Proposal Defense

shamebagΒιοτεχνολογία

22 Φεβ 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

154 εμφανίσεις

ARSH

AGARWAL
,
ALLI SON

BRADFORD
,
KERRY

CHENG
,
RAMI TA

DEWAN
,
ENRI QUE

DI SLA
,
ADDI SON

GOODLEY
,
NATHAN

LI M
,
LI SA

LI U
,
LUCAS

PLACE,
RAEVATHI

RAMADORAI
,
JAI SHRI

SHANKAR
,
MI CHAEL

WELLEN
,
DI ANE

YE,
EDWARD

YU


MENTOR: DR.
DAVE

TI LLEY

LI BRARI AN:
ROBERT

KACKLEY


GEMSTONE PROGRAM

03/18/2011


SWAMP

Superior Wetlands Against Malicious Pollutants


Research Problem


Agricultural runoff, especially in the spring, leads
to high nitrate levels in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed


Causes harmful algal blooms


Result: Dead zones due to depletion of oxygen and nutrients
vital to aquatic wildlife


Dead zone: low oxygen area of water

Research Problem


Significance of Project


Affects fishing industry, seafood consumers,
environmental groups, residents of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed


Health of the Chesapeake Bay is vital for
maintaining biodiversity

Overview of Project


Goal: to build a wetland that optimally removes
nitrates from the Chesapeake Bay and its
surrounding waters


How? With a constructed wetland!


Mostly greenhouse
-
based experiment in 3 phases


Emulate conditions of the Tuckahoe Creek within the
greenhouse


Questions to answer through literature:


Where does the agricultural runoff come from?


What plants can we use to remove the nitrates?


Can we affect the rate of nitrate removal? How? With what?

Literature Review


Agricultural Runoff


One of the largest sources of pollution into the Bay


Main sources: fertilizer and manure


Plants only absorb up to 18% of nitrogen from fertilizer


Up to 35% of nitrogen fertilizer washes into coastal waters and their
surrounding bodies of water


Nitrates come mostly from chicken manure in agricultural runoff


Eutrophication

causes harmful algal blooms


Eutrophication
: steep increase in nutrient concentration in
neighboring bodies of water


Algal blooms lead to dead zones


Constructed wetlands


Can remove up to 80% of inflowing nitrates


Literature Review


River Selection


Big picture: Chesapeake Bay


Not ideal for accessibility, too large a body of water for us to
study in such a short time


Choptank

River


largest eastern tributary of the
Bay


70% of nitrogen input is from agricultural runoff


Still not very accessible for a large group of students with
limited funds and transportation


Tuckahoe Creek


Tuckahoe sub
-
basin represents 34% of
Choptank

Watershed


More accessible for our team

The Nitrogen Cycle

Image from:
www.fao.org


Literature Review


Plant Selection


Criteria for plant selection


Non
-
invasive


Native to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed


Biofuel
-
capable

Literature Review


Plant Selection


Cattail (
Typha

latifolia
)


Very commonly researched wetland
plant


Especially viable as a
biofuel


Soft
-
stem Bulrush
(
Schoenoplectus

validus
)


More effective at
denitrification

than
other comparable plant species.


Study:
Schoenoplectus

is responsible
for 90% of all nitrate removal in
experimental treatments


Switchgrass

(
Panicum

virgatum
)


One of the most common, effective
nitrate
-
removing plants in the
Chesapeake Bay area

Literature Review


Biofuels



Why
biofuels
?


To accommodate changing energy and environmental needs


Secondary data analysis


Cattail


Potential ethanol source


Can be harvested for cellulose


Switchgrass


One hectare plot of
switchgrass

yielded up to 21.0 dry
megagrams

of
biomass


Soft
-
stem bulrush


In one study, out of 20 wetland species, soft
-
stem bulrush ranked
second in energy output per unit mass


Cross
-
referenced list of Chesapeake Bay native, non
-
invasive
plants with list of
biofuel
-
capable plants


Selected plants seemed to be the best options for research



Literature Review


Organic Factors


Why?


Increase statistical significance of differences in nitrate
removal


Three carbon
-
based factors


Glucose


Increases nitrate removal rates in artificial wetlands


Sawdust


Study compared glucose & sawdust


glucose ranked first,
sawdust ranked second


Wheat straw


Increases nitrate removal rate for 7 days, then decreases in
effectiveness

Methodology


Experimental Design & Setup


Take several samples at Tuckahoe Creek


Mostly in spring


highest nitrate concentration


Use highest value of collected samples in greenhouse environment


Samples include water and soil


Soil samples are necessary to inoculate the greenhouse soil


Inoculating soil will allow Tuckahoe
-
native bacteria to grow in our
greenhouse environment


Extraneous variables?


Realistically, we cannot emulate all elements of the Tuckahoe
Creek in the greenhouse.


Nitrate concentration, soil composition, & temperature are three
elements that we can realistically control


Methodology


Experimental Design & Setup
(Phase 1)


Goal: find most effective organic factor


Use single plant species (cattail)


In each microcosm, place one or a combination of organic factors


Each microcosm will contain potting soil, top soil, soil from the
Tuckahoe Creek (for inoculation), and the experimental variable


Inoculating greenhouse soil with Tuckahoe soil will allow
Tuckahoe
-
native bacteria to grow in our greenhouse environment


Collect effluent from each microcosm and pour it back over the
microcosm once a day for 7 days


Measure nitrate concentration of the effluent at the end of the
week.


