilities of EVS Environment Consultants. Due to project financial constraints, only a limited number of toxicity tests were available. Toxicity results were converted from L C 5 0 values to acute Toxic Unit (TU a) values, since this presented the data in a form more analogous to the mass-based concentrations used Kevin Frankowski 70 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.3 Results and Discussion for reporting the other parameters. Acute toxic units were calculated as per Equation (1) (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). TU=100/LC 5 0 (1) According to Equation (1), samples with a TU a < 1.0 are nontoxic, while those with TU a > 1.0 are toxic. Stated another way, the TU a is the dilution factor required to render a given sample nontoxic. 7 . 3 R e s u l t s a n d D i s c u s s i o n 7.3.1 Baseline conditions Over the course of almost two summers of clean-water establishment, the four planted wetland cells developed a very appreciable resemblance of natural wetland ecology. The cattails produced a very healthy emergent growth and their density increased to more than 12 plants/m2 (Figure 7.12), a more than fourfold increase from the initial planting. During the second summer the cattails developed seed heads (which were cut off prior to them maturing, to prevent the unplanted control cells from becoming seeded). Dragonflies and frogs were in great abundance. Several bird species used the area frequently, including a pair of Red-winged Blackbirds, which built a nest in one of the cells. Hundreds of tadpoles, water | boatmen and other aquatic insects were present in each cell. From a quantitative perspective, it was necessary to establish that Figure 7.12 Established m e w etl ands themselves, prior to introducing any leachate, were vegetation in constructed wetland cell "clean" and would not contribute to the detrimental characteristics of the eventual influent. Water temperature varied with the weather, but it was not uncommon for it to be above 16°C, due to the shallow, quiescent nature of the cells. The pH was close to neutral, and the dissolved oxygen was close to, and occasionally even above, saturation (Table 7.1). Results for TSS, BOD and COD were Kevin Frankowski 71 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.3 Results and Discussion all very low, well below any concentration that may be of concern. As might be expected in wetland water samples, some tannin and lignin were present, but again, the concentrations were low enough not to be a concern. Very few nutrients were present in the water column. No toxicity was detected in the any of the pre-operational cells, even after the 1999 flooding, which could potentially „ „ „ , „ . , , . . ° Table 7.1 Pre-operational characterization oj the have carried leachate into the cells (Table 7.1). pilot-scale constructed wetlands Average ' Parameter (Std. Dev.) n Dissolved Oxygen2 11.3 12 Since the slough water was going to be used as 1.3 dilution water, to control the strength of the Toxicity3 <1.0 0.0 12 influent, it was necessary to characterize this as Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 6.2 6 well. Samples taken prior to use indicated that 4.8 all parameters analysed were well below the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 6 6 0.7 concentrations found in the leachate, and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 33 3.9 6 therefore the slough water was appropriate as a Tannins and Lignins (as tannic acid) 0.7 6 dilution water (Table 7.2). 0.12 Ammonia (NH 3 -N) 0.09 0.07 12 7.3.2 Performance Nitrate + nitrite (NO,_ -N) 0.07 6 The field-scale constructed wetlands were 0.02 capable of reducing the toxicity of cedar leachate Ortho-phosphate (P043"-P) 0.05 0.05 6 NOTES 1. All values, except toxicity, reported in mg/L. 2. Sample temperature = 16°C 3. Toxicity, as determined by a 96hr rainbow trout LC50, and reported as Toxic Units (i.e., TU = 100/LC50) (Figure 7.13). Average removal was 49% for the planted cells, with no significant difference observed between the inoculated and the non-inoculated treatments (Table 7.3). Even the control cells exhibited toxicity removal, but their performance was less reliable (Figure 7.13). This removal performance in the planted cells was well below what was expected (a removal rate of 75-90%), based on the lab study results (Section 6.3). Removal of BOD, COD, and tannin and lignin was also observed, although there were no significant differences between the performance of the three different reactors (Table 7.3). Tannin and lignin removal was between 30-40%. BOD removal was on the order of 20-30%, while about 40-45% of COD was removed. The fact that a higher proportion Kevin Frankowski 72 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.3 Results and Discussion Table 7.2 Characterization of slough (dilution) water Parameter Temperature [°C] pH Dissolved oxygen Specific Conductivity [uS/cm] Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Tannins and Lignins (as tannic acid) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Ammonia (NH 3 -N) Nitrate + nitrite (NO»" -N) Ortho-phosphate (PO43 -P) Volatile Fatty Acids (VFAs): Total (C2-C«) Toxicity [TU B] 2 Average  1 (Std. Dev.) n 6.1 6 1.6 6.08 0.18 0.3 0.2 71 12 21 247 100 16 5 52 29 1.0 0.5 0.05 0.04 0.22 0.08 7.8 4.8 <1.0 0.0 NOTES 1. All values reported in mg/L, unless otherwise noted. 2. Toxicity reported as acute Toxic Units (i.e., TU, = 100/LCso) of COD was removed, compared to BOD, is interesting. At first glance, it suggests that recalcitrant materials were being degraded faster than the easily biodegradable material, which doesn't make sense. However, it is possible that the recalcitrant materials were being broken down into smaller, more biodegradable compounds (i.e., degradation intermediaries), thereby elevating the concentration of these materials within the reactors. If this dual supply of easily biodegradable materials (i.e., influent + within-reactor degradation intermediaries) was greater than the processing capacity of the degradation systems which processed these easily degraded fractions, then a buildup of this fraction would occur. Background Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Date |S Influent a Unplanted Control • Planted Only a Innoculated & Planted Figure 7.13 Reduction of cedar leachate toxicity in pilot-scale constructed wetlands {Note: error bars = std. dev.; n = 2 for all cells and n = 1 for influent} Kevin Frankowski 73 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.3 Results and Discussion Table 7.3 Summary ofpilot-scale removal performance for targeted parameters Average' Control Average %-Removal Planted Average %-Removal Planted + Average Inoculated %-Removal Parameter Toxicity [TU, ] 3 45.2 27.7 38% 23.0 49% 23.0 49% 0.7 8.3 19% 0.6 2% 0.6 2% Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 1728 1139 32% 1341 21% 1234 26% 585 346 15% 454 15% 315 11% Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 5604 2869 46% 3483 39% 3160 43% 2102 1388 22% 1644 14% 1471 17% Tannins and Lignins (as tannic acid) 866 491 43% 579 32% 516 39% 188 163 16% 186 19% 154 19% NOTES 1. Al l values, except toxicity, reported in mg/L 2. n=7 for influent, and n=l 3 for each reactor set (except toxicity, where n=2 for influent, and n=4 for each reactor set) 3. Toxicity, as determined by a 96hr rainbow trout LC 5 o, and reported as acute Toxic Units (i.e., T U , = 100/LC5o) Table 7.4 Removal of volatile fatty acids (C -C6) in pilot-scale wetlands Influents Average1 Control Average %-Removal3 Planted Average %-Rcmoval Parameter Planted + Inoculated Average %-Rcmoval (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.) Volatile Fatty Acids (VFAs): Total (C 2 - C 6 ) 499 295 30% 396 11% 367 14% 209 129 38% 140 40% 108 44% - acetic acid 236 138 -471% 189 -629% 170 -666% 137 67 1294% 77 1555% 47 1664% - propionic acid 111 66 37% 84 22% 89 16% 32 27 24% 24 17% 34 31% - butyric acid + iso-butyric acid 90 54 36% 76 15% 70 18% 26 24 25% 25 20% 24 28% - valeric acid 24 14 -330% 18 -323% 13 -189% 25 11 757% 15 807% 12 575% - hcxanoic acid 39 23 39% 29 25% 25 35% 8 9 23% 7 15% 7 20% NOTES 1. All values reported in mg/L 2. n=6 for influent, and n=l 1 for each reactor set 3. %-removal was calculated for each cell, each week, and then averaged. This is more accurate than using the summarized concentration averages to calculate %-removal, since this may mask temporal variations. Hence, the removal suggested by the concentration averages may not match the reported %-rcmovals, but it will be within the range of variation (as indicated by the standard deviations reported for %-rcmovals) Table 7.5 Summary ofpilot-scale field data Control Planted Inoculated ' Average' Average Average Average Parameter (Std. Dev.)2 (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.) Temperature (°C) 8.2 7.3 7.2 7.1 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.0 pH 3.53 3.66 3.69 3.79 0.07 0.15 0.17 0.20 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 2.2 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 Conductivity (uS/cm) 417 255 314 287 45 86 57 54 NOTES 1. Inoculated cells were planted 2. Units as noted 3. n=7 for influent, and n=13 for each reactor set Kevin Frankowski 74 U B C C I V I L ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.3 Results and Discussion Performance calculations for BOD removal would therefore indicate a lower performance compared to COD, since the mass balance inherent in the calculation assumes no within-reactor source. Thus, this contrast between the BOD and COD data may be indicative of a two-stage process, where large compounds are broken into smaller compounds by one group of organisms, and these smaller, more available compounds are then metabolized further by another group of organisms, whose processing capacity is being exceeded. This hypothesis is supported by a comparison between the tannin and lignin data (Table 7.3), and the V F A data (Table 7.4). The tannin and lignin data had a stable removal rate similar to COD, while the VFAs had an extremely variable removal rate (note the very large standard deviations for V F A %-removal), and some weeks had effluent concentrations higher than influent concentrations (especially for acetic and valeric acids; see Appendix D.4 for specifics). The larger compounds represented by the tannin and lignin analysis were consistently being broken down, and their breakdown products were probably appearing as other classes of smaller compounds. The production rate of these smaller compounds seemed to be outpacing the system's ability to degrade them. Anoxic conditions were present in all the cells during the whole field trial period and the pH remained low (pH<4; see Table 7.5), another indication that V F A production may be occurring within the reactors. Treatment performance of the field system was not as high as what was observed for the laboratory systems. Several factors may have contributed to this. Temperatures were a lot lower in the field (6-8°C) than in the lab (15 or 22°C), and temperature is generally assumed to have a profound influence on performance (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). However, there are some indications that its influence may not be as profound for wetlands as it is for some of the more conventional processes (Wittgren and Maehlum 1997). Likely to be of much greater importance is oxygen supply. Since the cattails were in senescence during the winter, their ability to provide oxygen to the root zone was greatly diminished. It would be informative to observe how root zone oxygen status changed on a seasonal basis and what effect this had on treatment efficiency. Kevin Frankowski 75 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 P I L O T - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T 7.3 Results and Discussion Table 7.6 Summary ofpilot-scale removal performance for solids and nutrients ^LwW infiiifiii 1 • a s m s Control Planted Inoculated ' Average 2 Average Average Average Parameter (Std. D e v . ) 3 (Std. Dev. ) (Std. Dev . ) (Std. Dev . ) Tota l Suspended Sol ids (TSS) 21.6 23.2 12.4 13.3 14.4 43.5 13.2 9.5 A m m o n i a ( N H 3 - N ) 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Nitrate + nitrite ( N O x " - N ) 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 Ortho-phosphate ( P O 4 3 " -P) 1.47 0.78 0.97 0.86 0.23 0.34 0.23 0.22 NOTES 1. Inoculated cells were planted 2. A l l values reported in m g / L 3. n=6 for influent, and n= 11 for each reactor set (except T S S where n=7 for influent, and n=13 for each reactor set) Nutrient status was likely another very important factor affecting performance. Given set conditions o f temperature and oxygen supply, total metabolic capability is limited by the number of metabolic units (i.e., organisms) available. I f the population o f microbes which are responsible for a specific degradation is limited due to insufficient nutrients, providing optimal temperature and oxygen supply wi l l not dramatically improve performance, since these are not the limiting factors. Due to the nature of its influent, all of the treatment cells were very nutrient-poor (Table 7.6). Thus, another important experimental manipulation would be to compare how nutrient addition affects treatment efficiency. It is very likely that a cascade of metabolic reactions is occurring during the degradation of the cedar leachate, and that the assemblage of required organisms is quite complex. Various bacteria and fungi would have to be present in the right place and in the correct proportions, all performing their various specialized metabolic tasks, before optimal performance would be achieved. In addition, the macrophytes, algae, and even aquatic invertebrates would all perform necessary supporting functions. Fortunately, it is not necessary to fully understand and manage each of these detailed interrelationships. Natural ecosystems and their analogues w i l l respond to a given set o f environmental conditions and produce the most appropriate assemblage for those conditions. Our task is Kevin Frankowski 76 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.3 Results and Discussion to understand what conditions will produce the needed outcome, and then design and maintain the system accordingly. Over time, the detailed ecological intricacies will develop as necessary. In contrast to conventional systems, the result is a system which improves with age (Kadlec and Knight 1996; Webb et al. 1998). This is especially true when the desired degradation process is a complex one. Thus, it may take some time before the ecological structure necessary for optimal treatment performance is developed in this pilot-scale system. Of course, it is still necessary to understand the system sufficiently so as to provide the appropriate conditions to allow these systems to reach their full potential. This understanding can be provided by a systematic application of specific experimental manipulations which build upon previous experience and knowledge. Therefore, because there was such a lack of background knowledge in using constructed wetlands to treat cedar leachate, it was necessary to proceed one step at a time from the base case. Rather than supplementing the system with nutrients, oxygen, and the like right from the beginning, which would have contributed little to the understanding of their respective effects, it was necessary to first establish the base case. The results from this first field season have established that the presence or absence of an appropriate microbial seed is not the overall limiting factor, despite their importance in the lab-based studies. This may be due to the fact that the native soil used in all the cells already represented a suitable seed, due to exposure to the leachate in previous years. Another possibility is that the flooding by the Fraser River during the summer of 1999 carried the appropriate microbial inoculant into all the cells. It remains to be seen whether any differences will emerge between the different reactors (i.e., inoculated versus non-inoculated; planted versus unplanted) under the more optimal summer operating conditions. Overall, the results of the field trials indicate the constructed wetlands have the strong potential for being a viable treatment option for cedar leachate. Obviously, process optimization is required, but the preliminary results generated by this research indicate that it should be possible to develop a full-scale treatment system which meets all the Kevin Frankowski 77 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.3 Results and Discussion performance objectives (A . l - A.2) outlined in Section 1.4. With regards to the design objectives (B. l - B.3), system robustness and dependability seem high, as evidenced by its ability to withstand several weeks of being submerged under flood waters, then be filled with high-strength, toxic wastewater, and yet still continue to survive and function. Of course, a proper assessment of the system's robustness and dependability will only be ascertained by continued monitoring. Minimal operator training or intervention (Objective B.2) is assured by the very nature of the wetland treatment mechanisms and the autonomous design of the control structures (i.e., influent and effluent pumping systems). Aside from optimization manipulations, there is little operational activity that can be done. 7.3.3 Construction and operating costs The final objective (B.3) outlined for this research addressed the need for an inexpensive treatment system which operated with a minimum of monitoring, chemical additions, or by-products handling. By-products handling, including the treatment and disposal of sludges and/or spent absorption media often represents 50% of the annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for conventional treatment technologies (McArdle et al. 1988; Metcalf and Eddy 1991). Unlike these systems, constructed wetland systems generally produce no by-products, and therefore are free from this annual expense (Batchelor and Loots 1997; Reed et al. 1995). Similarly, since chemical addition is usually not part of the regular process, this supply cost is also eliminated. Regular O & M activities for constructed wetlands are quite basic, and are usually limited to monitoring and occasional servicing of basic physical infrastructure such as berms and inlet and outlet weirs (Kadlec and Knight 1996). Aside from research monitoring costs, there were no O & M costs for this facility. However, the operational period was short. The median O & M cost reported for surface-flow constructed wetlands operating in the United States was $400 per acre (less than $0.10/m2/yr) (Kadlec and Knight 1996). Using this value, the O & M costs for the this facility would be less than $50 per year. Kevin Frankowski 78 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.3 Results and Discussion Thus, most of the cost associated with wetland treatment systems will reside in their initial construction and implementation (Kadlec and Knight 1996). However, detailed information on construction costs is quite T a b l e 7 7 M a t e r i a l c o s t s f o r t h e p i l o t . s c a i e limited in the literature, probably due to constructed wetland facility Item Amount the large number of variables which affect Land1 these costs. This makes detailed Excavation I ooo.oo comparison for estimation purposes L i n e r s 2 0 2 4 0 0 difficult. Table 7.7 presents the material p i p i n g a n d S u p p l i e s 3 5 1 6 0 0 . . . . • , j Sub-total (Basic Cost): $ 6,540.00 costs that were incurred during , . ., . Pumps2 2 864.00 construction of this project s pilot-scale r . . . T , , . . . , j , i j_ . i Electrical Installation3 1 1 257.00 facility. It should be noted that the . . . o » i • • • TOTAL (w/pumps & power