¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ / v.32, no.3, 1999³â, pp.216-216
»ýȰÇü ¹× »ýÀ°È¯°æ¿¡ µû¸¥ ´ëÇü¼ö»ý½Ä¹°ÀÇ »ý»ê¼º°ú ¿µ¾ç¹°Áú Á¦°Å´É
( Productivity and Nutrient Removal Potentials of Aquatic Macrophytes with Varying Life Forms and Growth Environment )
°øµ¿¼ö;Á¤¿øÈ­;Àü¼±¿Á; ±¹¸³È¯°æ¿¬±¸¿ø;±¹¸³È¯°æ¿¬±¸¿ø;±¹¸³È¯°æ¿¬±¸¿ø;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
±¹³»ÀÇ °ÅÀÇ ¸ðµç È£¼ö´Â ÀΰøÈ£ÀÌ¸ç ±× »ó´ç¼ö°¡ ºÎ ¿µ¾ç »óÅÂÀÌ°í ¿µ¾ç¿°·ù°¡ ÁÖ·Î À¯¿ªÀÇ ºñÁ¡¿À¿°¿ø¿¡¼­ À¯ÀԵǰí ÀÖ¾î ±â°èÀû ¿À¿°¿ø °ü¸®°¡ ¾î·Á¿î »óÅÂÀÌ´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ¼ö»ý°ü¼Ó½Ä¹°À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ¿µ¾ç¹°Áú Á¦°Å¸¦ ÁÖ¸ñÀûÀ¸·Î ¼öÇàµÇ¾ú´Ù. ÆÈ´çÈ£ ÀÚ¿¬½ÀÁöÀÇ ¼ö»ý°ü¼Ó½Ä¹°¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ Áú¼Ò¿Í ÀÎÀÇ ¿¬°£ ÃÑÈí¼ö·®Àº ¿¬°£ ¿ÜºÎ ÃÑÀ¯ÀÔºÎÇÏ·®ÀÇ 1% ³»¿Ü¿¡ ºÒ°úÇϳª, °­¿ì°¡ ÀûÀº $4{sim}6$¿ùÀÇ ½Ã±â Áß »ýÀ°Áö¿¡¼­ ÀÎÀÇ À¯ÀÔ´ëºñ Èí¼öºñ´Â ¾à 27%¿¡ ´ÞÇϸç, Å»ÁúÀ̳ª ÀÎÀÇ ¿ëÃâ¾ïÁ¦ È¿°ú¸¦ °í·ÁÇÑ ¶§ ¼öÁú¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¼ö»ý°ü¼Ó½Ä¹°ÀÇ ¿ªÇÒÀº ¸Å¿ì Å©´Ù. ÆÈ´çÈ£¿¡¼­ Àç¹èµÈ ºÎ·¹¿ÁÀáÀÇ »ýü·® ±âÁØ ºñÁõ½Ä¼Óµµ´Â $0.034{sim}0.086$ /d, ¹è°¡½Ã°£Àº $8{sim}19$ÀÏ, Áõ½ÄÀÇ ¿Âµµ°è¼ö´Â 1.06, Áú¼ÒÈ©¼öÀ²Àº $0.56{sim}1.67;gNm^{-2}d^{-1}$, ÀÎÈí¼öÀ²Àº $0.10{sim}0.33;gPm^{-2}d^{-1}$¿´À¸¸ç ´ë±Ô¸ð Àç¹èÁö¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¼öÁúÀº ÇöÀúÈ÷ °³¼±µÇ¾ú´Ù. ºÎ·¹¿ÁÀáÀÇ ÁöÇϺΠ°Ç¹°·®(U)¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áö»óºÎ °Ç¹°·®(A)ÀÇ ºñ(U/A)´Â ¼öÁßÀÇ ¿µÃ¢¹°Áú ³óµµ¿Í ÇÔ²² Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Çϼö󸮽à ½Ä¹°Ã¼ÀÇ ÀÎ ÇÔ·®°ú ¼öÁßÀÇ Àγ󵵴 ¹ÐÁ¢ÇÑ °ü°è¸¦ º¸ÀÎ ¹Ý¸é Áú¼Ò´Â À¯ÀǼºÀÌ ¾ø¾ú´Âµ¥, ÀÌ´Â ÇϼöÀÇ Áú¼Ò/ÀÎ ³óµµºñ°¡ ³ô¾Æ Áú¼Ò°¡ ½Ä¹°¼ºÀåÀÇ Á¦ÇÑ¿äÀÎÀÌ µÇÁö ¸øÇÔÀ» ½Ã»çÇÑ´Ù. Çϼö¿ø¼ö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Ã¼·ù½Ã°£ 2.2ÀÏÀÇ Àΰø´ËÁö 󸮽à $BOD_5$ Á¦°ÅÈ¿À²Àº $61{sim}68%$·Î ½Ä¹°Á¾·ùº°·Î Â÷À̰¡ Àû¾úÀ¸³ª ÀÎÁ¦°ÅÈ¿À²Àº ºÎ·¹¿ÁÀáÁ¶ 63%, ±âŸ Á¤¼ö½Ä¹°(¾Ö±âºÎµé, ¹Ì³ª¸®, ²ÉâÆ÷) ó¸®Á¶´Â 35% ÀÌÇÏ¿´´Ù. Çϼö¿ø¼ö¿Í 2Â÷Çϼö󸮼ö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ºÎ·¹¿ÁÀá Àΰø´ËÁö½Ã½ºÅÛ ÀÇ ÀÎÁ¦°ÅÀ²Àº °¢°¢ 0.22, $0.16;gPm^{-2}d^{-1}$À̾úÀ¸¸ç, ±âŸÁ¤¼ö½Ä¹° ó¸®Á¶´Â °¢°¢ $0.06{sim}0.12;gPm^{-2}d^{-1},;0.03{sim}0.06gPm^{-2}d^{-1}$ÀÇ ¹üÀ§¿´´Ù. À¯Ãâ¼öÀÇ Áú¼Ò/ÀÎ ºñ´Â ¼ö·Î ½Ã½ºÅÛ¿¡ ºñÇØ ´ËÁö½Ã½ºÅÛ¿¡¼­ ³·¾Ò´Âµ¥ ´ËÁö ÀúÅä¿¡¼­ÀÇ Å»Áú°ú ÀÎ ¿ëÃâÀÌ Å« °ÍÀ¸·Î ÃßÁ¤µÈ´Ù. 2Â÷ Çϼö󸮼ö¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Áú¼Ò Á¦°ÅÀ²(R)°ú ½Ä¹°Ã¼Èí¼öÀ²(U)ÀÇ ¹éºÐºñ(U/R)´Â ºÎ·¹¿ÁÀáÁ¶ $31{sim}58%$, ¹Ì³ª¸®Á¶ $5{sim}11%$, ±âŸ ó¸®Á¶´Â 5% ÀÌÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Àο¡ ´ëÇÑ U/Rºñ´Â ºÎ·¹¿ÁÀáÁ¶ $47{sim}54%$, ¹Ì³ª¸®Á¶ $11{sim}45%$, ±âŸ ó¸®Á¶´Â 10%ÀÌÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÎ¼ö½Ä¹° ½Ã½ºÅÛ¿¡¼­´Â Èí¼öÁ¦°Å°¡ Å©³ª Á¤¼ö½Ä¹° ½Ã½ºÅÛ¿¡¼­´Â ħÀü°ú ÈíÂø ¹× Å»ÁúÀÌ ÁÖ¿ä Á¦°Å±âÀÛÀÓÀ» ¾Ë ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù.
