Views
6 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

Water Treatment Improvements and Plant Capacity ... - Ohiowater.org
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
Screen Filtration for Ballast Water Treatment Applications - Cross ...
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
The Treatment of Scottish Water for Private Communities
Water Quality Report - 2010 - Presidio Trust
Water Treatment Products - Colorfil
Capacity Charts for Water Treatment Systems
Microorganisms (The Coliform Group Bacteria)
Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Three Filtration Technologies - pncwa
Meshing Treatment Objectives, Water Quality Goals ... - Ohiowater.org
krones Hydronomic Water treatment for all areas of ... - Krones AG
ZTF Filter Catalog - ZEKS Compressed Air Solutions
Precursor Removal from Ground Water Using GAC ... - Ohiowater.org
The best solutions in water treatment - Istobal
Council Bluffs Water Works South Water Treatment Plant – Planning ...
World Class Filtration World Class Filtration - McGuire Air ...
Technical Advances in the Treatment of Water and Air for ... - IAAPA
may 4th am water treatment.pdf(18358.4kb) - PNWS-AWWA
Weatherford in Waste Water Treatment (WWT)
2003 City of Roanoke Water Quality Report - Western Virginia Water ...
Artwork-EWC Water Treatment
Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities - P2 InfoHouse
can membranes be used to cost effectively improve recycled water ...
The new Büchi pressure filters – filtration on a new level
Waste water treatment without chemistry Atec Advanced Oxidation ...
Lloyd's Register Guide to Ballast Water Treatment Technology (2010)