lines): $ 20,661.00 installation of the electrical service into ... . . , NOTES this site was an exceptional expense, , L a n d a c c e s s p r o v i d e d b y l a n d o w n e r , i i i j £• 2. Three 1 hp centrifugal pumps (stainless steel) made necessary Only by the need tor 3. _ 1 5 0 0 ' of 220V service, including 10kVA transformer and . . . „ . associated timers, switches, and connections to pumps electrical pumps. These pumps were required due to the experimental nature of the facility, providing the ability to autonomously control influent strength and the fate of the effluent. In a optimized, typical full-scale installation, it would be desirable to locate the treatment wetlands such that the influent could be collected and transported via gravity alone, thus eliminating some of the most expensive items from the budget. Without the pumps and electricity, the basic materials cost for this facility was $6540 (Table 7.7). It must be remembered that this facility was intended for pilot-scale experimental use only. In order to keep costs down, all of the labour (except initial excavation and all electrical work) was volunteer. Also, since it was not intended to withstand the rigours and design life of a full-scale installation, certain aspects were modified (e.g., inlet and outlet flow control structures would normally be set into concrete, rather than just packed earthen supports). However, piping supplies represented approximately half of the materials cost (Table 7.7). In a full-scale installation, there Kevin Frankowski 79 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7 .0 P I L O T - S C A L E T R E A T M E N T 7.3 Results and Discussion would be no need for so extensive a piping network as was used for the experimental facility, since there would be no need for multiple parallel cells or long-distance conveyance of pumped water. Taking these factors into consideration, it seems reasonable to estimate that a similar size facility, designed and built to full-scale standards, would cost approximately double, or about $ 13 000. While this is only a rough estimate and ignores many of the factors which affect capital expense, it is sufficient for some very general comparisons to be made with other treatment technologies. McArdle et al. (1988) present cost information (capital and annual O & M ) for some conventional leachate treatment technologies. Assuming a design life of 20 years and given the annual O & M costs and treatment throughput rate, cost per unit treatment can be calculated (Table 7.8). The same can be done for the constructed wetland treatment system, based on the cost information presented above. Note that since the land needed for the wetland will have salvage value of at least its net present value, it is typically not included in these types of calculations (Kadlec and Knight 1996). Table 7.8 Cost comparisons of different leachate treatment technologies Technology Wet-air oxidation Capital ' 746,000 Annual O&M 1 145,000 Unit Treatment Cost (S/m  3 ) 3.67 Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment 441,000 69,000 1.83 Activated carbon absorption 115,000 67,000 1.46 Reverse osmosis 122,000 53,000 1.19 Activated sludge 326,000 32,000 0.97 Precipitation/flocculation/sedimentation 303,000 28,000 0.87 Rotating biological contactor (RBC) 183,000 23,000 0.65 Constructed wetlands2 13,000 50 0.11 NOTES 1. Costs for all processes, except wetlands, have been converted to 1999 Canadian dollars (from 1986 US dollars), and are based on a system capacity of 25 gal/min (= 49 735 m3/yr) and a 20-year design life. Adapted from McArdle et al. (1988). 2. Wetland costs are reported in 1999 Canadian dollars, and are based upon a system capacity of 6 240 m'/yr, and a 20-year design life. Kevin Frankowski 80 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE T R E A T M E N T 7.3 Results and Discussion The comparison presented in Table 7.8 is very conservative with regards to the wetland treatment system, for a number of reasons. First, the costs presented for all the conventional systems are from much larger-scale systems than the wetland system. Due to the typical economies of scale associated with these types of systems, their per-unit treatment costs would be considerably higher if they were operating at the same scale as the wetlands. Secondly, the costs presented for the conventional systems are all unit operation costs, and therefore may not reflect the full price of the treatment train. Certain processes may need pretreatment or polishing units, depending upon the nature of the influent, and this will increase the overall costs. It is important to realize that the cost comparison presented here is solely for the purpose of comparing technology costs, without any statements being made with regards to the effectiveness of any given technology at meeting any specific treatment efficiency objectives. Based on an extensive review of the published literature, conventional biological systems (e.g., activated sludge, RBCs) have not been shown to be effective at treating wood leachate. Finally, while it is typical to use a 20 year design life for mechanical systems, applying this same design life to a wetland system is erroneous, since constructed wetlands have a much longer design life; 50 years is considered more appropriate (Kadlec and Knight 1996), and this would further reduce the unit-treatment cost of the wetland system. Regardless, even when viewed in such a conservative context, the wetland treatment option compares very favourably against the other leachate treatment options. While activated carbon and wet-air oxidation are probably very effective at removing many of the contaminants from wood leachate, their respective unit-treatment costs are almost 15 and 30 times greater than those for the constructed wetland system (Table 7.8). Even the RBC process, which may not be suited for treating wood leachate, has a unit-treatment cost almost 6 times higher than the wetland system. Kevin Frankowski 81 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 7.0 PILOT-SCALE TREATMENT 7.4 Conclusions 7 A C o n c l u s i o n s It was demonstrated that constructed wetlands were able to treat cedar leachate under field conditions. Reductions in toxicity, BOD, COD and tannin and lignin content were consistently achieved. Performance of the field-scale system did not match what was observed under laboratory conditions, but this may have been due to lower ambient temperatures, decreased oxygen supply as a result of normal plant senescence, and insufficient nutrients to support the necessary microbial communities. Optimization studies are needed to address these issues. The wetland system may also need more time for full ecological maturation under operational conditions, and therefore treatment performance may improve with system age. Since optimization of this process largely centers around ecological considerations, the final outcome is unlikely to have a dramatic effect on the overall cost of the system. Therefore, general comparisons with conventional leachate treatment technologies can be made. These demonstrate that this wetland system has the potential to deliver effective treatment with a much better economy than conventional alternatives, with its unit treatment costs being at least 3 times to more than 20 times cheaper than other technologies. Kevin Frankowski 82 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 8.0 GENERAL SYNOPSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The leachate produced by the cedar hog fuel pile could be considered a strong industrial wastewater. It was toxic, acidic, and possessed a very high, and aggressive, oxygen demand. Previous studies on similar leachates had failed to demonstrate viable, long-term treatment techniques. Using a step-wise approach, it was determined that this wood leachate was amenable to biological treatment and that constructed wetlands represented a feasible treatment technique. Laboratory-scale wetlands were able to achieve a 90% reduction in toxicity and removal rates of up to 94% for BOD and 80% for COD. Furthermore, a pilot-scale facility demonstrated that constructed wetlands were able to treat this leachate under field conditions. While treatment efficiency in the field was not on par with that observed under optimal laboratory conditions, it must be realized that this process stills needs to be optimized. Preliminary results indicate several factors that may yield significant gains in this respect. Nutrient availability, oxygen supply, and temperature are likely the most important factors that need to be addressed. While ambient temperature is under climatic control and not realistically available for field manipulation, determining the system's sensitivity to the seasonal cycles is important from a design perspective. However, it is entirely possible that once issues such as nutrient supply are optimized, the ecological system wil l be under much less stress and better able to handle fluctuations in ambient conditions such as temperature. Ecological maturity is another factor which may play a role. Given sufficient exposure to chosen operating conditions, the system will produce internal adjustments in the composition of its biological communities, which may, on its own, produce considerable gains in the optimization process. Constructed wetlands possess a feature few other systems can boast of - performance usually improves with age. Thus, the system needs to be evaluated under different seasonal conditions, preferably for more than a year, to capture a representative sampling of its inherent variability and Kevin Frankowski 83 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 8.0 GENERAL SYNOPSIS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS determine what operating conditions need to be adjusted in order to have the field system operate closer to its theoretical capability. Further research is also needed to clarify the specific causes of toxicity in this leachate and its relationship with parameters such as pH. Several techniques, including TIEs based on molecular size exclusion, can be used. The resulting knowledge will provide critical design information. Therefore, this research should not be considered as complete. The field monitoring only covered a span of three months, and these were during winter, when biological conditions were less than optimal. The ultimate goal should be to produce a system capable of treating the leachate at higher influent concentrations, with shorter retention times, and still yield an effluent suitable for discharge. The preliminary work is done and it has demonstrated that it is feasible for constructed wetlands to meet both the performance and design objectives originally outlined. In a way, the "worst-case" conditions have been tackled first. The strength of the leachate, in terms of toxicity, BOD and COD, is probably much worse than the leachate or runoff produced at most wood processing sites. Also, the field results are based upon the winter operations of a sub-optimized system. From this perspective, the technology holds much promise for successfully addressing the leachate and runoff concerns that exist at other wood processing sites. The contaminants and their sources are known, and this knowledge is in the process of being refined. Collection and control technologies already exist for effective minimization and control of runoff and leachate. The final step in an effective environmental management scenario is to provide a reliable and realistic treatment technology for the remaining discharges. As shown by this research, constructed wetlands represent such a technology. They are ideally suited for applications which require distributed, autonomous and economic treatment of fluctuating loads containing a broad, and often changing, spectrum of contaminants. Kevin Frankowski 84 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9 . 0 L I T E R A T U R E C I T E D Adcock, R, L. Gill, and J. Barlow. 1999. Reed beds take on industrial waste. Water 21 September-October 1999: 50-52. Al, H.A., G.J. Evans, and B. Cox. 1995. Till liners for isolation of hazardous solid wastes. International Journal of Environmental Studies 47: 105-118. Albers, P.H., and M.B. Camardese. 1993a. Effects of acidification on metal accumulation by aquatic plants and invertebrates 1. Constructed wetlands. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 12: 959-967. Albers, P.H., and M.B. Camardese. 1993b. Effects of acidification on metal accumulation by aquatic plants and invertebrates 2. Wetlands, ponds and small lakes. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 12: 969-976. Andreottola, G. and P. Cannas. 1992. Chemical and biological characteristics of landfill leachate. In T.H. Christensen, R. Cossu and R. Stegman (Eds.), Landfilling of Waste: Leachate, pp. 65-88. Elsevir Applied Science. London, England. APH A (American Public Health Association). 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (19th ed.). American Public Health Association. Washington, DC, USA. Armstrong, W., J. Armstrong, and P.M. Beckett. 1990. Measurement and modelling of oxygen release from roots of Phragmites australis . In P.F. Cooper and B.C. Findlater (Eds.), Advances in Water Pollution Control: Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control, pp. 41-51. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. Bailey, H.C., J. R. Elphick, A. Potter, E. Chao, D. Konasewich, and J. B. Zak. 1999. Causes of Toxicity in Stormwater Runoff from Sawmills. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 18: 1485-1491. Bailey, Howard, personal communication. Senior Ecotoxicologist. EVS Environment Consultants. North Vancouver, BC, Canada. Batchelor, A. and P. Loots. 1997. A critical evaluation of a pilot scale subsurface flow wetland: 10 years after commissioning. Water Science and Technology 35(5): 337-343. Bastian, R.K. and D.A. Hammer. 1993. The use of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and recycling. In G.A. Moshiri (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, pp. 59-68. Lewis Publishers, London, England. Beaty, Bob. personal communication. Section Head. Emissions and Standards Section, Air Resources Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, BC, Canada. Behrends. L.L., L. Houke, E. Bailey, and D. Brown. 1999. Reciprocating subsurface-flow wetlands for treating high-strength aquaculture wastewater. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 317-324. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Kevin Frankowski 85 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 L I T E R A T U R E C I T E D Best, E.P., S.L. Sprecher, S.L. Larson, H.L. Fredrickson, and D.F. Bader. 1999. Environmental behavior of explosives in groundwater from the Milan Army Ammunition Plant in aquatic and wetland plant treatments: Removal, mass balances and fate in groundwater of TNT and RDX. Chemosphere 38: 3383-3396. Borga, P., T. Elowson, and K. Liukko. 1996. Environmental loads from water-sprinkled softwood timber: 2. Influence of Tree Species and Water Characteristics on Wastewater Discharges. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 15:1445-1454. Borgmann, U. 1983. Metal speciation and toxicity of free metal ions to aquatic biota. In J.O. Nriago (Ed.), Aquatic Toxicology, pp. 47-72. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, US. Braungart, M, K. Hansen, and D. Mulhall. 1997. Biomass nutrient recycling: an afforadable closed-cycle process with added benefits. Water Environment & Technology 9: 41-45. Burgan, M.A., and D.M. Sievers. 1994. On-site treatment of household sewage via septic tank and two-stage submerged bed wetland. In E. Collins (Ed.), On-Site Wastewater Treatment, pp. 77-84. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI, US. Burgoon, P.S., R.H. Kadlec, and M. Henderson. 1999. Treatment of potato processing wastewater with engineered natural systems. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 211-216. Cacador, I., C. Vale, and F. Catarino. 1996. The influence of plants on concentration and fragmentation of Zn, Pb, and Cu in salt marsh sediments (Tagus Estuary, Portugal). Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 5: 193-198. Cameron, R.D. 1982. Toxicity of Landfill Leachates. Environment Canada Technology Development Report EPS 4-EC-82-7. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Prepared for the Waste Management Branch of Environment Canada by the University of British Columbia. Chong, S., H. Garelick, D.M. Revitt, R.B.E. Shutes, P. Worrall and D. Brewer. 1999. The microbiology associated with glycol removal in constructed wetlands. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 99-108. Chu, H.Y., N.C. Chen, M.C. Yeung, N.F.Y. Tarn, and Y.S. Wong. 1998. Tide-tank system simulating mangrove wetland for removal of nutrients and heavy metals from wastewater. Water Science and Technology 38(1): 361-368. COFI (Council of Forest Industries). 1999. British Columbia Forest Industry Fact Book-1998. Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Cole, S. 1998. The emergence of treatment wetlands. Environmental Science & Technology 32:218A-223A. Cooper, P. 1999. A review of the design and performance of vertical-flow and hybrid reed bed treatment systems. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 1-9. Crites, R. W., D. C. Gunther, A. P. Kruzic, J. D. Pelz, and G. Tchobanoglous. 1988. Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plants Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. Kevin Frankowski 86 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 LITERATURE CITED Crites, R. W., G. D. Dombeck, R. C. Watson, and C. R. Williams. 1997. Removal of Metals and Ammonia in Constructed Wetlands. Water Environment Research 69:132-135. Davies, T.H. and RD. Cottingham. 1994. The use of constructed wetlands for treating industrial effluent (textile dyes). Water Science and Technology 29(4): Ill-Ill. Davis, L. 1995. A Handbook oj Constructed Wetlands. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC, US. Davis, M.L. and D.A Cornwell. 1998. Introduction to Environmental Engineering (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. New York, NY, US. Denny, P. 1997. Implementation of constructed wetlands in developing countries. Water Science and Technology 35(5): 27-34. Diamadopoulos, E., P. Samaras, X. Dabou, and G.P. Sakellaropoulos. 1997. Combined treatment of landfill leachate and domestic sewage in a sequencing batch reactor. Water Science and Technology 36(2-3): 61-68. Dollerer, J., and PA. Wilderer. 1996. Biological treatment of leachates from hazardous waste landfills using SBBR technology. Water Science and Technology 34(7-8): 437-444. Dyer, J.R. 1965. Applications of Absorption Spectroscopy of Organic Compounds. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US. Eaton, R.A. and M.D.C. Hale. 1993. Wood: Decay, Pests and Protection. Chapman & Hall. London, England. Eger, P. 1994. Wetland treatment for trace metal removal from mine drainage: The importance of aerobic and anaerobic processes. Water Science and Technology 29(4): 249-256. Ehrig, H.J. and R. Stegmann. 1987. Biological Processes. In T.H. Christensen, R. Cossu and R. Stegman (Eds.), Landfilling of Waste: Leachate, pp. 185-202. Elsevir Applied Science, London, England. Ellis, J.B., D.M. Revitt, R.B.E. Shutes, and J.M. Langley. 1994. The performance of vegetated biofilters for highway runoff control. Highway Pollution 1994:543-550. Environment Canada. 1982. Canadian Climate Normals: Temperature and Precipitation 1951-1980. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Environment Canada. 1990. Biological Test Method: Acute Lethality Test Using Rainbow Trout. Report EPS l/RM/9 (including May 1996 amendments). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Frandsen , A.K. and C H . Gammons. 