Applied denitrifying bioreactor cost efficiencies based on empirical construction costs and nitrate removal.

Adoption of edge-of-field conservation practices, such as denitrifying bioreactors, may be intrinsically linked to barriers associated with cost. However, most previous bioreactor cost efficiency assessments assumed values for either costs and/or nitrate removal. The objective of this work was to use actual construction costs as well as monitored nitrate removal to develop empirical cost efficiencies for eight full-size bioreactors in Illinois, USA. Capital construction costs were obtained via invoices or personal communications. A cash-flow discounting procedure was used to develop an equal annualized cost for each bioreactor assuming two media recharges over a 24-y planning horizon. These costs were combined with monitored nitrate removal based on one to six years of monitoring per site. Construction costs averaged $12,250 ± $7520 across the eight sites (or, $16,020 ± $9960 in 2023 price levels) but considering one of the sites was a paired bioreactor system, costs averaged $10,890 per bioreactor unit. Drainage treatment area-based cost averaged $132/ha-y and treatment area was strongly correlated with capital costs (R2 = 0.90; p = 0.001). The bioreactors averaged $108/m3 of woodchips and available federal government conservation programs could have offset an average of 70% of this cost. Monitored nitrate removal across 27 site-years resulted in a median of $33/kg N-y removed. This mass-based cost efficiency was higher than most previous assessments because the monitored nitrate removal for the study sites was lower than has been previously assumed or modeled. Future reporting about bioreactor recharge timing and cost will help guide assessment and planning. Water quality planning efforts should also consider the increasingly important engineering design costs, which were not included here. Suggested research and outreach to improve bioreactor cost efficiencies involves scaling the physical capacity of this technology for larger treatment areas, revisiting the use of low-cost non-standard fill media, and providing practical construction training.

Paired denitrifying bioreactors with wide orientation for increased drainage flow capacity.

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.

High-frequency, in situ sampling of field woodchip bioreactors reveals sources of sampling error and hydraulic inefficiencies.

Woodchip bioreactors are a practical, low-cost technology for reducing nitrate (NO3) loads discharged from agriculture. Traditional methods of quantifying their performance in the field mostly rely on low-frequency, time-based (weekly to monthly sampling interval) or flow-weighted sample collection at the inlet and outlet, creating uncertainty in their performance and design by providing incomplete information on flow and water chemistry. To address this uncertainty, two field bioreactors were monitored in the US and New Zealand using high-frequency, multipoint sampling for in situ monitoring of NO3-N concentrations. High-frequency monitoring (sub hourly interval) at the inlet and outlet of both bioreactors revealed significant variability in volumetric removal rates and percent reduction, with percent reduction varying by up to 25 percentage points within a single flow event. Time series of inlet and outlet NO3 showed significant lag in peak concentrations of 1-3 days due to high hydraulic residence time, where calculations from instantaneous measurements produced erroneous estimates of performance and misleading relationships between residence time and removal. Internal porewater sampling wells showed differences in NO3 concentration between shallow and deep zones, and "hot spot" zones where peak NO3 removal co-occurred with dissolved oxygen depletion and dissolved organic carbon production. Tracking NO3 movement through the profile showed preferential flow occurring with slower flow in deeper woodchips, and slower flow further from the most direct flowpath from inlet to outlet. High-frequency, in situ data on inlet and outlet time series and internal porewater solute profiles of this initial work highlight several key areas for future research.

Drying-Rewetting Cycles Affect Nitrate Removal Rates in Woodchip Bioreactors.

Woodchip bioreactors are widely used to control nitrogen export from agriculture using denitrification. There is abundant evidence that drying-rewetting (DRW) cycles can promote enhanced metabolic rates in soils. A 287-d experiment investigated the effects of weekly DRW cycles on nitrate (NO) removal in woodchip columns in the laboratory receiving constant flow of nitrated water. Columns were exposed to continuous saturation (SAT) or to weekly, 8-h drying-rewetting (8 h of aerobiosis followed by saturation) cycles (DRW). Nitrate concentrations were measured at the column outlets every 2 h using novel multiplexed sampling methods coupled to spectrophotometric analysis. Drying-rewetting columns showed greater export of total and dissolved organic carbon and increased NO removal rates. Nitrate removal rates in DRW columns increased by up to 80%, relative to SAT columns, although DRW removal rates decreased quickly within 3 d after rewetting. Increased NO removal in DRW columns continued even after 39 DRW cycles, with ∼33% higher total NO mass removed over each weekly DRW cycle. Data collected in this experiment provide strong evidence that DRW cycles can dramatically improve NO removal in woodchip bioreactors, with carbon availability being a likely driver of improved efficiency. These results have implications for hydraulic management of woodchip bioreactors and other denitrification practices.

