4.4 Article

Hydraulic characteristics analysis of an anaerobic rotatory biological contactor (AnRBC) using tracer experiments and response surface methodology (RSM)

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 29, 期 7, 页码 891-902

出版社

KOREAN INSTITUTE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11814-011-0269-0

关键词

Anaerobic Rotatory Biological Contactor; Hydraulic Characteristics; Tracer Experiment; Response Surface Methodology

资金

  1. Kermanshah Water and Wastewater Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydraulic characteristic of an anaerobic rotating biological contactor (AnRBC) were studied by changing two important hydraulic factors effective in the treatment performance: the hydraulic retention time (tau) and rotational disk velocity (omega). The reactor hydraulic performance was analyzed by studying hydraulic residence time distributions (RTD) obtained from tracer (Rhodamine B) experiments. The experiments were conducted based on a central composite face-centered design (CCFD) and analyzed using response surface methodology (RSM). The region of exploration for the process was taken as the area enclosed by tau (60, 90 and 120 min) and omega (0.8 and 16 rpm) boundaries. Four dependent parameters, deviation from ideal retention time (Delta tau), dead volume percentage and dispersion indexes (Morrill dispersion index (MDI) and dispersion number (d)), were computed as response. The maximum modeled Delta tau and dead volume percentage was 43.03 min and 37.51% at tau and omega 120 min and 0 rpm, respectively. While, the minimum predicted responses (2.57 min and 8.08%) were obtained at tau and omega 60min and 16 rpm, respectively. The interaction showed that disk rotational velocity and hydraulic retention time played an important role in MDI in the reactor. The AnRBC hydraulic regime was classified as moderate and high dispersion (d=0.09 to 0.253). As a result, in addition to the factors studied, the reactor geometry showed significant effect on the hydraulic regime.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据