1999. Complexation of metals with aqueous sulfide in an anaerobic treatment wetlands. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 423-430. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Fraser, J. A. 1995. Fraser River Sockeye 1994: Problems and Discrepancies. Canada Communication Group-Publishing, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Gardner, J.M. 1997. Leachate management through minimization. Public Works 128:60-61. Kevin Frankowski 87 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 LITERATURE CITED Gettinby, J.H., R.W. Sarsby, and J.C. Nedwell. 1996. Composition of leachate from landfilled refuse. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 115: 47-59. Griffin, R, R Jennings, and E. Bowman. 1999. Advanced nitrogen removal by rotating biological contactors, recycle and constructed wetlands. Water Science and Technology 40(4-5): 383-390. Haberl, R. 1999. Constructed wetlands: A chance to solve wastewater problems in developing countries. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 11-17. Hammer, D. A. 1997. Creating Freshwater Wetlands (2nded.). Lewis Publishers, New York, US. Hammer, D.A. and R.K. Bastian. 1989. Wetlands ecosystems: natural water purifiers? In D.A. Hammer (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural, pp. 5-20. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI, US. Hiley, P.D. 1990. Wetlands treatment revival in Yorkshire. In P.F. Cooper and B.C. Findlater (Eds.), Advances in Water Pollution Control: Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control, pp. 279-288. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. Horan, N.J., H. Gohar, and B. Hill. 1997. Application of a granular activated carbon-biological fluidised bed for the treatment of landfill leachates containing high concentrations of ammonia. Water Science and Technology 36(2-3): 369-375. Inamori, Y., K. Nishiguchi, N. Matsuo, H. Tsujibo, K. Baba, andN. Ishida. 1991. Phytogrowth-inhibitory activities of tropolone and hinokitiol. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin (Tokyo) 39: 2378-2381. Ince, N.H. 1998. Light-enhanced chemical oxidation for tertiary treatment of municipal landfill leachate. Water Environment Research 70: 1161-1169. Johnson, K.D., C D . Martin, and T.G. Davis. 1999. Treatment of wastewater effluent from a natural gas compressor station. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 51-56. Jokela, J.B. and C. Pinks. 1998. Constructed wetlands for stormwater treatment in Alaska. In Proceedings of the ASCE Wetlands Engineering River Restoration Conference. Published by American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, NY, US. Kadlec, R.H. 1999. Chemical, physical and biological cycles in treatment wetlands. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 37-44. Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC-Lewis Publishers. New York, NY, US. Kalin, M., J. Cairns and R.M. McCready. 1991. Ecological engineering methods for acid mine drainage treatment of coal wastes. Resources Conservation and Recycling 5: 265-276. Karathanasis, A.D. and Y L . Thompson. 1993. Substrate effects on metal retention and speciation in simulated acid mine wetlands. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 51: 421-429. Karpiscak, M.M., R.J. Freitas, and E. Shamir. 1999. Management of dairy waste in the Sonoran Desert using constructed wetland technology. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 57-66. Kevin Frankowski 88 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 L I T E R A T U R E C I T E D Keller, B.E.M., K. Lajtha, and S. Cristofor. 1998. Trace metal concentrations in the sediments and plants of the Danube Delta, Romania. Wetlands 18:42-50. Kemp, M. C. and D. B. George. 1997. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands Treating Municipal Wastewater for Nitrogen Transformation and Removal. Water Environment Research 69: 1254-1262. Knapp, R.A. 1987. The biogeochemistry of acid generation in sulphide tailings and waste rock. In Environment Canada (Ed.). Proceedings of Acid Mine Drainage Seminar / Workshop (March 23-26, 1987), pp. 47-66. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Cat# En 40-11-7/1987. Knight, R. L., R. H. Kadlec, and H. M. Ohlendorf. 1999. The Use of Treatment Wetlands for Petroleum Industry Effluents. Environmental Science & Technology 33:973-980. Kowalik, P., I. Toczylowska, and A.C. Edwards. 1998. Phytoremediation by constructed wetlands: assessment of biopedological techniques for resource-efficient farming with livestock. Acta horticulturae 457: 187-193. Kristensen, P. 1992. Ecotoxicological characteristics of landfill leachate. In T.H. Christensen, R. Cossu and R. Stegman (Eds.), Landfilling of Waste: Leachate, pp. 89-105. Elsevir Applied Science. London, England. Lacki, M.J., J.W. Hummer, and H.J. Webster. 1992. Mine drainage treatment wetland as habitat for herpetofaunal wildlife. Environmental Management 16:513-520. Laks, P.E. 1991. Wood preservation as trees do it. Scottish Forestry 45:275-284. Loer, J., D. Wetzstein, J. Julik, and R. H. Kadlec. 1997. An Integrated Natural System for Leachate Treatment. In P. Cooper (Ed.), Newsletter No. 16, Specialist Group on the Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control, pp. 12-14. International Association on Water Quality. London, England. Lu, J.C.S., B. Eichenberger, and R.J. Stearns. 1985. Leachate from Municipal Landfills: Production and Management. Noyes Publications. Park Ridge, NJ, US. Maddox, J.J. and J.B. Kingsley. 1989. Waste treatment for confined swine with an integrated artificial wetland and aquaculture system. In D.A. Hammer (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural, pp. 191-200. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI, US. Maeseneer, J.De. and P. Cooper. 1997. Vertical Versus Horizontal-Flow Reedbeds for Treatment of Domestic and Similar Wastewaters. In P. Cooper (Ed.), Newsletter No. 16, Specialist Group on the Use of Macrophytes in Water Pollution Control, pp. 14-21. International Association on Water Quality. London, England. Manoharam, R., S.C. Haper, D.S. Mavinic, C.W. Randall, G. Wang, and D.C. Marickovich. 1992. Inferred metal toxicty during the biotreatment of high ammonia landfill leachate. Water Environment Research 64: 858-882. Makos, J.D., and D.C. Hrncir. 1995. Chemistry of Cr(VI) in a constructed wetland. Environmental Science & Technology 29: 2414-2419. Kevin Frankowski 89 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 LITERATURE C I T E D Marking, L.L. 1985. Toxicity of chemical mixtures. In G.M. Rand and S.R. Petrocelli (Eds.), Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology: Methods and Applications, pp. 164-176. McGraw-Hill. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. McArdle, J.L., M.M. Arozarena, and W.E. Gallagher. 1988. Treatment of Hazardous Waste Leachate: Unit operations and costs. Noyes Publishers, Park Ridge, NJ, US. McCloy, B.W. 1997. History and future of sawmill wood waste disposal in British Columbia. Residue to Revenue Conference (November 4-5, 1997). Council of Forest industries of British Columbia. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. McDaniel, C.A., J.A. Klocke, and M.F. Balandrin. 1989. Major anti-termitic wood extractive components of Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Material und Organismen (Berlin) 24: 301-314. Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering - Treatment, disposal and reuse (3rd ed.). Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Millano, E.F. and M.W. Hahn. 1997. Storage, disposal, remediation, and closure. Water Environment Research 69: 689-720. Ministry of Forests. 1999. Major Primary Timber Processing Facilities in British Columbia. Economics and Trade Branch, Ministry of Forests. Victoria, BC, Canada. Mitchell, D.S., P.F. Breen, and A.J. Chick. 1990. Artificial wetlands for treating wastewaters from single households and small communities. In P.F. Cooper and B.C. Findlater (Eds.), Advances in Water Pollution Control: Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control, pp. 383 -390. Pergamon Press. Oxford, England. Moore, B.J., S.D. Ross, D. Gibson, and L. Callow. 1999. Constructed wetlands for treatment of dissolved-phase hydrocarbons in cold climates. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 333-340. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Mungur, A.S., R.B.E. Shutes, D.M. Revitt, and M.A. House. 1997. An assessment of metal removal by a laboratory scale wetland. Water Science and Technology 35(5): 125-133. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, technology and public policy. National Academy Press. Washington, DC, USA. Otte, M.L., C C . Kearns, and M.O. Doyle. 1995. Accumulation of zinc in the rhizosphere of wetland plants. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 55: 154-161. Paine, P.J. 1987. Historic and geographic overview of Acid Mine Drainage. In Environment Canada (Ed.). Proceedings of Acid Mine Drainage Seminar / Workshop (March 23-26, 1987), pp. 1-45. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Cat# En 40-11-7/1987. Pantano, J., R. Bullock, D. McCarthy, T. Sharp, and C. Stilwell. 1999. Using wetlands to remove metals from mining-impacted groundwater. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 383-390. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Kevin Frankowski 90 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 LITERATURE C I T E D Pardue, J.H., G. Kassenga, and W.S. Shin. 1999. Design approaches for chlorinated VOC treatment wetlands. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 301-308. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Pascoe, G.A., R.J. Blanchet, and G. Linder. 1994. Bioavailability of metals and arsenic to small mammals at a mining waste-water contaminated wetland. Archives of Environmental Contaminant Toxicology 27: 44-50. Passos, J.A.L., F.A. Pereira, and S. Tomich. 1994. Approaches and practises related to hazardous waste management, processing and final disposal in Germany and Brazil. Water Science and Technology 29(8): 105-116. Persson, J., N.L.G. Somes, and T.H.F. Wong. 1999. Hydraulics efficiency of constructed wetlands and ponds. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 291-300. Peters, G.B., H.J. Dawson, B.F. Hrutfiord, and R.R. Whitney. 1976. Aqueous leachate from Western Red Cedar: Effects on some aquatic organisms. Journal of the Fisheries Resource Board of Canada 33: 2703-2709. Peters, T. A. 1996. Purification of landfill leachate with membrane technology. Water Quality International 5: 23-26. Polprasert, C , N.P. Dan, and N. Thayalakumaran. 1996. Application of constructed wetlands to treat some toxic wastewaters under tropical conditions. Water Science and Technology 34(11): 165-171. Power, E.A. 1987. Effects of log storage on zooplankton and juvenile salmonids in Babine Lake, British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC, Canada. PricewaterhouseCoopers. 1999. The Forest Industry in British Columbia -1998. Preparedybr the Forest Industry Resource Committee by PricewaterhouseCoopers Global Forest & Paper Practise. Pries, J. 1994. Wastewater and stormwater applications of wetlands in Canada. Sustaining Wetlands Issues, Paper No. 1994-1. North American Wetlands Conservation Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Prystay, W.A. 1997. An Assessment of Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Greenhouse Effluent. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Raisin, G. W., D. S. Mitchell, and R. L. Croome. 1997. The effectiveness of a small constructed wetland in ameliorating diffuse nutrient loadings from an Australian rural catchment. Ecological Engineering 9: 19-36. Reed, S.C., R.W. Crites, and E.J. Middlebrooks. 1995. Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Inc. New York, NY, US. Robinson, H. 1999. Exporting waste expertise. Water 21 September-October 1999: 35-36. Rochfort, Q.J., B.C. Anderson, A.A. Crowder, J. Marsalek, and W.E. Watt. 1997. Field-scale studies of subsurface flow constructed wetlands for stormwater quality enhancement. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 32: 101-117. Kevin Frankowski 91 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 LITERATURE C I T E D Rowe, J. W. and A.H. Conner. 1979. Extractives in Eastern Hardwoods - A Review. General Technical Report FPL 18. Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, US Dept of Agriculture. Madison, WN, US. Sakadevan, K., and H.J. Bavor. 1999. Nutrient removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands and sustainable water management. Water Science and Technology 40(2): 121-127. Sands, Z., L.S. Gills, and B. Rust. 1999. Effluent treatment reed beds: Results after ten years of operations. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 273-279. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Sansanayuth, P., A Phadungchep, S. Ngammontha, S. Ngdngam, P. Sukasem, H. Hoshino, and M.S. Ttabucanon. 1996. Shrimp pond effluent: pollution problems and treatment by constructed wetlands. Water Science and Technology 34(11): 93-98. Sawyer, C.N., P.L. McCarty, And G.F. Parkin. 1994. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill. New York, NY, US. Schermer, E.D. and J.B. Phipps. 1977. A Study of Woodwaste Leachate. Preparedybr Washington State Department of Ecology by Grays Harbour College. Schneck, W. 1994. Technical standards for the construction of hazardous waste landfills in Germany documented at the hazardous waste landfill site at Raindorf. Water Science and Technology 29(8): 263-277. Scholes, L., R.B.E. Shutes, D.M. Revitt, M. Forshaw, and D. Purchase. 1998. The treatment of metals in urban runoff by constructed wetlands. Science of the Total Environment 214: 211-219. Schoenerklee, M., F. Koch, R. Perfler, R. Haberl, and J. Laber. 1997. Tertiary treatment in a vertical flow reed bed system: A full scale pilot plant for 200-600 RE. Water Science and Technology 35(5): 223-230. Shams, K.R. and R.C. Brockway. 1994. Sanitary landfill leachate treatment and disposal. Public Works 125: 46-49. Sikora, F.J., L.L. Behrends, and D.F. Bader. 1997. Microcosm study on remediation of explovises-contaminated groundwater using constructed wetlands. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 829:202-211. Simi, A.L., and C A . Mitchell. 1999. Design and hydraulic performance of a constructed wetland treating oil refinery wastewater. Water Science and Technology 40(3): 301-307. Slagle, R.M. 1976. Woodwaste Landfills in Washington State From the Local Health Agency Perspective. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington. Spokane, WA, US. Steensen, M. 1997. Chemical oxidation for the treatment of leachate: process comparison and results from full scale plants. Water Science and Technology 35(4): 249. Stroshein, M. and K. Fryklind. 1996. Leachate treatment system saves waste disposal costs. Public Works 127: 42-43. Kevin Frankowski 92 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 LITERATURE C I T E D Sweet, H.R. and R.H. Fetrow. 1975. Ground-water pollution by wood waste disposal. Groundwater 13:227-231. Tanner, C C , J.S. Clayton, and M.P. Upsdell. 1995. Effect of loading rate and planting on treatment of dairy farm wastewaters in constructed wetlands -1. Removal of oxygen demand, suspended solids, and faecal coliforms. Water Resources 29:17-26. Taylor, B.R., J.S. Goudey, and N.B. Carmichael. 1996. Toxicity of Aspen wood leachate to aquatic life: laboratory studies. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 15:150-159. Tchobanoglous, G., H. Theisen, and S. Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-Hill Publishing. New York, NY, US. Thomas, P.R. 1977. Consequences of Leaching from Pulp and Paper Landfill Operations, CPAR Project 363 Final Report. Prepared for CPAR by Econotech Services, Limited, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Thomas, R .C , CS. Romanek, R.W. Paul, and D.P. Coughlin. 1999. Metal removal processes in anaerobic constructed wetlands over time. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 407-414. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Thut, R.N. 1989. Utilization of Artificial Marshes for Treatment of Pulp Mill Effluents. In D.A. Hammer (Ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural, pp. 239-244. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI, US. Triton. 1993. Environmental Assessment of Wynnyk Hog Fuel Storage Site. Prepared/or WynnykHog Pile Users Group by Triton Environmental Consultants Limited, Vancouver, BC, Canada. US EPA. 1988a. Lining oj Waste Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities. EPA/600/2-88/052. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratories, Cincinnati, OH, USA. NTIS PB-89-129670. US EPA. 1988b. Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA/625/1-88/022. Cincinnati, OH, USA. US EPA. 1989. Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design, Construction and Closure. EPA/625/ 4-89/022. US EPA. 1991a. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase 1 Toxicity Characterization Procedures (2nded.). EPA/600/6-91/003. Duluth, MN, USA. US EPA. 1991b. 40 CFR Parts 257 & 258, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria: Final Rule. 56 Federal Register 50978. Washington, DC, USA. US EPA. 1993. Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria: Technical Manual. Washington, DC, USA. US EPA. 1999. ECOTOXdatabase, <http://epa.gov/ecotox/>. Duluth, MN, USA. Vachon, D., R.S. Simik, and K. Wheeland. 1987. Treatment of acid mine water and the disposal of lime neutralization sludge. In Environment Canada (Ed.). Proceedings of Acid Mine Drainage Seminar / Workshop (March 23-26, 1987), pp. 537-564. Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Cat# En 40-11-7/1987. Kevin Frankowski 93 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 9.0 LITERATURE C I T E D Van den Berg, G.A., L.P.G. Loch, and H.J. Winkels. 1998. Effect of fluctuating hydrological conditions on the mobility of heavy metals in soils of a freshwater estuary in the Netherlands. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 102: 377-388. Waste Management Act. B.C. Reg. 519/95 [NOTE: includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 171/99]. Webb, J.S., S. McGinness, and H.M. Lappin-Scott. 1998. Metal removal by sulphate-reducing bacteria from natural and constructed wetlands. Journal of Applied Microbiology 84: 240-248. Weber, B. and F. Holtz. 1987. Combination of activated sludge pre-treatment and reverse osmosis. In T.H. Christensen, R. Cossu and R. Stegman (Eds.), Landfilling of Waste: Leachate, pp. 323-332. Elsevir Applied Science, London, England. Wittgren, H.B. and T. Maehlum. 1997. Wastewater treatment wetlands in cold climates. Water Science and Technology 35(5): 45-53. Woods, Mike, personal communication. Environmental Manager. Weyerhaeuser Canada. Drayton Valley, Alberta, Canada. Wreford, K. 1995. An analysis of the factors affecting landfill gas composition and production and leachate characteristics at the Vancouver landfill site and Burns Bog. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Xue, Y., D.A. Kovacic, M.B. David, L.E. Gentry, R.L. Mulvaney, and C.W Lindau. 1999. In situ measurements of denitrification in constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 28: 263-269. Zoh, K.D. and A.J. Home. 1999. Removal of TNT using plants in constructed wetlands. In J.L. Means and R.E. Hinchee (Eds.), Wetlands & Remidation: An International Conference (November 16-17, 1999), pp. 357-364. