Views
8 months ago

galvis

Water treatment

Table 3.10 Comparative

Table 3.10 Comparative analysis of means SS removal efficiencies in DyGF units. 85 Mean removal efficiency (%) 75 65 55 DyGF-A DyGF-B DyGF-C Period I Period II - III Period IV SS (mgl -1 ) in raw water (mean ± SD) DyGF units (mean filtration rates, mh -1 ) Descriptive statistics SS removal efficiencies (%) Data (N) Mean Standard deviation (SD) Decision on Ho (a) Based on F-Test and ANOVA technique (α=1%) Hierarchical levels Based on Tukey Test (α=1%) Period I A (0.9 mh -1 ) 79.4 7.9 A (0.9 mh -1 ) (1) 197 ± 192 B (1.3 mh -1 ) 33 69.7 11.0 Ho is rejected B (1.3 mh -1 ) (2) C (1.4 mh -1 ) 66.2 16.0 C (1.4 mh -1 ) (2) Period II – III B (1.4 mh -1 ) 81.0 8.8 B (1.4 mh -1 ) (1) 84 ± 97 A (1.9 mh -1 ) 84 78.3 10.3 Ho is rejected A (1.9 mh -1 ) (2) C (2.6 mh -1 ) 75.9 11 C (2.6 mh -1 ) (3) Period IV B (1.7 mh -1 ) 67.3 20.7 B (1.7 mh -1 ) (1) 118 ± 182 A (1.9 mh -1 ) 42 67.2 16.3 Ho is rejected A (1.9 mh -1 ) (1) C (2.8 mh -1 ) 59.0 19.6 C (2.8 mh -1 ) (2) (a) Ho: The mean SS removal efficiencies in DyGF are all statistically the same for all mean filtration rates. Table 3.11 Comparative analysis of mean faecal coliforms removal efficiencies in DyGF units. Mean removal efficiency (%) 70 60 50 40 30 DyGF-A DyGF-B DyGF-C Period I Period II - III Period IV (a) F. coliforms (CFU/100ml) in raw water (mean ± SD) 39,619 ± 31,744 56,116 ± 58,896 99,788 ± 99,076 DyGF units (mean filtration rates, mh -1 ) Descriptive statistics Removal efficiencies (%) Standard Data Mean deviation (N) (SD) Decision on Ho (a) Based on F-Test and ANOVA technique (α=1%) Hierarchical levels Based on Tukey Test (α=1%) Period I A (0.9 mh -1 ) 58.6 36.7 A (0.9 mh -1 ) (1) B (1.3 mh -1 ) 31 56.0 26.6 Ho is rejected B (1.3 mh -1 ) (1)(2) C (1.4 mh -1 ) 31.6 78.4 C (1.4 mh -1 ) (2) Period II – III B (1.4 mh -1 ) 69.4 50.4 B (1.4 mh -1 ) (1) A (1.9 mh -1 ) 84 72.6 22.1 Ho is rejected A (1.9 mh -1 ) (1) C (2.6 mh -1 ) 55.1 43.0 C (2.6 mh -1 ) (2) Period IV B (1.7 mh -1 ) 65.1 23.1 B (1.7 mh -1 ) (1) A (1.9 mh -1 ) 42 65.4 21.7 Ho is rejected C (1.9 mh -1 ) (1) C (2.8 mh -1 ) 51.9 24.7 A (2.8 mh -1 ) (2) Ho: The mean faecal coliforms removal efficiencies in DyGF are all statistically the same for all mean filtration rates. 95

3.2.2.3 Hydraulic related aspects of DyGF units Headloss developments and flow reductions during filtration runs. A filtration run between partial cleaning activities (as summarised in table 3.2) was normally determined by an O&M timetable and eventually by headloss development or flow reduction beyond established limits. Figure 3.13 presents results from the observed filtration runs in DyGF-A and –C during the period April 07 to May 06 1991. DyGF-A, having lower initial filtration rates, shows four filtration runs in this period, meanwhile DyGF-C, having higher initial filtration rates, shows six filtration runs. 1 DyGF - A 40 Flow (ls -1 ) 0.1 0.01 30 20 10 Headloss (cm) 0.001 0 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 Running Tim e (days) 1 DyGF - C 40 Flow (ls -1 ) 0.1 0.01 30 20 10 Headloss (cm) 0.001 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 Running Time (days) 0 Flow Headloss Filtration runs Turbidity (NTU) Maximum flow reduction Initial Running Raw Filtered Filtration RQ=Qfmin/Qfmax (1-R Number period Q ) Mean ± SD Mean ± SD rate (mh -1 ) m 3 h -1 /m 3 h -1 % (days) DyGF - A : Cross sectional area = 2.0 m 2 12 97-104 132 ± 90.5 78 ± 55.7 1.0 1.12 / 2.0 44 13 104-111 101 ± 47.8 63 ± 33.8 1.0 0.86 / 2.0 57 14 111-118 58 ± 9.8 32 ± 6 1.0 1.19 / 2.0 41 15 (1) 118-126 165 ± 143 98 ± 95.1 0.9 0.04 / 1.8 98 DyGF - C : Cross sectional area = 0.75 m 2 21 97-99 107 ± 64.8 78 ± 54.8 2.0 0.54 / 1.55 65 22 99-104 141 ± 100 107 ± 82.4 2.0 0.36 / 1.55 77 23 104-111 101 ± 47.8 73 ± 37.2 2.0 0.14 / 1.55 91 24 111-118 58 ± 9.8 32 ± 5.3 1.1 0.25 / 0.83 70 25 (1) 118-119 82 ± 16.5 42 ± 8.2 0.6 0.36 / 0.43 16 26 119-126 181 ± 151 90 ± 72.1 2.1 0.01 / 1.58 99 (1) Total cleaning activities at the end of this filtration run. Figure 3.13. Headloss development and filtered flow reduction during several filter runs in DyGF units A and C between April 7 and May 6 1991. 96

Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
The Treatment of Scottish Water for Private Communities
Screen Filtration for Ballast Water Treatment Applications - Cross ...
Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Three Filtration Technologies - pncwa
Microorganisms (The Coliform Group Bacteria)
Water Treatment Products - Colorfil
Capacity Charts for Water Treatment Systems
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
Water Treatment Improvements and Plant Capacity ... - Ohiowater.org
2003 City of Roanoke Water Quality Report - Western Virginia Water ...
Presentation - National Water Research Institute
City of Roseville - Evaluation of the New Compressible Media Filter
Water Encyclopedia: Domestic, Municipal, and Industrial Water ...
Precursor Removal from Ground Water Using GAC ... - Ohiowater.org
Water Softeners and Wastewater Treatment Systems
Rena Angelidaki A sustainable solution for pig manure treatment ...
Sydney Water - Best practice guidelines for water ... - Neptune-Benson
Algal removal by alum coagulation - Illinois State Water Survey
Trident® HS multi-barrier packaged water treatment system
Premium Grade Filter Media - Swimming Pools
105745_LodgingMktSeg Sheet_Oct13
Filter Pilot Testing at the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility
may 4th am water treatment.pdf(18358.4kb) - PNWS-AWWA
WE UNDERSTAND BALLAST WATER TREATMENT - Severn Trent ...
HDF Drumfilters. Pure filtration. - Hydrotech Veolia Water Solutions ...
Reprinted with permission Westwick-Farrow Publishing