United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA 600 2-79018
July 1979
Research and Development
Waste
Stabilization
Lagoon
Microorganism
Removal
Efficiency and
Effluent
Disinfection With
Chlorine
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-018
July 1979
WASTE STABILIZATION LAGOON MICROORGANISM REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY AND EFFLUENT DISINFECTION
WITH CHLORINE
by
Bruce A. Johnson, Jeffrey L. Wight, David S. Bowles,
James H. Reynolds and E. Joe Middlebrooks
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Logan, Utah 84322
Contract Number 68-03-2151
Project Officer
A. D. Venosa
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from
municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public
drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products
of that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
As part of these activities, this report was prepared to make available
to the sanitary engineering community a full year of operating and measured
performance data for wastewater stabilization lagoon coliform die-away and the
effects of chlorination on lagoon effluent quality -
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Chlorine disinfection of waste stabilization lagoon effluents has been
and is being considered a solution to bacterial removal prior to discharge to
receiving waters. To evaluate the amenability of algae-laden lagoon effluent
to chlorine disinfection, chlorination test facilities were constructed at the
Logan, Utah, wastewater lagoons. An investigation was conducted at these
facilities on primary and secondary, as well as filtered and unfiltered, lagoon
effluents between August 1, 1975, and August 24, 1976. The filtered effluent
was obtained by passing lagoon effluent through an intermittent sand filter
prior to chlorination.
The results of this study indicate that, in all cases, adequate disinfec-
tion was obtained with combined chlorine residual within a contact period of
60 minutes or less. Filtered effluent was found to exert less chlorine demand
than unfiltered effluent. It was also determined that temperature, sulfide,
and total chemical oxygen demand influence the chlorine dose necessary to
achieve a specified level of disinfection. Suspended solids and soluble chemi-
cal oxygen demand were found to be slightly altered as a result of chlorination.
A mathematical model was developed to represent the effects of chlorination
of lagoon effluents. This model was used to predict the chlorine dosages neces-
sary to achieve adequate disinfection for varying effluent characteristics. A
series of design curves were constructed from the model for use in selecting the
optimal chlorine dosages necessary for achieving prescribed levels of disinfec-
tion.
A second objective of the study was to evaluate the performance of the
Logan multi-cell lagoon system in removing coliform bacteria by natural means
without the need for disinfection. Both total and fecal coliform removal in
the lagoon system was related to hydraulic residence time. A coliform die-away
coefficient for summer months and winter months of 0.5 and 0.03 respectively
was determined.
A comparison was made between the membrane filter and Most Probable Number
techniques for enumerating coliform bacteria in each cell of the lagoon system.
Both techniques appear to show the same trends. Variations in results when
analyzing a common sample appear to be equal for both the total and fecal MPN
and the MF techniques. However, the absolute numerical value obtained from the
two techniques may differ substantially.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2151 by
Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322, under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period August 1975
to August 1976, and work was completed as of September 1976.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables xvii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xix
Acknowledgments xxiii
1. Introduction 1
Nature of Problem 1
Objectives 2
2. Conclusions 4
3. Recommendations 8
4. Literature Review 10
Performance Characteristics of Waste Stabilization
Lagoons 10
General Principles of Chlorination 11
Disinfection of Algae Laden Waters 16
Design of Chlorination Facilities 18
Chlorination Dynamics 25
Mathematical Modeling Approaches 31
5. Method of Procedure 32
Experimental Chlorination Facilities 32
Hydraulic Performance 35
Sampling and Analytical Procedure 43
Laboratory and Field Experimentation 47
Data Analysis 48
6. Results and Discussion of Chlorination Study 49
General 49
Laboratory Experiments 49
Field Experiments 60
Model Development 93
Model Calibration 120
Model Sensitivity Analysis 131
Model Verification 146
7. Results and Discussion of Lagoon Coliform Removal Study . . 175
General 175
Operation of the Logan City Lagoon System 175
Overall Lagoon Performance 176
Coliform Removal Performance 177
v
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
8. Comparison of MPN and MF Collform Concentrations in Lagoon
Effluent 195
General 195
Previous Studies 195
Total Coliform Regression Analyses 196
Total Coliform Geometric Mean Comparisons 201
Fecal Coliform Regression Analyses 205
Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean Comparisons 210
Standard Deviations 210
Summary and Conclusions 210
9. Literature Cited 216
Appendices
A. Chlorination Field Data August 1, 1975 - August 24, 1976 . . .227
B. Summary of Regression Statistics 256
C. Soluble COD Data and Effects of Volatile Suspended Solids
on Total Chlorine Residual 257
D. Coliform Reduction Data 269
E. Lagoon Evaluation Data June 1, 1975 - August 24, 1976 .... 277
F. CHLOR-I 331
G. CHLOR-II 339
H. Comparison of Most Probable Number (MPN) and Membrane
Filter (MF) Technique for Enumerating Total and
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 345
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Comparison between ideal and wastewater breakpoint chlorination
curves 15
2 Typical dispersion flow curve 21
3 Comparison of plug and backmix flow 22
4 Flow diagram of Logan City Wastewater Lagoon System 33
5 Experimental chlorination schematic 34
6 Chlorination facilities 36
7 Chlorine mixing and contact tanks 37
8 Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 1 39
9 Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 2 40
10 Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 3 41
11 Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 4 42
12 Location of lagoon and chlorination samples 44
13 The relationship between Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and
ammonia-nitrogen (NHg-N) in primary lagoon effluent
receiving various chlorine dosages and after various
chlorine contact periods on August 17, 1976 51
14 The relationship between Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and
ammonia-nitrogen (NH^-N) in primary lagoon effluent
receiving various chlorine dosages and after various
chlorine contact periods on August 19, 1976 52
15 The relationship between Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and
ammonia-nitrogen (NHo-N) in primary lagoon effluent
receiving various chlorine dosages and after various
chlorine contact periods on August 24, 1976 53
vii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number
16 The effect of various chlorine dosages and contact time on
various total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD) and soluble
chemical oxygen demand (SCOD) concentrations in primary
lagoon samples collected on April 9 and 10, 1976 56
17 The effect of various chlorine dosages and contact time on
various total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD) and soluble
chemical oxygen demand (SCOD) concentrations in primary
lagoon samples collected on August 26, 1976 57
18 Soluble COD versus chlorine contact time with different
chlorine dosages for primary lagoon samples collected
on April 9 and 10, 1976 58
19 Changes in soluble COD after a 120 minute contact time, due
to addition of chlorine as observed in primary lagoon
samples collected on April 9 and 10, 1976 59
20 Effects of various chlorine dosages on SS and turbidity of
primary lagoon effluent sampled on April 9 and 10, 1976 . . 61
21 Effects of various chlorine dosages on SS and turbidity of
primary lagoon effluent sampled on August 26, 1976 .... 62
22 Changes in suspended solids concentrations due to settling
within chlorine contact chamber on August 27, 1976, and
September 1, 1976 63
23 Relative accumulation of solids on the bottom of the chlorine
contact chamber due to settling between August 25, 1976,
and September 1, 1976 64
24 Observed soluble COD in the chlorinated or treated sample
with respect to the unchlorinated or control soluble COD
using filtered lagoon effluent 66
25 Observed soluble COD in the chlorinated or treated sample
with respect to the unchlorinated or control soluble COD
using unfiltered lagoon effluent 66
26 Effects of volatile suspended solids on the changes seen in
soluble COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated samples
using filtered lagoon effluent 57
27 Effects of volatile suspended solids on the changes seen in
soluble COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated samples
using unfiltered lagoon effluent 67
viii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number
28 Effects of applied chlorine dosage on the changes seen in
soluble COD between treated and untreated samples using
filtered lagoon effluent 69
29 Effects of applied chlorine dosage on the changes seen in
soluble COD between treated and untreated samples using
unfiltered lagoon effluent 69
30 Volatile suspended solids relationships between treated and
untreated or chlorinated and unchlorinated samples using
filtered lagoon effluent 70
31 Volatile suspended solids relationships between treated and
untreated or chlorinated and unchlorinated samples using
unfiltered lagoon effluent 70
32 Changes in soluble COD when free chlorine residual is present
in unfiltered lagoon effluent 71
33 Total coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes
contact time 74
34 Total coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes
contact time 74
35 Total coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes
contact time 75
36 Summary of total coliform removal efficiency in filtered lagoon
effluent as a function of total chlorine residual at various
chlorine contact times 75
37 Fecal coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes
contact time 76
38 Fecal coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes
contact time 76
39 Fecal coliform reduction in fi^ered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes
contact time 77
IX
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Numb er
40 Summary of fecal coliform removal efficiency in filtered
lagoon effluent as a function of total chlorine residual
at various chlorine contact times .......... 77
41 Total coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes
contact time ................. 78
42 Total coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes
contact time ................. 78
43 Total coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a
function of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes
contact time ................. 79
44 Summary of total coliform removal efficiency in unfiltered
lagoon effluent as a function of total chlorine residual
at various chlorine contact times .......... 79
45 Fecal coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as
a function of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes
contact time ................. 80
46 Fecal coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as
a function of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes
contact time ................. 80
47 Fecal coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as
a function of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes
contact time
48 Summary of fecal coliform removal efficiency in unfiltered
lagoon effluent as a function of total chlorine residual
at various chlorine contact times
49 Observed total chlorine residual remaining versus chlorine
dosage for chlorine contact times of 18, 35, and 50 minutes
using filtered lagoon effluent .......... g^
50 Observed total chlorine residual remaining versus chlorine
dosage for chlorine contact times of 18, 35, and 50 minutes
using unfiltered lagoon effluent . ..... gr
51 Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 18 minutes
contact time only versus chlorine dosage using filtered
lagoon effluent ................ 87
x
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
52 Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 35 minutes
contact time only versus chlorine dosage using filtered
lagoon effluent 87
53 Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 50 minutes
contact time only versus chlorine dosage using filtered
lagoon effluent 88
54 Summary of total chlorine residual remaining after various
contact times versus chlorine dosage using filtered lagoon
effluent 88
55 Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 18 minutes
contact time versus chlorine dosage using unfiltered lagoon
effluent 89
56 Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 35 minutes
contact time versus chlorine dosage using unfiltered lagoon
effluent 89
57 Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 50 minutes
contact time versus chlorine dosage using unfiltered lagoon
effluent 90
58 Summary of total chlorine residual remaining after various
contact times versus chlorine dosage using unfiltered lagoon
effluent 90
59 An adaptation of the chlorine breakpoint curve with CloJNI^-N
mole ratios 91
60 Chlorine demand with respect to Cl2:NH.,-N mole ratios for
filtered lagoon effluent 92
61 Chlorine demand with respect to C12:NH,.-N mole ratios for
unfiltered lagoon effluent 92
62 Total chlorine residual remaining at 0°-5°C versus chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) 94
63 Total chlorine residual remaining at 5 -10 C versus chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) 94
64 Total chlorine residual remaining at 10 -15 C versus chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) 95
xi
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
65 Total chlorine residual remaining at >15 C versus chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) 95
66 Summary of temperature effects on the relationship between
total chlorine residual and applied chlorine dosage using
unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min) .... 96
67 Total chlorine residual remaining at 0 -5 C versus chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) .---.-- .--•-. .. .~. 7"". ... 96
68 Total chlorine residual remaining at 5 -10 C versus chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) 97
69 Total chlorine residual remaining at 10 -15 C versus chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) 97
70 Total chlorine residual remaining at >15 C versus chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50
min) 98
71 Summary of temperature effects on the relationship between
total chlorine residual and applied chlorine dosage using
filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min) .... 98
72 Chlorine residual vs. dose for initial sulfide concentrations
of 1.0 - 1.8 mg/1 103
73 Sulfide vs. chlorine dose for initial sulfide = 1.2 mg/1 . . 105
74 Breakpoint chlorination curve for secondary lagoon effluent
sampled on December 15, 1975 106
75 Shift in the breakpoint curve using a CORNED factor of 0.5 . . 108
76 Determination of reaction order between free chlorine and
suspended COD
77 Determination of reaction order between chlorine residual
and SS -,-••,
78 Determination of reaction order for total and fecal coliform
reduction for three sample runs - ..