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, US. Kevin Frankowski 94 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X A EXCLUSION-OF-LIABIL ITY A G R E E M E N T S Kevin Frankowski 95 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X A EXCLUSION-OF-LIABILITY A G R E E M E N T S the south edge of the flood control dike, and the western boundary of the Site. The treatment objective of this system is toxicity reduction of the Pile's leachate. In the event that the containment integrity of this facility is compromised, action will be taken to repair the problem. If it is deemed that such integrity cannot be restored, the facility will be decommissioned and the area renamed to its original state. This will include the following: • Al l drainage ditches will be filled in with their original substrate, all associated piping and pumping will be removed, and all inputs to the wetlands will cease. • The wetland cells will be excavated, and the plants and liners removed. The excavations will be filled in with their original substrate. Upon completion of the research, the treatment plant will either be decommissioned as described above, or, if the Ministry consents, surrendered to the landowner for continued operation, at which point the landowner will assume full responsibility for the treatment facility. When we discussed the details of the project on March 17, 1998, you indicated that the Ministry would have no problems with either the project in general or the proposed configuration of the pilot-scale treatment plant (as described above), especially considering its experimental status and its role in exploring treatment solutions. You stated that since the treatment plant would be recycling leachate back into the work site, the Ministry does not consider this to represent a discharge to the environment, and as such, there is no need for a discharge permit. In order to obtain permission from the University of British Columbia to proceed with this research project, I require confirmation from the Ministry that no action will be taken by the Ministry against the University or its Board of Governors, faculty, staff, or students (including myself) as a result of any activities undertaken in connection with this research project, provided that the research project is carried out as outlined above. I would therefore be most grateful if you would confirm the Ministry's agreement to the foregoing by signing a copy of this letter in the space provided and returning it to me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Kevin Frankowski M.A.Sc. Candidate University of British Columbia Acknowledged and agreed to by and on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment, Lands, and Parks: Kevin Frankowski 98 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X A EXCLUSION-OF-LIABILITY A G R E E M E N T S Upon completion of the research, the treatment plant will either be shut down as described above, or given to yourself, the landowner, for continued operation. In order to properly conduct this research project, the following support is required: • Access to the Site over the duration of this research project, which is anticipated to last from October 1997 to May 2000. • Commitment from the landowners (you and John) and the BC Shake and Shingle Association of continued support of this research project for its duration. • Assistance with the construction of the wetlands, mainly in the form of excavation (i.e., machine and operator) for approximately 3 to 4 days during initial construction. As a result of supporting this project, you will receive the following: 1. Detailed laboratory analysis of the cedar leachate and corresponding data analysis and interpretation of these lab results. 2. Bench-scale testing and development of an economical biological treatment process capable of significantly reducing the toxicity of the surface cedar leachate. 3. Collaborative planning and design of a pilot-scale experimental wetlands-based treatment system. 4. Final design review and approval options available to both yourself and Jack Davidson. 5. Construction, operation, monitoring and maintenance of the pilot-scale treatment system, with periodic reporting on system performance. 6. Final copy of the resulting Civil Engineering thesis. I will also require the latitude to reveal sufficient details about the project and its findings to such parties who may require such knowledge (e.g., thesis supervisor; technical advisors; project collaborators). This privilege will also extend to disseminating written project information and results to impartial review bodies (e.g., scholarship and funding applications; thesis publication). Finally, in order to obtain permission from the University of British Columbia to construct and conduct research at this facility, 1 require your agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the University, its Board of Governors, faculty, staff, and students (including me) from and against any and all claims, actions, charges, and fines that may be brought against such parties as a result of any activities undertaken in connection with this research project. I am also seeking similar agreements from the Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks as well as from Scott Paper. Kindly confirm your agreement to the foregoing by signing a copy of this letter in the space provided and returning it to me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Kevin Frankowski Masters Candidate UBC Civil Engineering Acknowledged and agreed to by and on behalf of Steve Wynnyk: Kevin Frankowski 100 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X B F R A S E R R I V E R F L O O D G A U G E D A T A Kevin Frankowski 103 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X B FRASER RIVER F L O O D G A U G E DATA Kevin Frankowski 104 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X C C A L C U L A T I O N O F T H E O R E T I C A L O X Y G E N D E M A N D S Kevin Frankowski 105 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X C C A L C U L A T I O N OF T H E O R E T I C A L O X Y G E N D E M A N D S o X o u T o O Ji X o o u X E •£? I 3 Q 8 P 2 e E Q O o 00 e J "Sb O 00 E s o af o o T -S X o o u_ x~ Q u s- 2 E -H oil c "oo o — — "so o •a Q O ,2 t-2 P o 00 E O af o u s vo r * H Q O JS t— "so s 3 £ o oo _ E E ~5o "So o oo E -3-s a op o x o o u o af o o CN X o o o x" o E "So vo T 1 d" « + d" I  Q O "oo ° z z o E "oo E "So O oo S o u T3 'I T o O o u x" u" I, I P s "So o E "So o 2 o X XI Q 00 OO Q '5 'u xi o 'E o oo £ E o af o u T o + X o o u X u "ob o E "5b •c 3 13 •c "So o oo d 2 2 I  o o xl H 9 o o « H 2 2 H •c Kevin Frankowski 106 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D. l RAW DATA: LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION Kevin Frankowski 107 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N CM CM CO CO CO y~ CO CM LO CO in CM in m m in m LO LO LO LO in CD CM OJ CO LO LO -tf CD O) t N i -i- h- o co LO ^ LO LO CD CO CO CO to O O LO 00 1*1 CD CO o co to • o o d JI CO CO CM CO n in in ^ eg CO CM CM o CO cE «| m > 3 o I-CO CO -a- t • OJ O O CO O CO o o CO LO CO CO LO LO LT) LO 0 CO CO CO LO LO CO 01 CZO CZO CZO CO CM CO •* CM O) CO T— LO r- LO LO lO LO LO LO CO CO CO CO CO Q. e -co -E LO d v 03 S 3. ~° o o o o o o o o Q. Q_ 0 . D_ 3 3 3 3 CO CO CO CO j z . c z . c z . c z o o o o co co CO cO CU CD CD CD CO CO Kevin Frankowski 108 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N CM O O CO c\| O CD O O CO LO CO to k IO LO LO LO 0 CO ^" 00 CO CM CO LO LO CO CD h-01 Oi OJ CD CD T3 C s i t I I I P ^ CD CO g ' O CO O O ^ CO o CD CO CM 00 O O CO CO CO CO CO CM GO O CO LO LO O • sm l i , 8 * 2 E CM CO O (O T- ifl s o LO LO LO LO t-- CO CO CO CO CM CO CM CM 00 O N O CD CO S CO CO CO T- 00 CD O —s. LO CD O ^ LO CM ,Q> LO O i - ^ - i - i-^ N N tD N O N O i t ^ ' J LO ^ O LO CO r - 1-CM CO r-o T— LO •a- co CO CO 5? LO LO LO LO LO LO CO O CO Ol CO LO CD i - t - CO CO i-CO CO CM LO CM CO CO CO N r - r -N N CO N O N ^ ^ t ^ ^ LO tt Q O LO O CO CO T-C\| CO CO O) ^ T-CD LO LO CD CO CO QJ LO LO LO LO LO LO N- T- CO CM CO CM CO LO CO O CO N O r - LO O -<* i -Oj LO O O ^ T- -r-^ S N CO N O S 3> Tf Tf t t LO CM CD CM T- T- i -T- N CO CJ) T-_ LO TJ- TJ- LO CO CO LO LO LO LO LO LO i2 CO O. ,03 £ CO 3 o o o o o o 5 cj o o o b b t LO LO LO LO LO LO 6 S to fc CO 3 o o o o o o ' 0 o <6 o o o LO LO LO LO LO LO CM 0J CM CM CM OO CO -Q O T3 •S 0. 0. 0. 0. c c m m O O CM CM X I _J _J _J _J "D "O f: 0) © 0) ffl cn CO CO CD co Co J= sz s: c o o o o 3, 3. H. ^ ^ rv _ co £. y o o o o ~ m o o o o ^ | « j » j S 5 CQ CQ CO CO (TJ CO £ r r r A o CO CO CO CO £J ?M CD CU CD CD X X I —I —I —I "O "O a < CO Q to ' CO! c < Kevin Frankowski 109 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N M e t a l s Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Leachate Characterization: Metals (mg/L) Summary: Sample Date Dec 10/99 Sample ID Leachate - digested (a) Leachate - digested (b) Leachate - undigested (c) Blank Raw Data: NOTES: Data Type Diluted: Full-strength: Diluted: Full-strength: Diluted: Full-strength: Diluted: Full-strength: Dilution Factor 4 4 1 20 Al Ca Cu 4.72 20.15 0.06 1 9 8 1 0 4.76 20.73 0.02 1 9 83 0 15.13 69.27 0.03 1 7 76 0 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0 For digested samples (ie, Leachate a & b, blank), started with 500mL sample + 50 mL concentrated nitric acid and slowly boiled down to <50mL, then reconstituted to 10OmL. For undigested sample (ie, Leachate c), mixed 100mL sample + 10 mL concentrated nitric acid and submitted as i Stored in dark, at 4C Submitted to Carol Dyck (Soils Lab, 822-5965) for ICP scan (selected metals) Mg Ni P Pb Zn 19.01 10.87 0.03 0.98 0 0.092 76 43 0 4 0 0.4 18.82 10.98 0.03 0.94 0 0.092 75 44 0 4 0 0.4 63.45 36.18 0.09 3.06 0 0.29 70 40 0 3 0 0.3 0.02 0 0.005 0.09 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 2 0 0.2 Date.. Analyzed! Jan 2 7 / 0 0 Technician: Carol Dyck Kevin Frankowski 110 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N M e t a l s ( c o n t . ) KEVIN FRANKOWSKI ICP SAMPLES JAN. 27/00 READING. DETECTION QUANTITATION SAMPLE ELEMENT PPM STD DEV % RSD LIMIT LIMIT L1 AI3082 76.74382 1.20364 1.56839 0.0993 0.993 L1 Ca3179 323.42568 0 0 0 0 L1 Cu3247 0.33333 0.08318 24.95671 0.04159 0.4159 L1 Fe2599 304.64398 4.09376 1.34378 0.06567 0.6567 L1 Mg2790 176.13575 3.3362 1.89411 0.06966 0.6966 L1 Ni231 6 0.40619 0.01017 2.50473 0.01878 0.1878 L1 P_2149 15.85609 0.20229 1.2758 0.07356 0.7356 L1 Pb2203 -0.96257 0.01238 -1.28671 0.04391 0.4391 L1 Zn2138 1.4232 0.02276 1.59948 0.00284 0.0284 L1 20X AI3082 4.71586 0.05333 1.1309 L1 20X Ca3179 20.15113 0 0 L1 20X Cu3247 0.05882 0 0 L1 20X Fe2599 1 9.00928 0.19702 1.03647 L1 20X Mg2790 10.87301 0.08901 0.8187 L1 20X Ni2316 0.03209 0.00391 12.19149 L1 20X P_2149 0.98396 0.06545 6.65183 L1 20X Pb2203 -0.06608 0.01238 -1 8.74258 L1 20X Zn2138 0.0921 0 0 L2 AI3082 73.04876 0.47814 0.65455 L2 Ca3179 324.30731 6.23394 1.92223 L2 Cu3247 0.12745 0.01386 10.87855 L2 Fe2599 282.69351 0.45972 0.16262 L2 Mg2790 165.1 1221 1.02176 0.61882 L2 Ni2316 0.37686 0 0 L2 P_2149 14.69007 0.0613 0.41 729 L2 Pb2203 -0.91082 0.00225 -0.24724 L2 Zn2138 1.28705 0.00347 0.27021 L2 20X AI3082 4.76094 0.1447 3.03935 L2 20X Ca3179 20.73887 0.6339 3.05661 L2 20X Cu3247 0.0196 0 0 L2 20X Fe2599 18.81837 0.32813 1.74369 L2 20X Mg2790 10.98157 0.28974 2.6385 L2 20X Ni2316 0.02969 0.00063 2.15161 L2 20X P_2149 0.9435 0.01804 1.91271 L2 20X Pb2203 -0.03662 0.01685 -46.01306 L2 20X Zn2138 0.0927 0.00143 1.55042 L3 AI3082 , 15.12678 0.01287 0.0851 L3 Ca3179 69.26951 0.71244 1.02851 L3 Cu3247 0.02941 0.01386 47.14045 L3 Fe2599 63.45201 0.17513 0.27601 L3 Mg2790 36.17953 0.00774 0.02139 L3 Ni2316 0.08522 0.00391 4.59159 L3 P_2149 3.06458 0.04904 1.60023 L3 Pb2203 -0.1664 0.01914 -1 1.50317 L3 Zn2138 0.28951 0.00031 0.10919 L3 20X AI3082 0.81599 0.00367 0.45074 L3 20X Ca3179 3.77833 0 0 L3 20X Cu3247 0.0196 0 0 L3 20X Fe2599 3.21981 0.02189 0.6799 L3 20X Mg2790 1.9157 0.04644 2.42437 L3 20X Ni2316 0.0083 0 0 L3 20X P_2149 0.17771 0.03678 20.6958 L3 20X Pb2203 0.02229 0.00225 10.10153 L3 20X Zn2138 0.01676 0.00031 1.88562 BLANK 20X AI3082 0.01625 0.00551 33.94111 BLANK 20X Ca3179 0 0 0 BLANK 20X Cu3247 0.02941 0.01386 47.14045 BLANK 20X Fe2599 0.01547 0 0 BLANK 20X Mg2790 0 0.00774 0 BLANK 20X Ni2316 0.00498 0.00626 125.70787 BLANK 20X P_2149 0.09536 0.01839 19.28472 BLANK 20X Pb2203 0.02308 0.00788 34.13619 BLANK 20X Zn2138 0.01363 0.00031 2.31838 Kevin Frankowski 111 U B C CrviL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N Extended Biochemical Oxygen Demand [BODj Summary: B0D5 (mg/L) Unseeded 3180 Seeded 5016 Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Leachate Characterization: BOD (seeded and unseeded) (mgA) •.—. BOD ima/Li Bottle IO Unseeded 0.25mL Unseeded 0.50mL Unseeded 1.00 mL Seeded 0.25mL Seeded 0.50mL Seeded 1.00 mL Date: y 3 Day 5 Day 10 Day 12 Day 20 21 00 3180 3324 4080 4519 2238 311 1 3666 4157 5107 2331 2625 NA NA N A 4284 5016 5538 5459 6595 4674 m NA NA N A N A NA N A NA N A Feb 16/98 Feb 18/98 Feb 23/98 Feb 25/98 Mar 05/98 ^J::.J~~ •SUM Raw Data: N O T E S : Seed = 1.27 g (moist wt.) of poolside soil per 300mL BOD bottle Date: Sample ID % leachate Bottle # Feb 13/98 Feb 16/98 Feb 18/98 Feb 23/98 Feb 25/98 Mar 05/98 Unseeded 0.25mL 0.08% "Day 3" 8.79 7.04 5.26 "Day 5" 8.79 6.14 4.63 "Day 7" 8.79 6.23 5.30 "Day 10" 8.79 5.81 5.30 "Day 12" 8.79 5.39 4.63 Average 8.79 7.04 6.14 6;02 5.39 5.02 Stnd Dev 0 . 0.30 ". • - • 0.36 DOUsed . 0.00 1.75 2 65 • 2.77 3.40 3.77 Day 0 3 5 1 0 1 2 20 BCD N A 2100 3180 3324 4080 451 9 Unseeded 0.50mL 0.17% "Day 3" 8.79 5.06 2.53 0.38 "Day 5" 8.79 3.79 1.95 0.00 "Day 7" 8.79 2.85 2.42 0.65 "Day 10" 8.79 2.51 2.23 0.36 "Day 12" 8.79 3.42 0.18 0.00 Average 8.79 5.06 3.61 2.68 1.86 0.28 Stnd Dev : 0 0.26 0.24 0.97 • 0.28 DOUsed 0.00 3.73 5.19 6.11 6.93 8.51 Day 0 3 5 , 1 0 .: 1 2 20 BCD N A 2238 3111 3666 41 57 '5107 Unseeded 1.00 mL 0.33% "Day 3" 8.79 1.02 0.00 "Day 5" 8.79 0.12 0.00 "Day 7" 8.79 0.00 "Day 10" 8.79 0.00 0.00 "Day 12" 8.79 0.00 Average 8.79 1.02 0.04 .-• 0.00 - . . .. _ Stnd Dev 0 0.07 . 0 - . DOUsed 0.00 7.77 8.75 8.79 Day 0 3 5 1 0 1 2 20 BOD N A 2331 2625 Seeded 0.25mL 0.08% "Day 3" 8.79 5.38 1.25 0.49 "Day 5" 8.79 3.74 1.35 0.48 "Day 7" 8.79 1.58 1.05 0.29 "Day 10" 8.79 1.29 1.14 0.54 "Day 12" 8.79 3.42 1.14 0.62 Average 8.79 5.38 3.58 1.44 1.19 0.48 Stnd Dev "• 0 0.23 0.21 0.12 .: 0.12 DOUsed 0.00 3.41 5.21 7.36 .•••7.60 8.31 Day : 0 3 5 1 0 . . . 1 2 20 BCD N A 4284 501 6 5538 5459 6595 Kevin Frankowski 112 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N E x t e n d e d B O D ( c o n t . ) Seeded 0.50mL 0.17% "Day 3" 8.79 1.16 0.00 "Day 5" 8.79 0 00 0.00 "Day 7" 8.79 0.00 "Day 10" 8.79 0 00 0.00 "Day 12" 8.79 0 00 0.00 Average . 8 .79 1.16 0 00 0.00 ! -Stnd Dev 0 0 ••'0 . . . .-• -DOUsed . 0.00 7.63 8 79 8.79 Day : 0 3 5 •10 BOD m. 4674 Seeded 1.00 mL 0.33% "Day 3" 8.79 0.00 "Day 5" 8.79 0 00 "Day 7" 8.79 0.00 "Day 10" 8.79 0 00 0.00 "Day 12" 8.79 0.00 0.00 Average 8.79 0.00 0 00 0.00 -Stnd Dev 0 0 0 0 -DOUsed :. 0.00 . Day 0 BOD m Seeded Blank # 1 0 % "Day 3" 8.79 8.95 5.71 5.73 6.02 Seeded Blank #2 0 % "Day 3" 8.79 7 76 6.39 5.74 5.94 Average •"8.79 8.95 7 76 :. 6.05 5.74 5.98 Stnd Dev 0 .- 0 48 0 01 0,06 Unseeded Blank # 1 0 % "Day 5" 8.79 8 65 8.03 8.31 Unseeded Blank #2 0 % "Day 5" 8.79 8.05 8.39 Unseeded Blank #3 0 % "Day 10" 8.79 8 65 7.65 8.05 8.32 Unseeded Blank #4 0 % "Day 10" 8.79 8.53 7.97 8.33 Average 8.79 8 65 8.09 8.03 8.34 Stnd Dev • 0 0 0.62 0.04 0.04 Kevin Frankowski 113 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N VJ § °a -« s: a S cu Q PS t a 1 o * c f CM N e " CIS 5 5 CS CS CA s o v o o ON CN CN o d CN •—1 VO m cn <u *—* CN Q ON o ON in m d oo O 00 o ON CN cu Q 3 cd o\ Q g; £ 2 crt O > co cu ON tn C N O «n C N C N ON cn CN m' d 00 CN os oo —< CN 5 o CN oo in CN VO «n CN — CN •*r o —< 00 cn in C N C N m oo C N cn < > T3 Q ca j -£ ^ ,C3 < O VO u-1 cn in m „ 4 m CN o cn Ov ON cn VO cn ON rn vo CN CN cn O d CN d cn d IT) d d VO oo 00 o oo CN © CO o .—< 00 os 00 00 O cn m t— CN CN d d cn d m d d cn C N CN m vo O m oo r- —' — CN vo CN •* © o o O r-vo 5 a c 3 60 2 S j2 -2 Q O J3 H J H ON m oo .—i m vo cn o cn m VO — - CN m cn o d d d d in in 00 oo o m 6899. m oo 6899. ON cn cn 6899. 00 ON —< vo CN „ ON VO o VO m IT) VO m CN cn m "3-Q =- o § ^ E a O cc) "2 E C CD cu 13 0 0 e >> § g go « c? o o 6 1 u .a •S 6 o 52 5 o ON m CN ON VO O m o cn CN cn © d d d d CN m vo oo m _-- . cn o d d oo o oo o ^ C N CN t^; o d d Q O O D O J O O <*S U O H . . ^ + < J <c PH BH > H > Q Q Q O O O J= J3 J3 H H H o — vo m n d o CN cn 00 m vo vo oo m 00 ON m cn cn (N vo o VO cn Q O CQ S O > U a O H CQ Kevin Frankowski 114 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N T o x i c i t y [ p H - e f f e c t s ] Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Leachate Characterization: pH-effects on acute toxicity Raw Data: NOTES: Acute toxicity measured using modified LC50 bioassay (2 fish per 1L beaker) Temp = 15 C; minimum aeration provided, to prevent fish fatigue due to excessive turbulence pH adjusted using HCl or NaOH NOTE: a power outage caused failure of the aeration equipment at -65 hr, thereby preventing any new mortalities observed at 72 hr to be properly attributed to leachate toxicity S u r v i v a l D a t a : PH = 8 J E x p o s u r e per iod (hrs) Concen t ra t i on (% v/v) 0 2 4 4 8 72 1 0 0 2 / 2 0/2 a - -7 5 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -5 0 2 / 2 1 12 0 / 2 -3 2 2 / 2 0 / 2 ' - -B lank 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 2/2 Comments: a may have been insufficient aeration to overcome oxygen demand Exposu re period (hrs) Concen t ra t i on (% v/v) 0 2 4 4 8 7 2 7 5 2 / 2 0/2 a - -5 0 2 / 2 1 12 0 / 2 -3 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 0/2 b 1 6 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 0/2 b B l ank 2 / 2 2 / 2 1/1 0 1 /1 Comments: a may have been insufficient aeration to overcome oxygen demand b aeration failure (due to power outage) c 1 fish jumped out of beaker (cover had sl ipped open) Exposu re per iod (hrs) Concen t ra t ion (% v/v) 0 2 4 4 8 7 2 5 0 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -3 2 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -1 6 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 / 2 -8 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 0/2 a B lank 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 Comments: a aeration failure (due to power outage) pH » s""1 E x p o s u r e per iod (hrs) Concen t ra t i on (% v/v) 0 2 4 4 8 7 2 1 6 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -8 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -4 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -2 2 / 2 2 / 2 0 / 2 -B l ank 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 2 p H = 4 7! E x p o s u r e per iod (hrs) Concen t ra t i on (% v/v) 0 2 4 4 8 7 2 8 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -4 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -2 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -1 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -B lank 2 / 2 1 12 0/2 a -Comments: a Control Fai lure (due to pH?) p H = 3 . . Exposu re per iod (hrs) Concen t ra t i on (% v/v) 0 2 4 4 8 7 2 1 0 0 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -7 5 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -5 0 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -3 2 2 / 2 0 / 2 - -B lank 2 / 2 0/2 a - -Comments: a Control Failure (due to pH?) Kevin Frankowski 115 U B C C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . l RAW DATA: L E A C H A T E C H A R A C T E R I Z A T I O N T o x i c i t y ^ Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Leachate Characterization: Acute toxicity (as Rainbow Trout 96hr LC50, %v/v) Summary: LC50 Sample ID Leacht.(pH<5.5) Leacht.(pH>5.5) Leacht.(pH>6.9) Seep- North Seep- Dwnstrm Slough (west) Slough (east) Lower 95% Sample ID Leacht.(pH<5.5) Leacht.(pH>5.5) Leacht.(pH>6.9) Seep- North Seep- Dwnstrm Slough (west) Slough (east) Upper 95% Sample ID Leacht.(pH<5.5) Leacht.