CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterialsConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Optimal Recipe Assessment of Iron Filing-Based Green Environmental Media for Improving Nutrient Removal in Stormwater Runoff

Valencia, Andrea, Chang, Ni-Bin, Wen, Dan, Ordonez, Diana, Wanielista, Martin P.·2019·Environmental Engineering Science
DOI 10.1089/ees.2019.0094
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Nutrient removal and recovery (NRR) technology was investigated using green sorption media with respect to 4 distinct clay and iron filing quantities in the media matrix. Column study tests were conducted to analyze distinct percentage clay contents (2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%) and iron filing contents (2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10%) from a total of seven sorption media recipes. Through this effort, the optimal recipe of iron filing-based green environmental media (IFGEM) for stormwater runoff treatment was determined to be composed of 2% clay, 83% sand, 10% tire crumb, and 5% iron filing content by volume within the NRR technology hub. Removal efficiencies of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) as well as ammonia recovery potential were thoroughly investigated and realized. Parameters such as NOx, ammonia, oxidation/reduction potential, pH, and dissolved oxygen were recorded for integrative analysis. Higher ammonia removal efficiency (98%) was observed for the influent condition (0.9 mg/L NO3−, 0.3 mg/L PO43−) with the lowest nutrient concentrations, while higher TN (94%) and TP (92%) removal was achieved for the influent condition (1.7 mg/L NO3−, 0.7 mg/L PO43−) with the largest nutrient concentration. The synergistic effect of clay and iron filing within the optimal recipe of IFGEM was realized for final justification of possible nutrient recovery.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/ees.2019.0094

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. 10.1016/B978-0-12-805317-1.00001-4 · DOI
  2. Ananda M.M.A., 1997, Stat. Sin, 7, 631
  3. 10.2175/106143001X139533 · DOI
  4. 10.1021/jf060034b · DOI
  5. 10.1021/es980317n · DOI
  6. 10.4172/2155-9821.1000103e · DOI
  7. 10.1089/ees.2009.0415 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.110 · DOI
  9. 10.1021/acs.est.8b01788 · DOI
  10. Chang N.B., 2018, Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy, 38, 1
  11. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.03.025 · DOI
  12. 10.2175/106143006X143173 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.009 · DOI
  14. 10.3103/S1068375512030064 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.06.133 · DOI
  16. Ghassemi M., 1971, Phosphate Precipitation with Ferrous Iron
  17. Güngör K., 2005, Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci, 29, 159
  18. 10.1155/2010/587032 · DOI
  19. 10.3390/w5010053 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/ep.10415 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.016 · DOI
  22. 10.1002/elsc.200800049 · DOI
  23. 10.2175/106143009X447894 · DOI
  24. 10.1007/s10661-015-4854-2 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.watres.2013.05.056 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2012.03.005 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.05.083 · DOI
  28. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2001)127:3(150) · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.06.049 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/s11270-009-0174-x · DOI
  31. 10.1139/l02-008 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.watres.2009.02.010 · DOI
  33. Sørensen J., 1982, Appl. Environ. Microbiol, 43, 319, 10.1128/AEM.43.2.319-324.1982 · DOI
  34. 10.1021/es060701h · DOI
  35. 10.1205/095758202762277623 · DOI
  36. WeissP.T., LeFevreG., and GulliverJ.S. (2008). Contamination of soil and groundwater due to stormwater infiltration practices, a literature review. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, p. 1.
  37. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.062 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.02.093 · DOI
  39. 10.1089/ees.2009.0256 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.watres.2005.01.026 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Valencia, A., Chang, N.-B., Wen, D., Ordonez, D., & Wanielista, M. P.
Affiliations
University of Central Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Chang, Ni-Bin
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Engineering Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-10-01
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
1323-1336
ISSN
  • 1092-8758 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9018
DOI
10.1089/ees.2019.0094
OpenAlex
W2970336796
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)
Locations
Environmental Engineering Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
Keywords
stormwater runoff treatment, nitrogen removal, phosphorus removal, ammonia removal, clay content, column studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review