xii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
79 Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 1.0 mg/1 ... 121
80 Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 2.0 mg/1 ... 122
81 Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 3.0 mg/1 . . . 123
82 Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 4.0 mg/1 ... 124
83 Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 5.0 mg/1 ... 125
84 Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 7.0 mg/1 . . . 126
85 Calibration of CHLOR-I for combined chlorine 127
86 Relationship between observed and CHLOR-I predicted values
of suspended solids concentrations 129
87 Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of CC6 and CCS
by ±25 percent 133
88 Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of BNH2CL and
BHOCLT by ± 10 percent 134
89 Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of CTOTAL and
CFECAL by ± 10 percent 135
90 Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of CCS by ± 50
percent 136
91 Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of CC5 by
± 50 percent 137
92 Variation of coliform, with fluctuations of CHOCLT and CNH2CL
by ± 10 percent 138
93 Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of CHOCLT
and CNH2CL by ± 10 percent 139
94 Variation of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ by ± 5
percent at 22°C 140
95 Variation of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ by ± 5
percent at 5°C 141
96 Variation of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ2 by ± 5
percent at 22°C 142
xiii
-------
FIGURES^ CONTINUED)
Number Page
97 Variation of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ2 by ± 5
percent at 5°C 143
98 Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of TADJ2
by ± 5 percent at 22°C 144
99 Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of TADJ2
by ± 5 percent at 5°C 145
100 Combined chlorine residual at 5°C for coliform MPN =10 . 148
101 Combined chlorine residual at 5 C for coliform MPN =
104/100 ml 149
102 Combined chlorine residual at 5°C for coliform MPN = 10 . . .150
r\
103 Combined chlorine residual at 10°C for coliform MPN= 10 ... 151
104 Combined chlorine residual at 10°C for coliform MPN= 10 . . . 152
105 Combined chlorine residual at 10°C for coliform MPN= 10 ... 153
106 Combined chlorine residual at 15°C for coliform MPN= 10 ... 154
107 Combined chlorine residual at 15°C for coliform MPN= 1Q4 ... 155
108 Combined chlorine residual at 15°C for coliform MPN= 10 . . . 156
109 Combined chlorine residual at 20 C for coliform MPN= 10 ... 157
110 Combined chlorine residual at 20°C for coliform MPN= 10 . . . 158
111 Combined chlorine residual at 20 C for coliform MPN= 10 . . . 159
O "7
112 Combined chlorine residual at 25 C for coliform MPN= 10 . . . 160
113 Combined chlorine residual at 25°C for coliform MPN= 104 . . . 161
114 Combined chlorine residual at 25 C for coliform MPN= 10^ . 162
115 Conversion of combined chlorine residual at Temp 1 to
equivalent residual at 20°C
116 Conversion of combined residual chlorine at 5°C and TCOD1
to equivalent residual at 5°C and TCOD = 60 mg/1 . . .
xiv
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
117 Determination of chlorine dose required when S =0.5 mg/1,
TCOD = 60 mg/1, and Temp. = 5°C 165
118 Determination of chlorine dose required when S =1.0 mg/1,
TCOD = 60 mg/1, and Temp. = 5°C 166
119 Determination of chlorine dose required when S =1.5 mg/1,
TCOD = 60 mg/1, and Temp. = 5°C 167
120 Determination of chlorine dose required when S =2.0 mg/1,
TCOD = 60 mg/1, and Temp. = 5°C 168
121 Sulfide reduction as a function of chlorine dose 169
122 Conversion of combined chlorine residual at TCOD1 and 20 C to
equivalent residual at 20°C and TCOD = 60 mg/1 171
123 Determination of chlorine dose required for equivalent combined
residuals at TCOD = 60 mg/1 and Temp. = 20°C 172
124 Flow diagram of Logan City wastewater lagoon system .... 178
125 Schematic of the dead and effective spaces, and plug flow
through a pond 185
126a Simulation results for the summer period (6/12/75 - 9/9/75)—
calculated and measured coliform vs. time 188
126b Simulation results for the summer period (6/12/75 - 9/9/75)—
retention time vs. time 189
127a Simulation results for the winter period (1/2/76 - 2/19/76)—
calculated and measured coliform vs. time 190
127b Simulation results for the winter period (1/2/76 - 2/19/76)—
retention time vs. time 191
128 Retention time required in the Logan lagoon system to reduce
an influent coliform level to a required effluent coliform
level under summer conditions 193
129 Retention time required in the Logan lagoon system to reduce
an influent coliform level to a required effluent coliform
level under winter conditions 194
xv
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number
130 The relationship between the log of the total coliform
concentrations determined by the MPN technique and the
log of the total coliform concentrations determined by
the MF technique 197
131 The relationship between the log of the fecal coliform
concentrations determined by the MPN technique and the
log of the fecal coliform concentrations determined by
the MF technique 206
xvi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Description of Logan City Wastewater Lagoons 33
2 Summary of Dye Studies 38
3 Description of Sample Locations Shown in Figure 12 45
4 Sample Site Description and Analyses to be Performed .... 46
5 Effects of Chlorine on Measured Ammonia 49
6 The Effects of Chlorine Dose on Total Chemical Oxygen Demand
(TCOD), Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand (SCOD), Suspended
Solids (SS), Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS), and Turbidity
of Primary Lagoon Effluent Samples Collected on April 9 and
10, 1976, and August 26, 1976 55
7 Fluctuations of the Organic Nitrogen Correction Factor
(CORNH3) for Data Where Breakpoint Kinetics Apply .... 130
8 Comparison of CHLOR-I and CHLOR-II as Describing Breakpoint
Chlorination 131
9 Values of Coefficients Used in CHLOR-I 132
10 Summary of Example for Selecting Chlorine Dose for Fecal
Coliform Reduction from 104/100 ml to 102/100 ml in 30
Minutes 173
11 Water Surface Area and Capacity of Each Pond in the Logan
City Sewage Lagoon System 183
12 Model Coefficients for the Summer and Winter Periods .... 187
13 Characteristics of the Regression Line for the Relationship
Between the Total Coliform Concentrations Determined by
the Most Probable Number (MPN) (Ordinate) and the Membrane
Filter (MF) (Abscissa) Techniques 198
14 Characteristics of the Regression Lines for the Relationship
Between the Total Coliform Concentrations Determined by
the Most Probable Number (MPN) and the Membrane Filter (MF)
Techniques with the Data Divided into Ranges of Values . . . 198
xvii
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
15 Characteristics of the Regression Lines (Forced Zero Intercept)
for the Relationship Between the Total Coliform Concentrations
Determined by the Most Probable Number (MPN) and the Membrane
Filter (MF) Techniques with the Data Divided into Ranges of
Values 200
16 Equivalent Values for MPN and MF Total Coliform Concentrations
Calculated from Regression Equations 200
17 Comparison of Geometric Means for Total Coliform Concentrations
by the Most Probable Number (MPN) and Membrane Filter (MF)
Techniques 202
18 Characteristics of the Regression Line for the Relationship
Between the Fecal Coliform Concentrations Determined by
the Most Probable Number (MPN) (Ordinate) and the Membrane
Filter (MF) (Abscissa) Techniques 207
19 Characteristics of the Regression Lines for the Relationship
Between the Fecal Coliform Concentrations Determined by the
Most Probable Number (MPN) and the Membrane Filter (MF)
Techniques with the Data Divided into Ranges of Values . . . 208
20 Characteristics of the Regression Lines (Forced Zero Intercept)
for the Relationship Between the Fecal Coliform Concentrations
Determined by the Most Probable Number (MPN) and the Membrane
Filter (MF) Techniques with the Data Divided into Ranges of
Values 209
21 Equivalent Values for MPN and MF Fecal Coliform Concentrations
Calculated from Equations 209
22 Comparison of Geometric Means for Fecal Coliform Concentrations
Determined by the Most Probable Number (MPN) and Membrane
Filter (MF) Techniques 211
23 The Means and Standard Deviations for the Log Values of the
Total and Fecal Coliform Concentrations at the Various
Sampling Stations 214
xviii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
BOD
COD
Coli
DDW
DO
FC
gal.