(pH>5.5) Leacht.(pH>6.9) Seep- North Seep- Dwnstrm Slough (west) Slough (east) Oct 28/97 >50% >50% Oct 28/97 Oct 28/97 Sample Date Dec 15/97 Nov 20/98 1.74 <3% 22.36 >6.25% >25% >100% >100% Sample Date Dec 15/97 Nov 20/98 1.092 10.000 Sample Date Dec 15/97 Nov 20/98 2.763 50.000 Jan 27/99 0.71 35.36 >3% >100% >100% Jan 27/99 0.500 25.000 Mar 31/99 3.54 Mar 31/99 2.000 Jan 27/99 Mar 31/99 1.000 6.250 50.000 Kevin Frankowski 116 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D . l RAW DATA: LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION *5 c c c & c s c c c c S c c c ~* <D Q> C4 *Z oj Z (U OJ ED CO .B CD 0) 0) ° 5 S o ! B 2 b b 5 a E E E f- E ijE E E E j E E E 1 o nj to co a c o J o c a r a c o co g ca co co ~ — W — ~ ~ W ~ — ~ W ~ ^ CO CO CM LO T - o CO CO CO CO O W ^ S ,2. cd cd cd cd cd cd •^•'r^-^-cDcD a? cn _ S c1 « o l -e o s a Q. C ~ S o s 3 o 5? o _ fell U s? 5 S as as CO LO LO o o V CM CM O O Cj § ! 8 * i <5 as • a v s .5 0) *~ §1 c a .co a •a -o c a CO 3 LJ § s LU £ •"> A! c - 1 CO o •c .Eg (j fl) o o E > io LO S O CD § 4 o O CD a: *- cj. S N CD S N NO sO ^ d - 6"- tf- 5-o wmoo OJ CM O O t«*. r*- h- r*- r-» LO LO O O O O o o o o o ••5 Jo I i CO O Q. C0 <o 5 io LO 5 : Q o o CC CO cu cu LO Oi LO CD x x t a ro ca. ex o * co to «j CD 3 5 (D Q) CD — — _ l _ l CO CO CO LO O) LO CD C V A jc 3> « i i t S (fl u u ri ^  co « J «o gj g g <D CD CD _ — —I —I CO CO CO t: i i i a o I o T3 C o < Kevin Frankowski 117 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D. l RAW DATA: LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION Colour Data: NOTES: Determined with a Hellige Aqua-tester (APHA Color Units) Measured only on raw leachate (from Leachate Pool), but over a range of pH Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Leachate Characterization: Colour Sample Date: Oct 29/99 Measured Dilution Colour @ Sample ID pH colour Factor 100% Leachate Pool 3 6 1 0 1 00 1 000 Leachate Pool 5 0 20 200 4000 Leachate Pool 6 5 70 200 1 4000 Leachate Pool 8 0 50 400 20000 Leachate Pool 9 5 50 400 20000 Leachate Pool 1 1 0 50 400 20000 Leachate Pool 12 0 50 400 20000 Date Analyzed: ! Oct 30/99 Technician: KAF 1992 Leachate Characterization (from Triton 1993) <3\ u 0-•a c el u o o o o U E o 5) I _> o 3 c S <U O 1 s 1 s o o ^ o —' D U J J X E E < •= 12 "9 ^ o o r>. « S5 cn C/3 *CS & ° 2. Q H t—1 u 3 _o "o u co s o o cn r-~ oo CN J J J ~5b ~i5b ~olj s e e o ~ CO O a c3 OOOCNO-tOOOOCNOO o v cu 2 ^ co g g g S S E S S S Q g 0 o B ' E S " eg in -3 | 1 a >. — —3 CO 1 3 CO o <U _ c « CO O CO 6 aJB CA o S .B . s i s N -g I Kevin Frankowski 118 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . 2 R A W D A T A : S C R E E N I N G T R I A L S Kevin Frankowski 119 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .2 RAW DATA: S C R E E N I N G TRIALS M o n i t o r i n g D a t a : p H [ Civil 599 - MASc Thesis I Constructed Wetlands Project 1 Screening Trials: Aerated Bioreactors • Monitoring Data (pH) NOTES: - Rep "A ' = "Door"; Rep "B" = "Wall-Treatment: Control Treatment R e p l i c a t e Da t e 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % - B 1 0 % - A 1 0 % - B 1% - A 1% - B 0 % - A 0 % - B 15- D e c - 9 7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.2 4 .7 4 .7 16- D e c - 9 7 3 .69 3 .68 3 .90 3 .89 4 .26 4 . 2 6 4 .92 4 .88 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 3 .57 3 .56 3 .82 3.82 4 . 2 9 4 . 3 0 5 .28 4 . 8 9 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 3 .63 3 .64 3 .92 3.92 4 .54 4 .52 5 .23 5 .53 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 3 .86 3.81 4 .23 4 . 1 7 4 . 9 7 4 .83 5.61 5 .86 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 3 .82 3 .76 4 .30 4 .14 5.07 4 .83 5 .45 5.58 Treatment: So/7 Treatment R e p l i c a t e Da t e 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % - B 1 0 % - A 1 0 % - B 1% - A 1% - B 0 % - A 0 % - B 15- D e c - 9 7 3.8 3.8 4.0 4 .0 4 .5 4.2 5.6 5.0 16- D e c - 9 7 3.82 3 .92 4 . 4 7 4 .56 6 . 7 8 6 .66 7 .00 6 .99 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 3 .77 3.81 4 .65 4 .86 7 .29 7 .18 7 .08 7 .05 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 3 .90 3 .95 5.29 5 .70 7 .55 7 .55 7 .36 7 .56 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 4 .28 4 .44 6.71 7 .00 7 .66 7 .77 7 .68 7 .83 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 4 .23 4 .38 6 .63 6 .60 6 . 9 0 6 .80 6 .89 6 . 9 3 Treatment: Duckweed Treatment R e p l i c a t e Da te 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % - B 1 0 % - A 1 0 % - B 1% - A 1% - B 0 % - A 0 % - B 15- D e c - 9 7 3.8 3.8 4.0 4 .0 4.2 4 .3 5.4 5.3 16- D e c - 9 7 3 .74 3 .70 4 .18 4 .16 6 .02 5 .49 6 .27 6 .40 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 3 .67 3 .66 4 . 4 7 4.51 6 .64 6 .67 6 .50 6.41 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 3 .73 3 .74 5.43 5 .90 6 .82 6 .92 6 .77 6 .74 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 3 .98 4 .02 7 .06 7 .10 7 .10 7 .27 6 .88 7 .00 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 3 .94 3 .99 6 .57 6 .55 6 . 6 4 6 . 6 3 6 .42 6 .46 Treatment: Fungal Treatment R e p l i c a t e Da t e 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % - B 1 0 % - A 1 0 % - B 1% - A 1% - B 0 % - A 0 % - B 15- D e c - 9 7 3.8 3.8 4.1 4 .0 4 .6 4.4 6 .7 5.2 16- D e c - 9 7 3 .75 3 .70 4 .34 4.21 7.20 6 .97 6 .28 7 .37 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 3 .66 3.64 4 .55 4 .53 7 .45 7 .33 7.32 7 .70 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 3 .72 3.78 7.76 7.72 6 .22 6.21 8 .02 7 .73 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 3 .95 4 .00 7.50 7.46 7 .87 8.02 8 .08 8 .08 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 3 .87 3.98 6 .30 6 .30 6 .72 6 . 7 7 6 . 9 3 7 .10 Kevin Frankowski 120 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .2 RAW DATA: S C R E E N I N G TRIALS M o n i t o r i n g D a t a : D O Civil 599 - MASc Thesis \ Constructed Wetlands Project I Screening Trials: Aerated Bioreactors - Monitoring Data (DO) NOTES: - Rep "A - = "Door"; Rep "B" = "Wall" Treatment: Da t e 15- D e c - 9 7 16- D e c - 9 7 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 Treatment: Da t e 15- D e c - 9 7 16- D e c - 9 7 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 Treatment: Da t e 15- D e c - 9 7 16- D e c - 9 7 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 Control Treatment R e p l i c a t e 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % -0.7 8.4 5.9 8.6 9.4 1.0 So/7 Treatment R e p l i c a t e 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % -0.8 9.8 6.8 9.0 9.5 0 .8 Duckweed Treatment R e p l i c a t e 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % 0.7 9.4 5.7 10 .5 9.6 0 .7 Treatment: Fungal Treatment R e p l i c a t e Da t e 1 0 0 % - A 1 0 0 % 15- D e c - 9 7 0 .7 16- D e c - 9 7 9.6 1 8 - D e c - 9 7 8.2 2 0 - D e c - 9 7 11.1 2 6 - D e c - 9 7 10 .0 2 9 - D e c - 9 7 0 .6 B 1.0 9.1 6.8 10.1 8.5 0.8 B 0.7 9.8 8.9 10 .0 9.6 0.8 1 0 % 1 0 % B 0.9 9 .7 1.7 10 .4 9.6 0.5 B 0.6 9.9 4 .3 10 .4 9.3 0.4 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % - B 7.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 9.8 2.0 7.4 9.8 10.1 10 .0 9.8 1.2 1 0 % 7.3 10.1 10 .6 10 .6 9.8 0.8 4 .8 9.8 9.6 10 .4 9.6 0.6 1% - A 7.0 10 .0 10 .4 11 .2 10.1 2.1 1 0 % - B 7.8 9.9 10 .5 11 .0 9.8 0 .7 7.3 9.5 10 .4 10 .2 9.6 0.7 1 0 % - B 7.0 9.8 9.2 10 .3 9.6 0.5 1% - B 9.4 9.8 10 .0 10.1 9.6 1% - A 9.1 10 .0 10 .0 10 .2 9 .7 3.5 8.9 9.5 9.4 9.4 10 .2 2.5 1% - A 6.3 9.3 9.5 10 .2 9 .9 0.6 0 % 9.4 1 0 . 0 9.8 10 .2 9.6 6 .7 1% - B 0 % 9.4 9.8 1 0 . 0 10 .6 9 .7 2.9 1% - B 0 % 9.1 9.8 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 8 10 .0 2.4 0 % - B 9.3 9.6 9.8 9 .9 9.0 8.2 9.0 9.8 10.1 10 .2 9.8 3.1 0 % 8.7 10 .0 9.5 9.2 9.9 2.9 0 % - A 6.3 8.8 8.7 9 .7 9 .7 0 .8 9.4 9.8 1 0.1 10 .4 9.8 7. 0 % - B 9.2 1 0 . 0 10.1 1 0 . 8 9.7 3.3 9.2 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 6 1 0 . 0 2.4 0 % - B 8.7 9.4 9.4 1 0 . 3 9.5 0 .7 Kevin Frankowski 121 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.2 RAW DATA: S C R E E N I N G TRIALS M o n i t o r i n g D a t a : C o n d u c t i v i t y Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Screening Trials: Aerated Bioreactors • Monitoring Data (Conductivity) NOWs"-"^ "Ai"»'"boc>^ "RV*"B"'=*'"Wall• Treatment: Date 100% 1 5-Dec-97 16-Dec-97 18-Dec-97 20-Dec-97 26-Dec-97 29-Dec-97 Control Treatment Replicate 100% - A 1500 1400 1400 1 600 1700 1600 Treatment: Soil Treatment Date Replicate 100% - A 15- Dec-97 16- Dec-97 1 8-Dec-97 20-Dec-97 26-Dec-97 29-Dec-97 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1700 Treatment: Duckweed Treatment Date Replicate 100% - A 15- Dec-97 16- Dec-97 18-Dec-97 20-Dec-97 26-Dec-97 29-Dec-97 1500 1400 1400 1600 1700 1700 Treatment: Fungal Treatment Date Replicate 100% - A 100% 15- Dec-97 16- Dec-97 18-Dec-97 20-Dec-97 26-Dec-97 29-Dec-97 1500 1500 1500 1700 1700 2200 B 1500 1400 1400 1600 1700 1600 100% - B 1500 1300 1500 1800 2000 1800 100% - B 10% - A 1500 1300 1400 1600 1700 1 600 B 1500 1500 1400 1700 1800 1700 10% 10% 10% -220 1 40 1 60 220 1 60 200 A 10% 220 260 260 260 240 260 10% - A 210 150 230 220 250 300 A 10% 220 270 240 190 260 330 B 1% - A 220 210 200 220 260 270 1% 220 260 270 200 230 270 10% - B 1% - A 210 230 210 180 160 1 90 B 1% 240 240 230 200 260 360 1% - B 30 30 30 20 1 0 30 1% - B 40 20 40 50 60 80 1% - B 35 30 20 20 30 80 45 60 100 110 1 20 190 0% - A 40 30 30 20 20 30 0% - A 40 40 50 50 60 80 0% 40 30 20 20 30 90 0% - A 60 70 1 00 140 190 250 0% - B 1 0 0% - B 1 0 1 0 20 30 30 70 0% - B 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 50 0% - B 20 20 1 1 0 160 1 90 230 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 20! 1 o| 20[ 30i 6 ol 9 OJ 1 0j 1 I 1 o| 1 ol 1 oi 60| 40 110 170 220 220 270 Kevin Frankowski 122 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .2 RAW DATA: S C R E E N I N G TRIALS T a n n i n a n d L i g n i n Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Screening Trials: Tannins and Llgnins (T&L) (mg/L as Tannic Acid) Summary: Sample ID control A 10% control B 10% Soil A 10% Soil B 10% Duckweed A 10^  Duckweed B 10°, Fungal A 10% Fungal B 10% Fungal A 0% Fungal B 0% Summary ( Total ThOD tor T&L) Sample Date Dec 15/97 138.35 133.01 115.12 114.58 93.75 95.62 95.35 95.35 34.19 30.98 . T&L ThOD.= J.Sampte Date 1 - Dec 15/97 ' 1 72 165; 143; 142 I I I I R S ^ 119 118' '42; ,38'. 1.24: Raw Data: NOTES: Reagents: Folin phenol (0.1 mL), carbonate tertrate (1.0 mL) (allow 30 min for colour development) Sample volume was 5.0 mL Sample Date- Dec 15/97 ("Final effluent" samples, taken during jar test teardown) Dilution Absorbance Sample ID Factor ( 9 700 nm) T&L (mg/L) control A 10% 25 0.518 138.35 control B 10% 25 0.498 133.01 Soil A 10% 25 0.431 1 15.12 Soil B 10% 25 0.429 1 14.58 Duckweed A 10% 25 0.351 93.75 Duckweed B 10% 25 0.358 95.62 Fungal A 10% 25 0.357 95.35 Fungal B 10% 25 0.357 95.35 Fungal A 0% 25 0.128 34.19 Fungal B 0% 25 0.116 30.98 Technician: KAF & Angelika Standard Curve y = 0.0936X R2 = 0.9999 • • 2 4 6 8 Concentration (mg/L) Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.191 4 0.370 8 0.750 Std Curve slope: 0.0936 T, 0.80 0.70 8 0.60 £ 0.50 f 0.40 » 0.30 < 0.20 0.10 0.00 < Kevin Frankowski 123 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .2 RAW DATA: S C R E E N I N G TRIALS c o o m c o o o j ^ T - c g o i I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  11 ^ OOOOOOOOCMCM O O O O O O O O O i 1 T - -r- O O O O O I • 5 v C\JC\i<MC\IC\IC\iOOC\JCJ 1*1 )r-<-'-T-y-a>y-OOrr-o o 0.0 o S Q. • 3 d 3 0 0 o O O T - 1 -cotooooooo r r (0(00(000 c o n ' - ' - d ' - d c ) CO CO T - CO 5^  3* o o o o s e 5 <r> I < m <0 o o < CQ CD s E iD a) CD .5 *c5 C/J u CO -J CO TD •o c g CO •t; CO I I CO o Q. to co 3 1 8 O CO 0) Q Q 11 11 CD CQ -p >p -sp -p - r- O O ^ W) SO i f 1 ? CMOJCMCMOJCJOJCMCJCM O -2 Q) l < co _ co o < m co IB IB — CO CD _ g < o i i a O O O 3 3 3 O CO CO D D LL. < CO < m 3 3 CO CO v v ra 01 c c O -SB a. E Kevin Frankowski 124 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.2 RAW DATA: SCREENING TRIALS Kevin Frankowski 125 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.2 R A W D A T A : S C R E E N I N G T R I A L S 3 o .co Q) -c c g N % " 41 CD ^ 3 « ' x: o CO a> OJ c cp oj P CO a S> fe 2 a oj c/> "D O c u o 10 u 5 co G CO s CD C CO •2 CO c CD CO CO i •2 a: O O i —^-o 00 co * i o c CD CO Co G o co c CO 2 S CO | i CO CO cn qj "co g" o to 3: = a. co •2 ° '£ 3: ~- Q. OJ _ ^ a co 5 o 8 co © w co .y <D T3 1^ 55 5 c o o 3 CO OJ CO "S S c o § cu S i I s co cu CO •S o O U b c 6 c OJ — CO CD £ XI -c 8 -S-^ § T- Cu •§ §. Ih <u C\i C <» a t lo ^ 0 Q § C Q. < 1 » § E c <-o T3 .CO co CO c 0 bj CO co to p CO CO S ^ CQ CD C C ro .0 .0 CO CO CO O O l l J CO tn CO o> — 0 0 in tn CM 0 CD CO O to CU CM AO Pr z CD S3 LL CD X5 CM in CD in —1 E 1.-2 i to CD O •tf _j co m X3 ^-1 5 O co CM 3; 00 00 Q. TO C LL OJ CO 00 0> 3; co co CO C/j o o CM CM < CD Q Q. Q. -t o o CO o o CO 0_ 0-cu; co < s & H CO Q Kevin Frankowski 126 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D . 3 R A W D A T A : B E N C H - S C A L E T E S T I N G Kevin Frankowski 127 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.3 RAW DATA: B E N C H - S C A L E T E S T I N G M o n i t o r i n g D a t a [ p H , D O , C o n d u c t i v i t y ] \ Civil 599 - MASc Thesis • Constructed Wetlands Project Microcosm Monitoring Data: Water Quality data (pH, DO. cond) : Summary (Mise): S e r i e s #1 Date of original leachate sample: Jan 30/98 Day 0 = Feb 20/98 All tanks in a laboratory Controlled Environment Room (CER) . Temp = 22 C S e r i e s #2 Date of original leachate sample: Apr 09/99 Day 0 = Apr 12/99 All tanks in a laboratory Controlled Environment Room (CER ) . Temp = 15 C Photoperiod = 24:0 hr (Gro-lights couldn't plug into the timer) Photoperiod = 24:0 hr (Gro-lights couldn't plug into the timer) S i S i l l l l i i B M B B K K wmamsmsmsii SMmsmmmmmmmMMSiMmm Summary (pH): Measurement Day (Setup 01} Measurement Day (Setup 02) Sample ID Day 1 Bay_2 Day 7 Day 14 Dav 1B Sample ID Day 1 Day 8 Day 15 Dav 29 Plant Blank (a) 7 . 1 5 7 . 1 3 7 .06 7 .44 7 . 2 7 Sand Blank 6 . 7 2 6.81 7 . 1 0 7 .34 Plant Blank (b) 7 . 1 9 7 .24 7 .40 7 . 2 7 7 . 2 5 d H 2 0 Blank 6 . 2 2 6 . 4 5 6 . 6 7 6 . 9 2 1 0 % (a) 5 .72 6 . 4 6 7 . 6 9 7.71 7 .60 1 0 % (a) 4 . 7 3 6 . 1 8 6 . 3 7 6 . 6 7 1 0 % (b) 5 .62 6 . 3 0 7 .65 7.61 7 .64 1 0 % (b) 4 . 8 2 6 . 3 0 6 . 6 0 6 . 2 4 5 0 % (a) 4 . 2 6 4 . 4 7 5 .76 7 .12 7 .45 2 5 % (a) 4 . 1 2 5 .90 6 . 7 7 6 . 3 6 5 0 % (b) 4 . 3 4 4 . 5 3 6.71 7 .63 7 . 6 6 2 5 % (b) 4 . 2 3 5 .60 6 . 5 3 6 . 4 5 7 5 % (a) 4 . 2 0 4 . 3 3 5 .26 6.91 7.51 5 0 % (a) 3 .86 4 . 3 7 6 . 1 5 6 . 2 8 7 5 % (b) 4 . 3 4 4.51 5 .50 7 .12 7 .62 5 0 % (b) 3 .85 4 . 2 4 6 . 0 6 6 . 6 2 Sand Blank 7.21 7 .12 7 . 3 9 7 .46 7 .30 msimmiMmms: •s mmmismm. Summary (DO) (mg/L}: Measurement Day (Setup tt1} Measurement Day (Setup 02) Sample ID Day 1 Day_2 Day 7 Day 14 Day 1B Sample ID Day 1 Day 8 Day 15 Hay 29 Plant Blank (a) 8.1 7.5 6 .8 4 . 8 6 .2 . Sand Blank 8 .0 9.4 9 .0 9.5 Plant Blank (b) S.2 7 .6 6 .0 4 .4 6.2 d H 2 0 Blank 4 .4 8.4 8.4 8.6 1 0 % (a) 8 .0 6 .0 6 .0 5.7 6.1 . 1 0 % (a) 5.1 6 .8 7.4 7.4 1 0 % (b) 7 .5 5.4 6 .0 5.5 6 .6 1 0 % (b) 4 .2 5.2 5.0 3.0 5 0 % (a) 6 .5 2.1 1.3 1.8 1.0 2 5 % (a) 5.9 2 .8 3.0 2 .0 5 0 % (b) 7 .8 6 .6 3.9 0 .8 4 .9 2 5 % (b) 5.0 2.4 1 .0 5.4 7 5 % (a) 7 .0 4 . 7 1.1 0 .7 0 .6 5 0 % (a) 2.4 1.4 4 .4 6 .4 7 5 % (b) 7 .6 5.6 0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 5 0 % (b) 3.2 2 .0 1.5 7.4 Sand Blank 8 .7 B.1 8 .0 8.5 8 .7 : Summary ( conductivity) {uS/cm}: Measurement Day (Setup #1) Sample ID Day 1 Pay 2 Day 7 Plant Blank (a) 8 0 1 2 0 3 5 0 Plant Blank (b) 5 0 8 0 2 4 0 1 0 % (a) 2 7 0 2 6 0 4 0 0 1 0 % (b) 2 7 0 3 1 0 5 0 0 5 0 % (a) 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 5 0 % (b) 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 7 5 % (a) 1 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 8 0 0 7 5 % (b) 1 3 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 9 0 0 Sand Blank 3 0 4 0 7 0 Day 14 4 5 0 3 5 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 6 0 0 7 0 Day 1B 4 2 0 2 6 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 7 0 Sample ID Sand Blank d H 2 0 Blank 1 0 % (a) 1 0 % (b) 2 5 % (a) 2 5 % (b) 5 0 % (a) 5 0 % (b) Pay 1 Measurement Day (Setup 02} Day 8 Day 15 2 0 2 2 0 3 9 0 4 4 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 1 8 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 1 4 0 1 7 0 3 0 0 3 8 0 4 4 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 Dav 29 8 0 1 5 0 1 4 0 2 7 0 4 0 0 3 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 Raw Data: N O T E S DO measured with an YSI Model 57 DO-probe. calibrated each day pH measured with an Orion (Model 230A, with gel-body probe} pH-meter. calibrated each day Conductivity measured with a YSI Model 33 SCT probe, calibrated each day dH20 Blank = a planted blank (control) tank, filled with dechlorinated water Sand Blank = an unplanted control tank, with no root mat or leachate, just the bottom layer of sand, and filled with dechlorinated water ' Date measured: Day 1 F e b 21/98 Conductivity Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) d H 2 0 Blank (a) 7 .15 8.1 8 0 d H 2 0 Blank (b) 7 . 1 9 8.2 5 0 1 0 % (a) 5 .72 8.0 2 7 0 1 0 % (b) 5 .62 7.5 2 7 0 5 0 % (a) 4 . 2 6 6 .5 9 0 0 5 0 % (b) 4 . 3 4 7 .8 1 2 0 0 7 5 % (a) 4 . 2 0 7 .0 1 3 0 0 7 5 % (b) 4 . 3 4 7 .6 1 3 0 0 Sand Blank 7.21 8 .7 3 0 Technic ian: K A F (at EVS ) sDate measured; Day 1 Apr 13/99 Conductivity Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Sand Blank 6 . 7 2 8.0 2 0 d H 2 0 Blank 6 . 2 2 4 .4 2 2 0 1 0 % (a) 4 . 7 3 5.1 3 9 0 1 0 % (b) 4 . 8 2 4 .2 4 4 0 2 5 % (a) 4 . 1 2 5.9 5 0 0 2 5 % (b) 4 . 2 3 5.0 5 0 0 5 0 % (a) 3 .86 2.4 9 0 0 5 0 % (b) 3 .85 3.2 9 0 0 Technic ian : K A F (at EVS ) Kevin Frankowski 128 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.3 RAW DATA: B E N C H - S C A L E T E S T I N G M o n i t o r i n g D a t a [ p H , D O , C o n d u c t i v i t y ! ( c o n t . ) Date measured' Day 2 Feb 22/98 Date measure* Day 8 Apr 20/99 Conductivity Conductivity Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) dH20 Blank (a) 7.13 7.5 120 Sand Blank 6.81 9.4 40 dH20 Blank (b) 7.24 7.6 80 .' ; dH20 Blank 6.45 8.4 150 10% (a) 6.46 6.0 260 • 10% (a) 6.18 6.8 180 10% (b) 6.30 5.4 310 10% (b) 6.30 5.2 220 50% (a) 4.47 2.1 1000 25% (a) 5.90 2.8 300 50% (b) 4.53 6.6 1300 25% (b) 5.60 2.4 350 75% (a) 4.33 4.7 1400 50% (a) 4.37 1.4 500 75% (b) 4.51 5.6 1500 50% (b) 4.24 2.0 600 Sand Blank 7.12 8.1 40 Technician: KAF (at EVS) Technician: KAF (at EVS) Date measured: Day 7 Feb 27/98 Data measured: Day 15 Apr 27/99 Conductivity Conductivity Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/ctnl Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) dH20 Blank (a) 7.06 5.8 350 Sand Blank 7.10 9.0 60 dH20 Blank (b) 7.40 6.0 240 dH20 Blank 6.67 8.4 140 10% (a) 7.69 6.0 400 10% (a) 6.37 7.4 170 10% (b) 7.65 6.0 500 10% (b) 6.60 5.0 300 50% (a) 5.76 1.3 1300 ' 25% (a) 6.77 3.0 380 50% (b) 6.71 3.9 1300 25% (b) 6.53 1.0 440 75% (a) 5.26 1.1 1 800 50% (a) 6.15 4.4 600 75% (b) 5.50 0.9 1900 50% (b) 6.06 1.5 600 Sand Blank 7.39 8.0 70 Technician:: KAF (at EVS) . Technician: KAF (at EVS) Date measure* Day 14 Mar 06/98 Dale measured;* Day 29 Mav 11/99 Conductivity Conductivity Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) dH20 Blank (a) 7.44 4.8 450 Sand Blank 7.34 9.5 80 dH20 Blank (b) 7.27 4.4 350 dH20 Blank 6.92 8.6 150 10% (a) 7.71 5.7 500 10% (a) 6.67 7.4 140 10% (b) 7.61 5.5 600 10% (b) 6.24 3.0 270 50% (a) 7.12 1.8 1200 25% (a) 6.36 2.0 400 50% (b) 7.63 0.8 1200 - . 