Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:41:03.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Permeable reactive interceptors: blocking diffuse nutrient and greenhouse gases losses in key areas of the farming landscape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2014

O. FENTON ,
M. G. HEALY ,
F. BRENNAN ,
M. M. R. JAHANGIR ,
G. J. LANIGAN ,
K. G. RICHARDS ,
S. F. THORNTON  and
T. G. IBRAHIM
O. FENTON*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Environmental Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland
M. G. HEALY
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Co. Galway, Ireland
F. BRENNAN
Affiliation:
Ecological Sciences Group, James Hutton Institute, UK
M. M. R. JAHANGIR
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Environmental Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland
G. J. LANIGAN
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Environmental Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland
K. G. RICHARDS
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Environmental Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland
S. F. THORNTON
Affiliation:
Groundwater Protection and Restoration Group, Kroto Research Institute, University of Sheffield, Sheffield,UK
T. G. IBRAHIM
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Environmental Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed: owen.fenton@teagasc.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Engineered remediation technologies such as denitrifying bioreactors target single contaminants along a nutrient transfer continuum. However, mixed contaminant discharges to a water body are more common from agricultural systems. Indeed, evidence presented herein indicates that pollution swapping within denitrifying bioreactor systems adds to such deleterious discharges. The present paper proposes a more holistic approach to contaminant remediation on farms, moving from the use of ‘denitrifying bioreactors’ to the concept of a ‘permeable reactive interceptor’ (PRI). Besides management changes, a PRI should contain additional remediation cells for specific contaminants in the form of solutes, particles or gases. Balance equations and case studies representing different geographic areas are presented and used to create weighting factors. Results showed that national legislation with respect to water and gaseous emissions will inform the eventual PRI design. As it will be expensive to monitor a system continuously in a holistic manner, it is suggested that developments in the field of molecular microbial ecology are essential to provide further insight in terms of element dynamics and the environmental controls on biotransformation and retention processes within PRIs. In turn, microbial and molecular fingerprinting could be used as an in-situ cost-effective tool to assess nutrient and gas balances during the operational phases of a PRI.

Type
Nitrogen Workshop Special Issue Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 152 , Supplement S1: Special Issue from the 17th International Nitrogen Workshop , December 2014 , pp. 71 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balana, B. B., Vinten, A. & Slee, B. (2011). A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures related to the EU WFD: key issues, methods, and applications. Ecological Economics 70, 1021–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braker, G., Schwarz, J. & Conrad, R. (2010). Influence of temperature on the composition and activity of denitrifying soil communities. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 73, 134–148.Google Scholar
Buda, A. R., Koopmans, G. F., Bryant, R. B. & Chardon, W. J. (2012). Emerging technologies for removing nonpoint phosphorus from surface water and groundwater: introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality 41, 621–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, S. G. & Schipper, L. A. (2011). Evaluation of passive solar heating and alternative flow regimes on nitrate removal in denitrification beds. Ecological Engineering 37, 1195–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, L. E., Hanly, J. A. & Hedley, M. J. (2011 a). Optimized denitrification bioreactor treatment through simulated drainage containment. Agriculture Water Management 99, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, L., Bhandari, A. & Helmers, M. J. (2011 b). Pilot-scale evaluation of denitrification drainage bioreactors: reactor geometry and performance. Journal of Environmental Engineering 137, 213–220.Google Scholar
Cooke, R. A., Doheny, A. M. & Hirschi, M. C. (2001). Bio-reactors for edge-of-field treatment of tile outflow. In 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting. ASAE Paper number 012018, St. Joseph, MI, USA: ASAE. Available online from: http://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=7373&t=2&redir=&redirType= (accessed November 2013).Google Scholar
Council of the European Communities (CEC) (1991). Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the 582 protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Official Journal of the European Communities L375, 0001–0008.Google Scholar