gpm
L
1
MF
mg/1
MI
min.
ml
MPN
m^/day
SCOD
sec
TC
TCOD
Temp
TKN
TOG
Turb
V
VSS
W
SYMBOLS
Ca++
Ca(OCl)2
CC1
Ceff
Cl
five day biochemical oxygen demand
chemical oxygen demand
coliform
deionized distilled water
dissolved oxygen
fecal coliforin
gallon
gallons per day
gallons per minute
length
liter
membrane filter
milligram per liter
Morrill Index
minute
milliliter
Most Probable Number
cubic meters per day
soluble chemical oxygen demand
second
total coliform
total chemical oxygen demand
temperature
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
total organic carbon
turbidity
volume
volatile suspended solids
width
water surface area of the ith pond
concentration at time = t
concentration at time = 0
calcium ion
calcium hypochlorite
combined chlorine residual
proportionality constant
chlorine
xix
-------
C12
ci-
DQ
E
FC1
H
H+
HAC
HC1
HOC1
H20
H2S04
K
Kr
JXrn
K20
K5
Mn++
N
NO
Na
Nt
N2
NaOCl
NH4C1
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
N02~
OC1~
Q
R
S
SL
So
S=
a
b
c
d
e
k
m
n
P
t
t.
chlorine gas
chloride ion
change in storage
chlorine demand at time = t
chlorine demand at 1 hour
activation energy
free chlorine residual
ferrous ion
hydrogen
hydrogen ion
acetic acid
hydrochloric acid
hypochlorous acid
water
sulfuric acid
empirical constant
rate constant
rate of bacterial die-away coefficient at any temperature
rate of bacterial die-away coefficient at 20°C
rate of bacterial die-away coefficient at 5°C
manganese ion
number of organisms at any time
initial number of organisms
number of organisms at a minutes
number of organisms at t minutes
nitrogen gas
sodium hypochlorite
ammonium chloride
ammonia nitrogen
nitrite nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
nitrite ion
dissociated hypochlorous acid (hypochlorite ion)
flowrate
correlation coefficient
sulfide remaining after chlorine dose
lower limit of sulfide detection
initial sulfide concentration
sulfide ion
Q/V (theoretical detention time)
capacity of the ith pond
a constant
a constant
chlorine residual
dispersion index
pan evaporation
temperature dependent rate constant
slope
coefficient of dilution
plug flow fraction
time
time for tracer to initially appear at tank outlet
xx
-------
t-
50't90
tf/T
tg/T
Veff
X
UK
0
AS COD
a
B
time for tracer at outlet to reach peak concentration
time for 10, 50, and 90 percent of the tracer to pass at
tank outlet
time to reach centroid of the effluent curve
index of short circuiting
index of modal detention time
index of mean detention time
index of average detention time
Morrill Dispersion Index—indication of degree of mixing
effective volume
chlorine dose
coliform count at time = t
coliform count at t = 0
degrees centrigrade
degrees kelvin
constant in Arrhenius equation or hydraulic residence time
change in soluble chemical oxygen demand
inter-pond flow
empirical constant
molar concentration
summation
less than
greater than
SYMBOLS USED IN CHLOR-I
ANH2CL
ARATIO
BHOCLT
BNH2CL
CC1-CC9
CFECAL
CHOCLT
CLX
CLY
CNH2CL
CORNH3
CTCOD
CTOTAL
CV
DT
combined chlorine, mg/1
ratio of chlorine to NH3 at T = 0
empirical constant—define effect of free chlorine on
bacteria destruction
empirical constant—defines effect of combined chlorine on
bacteria destruction
empirical rate constants
empirical constant used to describe rate of fecal coliform
destruction
empirical constant used in defining rate of chlorine demand
the initial amount of free chlorine
the initial amount of combined chlorine
empirical constant used in defining rate of exertion of
combined chlorine demand
an empirical correction factor to change the shape of the
breakpoint curve to compensate for the reaction of chlorine
with organic nitrogen
empirical constant used in defining rate of chlorine demand
empirical constant used to describe rate of total coliform
destruction
coefficient of variation
the time step used in calculating the dependent variable
(min.)
an empirical constant which specifies the settling fraction
of SS which will settle out in a plug flow reactor
xxi
-------
HOCLT
NH3T
NN
PRI
RSQ
SRATIO
SIDE
T
TADJ
TADJ2
TFIN
free chlorine, mg/1
total ammonia, mg/1
the number of times the program is to be run
a print command which specifies at what time interval an
answer is to be printed out
R squared
the ratio of moles chlorine consumed per mole of sulfide
consumed
standard error
time, the independent variable, minutes
the temperature adjustment factor to account for the changes
in bacterial kill with changing temperature
the temperature adjustment factor to compensate for changes
in the rate at which chlorine demand is exerted with changing
temperature
a control command specifying the length of time for which the
simulation is to be made
SYMBOLS USED IN CHLOR-II
C1-C9
CC4-CC9
DT
DTMIN
DTOUT
DY
EPS
ERROR
JSTART
KFLAG
N
T
TMAX
Y
YMAX
rate constants, breakpoint reactions
rate constants developed in CHLOR-I
the initial step size
the minimum step size that should be allowed
the interval for printing out the values of dependent
variables
the values of the derivatives at the start of the interval
the error test constant
the estimated single step error in each component
an initialization indicator, JSTART = -1 means to repeat the
last step, JSTART = +1 means take a new step
a completion code, KFLAG = +1 means the step was successful,
KFLAG = -1 means the requested errpr was not achieved
the number of first order differential equations
the independent variable, time (seconds)
the end of the interval being considered
the dependent variables
the maximum values of the dependent variables
xxn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation and assistance of the Logan City Engineer, Mr. Ray Hugie,
is greatly appreciated. Assistance in the operation of the Logan City Waste
Stabilization Lagoon System was provided by Logan City personnel. The con-
scientious effort of the laboratory technicians, particularly Bodell Barton,
Nancy Jo Law, Jim Geier, Kathy Lista, and Jacquie Taylor was invaluable.
The work was performed under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract Number 68-03-2151.
xxiii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
NATURE OF PROBLEM
Waste stabilization lagoons have been used for many years to provide
adequate treatment of domestic wastes. Since lagoons require very little
operator control and maintenance for successful performance, they have been
particularly popular among small and rural communities, where land is rela-
tively inexpensive. However, since passage of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, more stringent discharge standards have been
placed on effluent from publicly-owned waste treatment works. The federal
secondary effluent standards for waste stabilization ponds, which must be met
by 1977, state that the five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) shall not
exceed an arithmetic mean value of 30 mg/1 for effluent samples collected in
a period of 30 consecutive days and that effluent suspended solids shall not
deteriorate receiving stream quality. No specific effluent suspended solids
or fecal coliform bacteria concentration has been established. However ef-
fluent suspended solids concentration in general should not exceed an arithmetic
mean value of 30 mg/1 for effluent samples collected in a period of 30 con-
secutive days. In addition, the geometric mean of fecal coliform bacteria in
the effluent should not exceed 200 per 100 ml for samples collected over
seven consecutive days.
Many states have even more stringent requirements than the Federal
Government. The State of Utah, for example, has a 1977 effluent standard of
25 mg/1 for BOD^ and SS, along with the geometric mean fecal coliform bacteria
limit of 200 per 100 ml in samples collected over 30 consecutive days. By
1980, the Utah standards are to become more stringent and will restrict the
arithmetic mean concentration of EOD^ and SS to 10 mg/1 for effluent samples
collected over a period of 30 consecutive days. For total and fecal coliform
bacteria, the geometric means shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml and 20 per 100
ml, respectively, on effluent samples collected over 30 consecutive days.
There are serious doubts about the ability of most existing waste
stabilization lagoons to meet these more stringent requirements. Possible
alternatives include improving lagoon efficiency by complete redesign or by
adding a disinfection process to final lagoon effluent. Redesign of lagoon
systems is generally considered economically impractical. Therefore, dis-
infection appears -to be a promising approach to ensure that lagoon effluents
meet the new standards. Because chlorine has been used successfully for many
years as a water and wastewater disinfectant and because of its widespread
availability and low cost, it is the most obvious choice as a disinfectant.
-------
However, there are many unanswered questions concerning the effects of
chlorination of effluents from waste stabilization lagoons.
There is little known concerning the effects of chlorine on algal cells.
Recent studies have indicated that concentrations of chlorine necessary to
achieve sufficient disinfection may cause the lysis of algal cells, resulting
in a release of dissolved organic material to the treated effluent. This in
turn may cause the biochemical oxygen demand of the effluent to increase, and
thus, defeat one of the purposes of waste stabilization lagoons. Another
problem with chlorination is the toxicity imparted to aquatic organisms by
inorganic and organic chloramines formed by the reaction of chlorine with
ammonia and nitrogenous organic compounds. Discharge of these compounds to
receiving waters must be minimized if the ecological balance of the stream is
to be preserved. In addition to these problems, there are serious questions
concerning the design, operation, and maintenance of lagoon effluent chlorina-
tion facilities. Also, there is a lack of information concerning the degree
of coliform die-away or physical removal which occurs within the lagoon system.
It is possible lagoon systems may be designed in such a manner that lagoon
effluent disinfection may not be necessary.