25% (b) 6.45 5.4 350 75% (a) 6.91 0.7 1500 50% (a) 6.28 6.4 500 75% (b) 7.12 0.8 1600 ; 50% (b) 6.62 7.4 500 Sand Blank 7.46 8.5 70 Technician: KAF (at EVS) Technician: KAF (at EVS) Date measured: Day 18 Mar 10/98 ' < ; -end... Conductivity Sample ID pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) dH20 Blank (a) 7.27 6.2 420 dH20 Blank (b) 7.25 6.2 260 10% (a) 7.60 6.1 500 10% (b) 7.64 6.6 500 50% (a) 7.45 1.0 1000 50% (b) 7.66 4.9 900 75% (a) 7.51 0.6 1200 75% (b) 7.62 0.7 1200 Sand Blank 7.30 8.7 70 . Technician: KAF (at EVS) Kevin Frankowski 129 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.3 RAW DATA: B E N C H - S C A L E T E S T I N G T a n n i n a n d L i g n i n I Civil 599 - MASc Thesis • Constructed Wetlands Project Microcosm Monitoring Data: Tannins and Ligmns {T&L} (mg/L as Tannic Acid) .Summary (Series a2 Day fi & 16): Sample Dale: Sample ID A p r 20/99 A p r 28/99 d H 2 0 B l a n k 3.1 3 .9 1 0 % (a) 4 9 . 7 3 6 . 3 1 0 % (b) 4 6 . 4 3 6 . 9 2 5 % (a) 2 3 5 . 0 2 0 7 . 3 2 5 % (b) 2 4 0 . 4 2 0 9 . 4 5 0 % (a) 5 7 4 . 3 5 1 0 . 1 5 0 % (b) 5 0 2 . 1 4 4 6 . 0 Graph Data: Category Influent 1 0 % (a) 1 0 % (b) 2 5 % (a) 2 5 % (b) 5 0 % (a) 5 0 % (b) Test concentrations corrected to 100% leachate strength Day 8 2 8 7 4 4 9 7 4 5 4 9 4 0 9 6 2 1 1 4 9 1 0 0 4 Day 16 : % - r e m o v a l * 3 6 3 ! 369J 829? 838 1020 £ Day 8 Raw Data: NOTES Reagents: Fotin phenol (0. ImL), carbonate tenrate (1.0 mL) (allow 30 min for colour development) Sample volume was 5.0 mL 0 8 3 0 8 4 0 . 6 7 0 . 6 7 0 6 0 0 . 6 5 Day 16 " 0 8 7 . 0 8 7 0 71 0.71 0 6 4 0 . 6 9 ' Day 8 avg/std dev 0 . 8 3 0 .01 0 . 6 7 0 .01 0 . 6 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 8 7 0 . 0 0 0 .71 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 7 0 . 0 3 Sample Date. A p r 20/99 (Day 8) Dilution Sample ID Factor d H 2 0 Blank 1 0 % (a) 1 0 % (b) 2 5 % (a) 2 5 % (b) 5 0 % (a) 5 0 % (b) Absorbance (@ 700 nm) T&L (mg/L) 1 0 . 2 9 3 3 . 1 3 5 0 0 . 0 9 3 4 9 . 7 5 0 0 . 0 8 5 4 5 . 4 1 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 2 3 5 . 0 1 0 0 0 . 2 2 5 2 4 0 . 4 2 5 0 0 . 2 1 5 5 7 4 . 3 2 5 0 0 . 1 8 8 5 0 2 . 1 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0 . 1 9 1 4 0 . 3 7 0 8 0 . 7 5 0 M a y 26/99 Techn i c i an : K A F & Anqel ika T&L Standard Curve 2 4 Concentration (mg/L) Sample 'Date A p r 28/99 (Day 16) Dilution Sample ID Factor d H 2 0 Blank 1 1 0 % (a) 5 0 1 0 % (b) 5 0 2 5 % (a) 1 0 0 2 5 % (b) 1 0 0 5 0 % (a) 2 5 0 5 0 % (b) 2 5 0 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0 . 1 9 1 4 0 . 3 7 0 8 0 . 7 5 0 Absorbance (@ 700 nm) 0 . 3 6 4 0 . 0 6 8 0 . 0 6 9 0 . 1 9 4 0 . 1 9 6 0 . 1 9 1 0 . 1 6 7 T&L (mg/L) 3 . 9 3 6 . 3 3 6 . 9 2 0 7 . 3 2 0 9 . 4 5 1 0 . 1 4 4 6 . 0 0.80 0.70 • 0.60 % 0.50 5 0 4 0 « 0.30 < 0.20 0.10 0.00 Date Analyzed: ' M a y 26/99 , Techn i c i an : K A F & Anqel ika T&L Standard Curve Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 130 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.3 RAW DATA: B E N C H - S C A L E T E S T I N G C h e m i c a l O x y g e n D e m a n d [ C O D ] COD (mg/L) corrected Sample ID M a y 1 2 / 9 9 to 100% %-removal S a n d B l a n k 1 0 n / a n / a d H 2 0 B l a n k 1 1 7 n / a n / a 1 0 % (a ) 2 5 4 2 5 3 7 0 . 8 2 1 0 % (b ) 2 8 6 2 8 6 1 0 . 8 0 2 5 % (a ) 9 3 0 3 7 2 1 0 . 7 4 2 5 % (b ) 5 8 7 2 3 4 8 0 . 8 3 5 0 % (a ) 1 3 8 3 2 7 6 6 0 . 8 0 5 0 % (b) 1 4 2 3 2 8 4 6 0 . 8 0 Raw Data: Civ// 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project M i c r o c o s m Moni tor ing Da ta : Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/L) Summary (Series #2, Day 30 teardown): Inf luent C O D (from Table 4.2) A v e r a g e % - r e m o v a l S t d . d e v . 1 4 1 1 6 0 . 8 0 0 . 0 3 NOTES Digestion reagent was 20-900 mg/L range, without mercury (ie, no chloride interierence) Sample volume was 2.0 mL S a m p l e D a t e : M a y 1 2 / 9 9 ( D a y 3 0 - t e a r d o w n ) Dilution Absorbance Sample ID Factor (@ 600 nm) S a n d B l a n k 1 0 . 0 0 4 d H 2 0 B l a n k 1 0 . 0 4 7 1 0 % (a ) 1 0 . 1 0 2 1 0 % (b) 1 0 . 1 1 5 2 5 % (a ) 2 0 . 1 8 7 2 5 % (b ) 2 0 . 1 1 8 5 0 % (a ) 4 0 . 1 3 9 5 0 % (b ) 4 0 . 1 4 3 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 5 0 0 . 0 2 4 1 5 0 0 . 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 . 1 2 2 6 0 0 0 . 2 4 0 Std Curve slope: 0 . 0 0 0 4 COD (mg/L) 1 0 . 0 1 1 6 . 9 2 5 3 . 7 2 8 6 . 1 9 3 0 . 3 5 8 7 . 1 1 3 8 3 . 1 1 4 2 2 . 9 M a y 1 2 / 9 9 L P a t e J n a l y M S J . T e c h n i c i a n : K A F & A n g e l i k a COD Standard Curve 200 300 400 Concentration (mg/L) 600 Kevin Frankowski 131 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.3 RAW DATA: B E N C H - S C A L E T E S T I N G B i o c h e m i c a l O x y g e n D e m a n d [ B Q D 1 Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Microcosm Monitoring Data: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (mg/L) Summary: 1998 Microcosms (Series tl) Sample Date: corrected Sample ID May 12/99 to 100% %-removal dechlor blank # 1 13.52 n/a n/a dechlor blank #2 2.06 n/a n/a Influent B O D 5 5 5 5 1 0 % # 1 34 .02 3 4 0 0.94 1 0 % #2 2 7 . 6 6 2 7 7 0.95 Average %-removal 0 .93 50 % # 1 1 2 1 . 5 0 4 8 6 0.91 Std. dev. 0.01 50 % #2 8 8 . 5 0 3 5 4 0 .94 n 6 7 5 % # 1 2 2 6 . 5 0 4 5 3 0.92 7 5 % #2 2 2 6 . 5 0 4 5 3 0.92 Sand / room blank 3.78 N/A (BOD blank) 0.11 Raw Data: 1998 Microcosms (Series #1) NOTES BOD samples were not seeded, since the microcosm tanks already caontained a seeding of pool-side soil. BOD5 (seeded) of influent = 5016 mg/L dechlor blank U 1 1 dechlor blank #2 2 10% # 1 3 10% #2 4 50 % # 1 5 5 0 % #2 6 75% # 1 7 75% #2 8 Sand / room blank 9 N/A (BOD blank) Blk (Rep of #3) 3a (Rep of #4) 4a Date Sampled: Mar 17/98 Date Analyzed: Mar 20/98 Technician: KAF & Anqelika Dates: Bottle Concentration: % leachate 0 0 10 10 50 50 75 71.7 0 0 10 10 DOi S.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 Mar 25/98 2mL / 300 DOf 8.61 8.63 8.54 8.47 7.88 8.10 7.18 7.18 8.34 8.58 8.34 8.50 BOD 12.0 9.0 22.5 33.0 121.5 88.5 226.5 226.5 52.5 0.1 52.5 28.5 DOi Mar 25/98 50mL / 300 DOf 6.16 7.74 2.44 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.06 8.15 3.02 2.24 BOD 11.2 3.2 34.0 27.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.8 0.5 30.5 35.3 mi 6.97 7.55 7.14 7.25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mar 25/98 150mL/300 DOf 0.21 6.52 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BOD 13.5! 2.1 ! N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Comparison of BOD5 for 25-day effluent from different microcosm concentrations o O loo.oo y = 2.7797X - 0.1365 R ! = 0.9295 Leachate Concentrations (%) Kevin Frankowski 132 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.3 RAW DATA: B E N C H - S C A L E T E S T I N G B i o c h e m i c a l O x y g e n D e m a n d ( c o n t . ) Summary: 1999 Microcosms (Series #2) Sample Date: corrected Sample ID May 12/99 to 100% %-removal Sand Blank 1 n/a n/a dH20 Blank 4 n/a n/a Influent BOD (from Table 4.2) 5555 10% (a) 7 66 0.99 10% (b) 1 0 105 0.98 Average %-removal 0.95 25% (a) 165 660 0.88 Std. dev. 0.04 25% (b) 93 370 0.93 n 6 50% (a) 1 14 228 0.96 50% (b) 1 20 240 0.96 BOD Blank 0 Raw Data: NOTES: BOD samples were not seeded, since the microcosm tanks already caontained a seeding of pool-side soil. Sample Date! Mav 12/99 (Day 30 - teardown) Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Sand Blank 3 8.82 8.48 1 N dH20 Blank 3 8.05 6.60 4 N 10% (a) 3 7.98 5.77 7 N 10% (b) 3 7.11 3.62 10 N 25% (a) 20 8.34 0.09 165 N 25% (b) 20 8.42 3.79 93 N 50% (a) 20 8.39 2.70 114 N 50% (b) 20 8.36 2.37 120 N BOD Blank 1 8.49 8.15 0 N ' Date Analyzed: Mav 12/99 Technician: KAF & Angelika Kevin Frankowski 133 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.3 RAW DATA: BENCH-SCALE TESTING E2 •S a .2 !S | ° & «> 8 '2 e : 0 O 1 I I I S: o I I 3 O 2 „ to I I I 1 CD CD I 3 CD CD -Q I CO CD ii ID . 3 q> I* r~ CM ';-.< CO 2 — cfl: CO O CO g r~ o> o> o o o o E CD CO 00 O CO oj c\i LO: O LO o c , CD E i LO LO " ? CO A co LO CD T - CM CO O) OJ o O LO T - CM O LO o i - CM LO T - i co oo 00 LO O) T - CM oo B g> a D CM CD a CD E LL C8 CO 00 00 O) O i O CM T -n <-CD co a> o o) CD O) CD o ^ CM CM T-a. a. co < < 2 CO oo oo 0) OJ O) o> 05 TO OT es o> cn OJ es CD CO Kevin Frankowski 134 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Kevin Frankowski 135 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Field Monitoring Data - Summary I Civil 599-MASc Thesis I Constructed Wetlands Project I Mesocosm Monitoring Data: Field data (temp, pH, DO, cond) Summary (Temp) {degrees CJ: Sample Date Sample ID Oct 29/99 Npv 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 8.7 6.0 9.5 8.3 8.1 5.3 5.8 Cell 5 8.7 4.5 9.5 8.2 7.7 5.5 5.7 Cell 3 8.7 5.0 9.5 8.3 7.7 4.5 5.7 Cell 6 8.7 5.3 9.5 8.2 7.9 5.7 5.7 Cell 2 8.7 4.2 9.5 7.8 8.0 4.2 5.7 Cell 4 8.7 4.4 9.5 8.5 8.1 5.8 5.8 Cell Influent 8.5 6.6 9.8 9.5 8.3 6.8 7.6 Leachate Pool 13.0 9.5 16.7 16.5 14.1 9.5 1 1.6 Slough - 4.4 8.1 7.5 6.8 4.6 5.1 Blank 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Summary (pH). ISisiiMiilBII! Sample Date Sample ID Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 NOV 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 3.51 - 3.43 3.68 3.54 3.57 3.61 Cell 5 3.90 4.01 3.62 3.70 3.66 3.61 3.70 Cell 3 4.19 3.79 3.54 3.69 3.60 3.61 3.59 Cell 6 3.64 3.82 3.49 3.61 3.74 3.64 3.72 Cell 2 3.95 3.78 3.56 3.95 4.18 3.68 3.61 Cell 4 4.09 3.94 3.51 3.72 3.69 3.71 3.67 Cell Influent 3.53 3.65 3.45 3.53 3.47 3.57 3.50 Leachate Pool 3.64 3.86 3.59 3.40 3.47 3.57 3.42 Slough - 6.41 6.07 6.11 6.06 5.96 5.88 Blank 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Summary (DO) {mg/L}: Sample Date Sample ID Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Cell 1 0.3 1.9 0.5 1.0 0.8 Cell 5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 Cell 3 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 Cell 6 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 Cell 2 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.3 Cell 4 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 Cell Influent 2.1 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.8 Leachate Pool 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 Slough - 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Blank 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec 03/99 0. 2. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2 0. 0. 0 Dec 10/99 1.5 0.5 0.2 0.6 1.5 0.3 2.9 0.5 0.3 0.0 Summary ( conductivity) {uS/cm}: Sample ID Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Influent Leachate Pool Slough Blank Sample Date Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 31 1 379 405 352 310 459 962 79.9 0 173 152 256 275 1 66 231 445 760 58.6 0 245 250 149 404 325 275 1 74 343 335 292 234 355 343 264 256 368 289 295 264 314 315 273 269 371 384 410 346 456 1276 752 628 1040 67.5 63.4 65.5 91.4 0 0 0 0 Kevin Frankowski 136 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Field Monitoring Data Raw Data: NOTES: Temp & DO measured with an YSI Model 55 digital DO-probe, calibrated each field day pH measured with an Orion (Model 230A, w/gel-body probe) pH-meter, calibrated each field day\ Conductivity measured with a YSI Model 33 SCT probe, calibrated each field day Sample Date: Oct 29/99 Sample ID Temp (C) pH DO (mg/L) Cell 1 8.7 3.51 0.3 Cell 2 8.7 3.95 0.6 Cell 3 8.7 4.19 0.7 Cell 4 8.7 4.09 0.9 Cell 5 8.7 3.90 0.3 Cell 6 8.7 3.64 0.9 Cell Influent 8.5 3.53 2.1 Leachate Pool 13.0 3.64 0.3 Slough {Not sampled this week} Conductivity (uS/cm) Date Analyzed: Technician: Paula P Oct 29/99 Sample Date: Nov 05/99 Conductivity Sample ID Temp (C) pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Cell 1 6.0 - 1 .9 -Cell 2 4.2 3 78 0.6 352 Cell 3 5.0 3 79 0.2 379 Cell 4 4.4 3 94 0.3 310 Cell 5 4.5 4 01 0.3 31 1 Cell 6 5.3 3 82 0.1 405 Cell Influent 6.6 3 65 2.0 459 Leachate Pool 9.5 3 86 0.4 962 Slough 4.4 6 41 0.2 79.9 iiDate;*AnlryS| Nov 05/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date: Nov 12/99 Conductivity Sample ID Temp (C) pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Cell 1 9.5 3.43 0.5 1 73 Cell 2 9.5 3.56 0.5 166 Cell 3 9.5 3.54 0.4 256 Cell 4 9.5 3.51 0.2 231 Cell 5 9.5 3.62 0.3 1 52 Cell 6 9.5 3.49 0.2 275 Cell Influent 9.8 3.45 2.5 445 Leachate Pool 16.7 3.59 0.3 760 Slough 8.1 6.07 0.2 58.6 Date Analyzed Nov 12/99 Technician: Paula P. Kevin Frankowski 137 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Field Monitoring Data (cont.) Sample, Date:.: Nov 19/99 Conductivity Sample ID Temp (C) pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Cell 1 8.3 3.68 1.0 245 Cell 2 7.8 3.95 1.3 289 Cell 3 8.3 3.69 0.7 335 Cell 4 8.5 3.72 0.4 315 Cell 5 8.2 3.70 0.5 325 Cell 6 8.2 3.61 0.4 343 Cell Influent 9.5 3.53 1.5 384 Leachate Pool 16.5 3.40 0.3 1 276 Slough 7.5 6.1 1 0.1 67.5 Date Analyzed: * Nov 19/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date: Nov 26/99 Sample ID Temp Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell 1 2 3 4 5 6 Influent Leachate Pool Slough (C) 8.1 8.0 7.7 8.1 7.7 7.9 8.3 14.1 6.8 pH DO (mg/L) Conductivity (uS/cm) 54 18 60 69 66 74 47 3.47 6.06 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 1 .8 0.3 0.2 250 295 292 273 275 264 410 752 63.4 Date Analyzed: Nov 26/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date! Dec 03/99 Conductivity Sample ID Temp (C) pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Cell 1 5.3 3.57 0.6 1 49 Cell 2 4.2 3.68 1.8 264 Cell 3 4.5 3.61 0.5 234 Cell 4 5.8 3.71 0.2 269 Cell 5 5.5 3.61 2.3 1 74 Cell 6 5.7 3.64 0.4 256 Cell Influent 6.8 3.57 2.8 346 Leachate Pool 9.5 3.57 0.4 628 Slough 4.6 5.96 0.7 65.5 Date Analyzed Dec 03/99 Technician: Paula P. Kevin Frankowski 138 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Field Monitoring Data (cont.) Sample Date: Dec 10/99 Conductivity Sample ID Temp (C) pH DO (mg/L) (uS/cm) Cell 1 5 8 3.61 1 .5 4 0 4 Cell 2 5 7 3.61 1.5 3 1 4 Cell 3 5 7 3.59 0.2 3 5 5 Cell 4 5 8 3.67 0.3 371 Cell 5 5 7 3.70 0.5 3 4 3 Cell 6 5 7 3.72 0.6 3 6 8 Cell Influent 7 6 3.50 2.9 4 5 6 Leachate Pool 1 1 6 3.42 0.5 1 0 4 0 Slough 5 1 5.88 0.3 91 .4 Date Analyzed: Dec 10/99 Technician: Paula P. Kevin Frankowski 139 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS B i o c h e m i c a l O x y g e n D e m a n d [ B Q D 1 - S u m m a r y Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Mesocosm Monitoring Data: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (mg/L) Graph Data: Category Rain (mm/wk) % Rain Dilution: AVERAGES: influent Unplanted Control Planted Only Innoculated & Plants STD DEV: Influent Unplanted Control Planted Only Innoculated & Plant %-Removal: Unplanted Control Planted Only Innoculated & Plant Background Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Week Nov 12/99 NOV 19/99 1.8 2.6 3.5 1062 909 786 789 190.9 25.5 21.2 1 4 % 2 6 % 2 6 % 2399 1619 2129 1709 #DIV/0l 127.3 42.4 3 3 % 1 1% 2 9 % 1019 815 1 031 971 50.9 0.0 84.9 2 0 % - 1 % 5% 1800 1 290 1605 1410 297.0 21.2 84.9 2 8 % 1 1 % 2 2 % Nov 26/99 2519 1484 1559 1469 21.2 169.7 169.7 41 % 3 8 % 4 2 % Summary: Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 1724 704 1064 1 169 63.6 42.4 21.2 5 9 % 3 8 % 3 2 % Sample Date Sample ID Jun 09/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Cell 1 5 1044 - 851 1080 1499 659 Cell 5 8 774 1619 779 1 500 1469 749 Cell 3 5 804 2039 1031 1620 1679 1034 Cell 6 9 768 2219 1031 1590 1439 1094 Cell 2 8 804 1739 91 1 1 350 1 589 1 154 Cell 4 3 774 1679 1031 1470 1349 1 184 Cell Influent - 1062 2399 1019 1 800 2519 1724 Leachate Pool 5250 2988 9299 6299 6900 5849 3899 Slough - - 28 29 1 4 26 1 1 Seeded Blank - - 1 1 0 1 1 Unseeded Blank 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 574 1 154 1214 1 124 106.1 106.1 148.5 2 7 % 2 3 % 2 9 % Dec 10/99 1229 1 079 1 1 39 1289 1019 1229 1 574 4499 1 8 1 0 Kevin Frankowski 140 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Biochemical Oxygen Demand [BOD1 Raw Data: NOTES: Seed was 0.1g (moist wt) of pool-side soil per 300 mL bottle (weighed using the water suspension method) Sample Date: Jun 09/99 ("Background" samples, taken prior to any influent input) Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 1 8 5 3.3 5 N Cell 2 1 9 4 1.5 8 N Cell 3 1 8 8 3.9 5 N Cell 4 1 8 8 5.8 3 N Cell 5 1 9 7 2.0 8 N Cell 6 1 8 8 0.1 9 N Cell Influent - - - - -Leachate Pool 3000 8 0 6.2 5250 N Slough - - - - -Seeded Blank - - - 0 -Unseeded Blank 1 7 9 8.0 0 N Date Analyzed Jun 10/99 Technician: KAF & Angelika Sample Date- Oct 29/99 Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 120 9 2 0.5 1 044 N Cell 2 1 20 9 2 2.5 804 N Cell 3 1 20 9 2 2.5 804 N Cell 4 1 20 9 2 2.8 774 N Cell 5 1 20 9 2 2.8 774 N Cell 6 120 9 2 2.8 768 N Cell Influent 120 9.2 0.4 1 062 N Leachate Pool 600 9 2 4.2 2988 N Slough - - - - -Seeded Blank - - - 0 -Unseeded Blank 1 9.2 9.0 0.2 N : Date.An'aryllSl Nov 04/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Sample Date Nov 05/99 Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 - - - - -Cell 2 600 8 8 5.9 1739 Y Cell 3 600 8 8 5.4 2039 Y Cell 4 600 8 8 6.0 1679 Y Cell 5 600 8 8 6.1 1619 Y Cell 6 600 8 8 5.1 2219 Y Cell Influent 600 8 8 4.8 2399 Y Leachate Pool 3000 8 8 5.7 9299 Y Slough 1 5 8 8 6.9 28 Y Seeded Blank 1 8 8 8.0 1 Y Unseeded Blank 1 8 8 8.7 0 N Date Analyzed Technician: Nov 12/99 KAF & Priscilla Kevin Frankowski 141 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Biochemical Oxygen Demand (cont.) Sample Date: Nov 12/99 Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 1 20 8.8 1 7 851 Y Cell 2 120 8.8 1 2 911 Y Cell 3 120 8.8 0 2 1 031 Y Cell 4 1 20 8.8 0 2 1 031 Y Cell 5 1 20 8.8 2 3 7 79 Y Cell 6 1 20 8.8 0 2 1 031 Y Cell Influent 1 20 8.8 0 3 1019 Y Leachate Pool 3000 8.8 6 7 6299 Y Slough 30 8.4 7 4 29 Y Seeded Blank 1 8.8 7 7 1 Y Unseeded Blank 1 8.8 8 6 0 N Date Analyzed. Nov 12/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Sample Date: Nov 19/99 Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 300 8.8 5 2 1 080 Y Cell 2 300 8.8 4 3 1 350 Y Cell 3 300 8.8 3 4 1 620 Y Cell 4 300 8.8 3 9 1 470 Y Cell 5 300 8.8 3 8 1 500 Y Cell 6 300 8.8 3 5 1 590 Y Cell Influent 300 8.8 2 8 1 800 Y Leachate Pool 1500 8.8 4 2 6900 Y Slough 3 6.8 2 0 1 4 Y Seeded Blank 1 8.2 8 0 0 Y Unseeded Blank 1 8.8 8 7 0 N Date Analyzed' Nov 19/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Sample Date: Nov 26/99 Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 300 9.3 4 3 1 499 Y Cell 2 300 9.3 4 0 1 589 Y Cell 3 300 9.3 3.7 1679 Y Cell 4 300 9.3 4.8 1349 Y Cell 5 300 9.3 4 4 1469 Y Cell 6 300 9.3 4 5 1439 Y Cell Influent 600 9.3 5 1 2519 Y Leachate Pool 1500 9.3 5 4 5849 Y Slough 1 2 8.8 6 6 26 Y Seeded Blank ..1 9.3 8 4 1 Y y Unseeded Blank 1 9.3 8 9 b N Date Analyzed Nov 26/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Kevin Frankowski 142 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Biochemical Oxygen Demand (cont.) Sample Date:- Dec 03/99 Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 1 50 9 6 5.2 6 5 9 Y Cell 2 1 50 9 6 1.9 1 1 54 Y Cell 3 1 50 9 6 2.7 1 034 Y Cell 4 1 50 9 6 1.7 1 184 Y Cell 5 1 50 9 6 4.6 7 4 9 Y Cell 6 1 50 9 6 2.3 1 094 Y Cell Influent 375 9 6 5.0 1 724 Y Leachate Pool 7 5 0 9 6 4.4 3 8 9 9 Y Slough 3 7 4 3.5 1 1 Y Seeded Blank 1 9 6 8.4 1 Y Unseeded Blank 1 9 8 9.0 1 N Date Analyzed' Dec 03/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Sample Date:, Dec 10/99 Dilution Day 0 DO Day 5 DO Seeded Sample ID Factor (mg/L) (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) (Y/N) Cell 1 3 0 0 9 0 4.9 1 229 Y Cell 2 3 0 0 9 0 5.6 1019 Y Cell 3 3 0 0 9 0 5.2 1 139 Y Cell 4 3 0 0 9 0 4.9 1 229 Y Cell 5 3 0 0 9 0 5.4 1 079 Y Cell 6 3 0 0 9 0 4.7 1 289 Y Cell Influent 375 9 0 4.8 1 574 Y Leachate Pool 7 5 0 9 0 3.0 4 4 9 9 Y Slough 3 7 1 1.0 1 8 Y Seeded Blank 1 9 0 8.3 1 Y Unseeded Blank 1 9 1 8.8 0 N : Date Analyzed Dec 10/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Kevin Frankowski 143 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Q O <J •o c to Q c Q> I i i w c 8 -S o * •C (J to to Q i g .9 fc> | I O E Q a <- .