Views
10 months ago

galvis

Water treatment

Table 3.17. Descriptive

Table 3.17. Descriptive statistics for suspended solids (mgl -1 ) in CGF and SSF stages. Descriptive statistics Raw water Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Lines 5 Int. water UGFS SSF UGFL SSF MHGF SSF HGF SSF DGFS SSF Period I (CGF at 0.3 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.1 mh -1 ) Mean 217 97 2.5 0.3 5.4 0.2 4.6 0.3 1.8 0.2 2.3 0.2 S.D 219 135 2.2 0.2 5.4 0.2 3.5 0.3 1.6 0.2 1.9 0.2 Minimum 53 9.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 Maximum 978 619 10 1.0 28 1.1 14 1.3 6 0.7 8 0.7 Data (N) 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Period II (CGF at 0.45 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.1 mh -1 ) Mean 99 28 1.3 0.2 4.4 0.3 2.8 0.2 1.2 0.1 1.5 0.2 S.D 119 44 1.4 0.1 4.8 0.4 3.0 0.2 1.5 0.2 2.1 0.2 Minimum 17 2.9 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Maximum 696 228 9.4 0.7 21 2.0 16 0.8 9.6 0.7 14 0.8 Data (N) 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 Period III (CGF at 0.6 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.15 mh -1 ) Mean 62 15 1.1 0.2 3.1 0.2 2.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.2 S.D 34 11 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.2 Minimum 21 3.1 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 Maximum 186 61 3.9 0.8 9.4 1.0 6.3 0.8 2.8 0.8 3.5 1.0 Data (N) 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 Period IV (CGF at 0.75 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.15 mh -1 ) Mean 59 20 2.0 0.5 4.0 0.7 4.6 0.7 1.9 0.5 2.1 0.5 S.D 54 25 2.2 0.7 4.0 1.0 4.8 1.2 2.3 0.8 1.9 0.6 Minimum 11 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum 243 125 10 2.8 17 4.5 23 5.5 11 4.0 8.5 2.2 Data (N) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 CGF lines presented mean turbidity removal efficiencies in the range of 53 (for UGFL periods II) to 80% (for UGFS period I). In SSF units these efficiencies were in the range of 58 (for SSF 1 period I) to 84% (for SSF 2 period II). This suggests again (see filterability results presented in table 3.16) that SSF units are adapting their particle removal efficiencies to smooth out differences found in the effluents of CGF lines. CEHE (1999) reported mean turbidity removal efficiency of 70% in UGFS with filtration rate of 0.6 mh -1 and processing U.K. river water with mean turbidity of 9.2 NTU and turbidity peaks of up to 400 NTU. Eudovique (1992) reported this efficiency as 22% in UGFL at 1.3 mh -1 processing river water with mean turbidity of 5.9 NTU. Pardón (1989) reported removal efficiencies in the range of 63 to 92% in DGFS at 0.3 mh -1 processing settled river water with turbidities in the range of 20 to >300 NTU. Wegelin (1996) reported 88% as removal efficiency in HGF at 0.3 mh -1 with turbidities in the range of 40 to 400 NTU. Based on these experiences and results shown in figure 2.22 after Pardón (1989), turbidity removal efficiencies around 80% in CGF seem to be possible only with filtration rates

Table 3.18. Descriptive statistics for turbidity (NTU) in CGF and SSF stages. Descriptive Statistics Raw Water Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Lines 5 Int. (1) water UGFS SSF UGFL SSF MHGF SSF HGF SSF DGFS SSF Period I (CGF at 0.3 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.1 mh -1 ) Mean 109 74 12 4.3 22 3.2 21 4.8 13 3.4 17 4.5 S.D 104 76 12 3.4 18 2.2 16 3.4 10 2.3 15 3.6 Minimum 29 17 2.0 0.9 3.8 0.6 3.9 0.9 2.8 0.5 2.6 0.4 Maximum 750 580 115 21 170 16 130 21 81 15 140 28 Data (N) 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 Period II (CGF at 0.45 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.1 mh -1 ) Mean 59 35 8.1 2.0 16 3.3 13 3.1 8 2.4 9.1 3.1 S.D 53 34 6.9 1.7 12 4.1 10 3.2 7 1.9 7.2 2.8 Minimum 18 7.1 1.7 0.5 3.5 0.6 3 0.5 2 0.5 2.4 0.6 Maximum 500 310 51 16 80 39 75 31 55 18 55 28 Data (N) 429 429 429 429 429 429 429 429 429 429 429 429 Period III (CGF at 0.6 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.15 mh -1 ) Mean 51 29 6.6 1.2 13 1.4 10 1.6 6.2 1.3 7.5 1.4 S.D 52 35 6.5 0.9 15 1.5 10 2.0 5.7 1.4 7.6 1.2 Minimum 17 6.2 0.9 0.4 2.0 0.4 2.5 0.4 1.5 0.2 1.8 0.5 Maximum 500 320 38 8.5 130 20 79 24 31 18 75 17 Data (N) 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 Period IV (CGF at 0.75 mh -1 ; SSF at 0.15 mh -1 ) Mean 52 31 7.8 2.0 12 2.8 13 2.6 5.8 1.7 8.8 2.6 S.D 61 40 9.0 2.6 14 3.9 17 4.3 6.2 1.6 8.1 3.4 Minimum 12 2.1 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.2 Maximum 900 600 72 17 130 28 252 56 60 20 68 43 Data (N) 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 (1) Integrated water after DyGF UGFS, HGF and DGFS produced turbidity levels ≤ 10 NTU in 82 to 84% of the samples taken from their effluents during test period III (see table 3.21 and figure 3.20). Their respective SSF units (SSF 1 , SSF 4 , and SSF 5 ) had turbidity levels ≤5 NTU in 98 to 99% of samples taken from their effluents. Therefore, guidelines asking for turbidity levels before SSF

Screen Filtration for Ballast Water Treatment Applications - Cross ...
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
Water Treatment Improvements and Plant Capacity ... - Ohiowater.org
Precursor Removal from Ground Water Using GAC ... - Ohiowater.org
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
Water Quality Report - 2010 - Presidio Trust
The Treatment of Scottish Water for Private Communities
The best solutions in water treatment - Istobal
2003 City of Roanoke Water Quality Report - Western Virginia Water ...
Water Treatment Products - Colorfil
Microorganisms (The Coliform Group Bacteria)
Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Three Filtration Technologies - pncwa
Capacity Charts for Water Treatment Systems
Council Bluffs Water Works South Water Treatment Plant – Planning ...
FILTRATION - Environmental Protection Agency
Filter housings catalogue
Chemicalfree Water Treatment - Necon
Technical Advances in the Treatment of Water and Air for ... - IAAPA
krones Hydronomic Water treatment for all areas of ... - Krones AG
Meshing Treatment Objectives, Water Quality Goals ... - Ohiowater.org
Commercial water treatment solutions - CMS
may 4th am water treatment.pdf(18358.4kb) - PNWS-AWWA
Evaluation of Treatment Options for the Raspberry ... - Loudoun Water
environmentally responsible water treatment - Promolife
Information You Need to Know When Considering ... - Ohiowater.org
Weatherford in Waste Water Treatment (WWT)