These questions must be answered if regulatory agencies, consulting
engineers, and public officials are to have sufficient information to assist
them in selecting the most desirable method of upgrading waste stabilization
lagoon effluents. Therefore, this study was undertaken with the primary pur-
pose of obtaining data from a field scale investigation under a variety of
operating conditions and using this data to develop a procedure for optimizing
chlorination of lagoon effluents. In addition, the lagoon hydraulic residence
time required to achieve a degree of coliform removal equivalent to disinfection
was investigated.
OBJECTIVES
General
The general objective of this investigation was two fold: (1) to deter-
mine the amenability of algae-laden lagoon effluent to chlorine disinfection,
and (2) to evaluate the natural die-away or removal of bacteria in a well-
designed, multi-cell lagoon system to establish whether or not the need exists
for lagoon effluent disinfection. A mathematical model was developed to assist
in predicting a range of chlorine dose necessary to achieve maximum chlorine
disinfection efficiency with a minimum of adverse effects on the overall
quality of the lagoon effluent.
Specific
To accomplish the above general objectives the following specific ob-
jectives were achieved in connection with a 190 m3/day (50,000 gpd) chlorination
facility located at a seven cell municipal waste stabilization lagoon system:
1. Compile, review, and evaluate the literature pertaining to disinfection
of lagoon effluents.
-------
2. Design and construct field scale facilities for providing efficient
and effective chlorination of waste stabilization lagoon effluent.
3. Evaluate the performance of the chlorination facility by collecting
data at varying chlorine dosages and contact times and under varying
seasonal conditions.
4. Determine the effects of algae on the chlorination process by com-
paring direct chlorination of primary and/or secondary lagoon effluent
with "polished" primary and/or secondary effluent which has been
filtered through intermittent sand filters before chlorination.
5. Determine the chlorine residual concentrations required to reduce
bacterial populations to an acceptable level for the waste stabiliza-
tion lagoon effluent.
6. Determine the effects of volatile suspended solids, ammonia, and
temperature on chlorine residual.
7. Determine the effects of chlorination on lagoon effluent soluble
chemical oxygen demand under field chlorination practices.
8. Conduct laboratory investigations for the purpose of determining
basic relationships which describe the effects of chlorine on chemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids, and other water quality parameters
of lagoon effluent.
9. Use the data obtained from field and laboratory studies as well as
from literature review to develop a model for predicting performance
of the lagoon effluent disinfection process.
10. Compare the model performance with actual field data.
11. Use the model to prepare design curves for chlorination of algae laden
waters to determine the chlorine dose required for various levels of
disinfection.
12. Determine the lagoon hydraulic residence time required to achieve
coliform die-away equivalent to disinfection.
13. Compare the Most Probable Number and Membrane Filter techniques for
enumeration of total and fecal coliform bacteria in waste stabiliza-
tion lagoon systems.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions concerning the chlorination of waste stabiliza-
tion lagoon effluent, the removal of coliform bacteria by a waste stabilization
lagoon system and the compatibility of the Most Probable Number method and the
Membrane Filter method for the enumeration of coliform bacteria in a waste
stabilization lagoon system are based on the results of this study.
1. The rate of chlorine disinfection was determined to be a function of
chlorine dose and bacterial concentrations.
2. Results indicate increased coliform reduction with increasing chlorine
contact times in both the filtered and unfiltered lagoon effluent.
Similar results are found in the literature.
3. Greater total and fecal coliform reductions can be obtained with
higher concentrations of total chlorine residual in both the filtered
and unfiltered lagoon effluent at chlorine contact times of 35
minutes or less.
4. Filtration of algae laden lagoon effluent improves chlorination ef-
ficiency by reducing chlorine demand and, therefore, reducing the
chlorine dose which must be applied to achieve the desired dis-
infection result. The reduction in bacterial numbers as a result
of filtration also improves chlorination efficiency.
5. Reduction of total and fecal coliform concentrations can be accom-
plished at lower total chlorine residual levels if the lagoon ef-
fluent is filtered through an intermittent sand filter prior to
chlorine injection. Filtered lagoon effluent required an average
of 42 percent less total chlorine residual than unfiltered lagoon
effluent to reduce total coliform bacteria to the same level. An
average of 23 percent less total chlorine residual is needed in fil-
tered lagoon effluent to attain the same fecal coliform organism
reduction as unfiltered lagoon effluent.
6. In almost all cases, adequate disinfection was obtained with com-
bined chlorine residuals between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1 after a contact
period of approximately 50 minutes. This indicates that disinfection
can be achieved without discharging excessive concentrations to toxic,
chlorine residuals into receiving waters.
-------
7. Because of reduced solids and subsequent improvements in effluent
quality in the filtered lagoon effluent, the titrable chlorine
residual is less likely to be the less bactericidal organic chloramine
forms reported in the literature. The chlorine residual remaining in
the filtered lagoon effluent consequently is more effective in de-
stroying microorganisms and therefore less residual is required to
produce desired coliform reduction levels.
8. Filtered lagoon effluent was found to exert a lower chlorine demand
than unfiltered effluent. The difference in chlorine demand between
filtered and unfiltered effluent was dependent upon the applied
chlorine dose. Approximately 50 percent of the applied chlorine
dosage is taken up by materials that create a chlorine demand in both
the filtered and unfiltered lagoon effluent. This was attributed to
reductions of total chemical oxygen demand and suspended solids.
With this observation, the rate of exertion of chlorine demand was
determined to be directly related to chlorine dose and total chemical
oxygen demand.
9. No apparent difference in chlorine demand can be attained with
chlorine contact times that vary from 17 to 50 minutes for either
the filtered or unfiltered lagoon effluent.
10. The field data presented in this report are inconclusive on the effect
of volatile suspended solids on chlorine demand. However, the data
did indicate no increase in chlorine demand with increasing quantities
of volatile suspended solids for either the filtered or unfiltered
lagoon effluent.
11. Both disinfection efficiency and the exertion of chlorine demand were
found to be temperature dependent. The chlorine residual necessary
to effect a given coliform reduction increased as temperature
decreased.
12. Greater chlorine dosages were required to obtain similar concen-
trations of total chlorine residual at lower temperatures for un-
filtered lagoon effluent. Results show that 83 percent more applied
chlorine is needed to disinfect unfiltered lagoon effluent at
temperatures less than 5°C than is required to disinfect unfiltered
lagoon effluent at temperatures greater than 15°C. Results of this
kind were not observed with filtered lagoon effluent. Explanations
as to why these temperature relationships were not seen in the
filtered lagoon effluent could not be found.
13. Increasing the total applied chlorine dose did not effect a corre-
sponding increase in soluble chemical oxygen demand in the treated
effluent, except possibly when sufficient chlorine was added to
result in a free chlorine residual (breakpoint chlorination). Even
then, the soluble COD increases were only apparent in the unfiltered
lagoon effluent. Thus, chlorination of algae-laden lagoon effluent
will not create a substantial organic burden to the receiving stream
due to algal lysis.
-------
14. In the field data, reductions in suspended solids as a result of
chemical reaction with chlorine were found to be of limited impor-
tance in comparison with reductions in suspended solids resulting
from settling within the chlorine contact chamber. Suspended solids
were found to be reduced by 10-50 percent due to settling.
15. Although plug'Tflow reactors are ideal for disinfection, they also
have disadvantages because of problems associated with the ac-
cumulation and removal of solids.
16. Breakpoint chlorination for waste stabilization lagoon effluent is
affected by concentrations of organic nitrogen as well as NH^-N.
The breakpoint is highly variable and reflects quality and quantity
changes in effluent characteristics. The reactions to describe
breakpoint chlorination for water were found to be insufficient in
explaining breakpoint chlorination for wastewater.
17. Under laboratory conditions, chlorination of lagoon effluent resulted
in an increase in turbidity and a decrease in suspended solids.
These changes were dependent upon the composition and concentration
of suspended solids and resulted from the breakdown of suspended
particles.
18. Sulfide, produced as a result of anaerobic conditions existing in
the lagoons during the winter months, exerts a significant chlorine
demand. For sulfide concentrations of 1.0-1.8 mg/1, a chlorine dose
of 6 to 7 mg/1 was required to produce the same chlorine residual as
a chlorine dose of about 1 mg/1 for conditions of no sulfide.
19. Breakpoint chlorination was determined to be rarely, if ever, neces-
sary in disinfecting waste stabilization lagoon effluent. For this
study, free chlorine residual was observed in less than 6 percent of
the data and in almost all of these cases, total and fecal coliform
concentrations were reduced to less than 2/100 ml within 18 minutes.
Free chlorine residuals were observed during algae blooms when
ammonia occurs in low concentrations. However, mean coliform levels
were also found to be low during algae blooms, indicating that even
when the concentration of ammonia is sufficiently low to allow the
breakpoint reaction, disinfection can be achieved in less than 50
minutes contact time without the use of free chlorine residual.
20. A steady state representation of breakpoint chlorination was found
to be as adequate as a dynamic kinetic representation. However,
neither approach was found to be truly satisfactory in explaining
the complex reactions associated with breakpoint chlorination for
waste stabilization lagoon effluent.
21. The mathematical model which was prepared to describe the disinfection
of waste stabilization lagoon effluent was found to predict results
which compare favorably with observed data for cases in which break-*
point chlorination does not apply. In comparing the predicted with
the observed combined chlorine residual needed for a given coliform
-------
reduction, 65 percent of the data sets produced correlation coef-
ficients of significance at the 95 percent confidence level. For
total and fecal coliforms, 81 percent of the data sets were signifi-
cant at the 95 percent confidence level.
22. The results of this study indicate that, contrary to current opinions,
adequate bacterial removal in waste stabilization ponds can be
achieved with relatively low doses of applied chlorine during most
of the year.
23. The performance of the lagoon system with respect to organic material,
nutrients, and bacteria varied on a seasonal basis.