£ 0 « cc CO CJ 0 0 CO 0 CD 10 CO 0 CO r -CO co CO CO CO CO T - 00 CO CIJ 0 OJ CO OJ CO CO CO cn CO CO r - r~ CO CO m r -r - T— CO CM co r- a> •* CO o> CO 1— i n 1— CJ CM r-. OJ a> T-00 0 CO CO CO r~ CM y-CO y- CO OJ r- O CO CO T— O CO 0 f - m 0 r - CO i n CO O i n i n CO O CM r- •* 0 00 T— O N CM CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO •f— 0 " t CM CO O T " CO co i n T— i n co Q Q Lo C TJ o s CO T - co T - CM OJ 0 i n •*9 -9 0^ 0^ CO O cn i n CM CO i n CO CM CO CO i n 9^ •.0 C> 0 CO CM CD O) CM •tf CJ CM ^0 CO CO m CO CM i n i n CO i n CD CO CO 0 ^0 0^ 0 .0 oj CO CM CO cn CO T — O) T - r - co *- T- co CM T - m ^ CM CO 0 0) CO 0^ 9^ 0 " 9^ 0 CO o> 0) O co i n CM T — m CO E o s c o c D ^ f i n o o c o i n c n — i c n o c o c o o o c M c o c o m o S C M r - C O O i - C O C O O C M S J ^ C O C O T T co cooocoocooocooo j o ^ i n f O c O ' - N m a o o T O M D o i r A i n I C M C M C O C O C O C O ^ - i -M - o o t t C D T - r - r - c o 1 CM CM 1 - T i n c o c o c o c o 53 m -a- r~ t^- m co 00 i n CM s i n i n s n o s c o n j T - C M C M c o c o m c o i n c o 5 3 r - c M - < i - c o o c M c o c n c o - i - O J C M C M C M C V l i n c O CD a #1 o j c \ i - ' - c o c o c o h ~ - » - c o r - c o ' - c o r - c o c O ' * r- T - CO CO 1 - CM CO CM o c o n o s s s o o co n in co t- co m i n t - i - o j r - r - c o o j •<t CD co in -"j- r» co s n co N co r-~ co co _ | C D C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C D C 0 C 0 gjcocncocnr-cnr^in CM CO CO CJ CM 5 I ra co === = = = c 8 CO CL = <B c "co T - i n c o c o w ^ - £ - u 5 CD CU CD (D e » • S o O O O O O O O J C O 01 Kevin Frankowski 144 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Chemical Oxygen Demand [COD1 Raw Data: NOTES: Digestion reagent was 20-900 mg/L range, without mercury (ie, no chloride interference) Sample volume was 2.0 mL Sample Date:' Jun 09/99 ("Background" samples, taken prior to any influent input) Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 1 Cell 2 1 Cell 3 1 Cell 4 1 Cell 5 1 Cell 6 1 Cell Influent -Leachate Pool 100 Slough Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 25 0.010 50 0.018 1 00 0.038 200 0.078 Std Curve slope: Absomance (@ 600 nm) 0.011 0.017 0.016 0.008 0.012 0.013 0.057 0.0004 COD (mg/L) 28.4 43.9 41.3 20.7 31.0 33.6 14728.7 L Date Analyzed: _ Technician: Jun 18/99 Anqelika COD Standard Curve 50 100 150 Concentration (mg/L) Sample Date: Oct 29/99 Sample ID Dilution Factor Absorbance (@ 600 nm) COD (mg/L) Cell 1 4 0-112 1866.7 Cell 2 4 6.047 783.3 Cell 3 4 0.053 883.3 Cell 4 4 0.058 966.7 Cell 5 4 0.056 933.3 Cell 6 4 0.058 966.7 Cell Influent 8 0.052 1733.3 Leachate Pool 8 0.196 6533.3 Slough - - -Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 50 150 1000 1500 0 3000 0 Std Curve slope: 0.0002 {no standards this week; slope value from Nov 05/99 used) f Date Analyzed: Nov 04/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla COD Standard Curve 500 1000 1500 2000 Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 145 U B C C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Chemical Oxygen Demand (cont.) Sample Date:* Nov 05/99 Dilution Absorbance Sample ID Factor ( @ 600 nm) COD (mg/L) Cell 1 - • -Cell 2 4 0.315 5250.0 Cell 3 4 0.368 6133.3 Cell 4 4 0.286 4766.7 Cell 5 4 0.270 4500.0 Cell 6 4 0.368 6133.3 Cell Influent 4 0.463 7716.7 Leachate Pool 8 0.551 18366.7 Slough 4 0.015 250.0 F.'Date Analyzed: Nov 10/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (® 600 nm) 0 0 50 0.023 100 0.040 200 0.083 400 0.163 800 0.341 Std Curve slope: 0.0002 COO Standard Curve 0.35 0.30 at u 0.25 c 5 0.20 S ° - 1 5 5 0.10 0.05 0.00 y = 0.0004x Ft 2 = 0.9993 200 400 Concentration (mg/L) Sample Date: Nov 12/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 2 Cell 2 2 Cell 3 2 Cell 4 2 Cell 5 2 Cell 6 2 Cell Influent 4 Leachate Pool 8 Slough 2 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 50 0.004 100 0.024 250 0.060 500 0.118 750 0.174 1000 0.243 Std Curve slope: Absomance (@ 600 nm) COD (mg/L) 0.0002 0.212 1781.5 0.208 1747.9 0.369 3100.8 0.311 2613.4 0.193 1621.8 0.402 3378.2 0.380 6386.6 0.371 12470.6 0.009 75.6 0.25 o 0.20 u 2 0.15 § o.io n * 0.05 0.00 Date Analyzed: Nov 16/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla COD Standard Curve y = 0.0002x Ft2 = 0.9979 * 200 400 600 Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 146 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Chemical Oxygen Demand (cont.) iple Date: Nov 19/99 Dilution Absorbance Sample ID Factor ( @ 600 nm) COD (mg/L) Cell 1 2 0.206 1716.7 Cell 2 2 0.244 2033.3 Cell 3 2 0.291 2425.0 Cell 4 2 0.270 2250.0 Cell 5 2 0.267 2225.0 Cell 6 2 0.284 2366.7 Cell Influent 4 0.340 5666.7 Leachate Pool 50 0.091 18958.3 Slough 2 0.046 383.3 Date Analyzed: Nov 22/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 50 0.011 1 00 0.032 250 0.066 500 0.124 750 0.182 1000 0.247 1500 0.352 Std Curve s lope: 0.0002 COD Standard Curve 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 y = 0.0002x R 2 = 0.9979 500 1000 Concentration (mg/L) Sample Date:5 Nov 26/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 4 Cell 2 4 Cell 3 4 Cell 4 4 Cell 5 4 Cell 6 4 Cell Influent 8 Leachate Pool 25 Slough 1 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 150 0.042 300 0.083 500 0.134 1 000 0.249 1500 0.376 Std Curve s lope: Absorbance (@ 600 nm) COD (mg/L) 0.0003 0.285 4523.8 0.287 4555.6 0.297 4714.3 0.276 4381.0 0.279 4428.6 0.280 4444.4 0.250 7936.5 0.167 16567.5 0.072 285.7 0.40 0.35 8 0.30 n 0.25 | 0.20 » 0.15 < 0.10 0.05 0.00 C6ate Analyzed:^ Dec 01/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla COD Standard Curve y = 0.0003x R2 = 0.9985 500 1000 Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 147 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Chemical Oxygen Demand (cont.) Sample Date:. Dec 03/99 Dilution Absorbance Sample ID Factor ( @ 600 nm) COD (mg/L) Cell 1 5 0.098 2008.2 Cell 2 5 0.181 3709.0 Cell 3 5 0.154 3155.7 Cell 4 5 0.180 3688.5 Cell 5 5 0.100 2049.2 Cell 6 5 0.163 3340.2 Cell Influent 1 0 0.120 4918.0 Leachate Pool 25 0.110 1 1270.5 Slough 1 0.056 229.5 Date Analyzed:1_ Dec 06/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 300 0.076 500 0.133 1 000 0.237 1500 0.366 Std Curve s lope: 0.0002 COD Standard Curve 0 . 4 0 0 . 3 5 0 . 3 0 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 0 0 . 1 5 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 y = 0 . 0 0 0 2 x F t 2 = 0 . 9 9 7 8 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 Concentration (mg/L) Sample Date: Dec 10/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 5 Cell 2 5 Cell 3 5 Cell 4 5 Cell 5 5 Cell 6 5 Cell Influent 1 0 Leachate Pool 25 Slough 1 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 600 nm) 0 0 300 0.064 500 0.115 1000 0.229 Std Curve s lope: 0.0002 Absorbance (@ 600 nm) COD (mg/L) 0 196 4298.2 0 145 3179.8 0 168 3684.2 0 197 4320.2 0 169 3706.1 0 184 4035.1 0 1 1 1 4868.4 0 128 14035.1 0.059 258.8 0 . 2 5 „ 0 . 2 0 u 5 0 1 5 JQ ° 0 . 1 0 < 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 0 0 Date Analyzed. Dec 13/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla COD Standard Curve y = 0 . 0 0 0 2 X F l 2 = 0 . 9 9 9 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 Concentration (mg/L) 8 0 0 Kevin Frankowski 148 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Total Suspended Solids [TSS1 Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Mesocosm Monitoring Data: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L) mmmmmmmmmmtmmmma^mmummm mmmmamms, Summary: Sample Date Sample ID Jun 09/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 4.3 33.6 - 3.6 165.6 7.6 4.4 8.8 Cell 5 14.4 15.6 14.4 16.8 2.8 9.2 8.4 10.8 Cell 3 1.4 54.4 14.0 7.6 3.2 22.8 16.0 8.0 Cell 6 8.0 9.6 7.2 5.6 2.8 6.4 8.4 7.2 Cell 2 7.0 26.0 9.2 6.0 3.2 12.8 33.2 1 1.2 Cell 4 2.3 30.8 11.2 12.0 7.2 5.6 10.0 8.4 Cell Influent 29.2 20.8 12.4 50.8 12.0 12.0 14.0 Leachate Pool 4.3 26.0 14.0 16.8 8.0 12.0 14.8 50.8 Slough - 62.7 104.4 42.0 43.2 25.2 32.0 Blank -1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 -1 .2 0.0 -2.8 -0.4 H H B H B B i ^ M B B i ^ H I Raw Data: NOTES: Vacuum-filtered through a Whatman 934-AH glass microfibre filter (effective retention = 1.5 um). Tare: filter paper and weighing boat are pre-fired for at least 1 hour, then cooled to room temp, in dessicator. Dry: dried @ 105 C until constant weight (at least 2 hrs), then cooled to room temp, in dessicator. Fired: fired @ 550 C until constant weight (at least 1 hr), then cooled to room temp, in dessicator. TSS = Total Suspended Solids FSS = Fixed Suspended Solids (i.e., approximates inorganic matter) VSS = Volatile Suspended Solids (i.e., approximates organic matter) "T'SarnDle Date:" Jun 09/99 ("Background" samples, taken prior to any influent input) Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (g) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 210 1.6742 1.6751 1.6743 4.3 0.5 3.8 Cell 2 213 1.7031 1.7046 1.7031 7.0 0.0 7.0 Cell 3 214 1.7127 1.7130 1.7127 1.4 0.0 1.4 Cell 4 218 1.7176 1.7181 1.7176 2.3 0.0 2.3 Cell 5 208 1.8700 1.8730 1.8714 14.4 6.7 7.7 Cell 6 212 1.6925 1.6942 1.6931 8.0 2.8 5.2 Cell Influent - - - - - - -Leachate Pool 210 1.7328 1.7337 1.7328 4.3 0.0 4.3 Slough - - - - - - -Blank 210 1.6727 1.6725 1.6724 -1 .0 -1.4 0.5 • Date Analyzed:! Jun 10/99 Technician: Anqelika Sample Date: Oct 29/99 Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (g) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 250 1.6764 1.6848 1.6802 33.6 15.2 18.4 Cell 2 250 1.7092 1.7157 1.7124 26.0 12.8 13.2 Cell 3 250 1.7096 1.7232 1.7107 54.4 4.4 50.0 Cell 4 250 1.1204 1.1281 1.1246 30.8 16.8 14.0 Cell 5 250 1.1323 1.1362 1.1331 15.6 3.2 12.4 Cell 6 250 1.5496 1.5520 1.5507 9.6 4.4 5.2 Cell Influent 250 1.5505 1.5578 1.5533 29.2 11.2 18.0 Leachate Pool 250 1.5492 1.5557 1.5527 26.0 14.0 12.0 Slough 250 - - - - - - -Blank 250 1.7263 1.7264 1.7264 0.4 0.4 0.0 Date Analyzed. Nov 02/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Kevin Frankowski 149 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Total Suspended Solids (cont.) i fS l f fg le iDate l Nov 05/99 Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (g) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 250 - • - - - -Cell 2 250 1.6890 1.6913 1 6898 9.2 3.2 6.0 Cell 3 250 1.7050 1.7085 1 7065 14.0 6.0 8.0 Cell 4 250 1.7114 1.7142 1 7126 1 1.2 4.8 6.4 Cell 5 250 1.7137 1.7173 1 7149 14.4 4.8 9.6 Cell 6 250 1.6983 1.7001 1 6989 7.2 2.4 4.8 Cell Influent 250 1.7009 1.7061 1 7029 20.8 8.0 12.8 Leachate Pool 250 1.7275 1.7310 1 7289 14.0 5.6 8.4 Slough 1 50 1.7566 1.7660 1 7599 62.7 22.0 40.7 Blank 250 1.6686 1.6686 1 6682 0.0 -1 .6 1.6 Date Ana vzed Nov 08/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla " ''ISamoleDate: Nov 12/99 Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (9) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 250 1.6772 1.6781 1 6773 3.6 0.4 3.2 Cell 2 250 1.6916 1.6931 1 6920 6.0 1.6 4.4 Cell 3 250 1.7076 1.7095 1 7079 7.6 1.2 6.4 Cell 4 250 1.7086 1.7116 1 7099 12.0 5.2 6.8 Cell 5 250 1.7212 1.7254 1 7237 16.8 10.0 6.8 Cell 6 250 1.7067 1.7081 1 7067 5.6 0.0 5.6 Cell Influent 250 1.7103 1.7134 1 7108 12.4 2.0 10.4 Leachate Pool 250 1.7629 1.7671 1 7644 16.8 6.0 10.8 Slough 250 1.7354 1.7615 1 7522 104.4 67.2 37.2 Blank 250 1.6742 1.6742 1 6741 0.0 -0.4 0.4 „Date Analyzed: Nov 15/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla SlTmDle Date: Nov 19/99 Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (g) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 250 1.6765 1.7179 1 7128 165.6 145.2 20.4 Cell 2 250 1.6983 1.6991 1 6979 3.2 -1 .6 4.8 Cell 3 250 1.7137 1.7145 1 7133 3.2 -1 .6 4.8 Cell 4 250 1.7188 1.7206 1 .7192 7.2 1.6 5.6 Cell 5 250 1.7200 1.7207 1 7193 2.8 -2.8 5.6 Cell 6 250 1.7074 1.7081 1 7072 2.8 -0.8 3.6 Cell Influent 250 1.7091 1.7218 1 .71 1 1 50.8 8.0 42.8 Leachate Pool 250 1.7381 1.7401 1 .7386 8.0 2.0 6.0 Slough 250 1.7649 1.7754 1 .7695 42.0 18.4 23.6 Blank 250 1.6758 1.6755 1 .6757 -1 .2 -0.4 -0.8 Date Ana l ys t Nov 24/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Kevin Frankowski 150 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Total Suspended Solids (cont.) Sample Date. Nov 26/99 Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (a) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 250 1.6772 1.6791 1 6778 7.6 2.4 5.2 Cell 2 250 1.6981 1.7013 1 6996 12.8 6.0 6.8 Cell 3 250 1.7176 1.7233 1 7199 22.8 9.2 13.6 Cell 4 250 1.7206 1.7220 1 7212 5.6 2.4 3.2 Cell 5 250 1.7205 1.7228 1 7214 9.2 3.6 5.6 Cell 6 250 1.7092 1.7108 1 7096 6.4 1.6 4.8 Cell Influent 250 1.7124 1.7154 1 7132 12.0 3.2 8.8 Leachate Pool 250 1.7399 1.7429 1 7415 12.0 6.4 5.6 Slough 250 1.7668 1.7776 1 7719 43.2 20.4 22.8 Blank 250 1.6772 1.6772 1 6772 0.0 0.0 0.0 r .Date'AnalyzeiJ:! Dec 01/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla SampleJJate; i Dec 03/99 Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (9) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 250 1.6763 1.6774 1 .6766 4.4 1.2 3.2 Cell 2 250 1.6770 1.6853 1 .6821 33.2 20.4 12.8 Cell 3 250 1.7150 1.7190 1 .7165 16.0 6.0 10.0 Cell 4 250 1.7215 1.7240 1 .7223 10.0 3.2 6.8 Cell 5 250 1.7213 1.7234 1 .7225 8.4 4.8 3.6 Cell 6 250 1.7065 1.7086 1 .7068 8.4 1.2 7.2 Cell Influent 250 1.7100 1.7130 1 .7108 12.0 3.2 8.8 Leachate Pool 250 1.7406 1.7443 1 .7426 14.8 8.0 6.8 Slough 250 1.7659 1.7722 1 .7682 25.2 9.2 16.0 Blank 250 1.6982 1.6975 1 .6971 -2.8 -4.4 1.6 P Date Analyzed: Dec 03/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Sample Date:. Dec 10/99 Vol Filtered Sample ID (mL) Tare (g) Dry (g) Fired (g) TSS (mg/L) FSS (mg/L) VSS (mg/L) Cell 1 250 1.6782 1.6804 1.6791 8.8 3.6 5.2 Cell 2 250 1.6976 1.7004 1.6990 11.2 5.6 5.6 Cell 3 250 1.7169 1.7189 1.7172 8.0 1.2 6.8 Cell 4 250 1.7205 1.7226 1.7212 8.4 2.8 5.6 Cell 5 250 1.7204 1.7231 1.7214 10.8 4.0 6.8 Cell 6 250 1.7080 1.7098 1.7083 7.2 1.2 6.0 Cell Influent 250 1.7108 1.7143 1.71 17 14.0 3.6 10.4 Leachate Pool 250 1.7369 1.7496 1.7449 50.8 32.0 18.8 Slough 250 1.7652 1.7732 1.7682 32.0 12.0 20.0 Blank 250 1.6781 1.6780 1.6780 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 Date Analyzed: Dec 10/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Kevin Frankowski 151 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS I co o o <u Q 05 c n <o Cvl > o CO -sj" T -co co oj i -CD LO LO LO CO CO T— CM i- r~ CO CO CM O O CO CM O N CO CD T— co co co r~ in CM n n N T f 00 T -i - CM i -co co co i - CO CM CM CD CM CM CM in co in in CM CM oi r» o CO CO o c o c o o c n c M c o c o m c o o o i t r m i D c o o c v m m ^ m - ' a - i n c D c o CM c o c o t - w t o i n c D S C D O O C M C D L O C D I - O T -C M C M ' < t ' < t ' * ' * C O t - -0 0 ) 0 CO s ^ CD co s co T -CM 00 CD CD CD c O L O C M ^ o i i o n i o c o c n c o c N c o c n c o o ^ l O C O S L O C O S ' -co a G o 5 c .§. T3 C co w .c 5 c i5 'S s > CO cn 35 c n c n in o > o cn cn 35 CM o O 1 o CO m co cn co CM oo r-~ o r-~ in r~ co co o 4 co •>- i n m i -oo CM co co oo co co o oo co o co co CD O O CO CO CM O J i n co o m co co 3 co c n CO CM S 1 UJ 3 f S P -a o S CO T- O O CM CM >- CM > i - -<t Q T- T - CM CO CO CM z> a. ~ a . c O oj) o -2-o O J _ » „ s o n 2 o •2 Q. £ o H- C CO C £ =) a. £ co o oo CM T - T -cn T -co co i - in •>* T- co o i m s r t CD CO •p o s •2 o | s .CO s-E CD ca cn « 25 o > o o c n o a > i - C M c o c o o L O ^ t c o c o O ' - L r ) ^ o o c o c o - t f m o o c D i n O S O l T - L O C O f r co co oo r- co o co •i- co T t c D C D O r - O J O C M C O O C O C O T - T f C M i -c o t c o c o c o c o o i -CO CO T - 00 i— oo I CO CD r~ oo CD r-23 o o o o o o obi cnl T- CO CD CD O T-lO S CO 00 CD o d o o o o CO CO co co o o CO co CO CO </) = o m co co CM t — £ 1 o i 1 l j i m _ O O O O O O - J C O O Kevin Frankowski 152 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Tannin and Lignin Raw Data: NOTES: Reagents: Folin phenol (0.1mL), carbonate tertrate (1.0 mL) (allow 30 min for colour development) Sample volume was 5.0 mL Sample Date: May 19/99 ("Background" samples, taken prior to any influent input) Dilution Absorbance Sample ID Factor ( @ 700 nm) T&L (mg/L) Cell 1 1 0.038 0.41 Cell 2 1 0.075 0.80 Cell 3 1 0.071 0.76 Cell 4 1 0.057 0.61 Cell 5 1 0.054 0.58 Cell 6 1 0.062 0.66 Cell Influent - - -Leachate Pool 500 0.674 3600.43 Slough Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.191 4 0.370 8 0.750 Std Curve slope: 0.0936 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Date Analyzed:' May 26/99 Technician: KAF & Anqelika T&L Standard Curve y = 0.0936X Ft 2 = 0.9999 2 4 6 Concentration (mg/L) Sample Date: Jun 09/99 ("Background" samples, taken prior to any influent input) Dilution Absorbance Sample ID Factor ( @ 700 nm) T&L (mg/L) Cell 1 1 0.055 0.66 Cell 2 1 0.076 0.91 Cell 3 1 0.065 0.78 Cell 4 1 0.065 0.78 Cell 5 1 0.051 0.61 Cell 6 1 0.067 0.81 Cell Influent - - -Leachate Pool 500 0.610 3665.87 Slough Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.173 4 0.339 8 0.661 Std Curve slope: 0.0832 Date Analyzed^ Jun 21/99 Technician: KAF & Anqelika T&L Standard Curve Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 153 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis \ APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Tannin and Lignin (cont.) IgSarnpigdattg Oct 29/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 500 Cell 2 500 Cell 3 500 Cell 4 500 Cell 5 500 Cell 6 500 Cell Influent 500 Leachate Pool 500 Slough Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.156 4 0.312 8 0.633 Absorbance (@ 700 nm) 0.100 0.050 0.053 0.055 0.064 0.060 0.161 0.491 T&L (mg/L) 633.7 316.9 335.9 348.5 405.6 380.2 1020.3 3111.5 Date Analyzed: Nov 04/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Std Curve slope: 0.0789 T&L Standard Curve Concentration (mg/L) SarnpieWatel Nov 05/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 -Cell 2 100 Cell 3 100 Cell 4 100 Cell 5 1 00 Cell 6 1 00 Cell Influent 100 Leachate Pool 500 Slough 5 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.164 4 0.322 8 0.646 Std Curve slope: 0.0808 Absorbance (@ 700 nm) T&L (mg/L) 0.577 714.1 0.708 876.2 0.529 654.7 0.491 607.7 0.724 896.0 0.839 1038.4 0.573 3545.8 0.249 15.4 Date Analyzed: Nov 10/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla T&L Standard Curve Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 154 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Tannin and Lignin (cont.) Sample Date: Nov 12/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 1 00 Cell 2 100 Cell 3 1 00 Cell 4 1 00 Cell 5 1 00 Cell 6 1 00 Cell Influent 100 Leachate Pool 500 Slough 5 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.141 4 0.278 8 0.514 Std Curve slope: 0.0655 Absomance (@ 700 nm) 0.164 T&L 151 288 263 163 307 536 230 0.133 (mg/L) 250.4 230.5 439.7 401.5 248.9 468.7 818.3 1755.7 10.2 t .Date Analyzed:) Nov 16/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla T&L Standard Curve 0.0655X = 0.9968 Concentration (mg/L) Sample Date: Nov 19/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 100 Cell 2 100 Cell 3 100 Cell 4 1 00 Cell 5 1 00 Cell 6 100 Cell Influent 100 Leachate Pool 500 Slough 5 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.163 4 0.309 8 0.603 Std Curve slope: 0.076 Absorbance (@ 700 nm) 0.352 0.448 0.518 0.528 0.528 0.550 0.595 0.472 0.171 T&L (mg/L) 463.2 589.5 681.6 694.7 694.7 723.7 782.9 3105.3 1 1.3 Date Analyzed: Nov 24/99 Tecnnician: KAF & Priscilla T&L Standard Curve y = 0.076X ^ ^ r ^ * * " ^ R2 = 0.9991 ^ ^ ^ " ^ Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 155 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Tannini and_Lignin (cont.) Sample Date: Nov 26/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 1 00 Cell 2 100 Cell 3 100 Cell 4 100 Cell 5 1 00 Cell 6 100 Cell Influent 1 00 Leachate Pool 500 Slough 5 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.142 4 0.313 8 0.607 Absorbance (@ 700 nm) 0.502 0.489 0.570 0.518 0.517 0.477 0.837 0.422 0.254 T&L (mg/L) 659 642 749 680 679 626.8 1099.9 2772.7 16.7 BBat f fAnalyzed: Dec 01/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla Std Curve slope: 0.0761 T&L Standard Curve 0.70 0.60 o u 0.50 c 5 0.40 2 0.30 3 0.20 0.10 0.00 y = 0.0761 x * R2 = 0.9991 2 4 Concentration (mg/L) Sample Date: Dec 03/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 100 Cell 2 1 00 Cell 3 100 Cell 4 100 Cell 5 100 Cell 6 100 Cell Influent 100 Leachate Pool 500 Slough 5 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.138 4 0.264 8 0.504 Std Curve slope: 0.0639 Absomance (@ 700 nm) 0.170 0.290 0.269 0.300 0.183 0.295 0.392 0.218 0.217 T&L (mg/L) 266.0 453.8 421.0 469.5 286.4 461.7 613.5 1705.8 17.0 Date Analyzed _ Dec 06/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla T&L Standard Curve Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 156 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Tannin and Lignin (cont.) Sample Date:- Dec 10/99 Dilution Sample ID Factor Cell 1 100 Cell 2 100 Cell 3 100 Cell 4 1 00 Cell 5 1 00 Cell 6 1 00 Cell Influent 1 00 Leachate Pool 500 Slough 5 Standard Absorbance (mg/L) (@ 700 nm) 0 0 2 0.131 4 0.274 8 0.473 Std Curve slope: 0.0612 Absorbance (@ 700 nm) 0.343 0.281 0.305 0.344 0.311 0.336 0.421 0.319 0.309 T&L (mg/L) 560.5 459.2 498.4 562.1 508.2 549.0 687.9 2606.2 25.2 ;?D^7Anaivz^51J Dec 13/99 Technician: KAF & Priscilla T&L Standard Curve Concentration (mg/L) Kevin Frankowski 157 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Nutrients - Summary Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Mesocosm Monitoring Data: Nutrient (NH3, NOx, P04, VFAs) (mg/L) Summary (NH3): Sample Date Sample ID May 19/99 Jun 09/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.1 Cell 5 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 Cell 3 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 Cell 6 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.0 Cell 2 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cell 4 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 Cell Influent - - 1.4 0.9 0.5 1 .0 0.4 0.4 Leachate Pool 1.9 - 1.6 1.