4.7 Article

Improving the quality of wastewater treatment plant monitoring by adopting proper sampling strategies and data processing criteria

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 806, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150724

关键词

Error estimation; Mass balance; Sampling strategy; Steady-state conditions; Removal efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monitoring is a crucial operation in plant management, but proper sampling procedures and data processing criteria are not always adopted. This study analysed important aspects of wastewater sampling and data processing to identify methods that should be adopted to obtain reliable and consistent information on plant performance.
Monitoring is a crucial operation for plant management. However, proper sampling procedures and data processing criteria are not always adopted. Wastewater treatment plants work under dynamic conditions, which poses a challenge for a correct performance assessment. The aim of this work is to analyse some important aspects of wastewater sampling and data processing, to identify case by case methods which should to be adopted in order to obtain reliable and consistent information on plant performance. The study was conducted through simulations and real data analyses. It turned out that: a) the preferable 24-hour composite sampling procedure is the flow-proportional mode; in addition, the required sampling frequency (i.e. the number of sub-samples to be taken to make the 24-h composite sample) increases as the percentage of population discontinuously discharging the monitored substance decreases; b) a Variability Index was defined to help find the minimum sampling frequency (i.e. the number of 24-h composite samples per year) for the calculation of annual mass flows with an acceptable uncertainty; and c) criteria were proposed for the identification of pseudo-steady state periods needed to calculate reliable mass balances and plant performance indicators. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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