Determine which factor or combination of factors per experimental
unit most effectively increases nitrate uptake


Experimental unit is one bucket

Methodology


Example Diagram of Setup for
Phase 1

Note: Phase 2 will look similar, but with different combinations in each bucket


the combinations will be of different plants, same organic factor

Methodology


Experimental Design & Setup
(Phase 2)


Goal: find most effective plant or combination of
plants using the organic factor determined in phase 1


Use multiple plant species


Place each combination in a microcosm


Each microcosm will contain potting soil, top soil, soil from the
Tuckahoe Creek (for inoculation), and the experimental variable


Collect effluent from each microcosm and pour back over the
microcosm once a day for 7 days


Standard water analysis will determine water quality


Determine which plant or plants (experimental unit) most
effectively removes nitrates from water


Experimental unit is one bucket




Methodology


Experimental Design & Setup
(Phase 3)


Goal: apply the results of Phases 1 & 2 to a larger,
more wetland
-
like setting


Use the best factor and best combinations of plants


Place them in a larger setting (i.e. a mini constructed
wetland within the greenhouse)


Run experiment for 7 days, flowing water through this larger
-
scale wetland environment


Measure effluent once a day for 7 days to determine nitrate
removal efficiency


Pending results of 1&2


depends on time

Methodology


Data Collection


Data Collection


Effluent collected every day for 7 day trial


Standard water analysis


Includes our variables, plus other details about water quality


Mostly within greenhouse


Some data collection in the field (Tuckahoe) for samples and
testing of environment


Six 1
-
week long trials


7 replicates of each microcosm per trial


Total of 42 data points (can assume normal distribution)

Methodology
-

Data Analysis


Data Analysis


Phase 1: Two
-
factor ANOVA


2 levels


4 treatments


Phase 2: Single factor ANOVA,
Tukey’s

Studentized

Range


1 level


8 treatments


Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to perform
calculations


Current Progress



Finishing experimental setup and design


Ironing out the fine details of water collection/measurement/etc


Applying for grants


Bill James, ACCIAC, Library (submitted), Sea Grant, HHMI


Ongoing literature review


Tuckahoe Creek visits


Soil samples: early March


Water samples: late April/early May


This is when nitrate concentration is highest


Greenhouse space


Guaranteed space in the UMD greenhouse until May 2012

References


Anderson, D., &
Glibert
, P., & Burkholder J. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and
eutrophication
: Nutrient sources,
composition, and consequences.
Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation
, 24(4), 704
-
726.



Burgin, A.,
Groffman
, P., & Lewis, D. (2010). Factors regulating
denitrification

in a riparian wetland.
Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J., 74
(5), 1826
-
1833.
doi
: 10.2136/sssaj2009.0463


Fraser, L. H., Carty, S. M., & Steer, D. (2004). A test of four plant species to reduce total nitrogen and total
phosphorus from soil
leachate

in subsurface wetland microcosms.
Bioresource

Technology, 94
(2), 185
-
192.



Hien
, T. (2010). Influence of different substrates in wetland soils on
denitrification
.
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution,
June 2010
, 1
-
12. doi:10.1007/s11270
-
010
-
0498
-
6


Gray, K. &
Serivedhin
, T. (2006). Factors affecting
denitrification

rates in experimental wetlands: Field and
laboratory studies.
Ecological Engineering, 26
, 167
-
181.


Ines, M.,
Soares
, M., &
Abeliovich
, A. (1998). Wheat straw as substrate for water
denitrification
.
Water Research
.
32
(12), 3790
-
3794.


Karrh
, R., Romano, W., Raves
-
Golden, R., Tango, P., Garrison, S., Michael, B.,
Karrh
, L. (2007). Maryland tributary
strategy
Choptank

River basin summary report for 1985
-
2005 Data. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural
Resources.


Rogers, K., Breen, P., & Chick, A. (1991). Nitrogen removal in experimental wetland treatment systems: Evidence
for the role of aquatic plants.
Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 63
(7), 9.


Staver
, L. W.,
Staver
, K. W., & Stevenson, J. C. (1996). Nutrient inputs to the
Choptank

river estuary: Implications
for watershed management.
Estuaries, 19
(2), 342
-
358.


Wright, L., &
Turhollow
, A. (2010).
Switchgrass

selection as a “model”
bioenergy

crop: A history of the process.
Biomass and
Bioenergy
, 34
(6), 851
-
868. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.030


Zedler
, J. B. (2003). Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale.
Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 1
(2), 65
-
72.


Zhang, B.,
Shahbazi
, A., Wang, L.,
Diallo
, O., & Whitmore, A. (2010). Hot
-
water pretreatment of cattails for
extraction of cellulose.

Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology
, 1
-
6.
doi
: 10.1007/s10295
-
010
-
0847
-
x

Thank you!


Many thanks to...


Dr. Dave Tilley


Dr. Bruce James


Brandon Winfrey


Dr. Wallace


Dr. Thomas


Courtenay Barrett


Gemstone Program & Staff


Robert
Kackley

Any questions?