한국습지학회지 (Journal of Wetlands Research)

  • 제21권4호
  • /
  • Pages.384-391
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1229-6031(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-0056(eISSN)
한국습지학회 (Korean Wetlands Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

침투도랑(IT)과 침투화분(IP)의 영양염류 저감효율 비교분석

Comparison of nutrient removal efficiency of an infiltration planter and an infiltration trench

  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • 전민수 (공주대학교 건설환경공학과) ;
  • 김이형 (공주대학교 건설환경공학과)
  • Yano, K.A.V. (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University) ;
  • Geronimo, F.K.F. (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University) ;
  • Reyes, N.J.D.G. (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University) ;
  • Jeon, Minsu (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University) ;
  • Kim, Leehyung (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University)
  • 투고 : 2019.11.07
  • 심사 : 2019.11.15
  • 발행 : 2019.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

최근 강우시 수계로 유출되는 비점오염물질로 인한 수질오염의 문제를 해결하고자 저영향개발(Low Impact development, LID)을 적용하고 있다. LID 시설 중 침투도랑 (Infiltration trench, IT) 과 침투화분 (Infiltration Planter, IP) 은 높은 침투율 및 침강지를 통한 오염물질 제거와 식생을 통한 영양염류 저감효율이 높다. 따라서 본 과제에서는 장기간 모니터링을 통한 침투도랑(IT)과 침투화분(IP)의 영양염류 오염물질 제거효율에 대해 분석하였다. 침투도랑(IT)과 침투화분(IP) 두 시설 모두 TSS 약 84%, TP 약 76%이상으로 제거효율이 높은것으로 나타났는데 이는 인의 화합물과 퇴적물간의 이온교환으로 인한 것으로 나타났다. 질소의 경우 침투화분시설(IP)의 제거효율이 침투도랑(IT)에 비해 약 28% 높은것으로 분석되었다. 이는 침투도랑(IT) 내 여재와 침강지에서의 침전을 통한 입자성 질소를 제거하는데 효과적이었으며, 암모늄질소(NH4-N)와 아질산염 질소(NO2-N)의 감소 및 질소(NO3-N)의 증가는 질산화 및 탈질산화로 인한것으로 나타났다. 침투도랑(IT 모니터링 이벤트 중 강우강도가 11mm/hr로 강한 강우사상에서의 TN 및 TP의 저감효율은 각 34% 및 55%로 저감효율이 낮았으나, 5mm이하의 강우강도에서의 저감효율은 약 100%로 높은것으로 분석됬다. 반면 침투화분시설(IP)은 최대 강우강도 27mm/hr에서도 TN 및 TP의 저감효율은 97%이상으로 높은것으로 나타났다. 두 시설 모두 영양염류의 제거효율은 좋은것으로 나타났으나, 시설용량 및 HRT가 높고 시설 내 식생이 적용된 침투화분시설(IP)이 영양염류 제거효율이 더 높은것으로 분석되었다.