24. The summer period of lagoon coliform die-away or removal rate was
approximately 16 times greater than the winter coliform die-away or
removal rate.
25. Both the Most Probable Number (MPN) and Membrane Filter (MF) tech-
niques for measuring total and fecal coliform bacteria appear to
contain approximately the same amount of inherent variation.
26. The absolute numerical values of total and fecal coliform bacteria
obtained by employing the Most Probable Number (MPN) and Membrane
Filter (MF) techniques may differ substantially.
27. Both the Most Probable Number (MPN) and the Membrane Filter (MF)
techniques identify similar trends in relative concentrations of
total and fecal coliform bacteria through the lagoon system.
28. Disagreements between the absolute values of total and fecal coliform
concentrations obtained using the Most Probable Number (MPN) and
Membrane Filter (MF) techniques cannot be explained by either sea-
sonal variations or the suspended solids concentrations of the sample.
29. Inherent variations in the Most Probable Number (MPN) and Membrane
Filter (MF) techniques for measuring total and fecal coliform
bacteria appear to be equivalent, and thus one technique does not
appear to be more reliable than the other.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Studies should be conducted to learn more about the chemical reactions
and kinetics involved in breakpoint chlorination for wastewater high in
nitrogenous materials such as waste stabilization lagoon effluent.
2. Studies are needed to improve the design of chlorine contact chambers with
regard to minimizing the accumulation of solids. Although plug flow re-
actors are ideal for disinfection, they may also have limitations, depend-
ing on their design, because of problems associated with the accumulation
and removal of solids.
3. Continued research is needed to determine other methods, besides inter-
mittent sand filtration, for enhancing chlorination efficiency.
4. The effects of varying particle sizes for the intermittent sand filters
with regards to improving chlorination efficiency should be determined as
an aid in selecting appropriate sized sand for optimal improvement in
efficiency.
5. Additional laboratory and field studies need to be conducted to determine
more quantitatively and qualitatively the effects of chlorine on sulfide,
suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, and other lagoon effluent
constituents.
6. Considering the variability of chlorination practice for lagoon effluent,
economical studies should be conducted to determine the costs of chlori-
nation compared with other alternatives.
7. Laboratory followed by field experimentation on the effects of specific
chlorine residual species (monochloramine, dichloramine, hypochlorite ion,
and hypochlorous acid) upon soluble chemical oxygen demand is needed.
The effects of volatile suspended solids upon these specific species of
chlorine residual would also be of interest for additional chlorine demand
information.
8. Adaptations of the chlorine breakpoint curve should be evaluated where
total organic nitrogen is of influence.
9. Studies should be undertaken which will indicate, specifically if
volatile suspended solids reductions seen during chlorination practices
are the results of chlorination or the results of settling within the
chlorine contact chambers.
-------
10. Total and fecal coliform bacteria standards should be correlated with the
technique (MPN or MF) employed to measure the bacterial concentrations.
-------
SECTION 4
LITERATURE REVIEW
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF
WASTE STABILIZATION LAGOONS
In investigating the effects of chlorination on waste stabilization
lagoon effluent, it is necessary to gain a basic understanding of lagoon per-
formance. Lagoons have been constructed following a wide variety of design
parameters. Because of this, there is a large variance in the degree of
treatment that can be expected from a lagoon system. Echelberger et al.
(1971) found an effective reduction of fecal coliforms of only 90 percent,
while Shindala and Mahloch (1974) described a reduction of both total and
fecal coliforms in excess of 99 percent in multiple cell lagoon systems.
There are several reasons for differences in the degree of bacterial
reduction among lagoon systems. Probably the most important single factor is
the number and configuration of lagoon cells. Marais (1974) found that a
multiple cell system is considerably more efficient than a single pond. It
was also determined by Joshi, Parhad, and Rao (1973) that the reduction of
Salmonellae is a function of the number and interconnection of lagoon cells.
These factors were determined to be more important than detention time in
producing effective bacterial reduction. However, Franzmathes (1970) indicated
that careful control of detention time is of considerable importance for good
lagoon performance. Another factor which may be of some importance in re-
moving bacteria is the composition of the algae population. Although it has
been shown that individual species have little effect on the die-off rate of
enteric bacteria, it has also been shown by Burkhead (1973) that more rapid
die-off rates occur when mixed cultures of algae are present.
The usual means of determining the effectiveness of a lagoon system is by
measuring the reduction of fecal coliforms. However, the reduction of indicator
organisms does not necessarily mean a corresponding reduction of pathogenic
organisms. For example, it has been found by Davis and Gloyna (1972) that
some Salmonellae actually grow quite well in algal laden lagoon waters. In
spite of this shortcoming, Sobsey and Cooper (1973) have suggested that algal-
bacterial systems are much more effective in reducing viruses than a bacterial
system would be with no algae. There are a number of theories which attempt
to describe the role of algae in reducing numbers of bacteria and viruses.
Several of these are discussed by Parhad and Rao (1974) and include the ideas
that algae produce anti-bacterial and other toxic substances, deplete the
nutrients which would other wise be available for bacteria, produce a high pH "
and cause microbial antagonism. Algal growth also establishes high oxida- '
tion-reduction potentials which adversely affect bacteria and viruses The
10
-------
high pH produced by algae is especially important in controlling bacterial
populations. For example, Esoheirieh'ia ooli cannot survive above a pH of 9.2.
However, it is not uncommon for algae to produce pH values as high as 10.0
in a stabilization pond (Metcalf and Eddy, 1972).
Temperature also is an important factor in lagoon performance. It has
been shown by Post (1970) that the disappearance of bacteria in stabilization
ponds is directly related to water temperature. The water temperature is
actually a function of air temperature and light intensity. As temperature
increases, the rate of bacterial reduction also increases. In developing a
relationship derived from the Arrhenius equation, Marais (1974) has pointed
out that the rate of bacterial decay at a particular temperature, K-p, varies
with temperature according to the following equation.
KT = K20
In this equation, 9 is a constant equal to 1.19 and KOQ, the decay constant at
20°C, is 2.6.
Other factors, such as the aerobic-anaerobic nature of a lagoon, also
influence bacterial removal efficiencies. An important concept, emphasized
in the literature, is the idea that the degree of reduction of bacteria is
highly variable from lagoon to lagoon, and even from season to season within
the same lagoon. This suggests the need for a disinfection process to be
used on lagoon effluent to ensure compliance with tightening water quality
standards.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CHLORINATION
Chlorination is the most widely accepted approach to disinfection of
stabilization pond effluent. In determining the effects of chlorine on algal
laden waters, it is necessary to review basic principles of chlorination.
Most chlorination is accomplished by use of chlorine gas or by a hypochlorite,
such as Ca(OCl)2- When chlorine gas is used, the gas hydrolyzes in water to
form hypochlorous acid (HOC1). In a pure water system, the reaction is as
follows:
C12 + H20 ~t HOC1 + H+ + Cl~ (2)
- +
Hypochlorous acid dissociates to form OC1 and H :
HOC1 J H+ + OC1~ (3)
When Ca(OCl)2 is used, OC1 is formed:
Ca(OCl)2 + Ca"1"1" + 20C1~ (4)
The OC1 forms the same equilibrium conditions with HOC1 as described by
Equation 3. Chlorine in the form of HOC1 and OC1~ is known as free chlorine.
11
-------
To achieve efficient disinfection, it is generally desirable to have most
of the free chlorine in the form of HOC1. According to Butterfield (1943),
and more recently reinforced by Poduska and Hershey (1972) and Gulp (1974),
HOC1 is much more effective as a disinfectant than OC1~. Laubusch (1962)
suggests that the reason for this is that OC1~ has more difficulty in pene-
trating bacterial cell walls because of its negative charge. Estimates indi-
cate that for most bacteria, HOC1 may be as much as 200 times more effective
as a disinfectant than OC1~ . Scarpino et al. (1974) has found exception to
this generalization and points out that OC1~ is more effective than HOC1
against some animal viruses. Hypochlorous acid (HOC1) predominates at pH less
than 5.0. As the pH increases, the equilibrium shifts towards the formation
of OC1~. In the pH range of 5.0-7.5, HOC1 still accounts for 50 percent or
more of the free chlorine. Above pH 7.5, OC1~ is the predominant form.
In many waters, particularly wastewaters, various chemical components
react with free chlorine to form compounds which are ineffective as dis-
infectants (Snow, 1952). That is, the rates of reactions between chlorine
and these components are faster than the rate at which chlorine attacks and
kills bacteria and viruses. As pointed out by Sawyer (1960) Fe++, Mn"*'1", N02~ ,
and S= are common reducing agents which readily neutralize chlorine to the
harmless chloride ion. A typical reaction is as follows.
H2S + 4C12 + 4H20 -> H2S04 + 8HC1 .......... (5)
Organic compounds with unsaturated carbon linkages also react readily with
chlorine. For example,
Cl Cl
I i
-C=C- + C10 -»• -C-C- .............. (6)
ii z ii
H H H H
Chloro-substitution reactions may also occur.
Ammonia reacts with free chlorine, but the compounds formed are not
entirely ineffective in killing bacteria and viruses. In fact, chloramines,
as these compounds are known, are very important in disinfection because of
their persistence in water and wastewater. Free chlorine is considerably more
effective as a disinfectant than are chloramines. Butterfield and Wattie
(1946) and Gulp (1974) have pointed out that chloramines are only about l/25th
as effective in killing bacteria. Also, chloramines require a contact period
of 60-144 times longer than the same concentration of free chlorine to produce
the same kill. Chloramines are fairly stable and can continue to provide
disinfection activity for some time after application. The common forms of
chloramines, or combined chlorine as they are called, are monochloramine,
dichloramine, and nitrogen trichloride. The reactions for their formation
are as follows.