Plastic Biofilm Carrier after Corn Cobs Reduces Nitrate Loading in Laboratory Denitrifying Bioreactors.

Nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N) removal rates can be increased substantially in denitrifying bioreactors with a corn ( L.) cob bed medium compared with woodchips; however, additional organic carbon (C) is released into the effluent. This laboratory column experiment was conducted to test the performance of a postbed chamber of inert plastic biofilm carrier (PBC) after corn cobs (CC) to extend the area of biofilm colonization, enhance nitrate-N removal, lower total organic C losses, and reduce nitrous oxide (NO) production at warm (15.5°C) and cold (1.5°C) temperatures. Treatments were CC only and CC plus PBC in series (CC-PBC). Across the two temperatures, nitrate-N load removal was 21% greater with CC-PBC than CC, with 54 and 44% of total nitrate N load, respectively. However, total organic C concentrations and loads were not significantly different between treatments. Colonization of the PBC by denitrifiers occurred, although gene abundance at the outlet (PBC) was less than at the inlet (CC). The PBC chamber increased nitrate-N removal rate and reduced cumulative NO production at 15.5°C, but not at 1.5°C. Across temperatures and treatments, NO production was 0.9% of nitrate-N removed. Including an additional chamber filled with PBC downstream from the CC bioreactor provided benefits in terms nitrate-N removal but did not achieve C removal. The presence of excess C, as well as available nitrate, in the PBC chamber suggests another unidentified limiting factor for nitrate removal.

Moving Denitrifying Bioreactors beyond Proof of Concept: Introduction to the Special Section.

Denitrifying bioreactors are organic carbon-filled excavations designed to enhance the natural process of denitrification for the simple, passive treatment of nitrate-nitrogen. Research on and installation of these bioreactors has accelerated within the past 10 years, particularly in watersheds concerned about high nonpoint-source nitrate loads and also for tertiary wastewater treatment. This special section, inspired by the meeting of the Managing Denitrification in Agronomic Systems Community at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, aims to firmly establish that denitrifying bioreactors for treatment of nitrate in drainage waters, groundwater, and some wastewaters have moved beyond the proof of concept. This collection of 14 papers expands the peer-reviewed literature of denitrifying bioreactors into new locations, applications, and environmental conditions. There is momentum behind the pairing of wood-based bioreactors with other media (biochar, corn cobs) and in novel designs (e.g., use within treatment trains or use of baffles) to broaden applicability into new kinds of waters and pollutants and to improve performance under challenging field conditions such as cool early season agricultural drainage. Concerns about negative bioreactor by-products (nitrous oxide and hydrogen sulfide emissions, start-up nutrient flushing) are ongoing, but this translates into a significant research opportunity to develop more advanced designs and to fine tune management strategies. Future research must think more broadly to address bioreactor impacts on holistic watershed health and greenhouse gas balances and to facilitate collaborations that allow investigation of mechanisms within the bioreactor "black box."

Performance of Agricultural Residue Media in Laboratory Denitrifying Bioreactors at Low Temperatures.

Denitrifying bioreactors can be effective for removing nitrate from agricultural tile drainage; however, questions about cold springtime performance persist. The objective of this study was to improve the nitrate removal rate (NRR) of denitrifying bioreactors at warm and cold temperatures using agriculturally derived media rather than wood chips (WC). Corn ( L.) cobs (CC), corn stover (CS), barley ( L.) straw (BS), WC, and CC followed by a compartment of WC (CC+WC) were tested in laboratory columns for 5 mo at a 12-h hydraulic residence time in separate experiments at 15.5 and 1.5°C. Nitrate-N removal rates ranged from 35 to 1.4 at 15.5°C and from 7.4 to 1.6 g N m d at 1.5°C, respectively; NRRs were ranked CC > CC+WC > BS = CS > WC and CC ≥ CC+WC = CS ≥ BS > WC for 15.5 and 1.5°C, respectively. Although NRRs for CC were increased relative to WC, CC released greater amounts of carbon. Greater abundance of nitrous oxide (NO) reductase gene () was supported by crop residues than WC at 15.5°C, and CS and BS supported greater abundance than WC at 1.5°C. Production of NO relative to nitrate removal (NO) was consistently greater at 1.5°C (7.5% of nitrate removed) than at 15.5°C (1.9%). The NO was lowest in CC (1.1%) and CC-WC (0.9%) and greatest in WC (9.7%). Using a compartment of agricultural residue media in series before wood chips has the potential to improve denitrifying bioreactor nitrate removal rates, but field-scale verification is needed.

Denitrifying Bioreactors for Nitrate Removal: A Meta-Analysis.

