Upper value tncmg l1 wwtps upper value 1 tp mg l wwtps

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Â 103 to 3 Â 107 20 0 0 0 63 17 a Literature Actualb %WWTPs . upper value À1 COD (mg L ) %WWTPs . upper value TSS (mg LÀ1) %WWTPs . upper value TNc(mg LÀ1) %WWTPs . upper value À1 TP (mg L ) %WWTPs . upper value FC (MPN 100 mLÀ1) %WWTPs . upper value a Adapted from Arceivala (1981), Qasim (1985), WEF & ASCE (1992), Mara (2003), Metcalf & Eddy (2003), von Sperling & Chernicharo (2005). b Observed ranges: the 10% (minimum value) and 90% (maximum value) percentiles were used. TKN and TN values were used. c Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development ST þ AF Ranges À1 Performance of wastewater treatment technologies Constituent | 01.1 | 2011 44 S. C. Oliveira & M. von Sperling Table 6 | | Performance of wastewater treatment technologies Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 01.1 | 2011 Typical and observed removal efficiencies, and percentage of plants with efficiencies less than the lower value in the literature range ST þ AF FP AP þ FP AS UASB UASB þ POST 80 to 85 36 to 82 75 to 85 65 to 84 75 to 85 73 to 88 85 to 97 74 to 96 60 to 75 65 to 79 75 to 93 85 to 92 % WWTPs , lower value 84 46 11 38 0 0 COD (%) 70 to 80 18 to 78 65 to 80 40 to 72 65 to 80 65 to 78 80 to 93 62 to 93 55 to 70 44 to 77 65 to 90 64 to 86 % WWTPs , lower value 76 76 10 36 25 14 TSS (%) 80 to 90 39 to 86 70 to 80 23 to 69 70 to 80 35 to 78 87 to 93 53 to 95 65 to 80 57 to 81 70 to 97 71 to 92 Component BOD (%) Ranges a Literature Actualb Literature Actual Literature Actual % WWTPs , lower value 63 92 53 55 60 13 TNc (%) ,60 3 to 39 ,60 34 to 58 ,60 26 to 60 ,60 20 to 78 ,60 –19 to –6 ,30 to 65 – % WWTPs , lower value 100 90 88 63 100 – TP (%) ,35 –27 to 45 ,35 32 to 63 ,35 20 to 50 ,35 35 to 55 ,35 –21 to 16 ,35 to 88 –8 to 49 % WWTPs , lower value 83 18 32 14 100 50 FC (log units) 0.5 to 1.5 0.5 to 1.8 1.0 to 2.0 1.0 to 2.4 1.0 to 2.0 1.6 to 3.0 1.0 to 2.0 1.4 to 2.8 0.5 to 1.5 0 to 1.3 1.0 to 5.0 0.8 to 5.2 63 11 0 0 63 17 Literature Actual Literature Actual Literature Actual % WWTPs , Lower value a Adapted from Arceivala (1981), Qasim (1985), WEF & ASCE (1992), Mara 2003, Metcalf & Eddy (2003), von Sperling & Chernicharo (2005). b Observed ranges: the 10% (minimum value) and 90% (maximum value) percentiles were used. TKN and TN values were used. c the one with the closest similarity with the literature. How- which comprise the six technologies, because some of ever, the literature ranges are larger due to the diversity of them (septic tank þ anaerobic filter – ST þ AF and UASB possible post-treatment systems. By comparing the results reactor followed by some post-treatments – UASB þ POST) between UASB reactors and UASB þ POST, it becomes evi- did not have the required data to calculate the operational dent that the post-treatment is highly important for an parameters. improved final effluent quality. The recommended intervals referred to in Tables 1 and 2 It is worth mentioning that the observed low removal were used as references for the determination of the loading ef...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online