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 Slough - - 1 .0 0.9 0.9 2.1 0.7 0.6 Blank - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 MmmmBsmmmmsmmmsmtR mmmmmm Summary (NOx): Sample Date Sample ID May 19/99 Jun 09/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 0.06 0.15 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.05 Ceil 5 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06 Cell 3 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 Cell 6 0.05 0.11 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 Cell 2 0.07 0.13 0.26 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 Cell 4 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.05 Cell Influent 0.03 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 Leachate Pool 0.65 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.08 Slough 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.03 Blank - 0.03 0.08 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.00 Summary (P04): Sample Date Sample ID May 19/99 Jun 09/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.4 1.2 Cell 5 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.9 Cell 3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.9 Cell 6 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.0 Cell 2 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 Cell 4 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 Cell Influent - - 1.7 1.5 1.4 1 .7 1.2 1.3 Leachate Pool 3.4 4.7 3.7 2.7 3.1 2.9 2.3 3.1 Slough - - 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 Blank - - 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 MMMmmmmMmiimMm —r-rr smmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmsmmmmBmmmmmmm Summary (Total VFAs): Sample Date Sample ID May 19/99 Jun 09/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 N/A N/A N/A 0 188 1 94 335 1 54 451 Cell 5 N/A N/A N/A 518 1 59 347 358 1 63 378 Cell 3 N/A N/A N/A 607 310 338 384 234 415 Cell 6 N/A N/A N/A 723 349 382 343 252 417 Cell 2 N/A N/A N/A 550 1 80 314 528 303 322 Cell 4 N/A N/A N/A 472 267 406 378 312 368 Cell Influent N/A N/A N/A 808 612 212 554 345 465 Leachate Pool N/A N/A N/A 2523 1528 1 983 1529 911 1 560 Slough N/A N/A N/A 8 1 6 9 4 2 8 Blank N/A N/A N/A 3 4 0 2 3 2 NOTES: NH3, NOx, P04. each 5 mL of undiluted sample was acidified to pH < 2 using sulphuric acid, then stored in frtdge until Paula analyzed (using Lachat Quick-Chem 8000 automated flow-injection ion analyzer) N0x = N02 + N03 VFAs: each 1 mL of undiluted sample was preserved with 1 drop of 2% phosphoric acid, then stored in fridge until Paula analyzed (using HPGC 5880A gas chromatograph, as per Supelco, Inc. GC Bulletin 751G) Total VFAs = C1Jq C6 Kevin Frankowski 158 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Nutrients Raw Data: Sanple Date: May 19/99 A H 3 A O x PO 4 Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 0 15 0 06 0.04 Cell 2 0 16 0 07 0.04 Cell 3 0 13 0 06 0.04 Cell 4 0 19 0 12 0.05 Cell 5 0 16 0 07 0.05 Cell 6 0 16 0 05 0.05 Cell Influent - - -Leachate Pool 1 85 0 65 3.41 Slough - - -Blank - - -Date Analyzed: May 27/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date Jun 09/99 A H 3 A O x PO 4 Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 -0 .016 - 0.20 Cell 2 0.027 - 0.04 Cell 3 0.042 - 0.03 Cell 4 0.027 - 0.03 Cell 5 0.040 - 0.02 Cell 6 0.055 - 0.02 Cell Influent - - -Leachate Pool - - 4.71 Slough - - -Blank - - -Date A n a l y f l U Jun 23/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date: Oct 29/99 A H 3 A O x PO 4 Total VFAs Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 - - - N/A Cell 2 - - - N/A Cell 3 - - - N/A Cell 4 - - - N/A Cell 5 - - - N/A Cell 6 - - - N/A Cell Influent - - - N/A Leachate Pool - - - N/A Slough - - - N/A Blank - - - N/A Date Analyzed Technician: Paula P. Kevin Frankowski 159 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Nutrients (cont.) j Sample Date: Nov 05/99 AH 3 AD x FO 4 Total VFAs Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 - - - 0.000 Cell 2 0 85 0.130 0.970 549 .633 Cell 3 0 98 0.100 1.290 606 .562 Cell 4 0 62 0.100 0.980 472 .234 Cell 5 0 55 0.120 0.910 518 .055 Cell 6 1 10 0.1 10 1.060 722 .694 Cell Influent 1 39 0.030 1.720 808 .192 Leachate Pool 1 59 0.120 3.700 2 5 2 3 . 1 4 0 Slough 1 04 0.050 0.340 7.931 Blank -0 01 0 .030 0.130 3 .055 Date Analyzed: Nov 08/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date:, Nov 12/99 Sample ID AH 3 (mg/L) AD x (mg/L) FO 4 (mg/L) Total VFAs (mg/L) Cell 1 0.00 0 150 0 410 188 310 Cell 2 -0 .01 0 260 0 330 179 838 Cell 3 0.02 0 140 0 660 309 632 Cell 4 0.01 0 140 0 550 266 976 Cell 5 0.02 0 130 0 270 1 58 586 Cell 6 0.12 0 140 0 730 348 973 Cell Influent 0.87 0 140 1 490 61 1 568 Leachate Pool 1.06 0 150 2 660 1528 199 Slough 0.88 0 120 0 160 15 697 Blank - 0 . 0 3 0 080 0 040 4 159 Date Analyzed: Nov 17/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date: Nov 19/99 AH 3 AD x FO 4 Total VFAs Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 0.46 0.047 0 .874 194 .290 Cell 2 0.42 0 .040 0 .894 313 .704 Cell 3 0.63 0 .035 1.238 337 .554 Cell 4 0.52 0.021 1 .134 4 0 5 . 5 9 3 Cell 5 0.54 0.042 1.003 3 4 6 . 7 1 2 Cell 6 0.77 0 .035 1.158 382.001 Cell Influent 0.45 0 .020 1.360 212 .464 Leachate Pool 1 .79 0.030 3.099 1983.341 Slough 0.85 0.007 0 .223 9.481 Blank - 0 . 0 3 - 0 . 0 0 9 0.054 0.000 Date Analyzedi Dec 03/99 Technician: Paula P. Kevin Frankowski 160 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Nutrients (cont.) Sample Date: Nov 26/99 AH 3 A O x PO 4 Total VFAs Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 1.00 0.069 1.034 334 .958 Cell 2 - 0 . 0 4 0.062 0.919 527 .553 Cell 3 0.29 0.061 1.210 384.181 Cell 4 0.32 0.064 1.107 378.1 13 Cell 5 0.88 0.061 1.216 357 .857 Cell 6 1.00 0.054 1.049 342 .584 Cell Influent 0.98 0.046 1.743 553 .829 Leachate Pool - 0 . 0 3 0.067 2 .922 1529 .353 Slough 2.07 0 .022 0.262 3 .806 Blank 0.35 - 0 . 0 0 9 0.054 1.691 Date Analyzed: Dec 03/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date: Dec 03/99 AH 3 AO x PO 4 Total VFAs Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 0.09 0.086 0 .392 154 .439 Cell 2 0.04 0.058 0 .860 3 0 3 . 0 5 3 Cell 3 0.00 0.050 0.659 2 3 3 . 8 9 9 Cell 4 - 0 . 0 4 0.046 0.789 31 1 .604 Cell 5 0.90 0.074 0.428 163 .026 Cell 6 0.09 0 .052 0 .734 252 .444 Cell Influent 0.37 0.048 1.165 344 .648 Leachate Pool - 0 . 0 4 0.064 2.338 910 .699 Slough 0.72 0.057 0 .135 1.916 Blank 0.09 0.008 0 .026 2 .637 Date Analyzed Dec 10/99 Technician: Paula P. Sample Date: Dec 10/99 AH 3 AO x PO 4 Total VFAs Sample ID (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Cell 1 0.10 0 .053 1.167 4 5 1 . 2 2 2 Cell 2 0.07 0.061 0.812 322 .039 Cell 3 0.04 0.051 0.889 415 .494 Cell 4 - 0 . 0 2 0.048 0.918 367 .999 Cell 5 - 0 . 0 2 0.057 0.872 377.801 Cell 6 - 0 . 0 2 0.052 0.981 4 1 6 . 9 7 0 Cell Influent 0.35 0.054 1.316 4 6 4 . 5 9 0 Leachate Pool 0.40 0 .075 3.087 1560 .258 Slough 0.58 0.034 0.181 7.669 Blank 0.00 0.000 0 .045 1.789 r Date Analyzed: Dec 16/99 Technician: Paula P. Kevin Frankowski 161 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Volatile Fatty Acids [VFAsl - detailed data Civil 599 - MASc Thesis Constructed Wetlands Project Mesocosm Monitoring Data: VFA data (detailed) l i l l i i i i i l l l l i * J l l l i l l l l l l l i l l i l i l l i l l i l s l l l l l l l l i i Summary (Total VFAs): Concentrations: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 1 88 1 94 335 1 54 451 Cell 5 518 1 59 347 358 1 63 378 Cell 3 607 310 338 384 234 415 Cell 6 723 349 382 343 252 417 Cell 2 550 1 80 314 528 303 322 Cell 4 472 267 406 378 312 368 Cell Influent 808 612 212 554 345 465 Leachate Pool 2523 1528 1 983 1 529 91 1 1 560 Slough 8 1 6 9 4 2 8 Blank 3 4 0 2 3 2 wmmtmammmmmmmmm ^ ^ ^ ^ mmmmmm Summary (Acetic): Concentrations: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 - 91 57 1 60 72 212 Cell 5 258 69 1 55 1 76 85 1 82 Cell 3 303 1 46 1 29 1 72 1 1 7 200 Cell 6 375 1 72 1 65 1 55 1 28 202 Cell 2 276 90 1 32 1 96 155 1 60 Cell 4 218 1 30 181 1 84 153 1 66 Cell Influent 413 289 4 287 1 80 242 Leachate Pool 993 652 994 731 451 688 Slough 5 4 4 4 2 7 Blank 3 3 0 2 3 2 Summary (Proprionic): Concentrations: Sample Date Sample ID Nov Cell 1 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 40 62 76 31 88 Cell 5 1 1 2 36 86 81 35 82 Cell 3 1 1 6 68 89 92 51 86 Cell 6 1 35 69 93 75 54 86 Cell 2 1 1 3 39 92 171 66 69 Cell 4 1 08 58 1 04 88 71 86 Cell Influent 1 55 1 36 91 1 22 69 95 Leachate Pool 476 330 389 297 191 285 Slough 1 1 0 0 0 1 Blank 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kevin Frankowski 162 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Volatile Fatty Acids (cont.) %-removal: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 - 69% 9% 40% 55% 3% Cell 5 36% 74% -63% 35% 53% 1 9% Cell 3 25% 49% -59% 31% 32% 1 1 % Cell 6 1 1 % 43% -80% 38% 27% 1 0% Cell 2 32% 71 % -48% 5% 12% 31 % Cell 4 42% 56% - 9 1 % 32% 1 0% 21 % %-removal: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 - 68% -1 469% 44% 60% 1 3% Cell 5 37% 76% -4123% 39% 53% 25% Cell 3 27% 50% -3432% 40% 35% 1 7% Cell 6 9% 4 0% -4423% 46% 2 9% 1 6% Cell 2 33% 69% -3516% 32% 1 4% 34% Cell 4 47% 55% -4837% 36% 1 5% 31 % %-removal: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 70% 32% 37% 56% 6% Cell 5 28% 73% 5% 34% 50% 1 3% Cell 3 25% 50% 2% 24% 27% 1 0% Cell 6 1 3% 49% -3% 39% 23% 9% Cell 2 27% 71 % -2% - 4 0 % 5% 27% Cell 4 31 % 57% -1 5 % 28% -2% 9% Kevin Frankowski 163 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Volatile Fatty Acids (cont.) Summary (Butyric + iso-butyric): Concentrations: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 - 31 44 61 25 87 Cell 5 87 27 64 63 28 80 Cell 3 1 09 54 75 77 41 82 Cell 6 125 57 72 78 44 98 Cell 2 95 30 64 1 23 53 66 Cell 4 84 44 76 68 58 82 Cell Influent 1 30 99 67 97 59 86 Leachate Pool 560 259 326 276 1 78 288 Slough 0 5 0 0 0 0 Blank 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary (Valeric): Concentrations: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 - 1 4 3 8 1 4 33 Cell 5 34 1 5 1 2 7 2 7 Cell 3 45 22 1 3 9 4 20 Cell 6 46 27 1 5 8 5 4 Cell 2 36 1 2 5 4 5 4 Cell 4 36 1 8 1 3 7 5 6 Cell Influent 62 48 1 6 0 8 9 Leachate Pool 346 1 82 1 42 1 1 6 22 206 Slough 2 5 2 0 0 0 Blank 0 1 0 0 0 0 I l g l i l i l i i i i i i i i l l t Summary (Hexanoic): Concentrations: Sample Date Sample ID Nov 05/99 Nov 12/99 Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Dec 10/99 Cell 1 - 1 2 28 30 1 2 31 Cell 5 26 1 1 29 30 1 3 27 Cell 3 34 20 32 33 2 1 28 Cell 6 42 23 36 27 22 27 Cell 2 29 8 21 32 24 23 Cell 4 27 1 7 31 30 25 28 Cell Influent 48 40 36 47 29 32 Leachate Pool 1 49 1 04 1 32 1 09 68 94 Slough 0 0 4 0 0 0 Blank 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kevin Frankowski 164 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Volatile Fatty Acids (cont.) %-removal: Sample ID Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Nov 05/99 33% 1 6% 4% 27% 36% %-removal: Sample ID Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Nov 05/99 45% 27% 26% 41% 42% %-removal: Sample ID Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Cell Nov 05/99 45% 30% 1 3% 40% 44% Nov 12/99 69% 73% 45% 42% 70% 5 5% Nov 12/99 70% 69% 54% 43% 75% 61 % Nov 12/99 72% 72% 50% 44% 80% 59% Sample Date Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 34% 4% •12% -8% 4% •14% 38% 35% 21 % 20% •27% 30% Sample Date Nov 19/99 84% 2 3% 21% 2% 70% 1 5% Nov 26/99 -1 974% -1714% -2198% -1886% -1 0 1 1 % -1 736% Sample Date Nov 19/99 Nov 26/99 20% 1 7% 1 0% 0% 42% 12% 36% 36% 29% 43% 31% 35% Dec 03/99 57% 52% 30% 25% 1 0% 1 % Dec 03/99 -73% 70% 51 % 42% 43% 36% Dec 03/99 59% 54% 28% 2 3% 15% 14% Dec 10/99 0% 7% 5% 1 3 % 23% 5% Dec 10/99 -255% 29% -1 1 5% 57% 60%| 35% Dec 10/99 3% 1 8% 1 2% 1 5% 28% 1 4% Kevin Frankowski 165 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D .4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Toxicity - Summary Civil 599 -MASc Thesis ~"~ Constructed Wetlands Project Mesocosm Monitoring Data: Acute toxicity (as Rainbow Trout 96hr LC50) Summary: TOXIC UNITS Sample Date Sample ID Jun 14/99 Sep 29/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Cell 1 1.0 1.0 44.6 21.1 Cell 5 1.0 1.0 22.6 22.6 Cell 3 1.0 1.0 22.6 22.6 Cell 6 1.0 1.0 24.2 22.6 Cell 2 1.0 1.0 24.2 22.6 Cell 4 1,0 1.0 22.6 22.6 Cell Influent 44.7 54.6 45.6 Leachate Pool 141.4 151.3 115.5 Slough 1.0 1.0 LC50 Sample Date Sample ID Jun 14/99 Sep 29/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Cell 1 >100% >100% <3.125% 4.74 Cell 5 >100% >100% 4.42 4.42 Cell 3 >100% >100% 4.42 4.42 Cell 6 >100% >100% 4.13 4.42 Cell 2 >100% >100% 4.13 4.42 Cell 4 >100% >100% 4.42 4.42 Cell Influent 2.24 1.83 2.19 Leachate Pool 0.71 0.66 0.87 Slough >100% >100% Lower 95% Sample Date Sample ID Jun 14/99 Sep 29/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Cell 1 . . . 4.157 Cell 5 - - 3.125 3.125 Cell 3 - - 3.125 3.125 Cell 6 - - 3.628 3.125 Cell 2 - - 3.628 3.125 Cell 4 - - 3.125 3.125 Cell Influent 1.6 1.46 1.6 Leachate Pool 0.5 0.469 0.5 Slough Upper 95% Sample Date Sample ID Jun 14/99 Sep 29/99 Oct 29/99 Nov 05/99 Nov 26/99 Dec 03/99 Cell 1 . . . 5.405 Cell 5 - - 6.25 6.25 Cell 3 - - 6.25 6.25 Cell 6 - - 4.698 6.25 Cell 2 - - 4.698 6.25 Cell 4 - - 6.25 6.25 Cell Influent 3.125 2.297 3 Leachate Pool 1 0.93 1.5 Slough Kevin Frankowski 166 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS CO CO CO ^- CO -<fr N II II II n il il s q q T- q co N CO CO CO CO N II II II II II II I c o g . 3 p • •sP T -. ^ O O O O O O ^ O O O O O O ^ " A A A A A A O O I 3 p -5 5 o p ~ - ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o A A A A A A UO O CO e .c .<o .2 .c .c co .2 5 s .§ S co c *-at &n CO o IS co a S •o Q . CO CO 3 . ci P <o ° - ~ CO o I | 8 O O O O O CO ^ .2 is sS sS sS 5s 08 co p O ) a in S I -9> A 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 ,2 •2 & £ 1 - CM CO LO CO CO "CD "CO "5 "o3 5^ 5^ O O O O O O c .5 o o f O Q O CO O O .2 5 CO SP O O O O O O O TO is =tfc CM CO LO CD O O O O O O [E Kevin Frankowski 167 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS r-; r-; r*- r-; r*- q r»_ TJ-' -<t -<t -<t u i ^j-' il il il il 11 il n CO 10 10 CO CO CO CO 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 CX» •<* h-" -il JI, T3 TJ TJ 03 0) OJ "55 to w c c c c rz c c 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 JO g CD CI) JC CO LO LO LO 00 LO CJ) CM OJ CM Ql CM CO ,A ,A ,A CO T -CO LO LO LO CO CO OJ CM CM CM CM (fl T - T - Y - C D , " CO CO CO CO CO 5S a) _ co CD CD 1 £ Q. C c S? to _ Ol £ S. oi S , co > ^ C S J ^ - ^ j - r f ^ J - ^ r C M f CO Q LO Ul o o o o o o o •c .co ^ CO 2 co •9 * CO Q) cj 59 vO cr- --9 o"- cr- 6s 59 CO to O O O o o LO > CM LO LO LO LO LO CM "co CM OJ OJ CM CM CO CO CO CO CO CD co O V O) o o O o> o T - 1 -co m •c .SS .CO £ CD O % L. « VP 5-- 5s- 5^  5s- 5s- 5s-LO LO LO LO LO CO CM CM CM CM OJ CO CO CO CO CO co i n o ^ 6 ° o o o o o o o IS i -CM CO LO CO • CO Q_ = a> c co .c — C) _ m a s 03 CO — o —J co :Q| m Kevin Frankowski 168 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis APPENDIX D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS O CV ^ o o <- c\j CO co " o. c 5 o (A (A <l) V) V) (O U ) 3 3 3 3 3 3 C ^ T> TD T3 T> <u to to co co co to P C C C C C C C 3 D D D D 3 ,9 x x x x x x O o. a a o. a a uo o o o o o o uo uo LO un LO Oj CM CM W W W C: ! J LO CD CD CD CD CD $5 £ s> § 8 -CO > CD _ fell l i s CO LO iB R is § CD CC § CO CO CO CO CO If 1 c S . . . CD => CD vS a S o — CO o as *r t ^ x- o o o o o .0 - C .CO .Co .c cj $ 8 « a * 2 o C D L O L O L O L O L O L O ' c . ^ C M C V J C J C U O J C J § g r a c d c d c o c D C D c d 1 1 "5 o o o o o o 5= S< S= 0 s s« s« Cj Q) CO C3 P ) CO CO o -c S o o o o o o o to to O § CD a: - a CD Q_ 2 CD = 1" O —J CO 6 O J CO ^ I C CO CO CO CO CD CO CO o o o o o o Kevin Frankowski 169 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Spectrophotometric Response 160 140 \ 120 Ji 100 1 \ X 80 60 40 fl 20 0 Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (Monitoring: HRT #2) 190 290 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 160 140 j 120 I § 100 / ! 80 jtl < 60 C\\ 40 20 0 190 290 Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (Monitoring: HRT #3) 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 190 Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (Monitoring: HRT #4) 290 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 Kevin Frankowski 170 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Spectrophotometric Response (cont.) Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (Monitoring: HRT #5) 190 290 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 190 290 Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (Monitoring: HRT #6) 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 < 190 Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (Monitoring: HRT #7) 290 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 Kevin Frankowski 171 U B C CIVTL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis A P P E N D I X D.4 RAW DATA: PILOT-SCALE TRIALS Spectrophotometric Response (cont.) Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (Baseline Assessment) 0.5 I 0.3 I0"2 Ni? 0.1 190 290 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 • Cell 1 •Cell 2 Cell 3 •Cell 4 • Cell 5 • Cell 6 50 40 1 20 < 10 190 Spectrophotometer Response -Field Cells (QA/QC Replicates) [Celll, Nov 12/99] 290 390 490 590 Wavelength (nm) 690 790 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Kevin Frankowski 172 U B C CIVIL ENGINEERING Masters Thesis 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0063749/manifest

Comment

Related Items