NH3 + HOC1 £ NH2C1 + H20 ............. (7)
NH2C1 + HOC1 NHC12 + H20 ............
NHC12 + HOC1 •£ NCI + H20 ............. (9)
12
-------
Moore (1951) and Gulp (1974) indicate that monochloramine predominates
above pH 8.5, while dichloramine predominates in the range of pH 4.5 to pH
8.5. Below pH 4.5, nitrogen trichloride is the predominant form. The rates
at which chloramines are formed are extremely rapid and are generally con-
sidered to follow second order reaction kinetics. For example, the reaction
rate for monochloramine formation can be expressed by the following equation.
~ = -K CN (10)
dt r
In this equation, dC/dt is the rate of decrease of HOC1 or NH^ per unit time,
Kr is a rate constant, C is the concentration of hypochlorous acid in moles/1
and N is the concentration of ammonia in moles/1. The rates of reactions are
very much pH and temperature dependent as pointed out by Weil and Morris (1949)
and Moore (1951). Jolley (1973) gave Kr for monochloramine formation a value
of 6.11 x 1()6 I/mole-sec at 25°C. At this rate, monochloramine formation is
99 percent complete within one minute. The value of Kr for dichloramine
formation was 3.4 x 10^ I/mole-sec at 25°C. Nitrogen trichloride is formed
more slowly than either monochloramine or dichloramine. The rate of formation
of chloramines, particularly monochloramine, is faster, in fact, than the rate
of inactivation of many types of bacteria. Gulp (1974), however, has shown
that chlorine>does inactivate some viruses at an even faster rate than chlor-
amine formation.
Chlorine can be used as a treatment step to drive off undesirable ammonia.
This is known as breakpoint chlorination. In this process, chlorine is added
until all the chlorine has reacted with ammonia to form combined chlorine
(chloramines). With the addition of more chlorine, the ammonia is converted
to nitrogen gas and driven off while chlorine is reduced to chloride ion. Any
additional chlorine beyond the "breakpoint" is maintained in solution as free
chlorine residual. The mechanisms involved in breakpoint chlorination are
fairly complex, but the overall reaction may be represented as follows.
2NH3 + 3HOC1 + N2 + + 3HC1 + 3H20 (11)
The weight ratio between chlorine and ammonia (Cl2:NHo-N) required to
reach breakpoint has been found to vary between 7.6:1, by Stasiuk, Hetling,
and Shuster (1974), and 10:1 by Gulp (1974). Laubusch (1962) has pointed out
that, theoretically, maximum chloramine formation occurs when the initial
molar Cl2:NH3~N ratio is 1:1. Breakpoint occurs when that ratio is 2:1.
Because of the large doses of chlorine required, particularly in the treat-
ment of wastewater, breakpoint chlorination is seldom employed. When it is
used, chlorine dosages greater than necessary to reach the breakpoint are
common, thereby leaving an excess chlorine residual in the effluent.
In wastewater chlorination, the ideal breakpoint curve is seldom achieved.
This is because of the high concentrations of organic nitrogen generally contained in
wastewater. Although the mechanisms involved in breakpoint chlorination are fairly
well defined for water-ammonia systems (Morris and Wei, 1969, Wei, 1972; and
Wei and Morris, 1974), little is known about the mechanisms of breakpoint
chlorination reactions in water containing large concentrations of organic
nitrogen. A comparison between the ideal breakpoint curve expected in drinking
13
-------
water chlorination and a typical wastewater breakpoint curve is shown in
Figure 1.
There are several ways of evaluating the effectiveness of chlorine as a
disinfectant. The most obvious approach is to determine bacterial counts be-
fore and after chlorination. Since it is generally quite difficult to enumer-
ate pathogenic bacteria and viruses, the indicator organisms of total and
fecal coliforms are usually used to measure the effectiveness of disinfection.
Fecal coliforms are particularly useful in indicating the possible presence of
enteric pathogens. Although coliforms are extremely useful, an absence of
coliforms does not necessarily guarantee the absence of pathogenic organisms.
For example, Durham and Wolf (1973) have pointed out that viruses are not
necessarily affected by chlorine in the same way as coliforms. Nevertheless,
coliform counts are frequently used as a standard method of measuring dis-
infection efficiency.
The most common technique for enumerating coliforms in chlorinated water
is the Most Probable Number (MPN) method described in Standard Methods (1971).
The membrane filter (MF) method has also been used, although it has been
pointed out by Hufham (1974) that the standard membrane filter technique is
not recommended for enumerating fecal coliforms in chlorinated samples. New
enrichment procedures have been-developed as described by Rose, Geldreich, and
Litsky (1975) and Lin (1973 and 1974) to improve the recovery of fecal coli-
forms in chlorinated samples. Initial investigations indicate a correlation
between MPN and the enrichment MF procedures. However, sufficient data are
not yet available to suggest the abandonment of the MPN method in favor of
the MF enrichment procedure.
In conjunction with coliform enumeration, chlorine residual monitoring
is an important tool in maintaining effective disinfection practice. Once
the correlation between the desired final coliform density and chlorine residu-
al at the end of a specified contact time has been established, continuous
monitoring of that residual should ensure the proper chlorine dose necessary
to achieve adequate disinfection at all times. Because of the importance of
chlorine residual as a control tool, and also because an excess of chlorine
residual may impose a toxic burden to the aquatic species in the receiving
stream, it is important to select the most reliable method for measuring
chlorine residual. Collins and Deaner (1973) recommend the use of the
amperometric titration method. Chambers (1971) has found that amperometric
chlorine residual is most closely related to virus disinfection and also
recommends the use of that method.
Very little is known concerning the actual mechanisms by which chlorine
kills viruses and bacteria. Many theories, however, have been proposed. As
an example, Venkobachar, lyengar, and Rao (1975) have postulated that the
inhibitions of total dehydrogenase activity is correlated with the percent
of bacterial kill. In Escheriohia, it has been found that succinic de-
hydrogenase activity decreases markedly with bactericidal concentrations of
chlorine.
14
-------
Wostewoter Breakpoint Curve
LJ
E
o
x
o
ID
o
CO
LJ
tr
Applied Dose
(Theoretical No
NH3-N Present)
Combined Chlorine
Free And Combined
Chlorine Residual
APPLIED CHLORINE
Ideal Breakpoint Curve
UJ
z
or
o
x
o
o
CO
LJ
or
Applied Dose
(Theoretical-' No
NH3-N Present)
Free And Combined
Chlorine Residual
APPLIED CHLORINE
Figure 1. Comparison between ideal and wastewater breakpoint chlorination
curves.
15
-------
DISINFECTION OF ALGAE LADEN WATERS
For many years, chlorine has been used primarily as a disinfectant for
drinking waters. However, with increasing emphasis on the quality of waste-
water effluents, chlorination has gained considerable acceptance as a unit
process in wastewater treatment for obtaining adequate bacterial reduction.
The degree and rate of disinfection are highly dependent upon the character-
istics of the wastewater. Since most wastewaters are relatively high in
ammonia concentrations, disinfection is achieved almost entirely by combined
chlorine. This means that long contact times are required to achieve the
desired bacterial reduction. The age and composition of microorganisms also
has some bearing on the degree of disinfection. It has been shown by Rabosky
(1972) that young, actively metabolizing microorganisms are more easily
destroyed by chlorination than are older cultures.
Other benefits may be derived from chlorination of wastewater besides
disinfection. As well as oxidizing ammonia, as previously mentioned, chlorine
may also be useful in lowering biochemical oxygen demand (6005). Zaloum and
Murphy (1974) observed a 40 percent reduction in BOD^ and attributed the
reduction to a long contact time with chlorine and to an unequal microbial
concentration in their samples resulting from the presence of chloramines.
However, they also found that chlorine had little or no effect on the ultimate
BOD or BOD5 once breakpoint chlorination was achieved. Another parameter of
wastewater which is affected is the dissolved oxygen (DO). Silvey, Abshire,
and Nunez (1974) observed an increase of DO in wastewater resulting from
chlorination.
Although there are apparent advantages to using chlorine as a disinfectant
for wastewater, there are also some questions concerning its value. Malone
and Bailey (1969) have reported the results of several investigators which
indicates that chlorination practice which is based solely on chlorine residu-
al and chlorine contact time without regard to effluent coliform concentrations
is ineffective and inefficient. Malone and Bailey (1969) argue that properly
designed oxidation ponds may be a suitable substitute for chlorination.
Probably one of the most important questions concerning the value of chlorine
as a disinfectant is its ability to destroy pathogens as well as indicator
organisms. Durham and Wolf (1973) have found that indigenous coliphages are
more resistant to chlorine disinfection than coliforms. Evidence also indi-
cates that pathogens are just as resistant to chlorine as coliphages. In
fact, there is very little correlation between coliform and pathogen destruc-
tion (Durham and Wolf, 1973).
The chlorination of waste stabilization lagoon effluent is more compli-
cated because of the presence of high concentrations of algae. Horn (1970)
found that chlorination of algal laden waters was effective in producing a
99.8 percent reduction of coliforms. However, evidence indicates that the
chlorine doses required to produce such a kill may have adverse effects on
effluent quality. For example, White (1973) indicates that algae increase
the chlorine demand. This, in turn, means higher initial doses of chlorine
are required to produce the desired degree of disinfection. Echelberger et al.
(1971) explained that the reason algae may increase the chlorine demand is
that when high doses of chlorine are used, there is a possibility that algae
16
-------
cells are lysed and dissolved organic compounds released from inside the cells,
This new source of organic material becomes another food source for microbial
populations. Consequently, the BOD^ of the treated effluent rises, as does
the chlorine demand.