Council of the European Communities (CEC) (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L237, 1–72.Google Scholar
Council of the European Communities (CEC) (2001). Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants. Official Journal of the European Union L309, 1–14.Google Scholar
Council of the European Communities (CEC) (2009). Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their Greenhouse Gas Emissions to meet the Community's Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Commitments up to 2020. Official Journal of the European Union L140, 136–148.Google Scholar
Davidson, E. A. & Mosier, A. R. (2004). Controlling losses to air. In Controlling Nitrogen Flows and Losses (Eds Hatch, D. J., Chadwick, D. R., Jarvis, S. C. & Roker, J. A.), pp. 251–259. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Drew, D. (2011). Karstic groundwater systems. In Groundwater in the Hydrological Cycle – Pressure and Protection. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Groundwater Conference, Tullamore, Co. Offaly, Ireland, 20 & 21 April 2010 (Eds International Association of Hydrogeologists (Irish Group)), pp. 13–22. Tullamore, Ireland: International Association of Hydrogeologists (Irish Group). Available online from: http://www.iah-ireland.org/current/pastevents.htm (accessed November 2013).Google Scholar
Elliot, T. (2009). NITRABAR: Remediation of Agricultural Diffuse NITRAte Polluted Waters through the Implementation of a Permeable Reactive BARrier. D16 and D17 – Period One and Two Monitoring Reports. Unknown publisher.Google Scholar
Feng, L.-J., Xu, J., Xu, X.-Y., Zhu, L., Xu, J., Ding, W. & Luan, J. (2012). Enhanced biological nitrogen removal via dissolved oxygen partitioning and step feeding in a simulated river bioreactor for contaminated source water remediation. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 71, 72–79.Google Scholar
Fenton, O., Healy, M. G. & Rodgers, M. (2009 a). Use of ochre from an abandoned metal mine in the South East of Ireland for phosphorus sequestration from dairy dirty water. Journal of Environmental Quality 38, 1120–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, O., Richards, K. G., Kirwan, L., Khalil, M. I. & Healy, M. G. (2009 b). Factors affecting nitrate distribution in shallow groundwater under a beef farm in South Eastern Ireland. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 3135–3146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firestone, M. K. & Davidson, E. A. (1989). Microbiological basis of NO and N2O production and consumption in soil. In Exchange of Trace Gases between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the Atmosphere (Eds Andreae, M. O. & Schimel, D. S.), pp. 7–21. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gentile, M., Yan, T., Tiquia, S. M., Fields, M. W., Nyman, J., Zhou, J. & Criddle, C. S. (2006). Stability in a denitrifying fluidized bed reactor. Microbial Ecology 52, 311–321.Google Scholar
Gentile, M., Jessup, C. M., Nyman, J. L. & Criddle, C. S. (2007). Correlation of functional instability and community dynamics in denitrifying dispersed-growth reactors. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 73, 680–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groffman, P. M., Altabet, M. A., Böhlke, J. K., Butterbach-Bahl, K., David, M. B., Firestone, M. K., Giblin, A. E., Kana, T. M., Nielsen, L. P. & Voytek, M. A. (2006). Methods for measuring denitrification: diverse approaches to a difficult problem. Ecological Applications 16, 2091–2122.Google Scholar
Healy, M. G., Ibrahim, T. G., Lanigan, G. J., Serrenho, A. J. & Fenton, O. (2012). Nitrate removal rate, efficiency and pollution swapping potential of different organic carbon media in laboratory denitrification bioreactors. Ecological Engineering 40, 198–209.Google Scholar
Hill, R., Smith, K., Russell, K., Misselbrook, T. & Brookman, S. (2008). Emissions of ammonia from weeping wall stores and earth-banked lagoons determined using passive sampling and atmospheric dispersion modelling. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 59, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber-Humer, M., Gebert, J. & Hilger, H. (2008). Biotic systems to mitigate landfill methane emissions. Waste Management and Research 26, 33–46.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, T. G., Fenton, O., Richards, K. G., Fely, R. M. & Healy, M. G. (2013). Spatial and temporal variations of nutrient loads in overland flow and subsurface drainage from a marginal land site in south-east Ireland. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 113, 1–18. DOI:10.3318/BIOE.2013.13.Google Scholar
IPCC (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (Eds Eggleston, H. S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe, K.). Japan: IGES.Google Scholar
Jahangir, M. M. R., Johnston, P., Khalil, M. I., Hennessey, D., Humphreys, J., Fenton, O. & Richards, K. G. (2012). Groundwater: a pathway for terrestrial C and N losses and indirect gas emissions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 159, 40–48.Google Scholar