Meta-analysis approaches were used in this first quantitative synthesis of denitrifying woodchip bioreactors. Nitrate removal across environmental and design conditions was assessed from 26 published studies, representing 57 separate bioreactor units (i.e., walls, beds, and laboratory columns). Effect size calculations weighted the data based on variance and number of measurements for each bioreactor unit. Nitrate removal rates in bed and column studies were not significantly different, but both were significantly higher than wall studies. In denitrifying beds, wood source did not significantly affect nitrate removal rates. Nitrate removal (mass per volume) was significantly lower in beds with <6-h hydraulic retention times, which argues for ensuring that bed designs incorporate sufficient time for nitrate removal. Rates significantly declined after the first year of bed operation but then stabilized. Nitrogen limitation significantly affected bed nitrate removal. Categorical and linear assessments found significant nitrate removal effects with bed temperature; a of 2.15 was quite similar to other studies. Lessons from this meta-analysis can be incorporated into bed designs, especially extending hydraulic retention times to increase nitrate removal under low temperature and high flow conditions. Additional column studies are warranted for comparative assessments, as are field-based studies for assessing in situ conditions, especially in aging beds, with careful collection and reporting of design and environmental data. Future assessment of these systems might take a holistic view, reviewing nitrate removal in conjunction with other processes, including greenhouse gas and other unfavorable by-product production.

Nitrous oxide and methane production and consumption at five full-size denitrifying bioreactors treating subsurface drainage water.

Nitrate (NO3-) removal in denitrifying bioreactors is influenced by flow, water chemistry, and design, but it is not known how these widely varying factors impact the production of nitrous oxide (N2O) or methane (CH4) across sites. Woodchip bioreactors link the hydrosphere and atmosphere in this respect, so five full-size bioreactors in Illinois, USA, were monitored for NO3-, N2O, and CH4 to better document where this water treatment technology resides along the pollution swapping to climate smart spectrum. Both surface fluxes and dissolved forms of N2O and CH4 were measured (n = 7-11 sampling campaigns per site) at bioreactors ranging from <1 to nearly 5 years old and treating subsurface drainage areas from between 6.9 and 29 ha. Across all sites, N2O surface and dissolved volumetric production rates averaged 1.0 ± 1.6 mg N2O-N/m3-d and 24 ± 62 mg dN2O-N/m3-d, respectively, and CH4 production rates averaged 6.0 ± 26 mg CH4-C/m3-d and 310 ± 520 mg dCH4-C/m3-d for surface and dissolved, respectively. However, N2O was consistently consumed at one bioreactor, and only three of the five sites produced notable CH4. Surface fluxes of CH4 were significantly reduced by the presence of a soil cover. Bioreactor denitrification was relatively efficient, with only 0.51 ± 3.5 % of removed nitrate emitted as N2O (n = 48). Modeled indirect N2O emissions factors were significantly lower when a bioreactor was present versus absent (EF5: 0.0055 versus 0.0062 kg N2O-N/kg NO3-N; p = 0.0011). While further greenhouse gas research on bioreactors is recommended, this should not be used as an excuse to slow adoption efforts. Bioreactors provide a practical option for voluntary water quality improvement in the heavily tile-drained US Midwest and elsewhere.

Phosphorus removal in denitrifying woodchip bioreactors varies by wood type and water chemistry.

Denitrifying woodchip bioreactors are a practical nitrogen (N) mitigation technology but evaluating the potential for bioreactor phosphorus (P) removal is highly relevant given that (1) agricultural runoff often contains N and P, (2) very low P concentrations cause eutrophication, and (3) there are few options for removing dissolved P once it is in runoff. A series of batch tests evaluated P removal by woodchips that naturally contained a range of metals known to sorb P and then three design and environmental factors (water matrix, particle size, initial dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) concentration). Woodchips with the highest aluminum and iron content provided the most dissolved P removal (13±2.5 mg DRP removed/kg woodchip). However, poplar woodchips, which had low metals content, provided the second highest removal (12±0.4 mg/kg) when they were tested with P-dosed river water which had a relatively complex water matrix. Chemical P sorption due to woodchip elements may be possible, but it is likely one of a variety of P removal mechanisms in real-world bioreactor settings. Scaling the results indicated bioreactors could remove 0.40 to 13 g DRP/ha. Woodchip bioreactor dissolved P removal will likely be small in magnitude, but any such contribution is an added-value benefit of this denitrifying technology.

Split-nitrogen application with cover cropping reduces subsurface nitrate losses while maintaining corn yields.