The amount of chlorine demand exerted by algae is highly variable. For
example, Dinges and Rust (1969) found that the 20 minute chlorine demand of
stabilization pond effluent was between 2.65-3.00 mg/1. Burkhead and O'Brien
(1973) found that for lower levels of chlorine dose, there was very little
destruction of algae cells and thus, little increased chlorine demand attri-
butable to algae. However, for higher chlorine doses, destruction of algae
cells and increases in BOD^ were observed. Echelberger et al. (1971) suggest
that the degree of cell destruction is somewhat dependent upon the particular
algae species. They found a correlation between algal degradation and the
surface area/volume ratio of particular algae species at a given chlorine dose.
Kott (1971) found that the green alga ChtoTetla is one species of algae that
shows a resistance to chlorine penetration. One example of the increase in
BOD5 due to disruption of algal cells by chlorine was reported by Horn (1972),
who found that when 2.0 mg/1 chlorine was applied to stabilization pond
effluent, the BOD5 measured was 20 mg/1. However, when 64 mg/1 chlorine was
used, the BOD5 increased to 129 mg/1.
The use of chlorine on algal laden waters may not necessarily be ac-
companied by adverse effects. Dinges and Rust (1969) have pointed out that
in some cases, chlorination of stabilization pond effluents may actually
decrease the 8005. At the same time, it was found that DO either remained
unchanged or increased slightly. Chlorine may also be used effectively to
reduce suspended solids (SS). Kinman (1972) found that chlorine disinfection
efficiency improves as SS concentration decreases. Echelberger et al. (1971)
have pointed out that chlorine enhances the flocculation of algal masses.
They also found that chlorine produces an immediate decrease in volatile
suspended solids (VSS) (by 52.3%) and turbidity.
In examining the evidence, it appears that although chlorine can have
serious adverse affects on algal laden waters, it is possible to achieve
effective disinfection without the destruction of algae cells (Burkhead and
O'Brien, 1973). Kinman (1972) reported that algae cells survived exposure to
chlorine after one hour of contact time. Kott (1973) found that there was no
destruction of algae cells when exposed to 0.4 mg/1 residual chlorine for less
than two hours. After two hours, the algae cell counts were found to decrease
by 30 percent. Kott (1971) also suggests-that regardless of the initial algae
concentration, for a given chlorine dose, contact time is the most important
factor in controlling the reduction of algae cells. In fact, he recommends
that low initial doses, coupled with relatively long contact periods, is a
better approach to disinfection than high chlorine doses for short periods of
contact.
In examining the greater importance of contact time over chlorine dose,
Kott (1971) found that most of the bacterial kill takes place within the first
30 minutes and that most of the chlorine demand occurs within the first five
minutes of contact. Continued chlorine dissipation occurs at a rather slow
rate. For contact periods greater than one-half hour to six hours, there is
17
-------
very little increase in the reduction of coliforms. This suggests that when
chlorinating lagoon effluents, the initial chlorine dose should be as low as
possible to produce effective bacterial kill within a contact period long
enough for maximum disinfection efficiency and short enough to prevent the
destruction of algal cell walls. Various combinations of chlorine doses,
residuals, and contact times have been suggested for optimizing disinfection
of stabilization lagoon effluents. For example, Kinman (1972) has suggested
a chlorine dose sufficient to leave a residual of 1.0 mg/1 after a minimum
contact period of 10 minutes, and preferably 30 minutes. White (1973) found
that initial doses of 20-30 mg/1 produce optimum disinfection in 30-45
minutes with a remaining chlorine residual of 1-4 mg/1. Kott (1971) found
that a dose of 8 mg/1 was sufficient to attain the desired bacteriological
effect within a contact period of 30 minutes. Of course, the operational
parameters for successful chlorination depend on the effluent characteristics
of each particular stabilization pond, as well as the season of the year.
Besides chlorine dose, residual, and contact time, additional factors
must be taken into account in disinfecting algal laden waters. One factor is
the toxicity of chlorinated hydrocarbons which are formed when chlorine is
used on waters which are high in organic content. Brungs (1973) found chlor-
ine and chlorinated compounds resulting from chlorination of wastewater to be
highly toxic to fish and has suggested that chlorine residuals in receiving
waters should not exceed 0.002 mg/1 for protection of most aquatic organisms.
in areas where continuous chlorination occurs. Collins and Deaner (1973)
have found that chlorine residuals of greater than 0.1 mg/1 are toxic to fish.
Zillich (1972) determined that chloramine concentrations of 0.06 to 0.08 mg/1
are lethal to trout and that 0.16 to 0.21 mg/1 are lethal to fathead minnows.
Ward et al. (1976) found that sulfur dioxide dechlorination of chlorinated
activated sludge effluent completely eliminated the toxic effects, both acute
and chronic, of chlorine to various species of warm-water and cold-water fish.
DESIGN OF CHLORINATION FACILITIES
When designing facilities for the chlorination of wastewater, several
special considerations must be taken into account. For one, the design of
most chlorine contact tanks are based upon Chick's Law: In (N/N ) = -kt
where N = the number of organisms surviving after a given time, ?, and N =
the numbers of organisms at time zero (Chick, 1908). The relationship
holds fairly well for potable water treatment. However, the disinfection of
wastewater does not always follow Chick's Law (Collin, Selleck, and White,
1971). This deviation is due to chloramines, bacterial clumping, adherence
of bacteria to solids, and to consumption of chlorine residual by various
chlorine demanding materials. As a result, either the time of exposure or
the chlorine dose must be increased to produce the same bacterial kill in
wastewater as in water.
Another problem associated with the design of contact tanks stems from
the fact that most designs are based on theoretical detention time determined
by dividing the tank volume by the flow rate. In practice Deaner (undated) '
has shown that actual detention times may vary between 30 and 80 percent of
the theoretical detention times. Shorter residence times are caused by short
18
-------
circuiting and dead spaces and, as determined by Kothandaraman and Evans
(1974), chlorination efficiency is reduced and solids accumulation increased.
With a shorter contact time and extra chlorine demand exerted by the build up
of solids, applied chlorine dosage must be increased to produce the desired
degree of disinfection. Not only is this an inefficient use of the resource,
but in addition operational costs rise markedly due to the higher chlorine
demand and increased corrosion of equipment. Higher chlorine dose also
promotes the increased likelihood of formation of undesirable chlorinated
hydrocarbons discharged into the environment.
The short circuiting problem, and consequently the extreme variability
of residence times, causes difficulty in maintaining prescribed levels of
chlorine residual. The frequent attention of an operator is required to alter
chlorine doses in maintaining constant chlorine residuals.
To provide adequate disinfection of wastewater, the basic approach to
good contact tank design should include a thorough investigation of hydraulic
characteristics of various designs and then the selection of design features
which will optimize hydraulic performance. The important design considerations
include optimization of mixing, contact time, and chlorine dose.
The hydraulic characteristics of a chlorine contact tank are generally
determined by conducting tracer studies on flow patterns through the tank.
Several possible tracers are available. Louie and Fohrman (1968) used con-
ductivity to determine detention times in contact tanks. However, it is often
difficult to handle the large amounts of salt generally required for such
studies. Radioactive tracers are another possibility. However, these are
almost never used because of the potential hazard of disposal.
Perhaps the most useful tracers are fluorescent dyes. Most of them are
rather inexpensive and easy to obtain. Two of the dyes commonly used in
contact tank tracer studies are Rhodamine WT, used by Hart, Allen, and Dzialo
(1975), and Rhodamine B, recommended by Deaner (undated) and Kothandaraman and
Evans (1974). Other fluorescent dyes are also available but Rhodamine dyes
have the advantages of being detectable at low concentrations and having low
sorption tendencies.
Tracer studies to evaluate the flow characteristics of the contact tank
may be conducted in several ways. Three methods have been suggested by Sawyer
(1967). These include conventional, statistical, and dynamic analysis. Con-
ventional and statistical analyses are the most commonly used.
The conventional method of analysis consists of selecting specific values
from the dispersion flow curve and using these as indices to describe the
performance characteristics of a tank. Marske and Boyle (1973) and Hart,
Allen, and Dzialo (1975) have described the points and indices commonly used
as follows.
T = Q/V (theoretical detention time)
tjr = time for tracer to initially appear at tank outlet
t = time for tracer at outlet to reach peak concentration
19
-------
t!0't50't90= time for 10' 50' and 90 Percent of the tracer to pass at
tank outlet
tg = time to reach centroid of the effluent curve
tj_/T = Index of short circuiting
to/T = index of modal detention time
= index of mean detention time
t /T = index of average detention time
= Morrill Dispersion Index-indication of degree of mixing
In constructing dispersion flow curves, it is common practice to use
dimensionless expressions for tracer concentrations and times. This is done
to facilitate comparisons of hydraulic performance between tanks where dif-
ferent tracer concentration and detention times are involved. The dimension-
less dispersion flow curve is obtained by plotting C/CO against t/T where C is
the tracer concentration at any time t, Co is the initial tracer concentration,
and T is the theoretical detention time (Q/V) . A typical dispersion flow plot
is represented in Figure 2.
The parameter which is probably the most useful in accurately describing
hydraulic performance is the Morrill Index (MI). As MI approaches 1.0, the
flow through the tank approaches ideal plug flow. The larger MI becomes, the
more closely the flow in the tank approaches backmix reactor conditions. The
two extreme flow conditions are displayed in Figure 3.
There are several different statistical approaches used to evaluate
hydraulic performance. One approach, which has gained widespread acceptance,
describes the flow regime of a basin in terms of plug flow and perfect mixing.
It also uses descriptive parameters to define effective space and dead space.
This method is discussed in some detail by Marske and Boyle (1973) and by Wolf
and Resnick (1963). A variation of this approach uses the entire tracer curve
to describe hydraulic efficiency in terms of a function of time, F(t), and is
explained in detail by Rebhum and Argaman (1965) and by Deaner (1970). The
function F(t) is calculated from the following equation.