Kult, K. & Jones, C. S. (2011). Woodchip bioreactors for N-source reduction in a highly managed agricultural landscape. In American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco 5–9 September, abstract #B11C-0503. Available online from: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.B11C0503K (accessed November 2013).Google Scholar
Li, D., Lanigan, G. & Humphreys, J. (2011). Measured and simulated nitrous oxide emissions from ryegrass- and ryegrass/white clover-based grasslands in a moist temperate climate. PLoS ONE 6, E26176. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0026176.Google Scholar
Moorman, T. B., Parkin, T. B., Kaspar, T. C. & Jaynes, D. B. (2010). Denitrification activity, wood loss, and N2O emissions over 9 years from a wood chip bioreactor. Ecological Engineering 36, 1567–1574.Google Scholar
Nercessian, O., Bienvenu, N., Moreira, D., Prieur, D. & Jeanthon, C. (2005). Diversity of functional genes of methanogens, methanotrophs and sulfate reducers in deep-sea hydrothermal environments. Environmental Microbiology 7, 118–132.Google Scholar
New Zealand Government (2010). Climate Change (Agriculture Sector) Regulations 2010 (SR 2010/335). Wellington, New Zealand: Published under the authority of the New Zealand Government.Google Scholar
Pangala, S. R., Reay, D. S. & Heal, K. V. (2010). Mitigation of methane emissions from constructed farm wetlands. Chemosphere 78, 493–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philippot, L. (2005). Tracking nitrate reducers and denitrifiers in the environment. Biochemical Society Transactions 33, 200–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philippot, L. & Hallin, S. (2006). Molecular Analyses of Soil Denitrifying Bacteria. Wallingford, UK: CABI.Google Scholar
Philippot, L., Hallin, S. & Schloter, M. (2007). Ecology of denitrifying prokaryotes in agricultural soil. Advances in Agronomy 96, 249–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippot, L., Andert, J., Jones, C. M., Bru, D. & Hallin, S. (2011). Importance of denitrifiers lacking the genes encoding the nitrous oxide reductase for N2O emissions from soil. Global Change Biology 17, 1497–1504.Google Scholar
Schipper, L. A., Robertson, W. D., Gold, A. J., Jaynes, D. B. & Cameron, S. C. (2010). Denitrifying bioreactors – an approach for reducing nitrate loads to receiving waters. Ecological Engineering 36, 1532–1543.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C. A. & Clark, M. W. (2012). Efficacy of a denitrification wall to treat continuously high nitrate loads. Ecological Engineering 42, 203–211.Google Scholar
Shih, R., Robertson, W. D., Schiff, S. L. & Rudolph, D. L. (2011). Nitrate controls methyl mercury production in a streambed bioreactor. Journal of Environmental Quality 40, 1586–1592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, F. G. & Müller, W. W. (2004). Standard and alternative landfill capping design in Germany. Environmental Science and Policy 7, 277–290.Google Scholar
Stark, C. H. & Richards, K. G. (2008). The continuing challenge of agricultural nitrogen loss to the environment in the context of global change and advancing research. Dynamic Soil, Dynamic Plant 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. J. & Quinton, J. N. (2008). Policy implications of pollution swapping. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C 34, 589–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, C. J. & Quinton, J. N. (2009). Diffuse pollution swapping in arable agricultural systems. Critical Reviews in Environment Science and Technology 39, 478–520.Google Scholar
Tanner, C. C., Sukias, J. P. S., Headley, T. R., Yates, C. R. & Stott, R. (2012). Constructed wetlands and denitrifying bioreactors for on-site and decentralised wastewater treatment: comparison of five alternative configurations. Ecological Engineering 42, 112–123.Google Scholar
Themelis, N. K. & Ulloa, P. A. (2007). Methane generation in landfills. Renewable Energy 32, 1243–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Throbäck, I. N., Enwall, K., Jarvis, A. & Hallin, S. (2004). Reassessing PCR primers targeting nirS, nirK and nosZ genes for community surveys of denitrifying bacteria with DGGE. FEMS Microbiology and Ecology 49, 401–417.Google Scholar
Wallenstein, M. D., Myrold, D. D., Firestone, M. & Voytek, M. (2006). Environmental controls on denitrifying communities and denitrification rates: insights from molecular methods. Ecological Applications 16, 2143–2152.Google Scholar
Warnecke, S., Schipper, L. A., Bruesewitz, D. A., Mcdonald, I. & Cameron, S. (2011). Rates, controls and potential adverse effects of nitrate removal in a denitrification bed. Ecological Engineering 37, 511–522.Google Scholar
Zhang, A., Cui, L., Pan, G., Li, L., Hussain, Q., Zhang, X., Zheng, J. & Crowley, D. (2010). Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake plain, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139, 469–475.Google Scholar