Artificial subsurface drainage is essential to sustain crop production in many areas but may also impair water quality by exacerbating nitrate (NO3 )-nitrogen (N) delivery downstream. Cover crops and split-N application have been promoted as key conservation practices for reducing NO3 -N losses, but few studies have simultaneously assessed their effect on water quality and crop productivity. A field study was conducted to evaluate the effects of N application timing and cover crops on subsurface drainage NO3 -N losses and grain yield in continuous corn (Zea mays L.). Treatments were preplant-N: 224 kg N ha-1 split-applied with 60% fall + 40% preplant in 2018, or as single preplant applications in 2019 and 2020; split-N: 40% preplant + 60% side-dress (V6-V7); split-N + cover crop (CC): Split-N + cereal rye (Secale cereale L.); and a zero N plot as the control. Across the 3-yr study period, split-N + CC significantly reduced flow-weighted NO3 -N concentration and NO3 -N loss by 35 and 37%, respectively, compared with preplant-N. However, flow-weighted NO3 -N concentration (4.3 mg L-1 ) and NO3 -N loss (22.4 kg ha-1 ) with split-N were not significantly different from either preplant-N (4.8 mg L-1 and 26.4 kg ha-1 , respectively) or split-N + CC (3.1 mg L-1 and 16.7 kg ha-1 , respectively). Corn yield was significantly lower in the control treatment but did not differ among N fertilized treatments in any year. These results indicate that combining split-N application with cover crops holds promise for meeting the statewide interim milestone NO3 -N reduction target of 15% by 2025 without negatively impacting crop productivity.

Denitrifying woodchip bioreactor and phosphorus filter pairing to minimize pollution swapping.

Pairing denitrifying woodchip bioreactors and phosphorus-sorbing filters provides a unique, engineered approach for dual nutrient removal from waters impaired with both nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). This column study aimed to test placement of two P-filter media (acid mine drainage treatment residuals and steel slag) relative to a denitrifying system to maximize N and P removal and minimize pollution swapping under varying flow conditions (i.e., woodchip column hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of 7.2, 18, and 51 h; P-filter HRTs of 7.6-59 min). Woodchip denitrification columns were placed either upstream or downstream of P-filters filled with either medium. The configuration with woodchip denitrifying systems placed upstream of the P-filters generally provided optimized dissolved P removal efficiencies and removal rates. The P-filters placed upstream of the woodchip columns exhibited better P removal than downstream-placed P-filters only under overly long (i.e., N-limited) retention times when highly reduced effluent exited the woodchip bioreactors. The paired configurations using mine drainage residuals provided significantly greater P removal than the steel slag P-filters (e.g., 25-133 versus 8.8-48 g P removed m-3 filter media d-1, respectively), but there were no significant differences in N removal between treatments (removal rates: 8.0-18 g N removed m-3 woodchips d-1; N removal efficiencies: 18-95% across all HRTs). The range of HRTs tested here resulted in various undesirable pollution swapping by-products from the denitrifying bioreactors: nitrite production when nitrate removal was not complete and sulfate reduction, chemical oxygen demand production and decreased pH during overly long retention times. The downstream P-filter placement provided a polishing step for removal of chemical oxygen demand and nitrite.

Denitrifying bioreactor clogging potential during wastewater treatment.

Chemoheterotrophic denitrification technologies using woodchips as a solid carbon source (i.e., woodchip bioreactors) have been widely trialed for treatment of diffuse-source agricultural nitrogen pollution. There is growing interest in the use of this simple, relatively low-cost biological wastewater treatment option in waters with relatively higher total suspended solids (TSS) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) such as aquaculture wastewater. This work: (1) evaluated hydraulic retention time (HRT) impacts on COD/TSS removal, and (2) assessed the potential for woodchip clogging under this wastewater chemistry. Four pilot-scale woodchip denitrification bioreactors operated for 267 d showed excellent TSS removal (>90%) which occurred primarily near the inlet, and that COD removal was maximized at lower HRTs (e.g., 56% removal efficiency and 25 g of COD removed per m3 of bioreactor per d at a 24 h HRT). However, influent wastewater took progressively longer to move into the woodchips likely due to a combination of (1) woodchip settling, (2) clogging due to removed wastewater solids and/or accumulated bacterial growth, and (3) the pulsed flow system pushing the chips away from the inlet. The bioreactor that received the highest loading rate experienced the most altered hydraulics. Statistically significant increases in woodchip P content over time in woodchip bags placed near the bioreactor outlets (0.03 vs 0.10%P2O5) and along the bioreactor floor (0.04 vs. 0.12%P2O5) confirmed wastewater solids were being removed and may pose a concern for subsequent nutrient mineralization and release. Nevertheless, the excellent nitrate-nitrogen and TSS removal along with notable COD removal indicated woodchip bioreactors are a viable water treatment technology for these types of wastewaters given they are used downstream of a filtration device.