Net productivity and nutrient removal potentials of vascular hydrophytes with different life forms were estimated in the natural wetland of the river-reservoir Paldang and the macrophyte-based sewage treatment system. In the reservoir, the annual uptake fates of nitrogen and phosphorus by vascular hydrophytes were only about 1% of the external load. However, the uptake ratio in the macrophyte-growing area during $April{sim}June$ was about 27% of the external load. Culturing water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) within the reservoir, nitrogen and phosphorus uptake rates were in the range $0.56{sim}1.67;gNm^{-2}d^{-1};and;0.08{sim}0.33;gPm^{-2}d^{-1}$, respectively. In the free floating treatment systems for sewage with four macrophytes, water hyacinth (Eichhoynia crassipes), iris (Iris ensata var. spontanea), cattail (Typha angustifolia) and water dyopwort (Oenanthe javanica), the phosphorus contents of macrophytes were closely related with the phosphorus concentration in water. In the pond systems with the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 2.2 day, $BOD_5$ removal efficiencies were in the range of $61{sim}68%$, and those were not so different among macrophyte species. In the water hyacinth system, the phosphorus removal rates were 0.22 and $0.16;gPm^{-2}d^{-1}$ in the raw sewage and in the secondary treated sewage water, respectively, while the other emergent macrophyte systems showed the low range of $0.06{sim}0.12;and;0.03{sim}0.06;gPm^{-2}d^{-1}$, respectively. In the secondary-treated sewage, water hyacinth absorbed $31{sim}58%$ of the removed nitrogen and $47{sim}54%$ of the removed phosphorus. However, the uptake/removal ratio in the other emergent macrophyte systems were less than 5% for nitrogen and 10% for phosphorus.
 
Ű¿öµå
Ecotechnology;Wetland;Nutrient removal;Aquatic Macrophyte;Water Quality;Paldang;
 
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸÁö / v.32, no.3, 1999³â, pp.216-216
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1976-8087
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO199910102457639)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