Cited by 76Wastewater Treatment and ReuseWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

WOOD-BASED FILTER FOR NITRATE REMOVAL IN SEPTIC SYSTEMS

W. D. Robertson, G. I. Ford, P. S. Lombardo·2005·Transactions of the ASAE

Abstract

The recognition that septic systems can generate groundwater plumes with nitrate concentrations exceeding thedrinking water limit has led to a need for improved nitrogen removal in septic systems. Long-term (3 to 5 year) monitoringresults are presented for four full-scale, on-site wastewater treatment systems using a novel porous media filter (Nitrex filter)for enhanced nitrogen removal. The filter removes nitrogen by denitrification of pretreated, nitrified, septic tank effluent usinga slowly soluble carbon source (wood byproduct material) incorporated into the filter. Results are presented for a house (sewageflow ~1 m3 d-1), a trailer park (7 m3 d-1), a communal residence (18 m3 d-1), and an inn (73 m3 d-1). In each case, theseptic tank effluent was pretreated using a sand filter, then flowed passively through the denitrification filter, and finally wasdispersed in a conventional tile bed. Influent (sand filter) NO3-N concentrations, averaging 14.2 to 37.7 mg L-1, weresignificantly attenuated in the denitrification filters at each site (p 10 mg N L-1 d-1, and showed no sign of deteriorating withsystem age at any of the sites. Results support previous mass balance calculations and pilot-scale field trials, suggesting thatsuch filters have the potential to operate for years without the need for media replenishment. These filters offer a practicalsolution to nitrate control in small to medium sized on-site wastewater treatment systems where simplicity of operation andlow maint…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.13031/2013.17954

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • At the septic tank site, the site was N-limited, so the low removal rate accounted for 87-98% of the NO3 entering the system.

    “However, the site was N-limited, so this low rate accounted for 87 -98% of the NO 3 entering the system (Robertson et al., 2005).”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2005

  • NO3-removal rates of 2-5 g N m-3 d-1 have been found at sites that received NO3-rich groundwater plumes from septic tanks.

    “NO 3 -removal rates of 2 -5 g N m -3 d -1 have been found at sites that received NO 3 --rich groundwater plumes from septic tanks.”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robertson, W. D., Ford, G. I., & Lombardo, P. S.
Venue
Transactions of the ASAE
Published
2005
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
121-128
ISSN
  • 0001-2351 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-0059
OpenAlex
W2051420360
Cited by
76
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Transactions of the ASAE (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
Keywords
nitrate removal, septic systems, denitrification, on-site wastewater treatment, septic tank effluent, groundwater nitrate contamination, temperature dependence of reaction rate

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