TY - JOUR
T1 - Paired denitrifying bioreactors with wide orientation for increased drainage flow capacity
AU - Maxwell, Bryan M.
AU - Cooke, Richard A.
AU - Christianson, Laura E.
N1 - Laura Christianson reports financial support was provided by Illinois Nutrient Research and Education Council. Laura Christianson reports financial support was provided by USDA NRCS.
This work was primarily funded by the Illinois Nutrient Research and Education Council (IL NREC; Project # 2017-4-360498-302 . Additional funding was provided by project NR185A12XXXXC004 CESU under the Great Rivers Umbrella Agreement 68-3A75-18-518 504 ( USDA NRCS ). The authors would like to thank M. Wallace for lab analysis; R. Chacon for site visits and monitoring; and M. Johnson and G. Steckel for sample collection.
Relatively low nitrate concentration reductions due to a shortened bioreactor may be an acceptable tradeoff if the increased flow capacity, and thus increased nitrate loading, results in increased nitrate mass removed. Most subsurface drainage bioreactors in the US have had length: width (L:W) ratios of 2.0–12.5 to achieve sufficient HRT and uniform plug flow (Christianson et al., 2012a; David et al., 2016; Jones and Kult, 2016; Rosen and Christianson, 2017). The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard for denitrifying bioreactors recommends use of more complicated multi-header flow distributors when L:W < 4 (USDA NRCS, 2020), so most bioreactors built with federal funding assistance have L:W ≥ 4 to simplify design and construction.This approach was not without limitations in that overall edge-of-field nitrate removal efficiency was not notably improved from conventional bioreactors that have L:W > 2 (and are typically on smaller drainage areas). Such conventionally-designed bioreactors provide greater bioreactor nitrate removal efficiency due to longer HRTs, and this was an expected trade-off. However, these data newly showed an additional tradeoff at low HRTs where nitrate was flushed from the reactors at HRTs <2 h. Altogether, this study (1) documented an expanded cross-sectional area resulted in excellent flow captured, even for a large drainage area and (2) supported the concept of a minimum HRT design criterion.This work was primarily funded by the Illinois Nutrient Research and Education Council (IL NREC; Project #2017-4-360498-302. Additional funding was provided by project NR185A12XXXXC004 CESU under the Great Rivers Umbrella Agreement 68-3A75-18-518 504 (USDA NRCS). The authors would like to thank M. Wallace for lab analysis; R. Chacon for site visits and monitoring; and M. Johnson and G. Steckel for sample collection.☆ Laura Christianson reports financial support was provided by Illinois Nutrient Research and Education Council. Laura Christianson reports financial support was provided by USDA NRCS.
PY - 2022/10/1
Y1 - 2022/10/1
N2 - Denitrifying bioreactors are a conservation drainage practice for reducing nitrate loads in subsurface agricultural drainage. Bioreactor hydraulic capacity is limited by cross-sectional area perpendicular to flow through the woodchip bed, with excess bypass flow untreated. Paired bioreactors with wide orientations were built in 2017 in Illinois, USA, to treat drainage from a relatively large 29 ha field. The paired design consisted of: a larger, Main bioreactor (LWD: 6.1 × 18.3 × 0.9 m) for treating base flow, and 2) a smaller, Booster bioreactor (7.8 × 13.1 × 0.9 m) receiving bypass flow from the Main bioreactor during periods of high flow. Over three years of monitoring, the paired bioreactor captured 84–92% of the annual drainage discharge which demonstrated an expanded cross-sectional area could improve bioreactor flow capture, even for a large drainage area. However, the paired bioreactors removed 6–28% of the annual N load leaving the field (1.8–5.6 kg N ha−1 removed; 52–161 kg N), which was not a notable improvement compared to bioreactors treating smaller drainage areas. The design operated as intended at low annual flow-weighted hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of usually ≤2 h, but these short HRTs ultimately limited bioreactor nitrate removal efficiency. Daily HRTs of <2 h often resulted in nitrate flushing. The Main bioreactor had higher hydraulic loading as intended and was responsible for the majority of flow captured in each year although not always the most nitrate mass removal. The Booster bioreactor provided better nitrate removal than the Main at HRTs of 3.0–11.9 h, possibly due to its drying cycles which may have liberated more available carbon. This new design approach tested at the field-scale illustrated tradeoffs between greater flow capacity (via increased bioreactor width) and longer HRT (via increased length), given a consistent bioreactor surface footprint.
AB - Denitrifying bioreactors are a conservation drainage practice for reducing nitrate loads in subsurface agricultural drainage. Bioreactor hydraulic capacity is limited by cross-sectional area perpendicular to flow through the woodchip bed, with excess bypass flow untreated. Paired bioreactors with wide orientations were built in 2017 in Illinois, USA, to treat drainage from a relatively large 29 ha field. The paired design consisted of: a larger, Main bioreactor (LWD: 6.1 × 18.3 × 0.9 m) for treating base flow, and 2) a smaller, Booster bioreactor (7.8 × 13.1 × 0.9 m) receiving bypass flow from the Main bioreactor during periods of high flow. Over three years of monitoring, the paired bioreactor captured 84–92% of the annual drainage discharge which demonstrated an expanded cross-sectional area could improve bioreactor flow capture, even for a large drainage area. However, the paired bioreactors removed 6–28% of the annual N load leaving the field (1.8–5.6 kg N ha−1 removed; 52–161 kg N), which was not a notable improvement compared to bioreactors treating smaller drainage areas. The design operated as intended at low annual flow-weighted hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of usually ≤2 h, but these short HRTs ultimately limited bioreactor nitrate removal efficiency. Daily HRTs of <2 h often resulted in nitrate flushing. The Main bioreactor had higher hydraulic loading as intended and was responsible for the majority of flow captured in each year although not always the most nitrate mass removal. The Booster bioreactor provided better nitrate removal than the Main at HRTs of 3.0–11.9 h, possibly due to its drying cycles which may have liberated more available carbon. This new design approach tested at the field-scale illustrated tradeoffs between greater flow capacity (via increased bioreactor width) and longer HRT (via increased length), given a consistent bioreactor surface footprint.
KW - Denitrification
KW - Nitrate
KW - Subsurface drainage
KW - Tile drainage
KW - Woodchips
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134620995&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85134620995&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115768
DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115768
M3 - Article
C2 - 35982568
AN - SCOPUS:85134620995
SN - 0301-4797
VL - 319
JO - Journal of Environmental Management
JF - Journal of Environmental Management
M1 - 115768
ER -