英文英语文章-Comparative evaluation of mass transfer of oxygen.docVIP

下载本文档

2
0
约1.64万字
约 18页
2018-05-03 发布于河南
举报
版权申诉

英文英语文章-Comparative evaluation of mass transfer of oxygen.doc

1、本文档共18页，可阅读全部内容。
2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
5、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
6、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
7、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

英文英语文章-Comparative evaluation of mass transfer of oxygen

Comparative evaluation of mass transfer of oxygen in three activated sludge processes operating under uniform conditions Venkatram Mahendraker, Donald S. Mavinic, and Kenneth J. Hall Abstract: This investigation was conducted in three laboratory-scale activated sludge processes, namely, the conventional completely mixed activated sludge process (CMAS), the modified Ludzack-Ettinger process (MLE), and the University of Cape Town (UCT) process. These systems were operated under controlled conditions by feeding a uniform influent at a single 10-d solids retention time (SRT). The oxygen transfer parameters (KLaf, OTRf, and OTEf) determined indicated that the alpha (α) and oxygen transfer efficiency (OTEf) in processes where the enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) mechanism was active were higher than in the conventional completely mixed activated sludge (CMAS) process, where such a mechanism was absent. Thus, presenting a clear evidence of improved oxygen utilization in activated sludge processes contain aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic selector zones. Key words: biological nutrient removal, completely mixed activated sludge process, oxygen uptake rate, oxygen transfer efficiency Material and methods Fig. 1.Schemes for (a) completely mixed activated sludge (CMAS) process, (b) modifiedLudzack Ettinger (MLE) process and (c) University of Cape Town (UCT) process. The CMAS, MLE, and UCT process schemes employed in this study are shown in Fig.1. In these processes, the aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic reactor volumes were 16 L, 8.55 L, and 3.85 L, respectively, whereas, the clarifier volume was equal to 5.25 L. The percentage of anoxic reactor volume was equal to 35％ of the total process volume (excluding the clarifier ) in the MLE process, whereas, the percentages of anoxic and anaerobic volumes were equal to 30％ and 13.5％(excluding the clarifier ), respectively, in the UCT process. The influent and biomass recirculation flow rates (including return activated sludg