Nutrients in stormwater runoff have raised concerns regarding water quality degradation in the recent years. Low impact development (LID) technologies are types of nature-based solutions developed to address water quality problems and restore the predevelopment hydrology of a catchment area. Two LID facilities, infiltration trench (IT) and infiltration planter (IP), are known for their high removal rate of nutrients through sedimentation and vegetation. Long-term monitoring was conducted to assess the performance and cite the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing the facilities in nutrient removal. Since a strong ionic bond exists between phosphorus compounds and sediments, reduction of total phosphorus (TP) (more than 76%), in both facilities was associated to the removal of total suspended solids (TSS) (more than 84%). The efficiency of nitrogen in IP is 28% higher than IT. Effective nitrification occurred in IT and particulate forms of nitrogen were removed through sedimentation and media filters. Decrease in ammonium- nitrogen (NH4-N) and nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N), and increase in nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) fraction forms indicated that effective nitrification and denitrification occurred in IP. Hydrologic factors such as rainfall depth and rainfall intensity affected nutrient treatment capabilities of urban stormwater LID facilities The greatest monitored rainfall intensity of 11 mm/hr for IT yielded to 34% and 55% removal efficiencies for TN and TP, respectively, whereas, low rainfall intensities below 5 mm resulted to 100 % removal efficiency. The greatest monitored rainfall intensity for IP was 27 mm/hr, which still resulted to high removal efficiencies of 98% and 97% for TN and TP, respectively. Water quality assessment showed that both facilities were effective in reducing the amount of nutrients; however, IP was found to be more efficient than IT due to its additional provisions for plant uptake and larger storage volume.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. A., A., Wef, C., & E., A. (1992). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: APHA, AWWA & WEF.
  2. Akan, A. O. (2002). Modified rational method for sizing infiltration structures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 29(4), 539-542. https://doi.org/10.1139/l02-038
  3. Brown, R. A., & Hunt, W. F. (2012). Improving bioretention/ biofiltration performance with restorative maintenance. Water Science and Technology, 65(2), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.860
  4. Chen, Y., Cheng, J., Niu, S., & Kim, Y. (2013). Evaluation of the different filter media in vertical flow stormwater wetland. Desalination and Water Treatment, 51(19-21), 4097-4106. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.781106
  5. Chow, M. F., Yusop, Z., & Abustan, I. (2015). Relationship between sediment build-up characteristics and antecedent dry days on different urban road surfaces in Malaysia. Urban Water Journal, 12(3), 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2013.839718
  6. Dierkes, C., Lucke, T., & Helmreich, B. (2015). General technical approvals for decentralised sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)-The current situation in Germany. Sustainability, 7(3), 3031-3051. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7033031
  7. Fadiran, A. O., Dlamini, S. C., & Mavuso, A. (2008). A comparative study of the phosphate levels in some surface and ground water bodiesof Swaziland. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Ethiopia, 22(2).
  8. Fletcher, T. D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W. F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., ... & Mikkelsen, P. S. (2015). SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more-The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, 12(7), 525-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314
  9. Geronimo, F. K. F., Maniquiz-Redillas, M. C., & Kim, L. H. (2013). Treatment of parking lot runoff by a tree box filter. Desalination and water treatment, 51(19-21), 4044-4049. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.781099
  10. Hatt, B. E., Siriwardene, N., Deletic, A., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Filter media for stormwater treatment and recycling: the influence of hydraulic properties of flow on pollutant removal. Water Science and Technology, 54(6-7), 263-271. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.626
  11. Jiang, C., Li, J., Li, H., Li, Y., & Chen, L. (2017). Field performance of bioretention systems for runoff quantity regulation and pollutant removal. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 228(12), 468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3636-6
  12. Khatri, N., & Tyagi, S. (2015). Influences of natural and anthropogenic factors on surface and groundwater quality in rural and urban areas. Frontiers in Life Science, 8(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/21553769.2014.933716
  13. Kim, L. H., Choi, E., & Stenstrom, M. K. (2003). Sediment characteristics, phosphorus types and phosphorus release rates between river and lake sediments. Chemosphere, 50(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00310-7
  14. Mangangka, I. R., Liu, A., Egodawatta, P., & Goonetilleke, A. (2015). Performance characterisation of a stormwater treatment bioretention basin. Journal of environmental management, 150, 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.007
  15. Maniquiz, M. C., Kim, L. H., Lee, S., & Choi, J. (2012). Flow and mass balance analysis of eco-bio infiltration system. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 6(5), 612-619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0448-1
  16. Maniquiz-Redillas, M. C., & Kim, L. H. (2016). Understanding the factors influencing the removal of heavy metals in urban stormwater runoff. Water Science and Technology, 73(12), 2921-2928 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.153
  17. Mercado, J. M. R., Geronimo, F. K. F., Choi, J., Song, Y. S., & Kim, L. H. (2012). Characteristics of stormwater runoff from urbanized areas. Journal of Wetlands Research, 14(2), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.17663/JWR.2012.14.2.159
  18. Mercado, J. M. R., Maniquiz-Redillas, M. C., & Kim, L. H. (2015). Laboratory study on the clogging potential of a hybrid best management practice. Desalination and Water Treatment, 53(11), 3126-3133. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.922287
  19. Oregon State University; Geosyntec Consultants; University of Florida; Low Impact Development Center. Inc. (2006). Evaluation of Best Management. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
  20. Reyes, N. J. D. G., Geronimo, F. K. F., Choi, H. S., & Kim, L. H. (2018). Performance assessment of an urban stormwater infiltration trench considering facility maintenance. Journal of Wetlands Research, 20(4), 424-431. https://doi.org/10.17663/jwr.2018.20.4.424
  21. Yang, Y. Y., & Toor, G. S. (2017). Sources and mechanisms of nitrate and orthophosphate transport in urban stormwater runoff from residential catchments. Water research, 112, 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.039