Laserfiche WebLink
Pn!!er ~ ~ <br />FIGURE 3. Relationship between predicted and actual carrying capacity in five <br />biofilters. Carrying capacity was predicted with the analytical model described in <br />this paper. <br />i ui <br />Y 8( <br />T <br />a.+ <br />U <br />p 6( <br />is <br />u <br />rn <br />c <br />L 4( <br />m <br />U <br />7 21 <br />a-~ <br />v <br />Q <br />Predicted carrying capacity (kg) <br />A slightly modified form of Equation 12 that generated ammonia <br />removal estimates (Q) rather than carrying capacity estimates was <br />used for this comparison: <br />(14) <br />11.11"r - 11.20 tIXDS/F)/(XrDrSr/Fr)) ~ 60 <br />(LIIT~ - 0.2(I <br />Ammonia removal rates of the gravel biofilter at hydraulic load- <br />ing rates of 22, l 1, and 5 m1/cmz/minute were predicted using a <br />value of R (0.06) measured at a hydraulic loading rate of 44 ml/cm2/ <br />minute. Predicted rates were within 8 to 9% of the actual ammonia <br />removal rates at hydraulic loading rates of 22 and 11 ml/cm2/minute <br />(Table 2), indicating accurate extrapolation of predicted perfor- <br />mance to other hydraulic loading rates. However, at the hydraulic <br />0 20 40 60 80 100 <br />