2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136733
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wastewater treatment plant effluent inputs induce large biogeochemical changes during low flows in an intermittent stream but small changes in day-night patterns

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
32
0
7

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
2
32
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Our study encompassed rivers receiving WWTP inputs and spanning a gradient of land use in the riparian area. We observed that WWTP inputs had a considerable effect on river nutrient processing with potential implications for downstream nutrient exports, which has already been observed in other studies (Martí et al, 2004;Figueroa-Nieves et al, 2016;Bernal et al, 2020). In our study, the retention mechanisms that potentially emerged from the surface water connection with riparian areas determined the role of these areas as sources or sinks of nutrients (Tockner et al, 1999).…”
Section: Implications For River and Land Use Managementsupporting
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our study encompassed rivers receiving WWTP inputs and spanning a gradient of land use in the riparian area. We observed that WWTP inputs had a considerable effect on river nutrient processing with potential implications for downstream nutrient exports, which has already been observed in other studies (Martí et al, 2004;Figueroa-Nieves et al, 2016;Bernal et al, 2020). In our study, the retention mechanisms that potentially emerged from the surface water connection with riparian areas determined the role of these areas as sources or sinks of nutrients (Tockner et al, 1999).…”
Section: Implications For River and Land Use Managementsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…Nonetheless, depending on treatment technology and efficiency, treated effluents can still be a major source of several contaminants to the receiving aquatic systems (Meng et al, 2013;Mußmann et al, 2013;Carr et al, 2016;Aubertheau et al, 2017). Such inputs, for example, can induce a suite of changes in the water chemistry and ecosystem functioning in different ways, from shifts in nutrient availability shaping the biological community's structure to alterations in biogeochemical cycles and nutrient export to downstream waters , Gücker et al, 2011Atashgahi et al, 2015;Rodriguez-Castillo et al, 2017;Bernal et al, 2020). The impacts of WWTP effluents can be especially relevant in developing countries with economic limitations, where the removal of several particulate/dissolved compounds may not or only partially occur (Oliveira and von Sperling, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The organic fraction of the FPM (i.e., fine particulate organic matter, FPOM) can consist of fecal particles from shredder invertebrates as well as fragments of organic particles generated both in streams and adjacent soils (Bundschuh and McKie, 2015). Stream FPOM can also derive from anthrogenic point sources such as wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents which usually act as important sources of particles, dissolved organic carbon and nutrients (Marti et al, 2004;Merbt et al, 2014;Bernal et al, 2020;Kelso and Baker, 2020). Although FPOM can be highly processed organic matter; and therefore, expected to be a more recalcitrant OM source than the dissolved organic fraction, FPOM can act both as a colonizing surface for microorganisms and as a carbon source for microbial activity within streams (Hope et al, 1994;Brugger et al, 2001;Gottselig et al, 2014) and eventually can be more labile than dissolved organic matter (Stutter et al, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have shown that WWTP e uent inputs diminish the e ciency of receiving streams to take up N and P because excess nutrient loads can cause the saturation of nutrient demand by in-stream biota (Martí et al 2004;Grimm et al 2005; Gücker et al 2006;Merseburger et al 2011). Yet, longitudinal decreases in N and P ambient concentration have been observed in WWTP receiving streams, suggesting that even when the nutrient retention e ciency is low, the stream biota can reduce to some extent the pervasive concentrations of nutrients in those systems (Haggard et al 2005;Ribot et al 2012;Bernal et al 2020). In this regard, previous studies show that stream reaches located downstream from WWTP can become hot spots of nitri cation because of the colonization of the streambed bio lm by ammonium oxidizing bacteria from the WWTP active sludge together with the high NH 4 + concentration (Mußmann et al 2013; Merbt et al 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During high ows, the e ciency for stream biota to take up nutrients is low because the interaction between the active streambed and the water column height and the water residence time are also low and therefore, downstream transport might overwhelm in-stream biogeochemical processing (Martí et al 1997;Algerich et al 2008). Conversely, during low ows, receiving streams can act as net sinks of nutrients because higher water residence time favors the interaction between in-stream biota and bioreactive solutes (Ribot et al 2012;Rahm et al 2016;Bernal et al 2020). Besides in uencing water residence time, stream hydrology also affects water chemistry, especially in reaches located downstream of WWTP inputs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%