Reporting standards for biofilter performance studies

Colt, John; Lamoureux, Jonathan; Patterson, R.N.; Rogers, Gary L.

doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2005.09.002

Cited by 72 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, an ideal biofilter for all purposes does not exist but each biofilter type has their own advantages and limitations [9]. Numerous efforts have been made to put guidelines for reporting biofilter performance [10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nitrification Capacity of Different Types of Biological Filters An Overview

El-Sheshtawy¹,

Salah²,

Ibrahim³

et al. 2017

The International Conference "The Risk in Contemporary Economy" (Dunarea De Jos University. Faculty of Economics)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nitrification Capacity of Different Types of Biological Filters An Overview

El-Sheshtawy¹,

Salah²,

Ibrahim³

et al. 2017

The International Conference "The Risk in Contemporary Economy" (Dunarea De Jos University. Faculty of Economics)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The analysis of the steady-state conditions was focused on the variation of TOC and DC over time in the different ports, as also observed in Colt et al (2005), since there was When observing the Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, it can be seen that the biofilter reached steady-state conditions after approximately 2 days (experiment E1) and 1 day (experiment E2) of the operating period.…”

Section: Evolution Of the Steady-state Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of aeration on steady-state conditions in non- and partially aerated low-loaded biofilter

Albuquerque

González‐Martínez

Osorio

2012

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excessive growth of biomass and retention of solids associated with air bubbles lead to bed clogging, which affects the biofilters' performance. Two experiments were carried out in a submerged biofilter at the flow velocity of 0.5 m h -1 , for an organic loading rate of 51 g C m -3 h -1 and a nitrogen loading rate of 13 g NH 4 -N m -3 h -1 , one with the biofilter not aerated, the other with the biofilter partially aerated. The results showed that the higher head losses occurred in the upper section of the biofilter, where there was a greater biomass development and a higher removal of organic carbon, ammonia and solids, with the maximum allowed head loss being reached in 16 and 8 days. In any case, the steady-state conditions were achieved after 2 days and were interrupted on the tenth day of experiment E1 and on the fifth day of experiment E2. This allowed defining different operating cycles that enabled an average organic removal rate of 12.7 g C m -3 h -1 (27 %) and an average ammonia removal rate of 1.1 g NH4-N m -3 h -1 (9 %) without aeration, and of 35.8 g C m -3 h -1 (76 %) and 6.3 g NH4-N m -3 h -1(51 %) with aeration. Regardless of the aeration conditions, more than 90 % of TOC and NH4-N removal occurred in the upper section. After the backwashing cycle, the biofilter returned to steady-state conditions in 6 h (without aeration) and 7 h (with aeration).

show abstract

“…The first is the STR, which is defined as the TAN grams converted to nitrate per unit of surface per day (Timmons et al, 2002;Colt et al, 2006;Drennan II et al, 2006). The STR was calculated using the following formula: + will transform to NH 3 depending on the pH of the media at that particular time.…”

Section: Determination Of Efficiency Parameter Surface Conversion Ratmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second indicator is the VTR, which is defined as the grams of TAN converted to nitrate per unit volume per day (Colt et al, 2006;Drennan II et al, 2006;Malone & Pfeiffer, 2006;Timmons & Ebeling, 2007;Kirk & Timur, 2009;Guerdat et al, 2010). The procedure to estimate the TAN mass entered daily, was exposed by Chang (2002) and Rosenberg & Epstein (1998), which uses the molecular weight to obtain the NH 4 + grams entered through the ammonium chloride (NH 4 Cl).…”

Section: Volumetric Conversion Rate (Vtr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrogenated compounds biofiltration under alternative bacterium fixation substrates

Carroza¹,

Hurtado²,

Gutierrez³

2012

lajar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. This study compares the behavior of nitrification (NH 4 + , NO 2 -and NO 3 -), and performance, in terms of the surface TAN conversion rate (STR), volumetric TAN conversion rate (VTR) and removal percentage of TAN (PTR) among three fixation media of nitrifying bacteria (two alternatives (S 1 , S 2 ) and one commercial (C o )). The experiment was performed in two tests of 42 days each. Three isolated biofiltration systems were built for the experience, to which were added media colonized by bacteria as a "seed" to start the process of nitrification. Ammonium chloride (NH 4 Cl) was attached as source of ammonium in reconditioned freshwater, also gradually adding inorganic carbon (HCO 3 -) to maintain moderate water hardness. ), y el rendimiento, en términos de la tasa superficial de conversión de NAT, tasa volumétrica de conversión de NAT y porcentaje de remoción de NAT (PRN) entre tres medios de fijación de bacterias nitrificantes, dos alternativos (S 1 , S 2 ) y uno comercial (Co). La experiencia se realizó en dos pruebas de 42 días cada una. Se construyeron tres sistemas aislados para la experiencia, a los cuales se adicionaron medios colonizados por bacterias a modo de "semilla", para el inicio del proceso de nitrificación. Cloruro de amonio (NH 4 Cl) fue adherido como fuente de amonio en agua dulce re acondicionada, adicionando gradualmente también carbón inorgánico (HCO 3 -) para mantener una dureza moderada del agua. Los resultados promedio para ambas pruebas, indican que los sustratos S 1 y S 2 muestran un comportamiento estadísticamente similar al sustrato C o (P > 0,05) durante los primeros 33 días (hasta el estado estacionario). Para el segundo test, en términos de rendimiento de STR se registraron valores de 0,4, 0,39, y 0,39 g TAN m -2 d -1 para S 1 , S 2 y C o , respectivamente; en términos de PRN valores de 92, 97, 93% para S 1 , S 2 y C o , respectivamente y en función de VTR se registraron valores de 72,31, 114,94, 39,02 g NAT m -3 d -1 , para S 1 , S 2 y C o , respectivamente. Los análisis estadísticos aportaron que, para STR y PRN, no se encontraron diferencias significativas. En cambio, para VTR se identificaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los medios evaluados, siendo el medio S 2 , el que presenta un mayor valor de VTR.

show abstract

Reporting standards for biofilter performance studies

Cited by 72 publications

References 12 publications

The Nitrification Capacity of Different Types of Biological Filters An Overview

The Nitrification Capacity of Different Types of Biological Filters An Overview

Effect of aeration on steady-state conditions in non- and partially aerated low-loaded biofilter

Nitrogenated compounds biofiltration under alternative bacterium fixation substrates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About