Log [1 - F(t)] = [-Log e/(l - p) (1 - m)][t/T - p(l - m) ]
............ (12)
In this equation, m = dead space fraction, 1 - m = effective fraction, p =
plug flow fraction, 1 - p = perfect mixing fraction, t = any time correspond-
ing to the time used to get F(t), and T = theoretical detention time.
Probably the most widely used statistical approach is the chemical
engineering dispersion index, recommended by Marske and Boyle (1973). It is
considered to be extremely reliable, since it is calculated using the entire
dispersion flow curve. The dispersion index, d, is calculated from the
following equation.
/ZtCV
(zcj
20
-------
c/c,
t/T
Figure 2. Typical dispersion flow curve.
In this equation, C is the tracer concentration at any time, t.
The dispersion index has the strongest statistical probability of cor-
rectly describing the hydraulic performance because it includes all points on
the dispersion flow curve. Conventional parameters only use one, or at the
best, only a portion of the curve. In comparing the dispersion index with
conventional parameters, it has been found that the Morrill Index is closely
related to the dispersion index and can be considered as the most reliable
conventional parameter in accurately describing the hydraulic performance of
a tank. According to Marske and Boyle (1973), the least reliable indicators
of flow characteristics are considered to be the percent of effective space,
t5Q/T, and
t±/T.
In good chlorine contact tank design, the hydraulic characteristics
facilitate a minimum usage of chlorine with a maximum exposure of micro-
organisms to the chlorine. An evaluation of a number of wastewater chlorine
21
-------
c/c0
t/T
t/T
Plug Flow
Bockmix Flow
Figure 3. Comparison of plug and backmix flow.
-------
contact tanks indicates that mixing, detention time, and chlorine dosage are
the critical factors in providing adequate disinfection. According to Hart,
Allen, and Dzialo (1975), good contact tank design not only optimizes dis-
infection efficiency, but should also minimize the concentration of undesirable
compounds being discharged to the environment and reduce the accumulation of
solids in the tank by keeping the flow-through velocity high enough to prevent
solids from settling.
Kothandaraman and Evans (1974) consider initial mixing as one of the most
important considerations for good disinfection. This is because most dis-
infection takes place within the first few minutes of contact. Initial mixing
provides a uniform contact of chlorine with microorganisms and also prevents
chlorine stratification in the contact tank. Mixing can be accomplished either
by applying the chlorine solution to the wastewater in a pressure conduit under
highly turbulent conditions or by means of a mechanical mixer. Collins,
Selleck, and White (1971) consider the turbulent reactor as the most effective
in producing maximal bacterial kill in the shortest contact time. It has been
found that a contact time of 6 to 18 seconds is generally sufficient in a
turbulent reactor. If a mechanical mixer is used, the chlorine solution
should be added to the wastewater immediately upstream from the mixer. The
common practice is to use a portion of the wastewater stream for solution
water. When this is done, most of the chlorine is in the combined form before
the solution line is ever mixed with the mainstream of wastewater. However,
this practice apparently has little affect on the efficiency of the wastewater
chlorination process. Another form of mixing which has been found to be
effective by Louie and Fohrman (1968), is the use of a hydraulic jump in
combination with over and under baffles. Both the turbulent reactor and the
baffle system of mixing offer the advantage of reducing operation and mainte-
nance costs over those for the mechanical mixer.
Rapid mixing is followed by flow of the chlorinated wastewater into the
contact tank. Most approaches to good contact tank design are based on the
idea that plug flow is the most desirable hydraulic performance characteristic
to achieve in producing efficient disinfection. Plug flow decreases short
circuiting, dead spaces, spiraling, and eddy currents and also closes the gap
between theoretical and actual detention times. However, not all designs are
based upon plug flow reactors. Kokoropoulos (1973) has suggested the use of a
series of backmix reactors to improve chlorination efficiency. In this ap-
proach, the tank shapes are not important as long as stratification and short
circuiting are eliminated. One advantage to this approach is the ease with
which treatment capacity could be increased by just adding another reactor.
However, high initial and operational costs could offset this advantage.
For the design of tanks in which plug flow is the objective, tank shape
is an important consideration. Kothandaraman and Evans (1972) have indicated
that a long, narrow, straight contact chamber would be the most desirable
shape in achieving plug flow. However, because of cost and space limitations,
this approach is generally not practicable. Circular shapes have also been
used, but Warwick (1968) found that generally these tanks do not perform
efficiently with respect to hydraulic characteristics. Most tanks are based
on a rectangular shape, which generally is the most practical design.
23
-------
Conventional design practices can be enhanced by paying particular
attention to inflow and outflow structures. They should be designed in such
a fashion as to distribute wastewater flow uniformly across the tank cross-
section. One of the most effective designs is that of a sharpcrested weir
covering the width of the contact tank at the inlet and outlet, according to
Marske and Boyle (1973). This design minimizes the weir overflow rate and
greatly enhances hydraulic characteristics through the tank.
A common practice for improving plug flow conditions in a contact tank
involves the use of baffles. Longitudinal baffles are generally more effective
than cross baffles. In a study of seven different types of chlorine contact
tank configurations by Marske and Boyle (1973), it was found that the longi-
tudinally baffled serpentine flow and the flow resulting in an annular ring
around a secondary clarifier were the best configurations for approaching plug
flow. Both have the effect of increasing the ratio of length to width (L/W)
of the contact tank. The L/W ratio is often considered to be the most impor-
tant design consideration for chlorine contact tanks. Marske and Boyle (1973)
recommend a minimum L/W ratio of 40:1. Baffles have also been used effectively
across the cross section of a tank. Kothandaraman and Evans (1974) found that
hydraulic performance has been improved by placing baffles near the inlet end
of tanks to suppress the kinetic energy of incoming jets.
Simple baffles per se are often not sufficient to produce the desired
hydraulic characteristics. Stephenson and Lauderbaugh (1971) have found that
hammerhead shapes at baffle tips are effective in reducing short circuiting
and flow separation. Corner fillers have also been found to eliminate dead
spaces and thus, decrease the build up of solids in corners. These fillers,
however, seem to have little effect on flow characteristics. In some cases,
directional vanes around the ends of baffles have been found to produce lower
head losses and more uniform flow through the contact tank.
Another approach to improving the effectiveness of chlorine contact tanks
has involved aeration. Kothandaraman and Evans (1974) found that mild
agitation with compressed air improves hydraulic characteristics and may
improve bacterial kill by providing closer contact of microorganisms with
residual chlorine. This method also reduces solids accumulation and thus
decreases chlorine demand caused by putrefication of settled solids. Using
this approach in a field evaluation, it was found that adequate bacterial kill
can be obtained in secondary wastewater with a dose of 2-3 mg/1 chlorine and
a contact time of only 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes should be considered as
the minimum residence time for chlorine contact tanks (Kothandaraman and
Evans, 1974). If the accumulation of solids is not adequately prevented by
aeration, it is recommended (Kothandaraman and Evans, 1974) that they be
removed at least once a day by some mechanical or other means in order to keep
chlorine demand as low as possible.
Another design parameter to be considered is that of depth. In very
shallow contact tanks, it is possible for air currents to cause short circuit-
ing. However, this is generally not a significant problem in tanks designed
with standard depths.
24
-------
When considering upgrading existing chlorine contact tanks, it is gen-
erally not possible to completely redesign the tank. However Hart, Allen,
and Dzialo (1975) have suggested several ways practical improvements can be
made in flow characteristics. Gates added to screen and sludge notches have
been found to reduce short circuiting. Spiraling flow patterns have been
eliminated by circular baffle plates placed at tank inlets. Additional im-
provements can be made by using directional vanes to direct flow in a more
uniform fashion and by using stop baffles with curved vanes to reduce eddying.
In one example, these improvements reduced short circuiting by 80 percent in
an existing contact tank (Hart, Allen, and Dzialo, 1975). Stephenson and
Lauderbaugh (1971) have suggested the use of pre-cast baffles. These can be
installed with minimum down time. Although it is more efficient to use
longitudinal baffles, cross baffles may be more economical to construct. It
has been demonstrated that baffles installed in a maze configuration improved
performance sufficiently to make economical factors more important in choosing
a design than efficiency considerations.
CHLORINATION DYNAMICS
Most mathematical models describing the kinetics of disinfection account
only for the dependent variables of bacterial density, chlorine concentration,
and time. One of the earliest relationships for describing the rate of
bacterial reduction due to chlorination was developed by Chick (1908) and has
become known as Chick's Law. It states,
Log N - Log N = kt .............. (14)
In this relationship, No = the initial number of organisms, N = the number of
organisms after time, t, and k is a temperature dependent rate constant.
Chick's Law is commonly used for wastewater chlorination, although McKee,
Brokaw, and McLaughlin (1960) have found that Chick's Law is not necessarily
applicable to wastewater. They have proposed the following relationship.
Nt /t\m
................. <15>
In this equation, N = the number of organisms at t minutes, Na = the number
of organisms at a minutes and m = slope on a log-log plot. The slope m has
been found to vary between -0.08 to -0.38. They also developed the following
relationship between coliform concentration and chlorine dosage.
- °-10 + 0'94x
In Equation 16, x is the chlorine dosage in milliequivalents per liter and N
is the coliform MPN. Chlorine dose is used instead of chlorine residual
because the reactions take place so rapidly in wastewater that 99 percent of
disinfection takes place before any residual can be measured.
25
-------
A variation of this approach is discussed by Eliassen and Krieger (1950):
In this equation, N = coliform MPN, R = chlorine residual, and a and b are
constants which are functions of the contact time and wastewater character-
istics. Kokoropoulos (1973) defines a as the MPN coliform number when there
is no chlorine residual in the tank and b as the rate of bacterial destruction.
Another relationship, proposed by Fair et al. (1948), is more applicable
to water treatment than to wastewater treatment. It states,
C\ = k .................. (18)
where C is the concentration of chlorine, t = contact time to produce a certain
percent of kill, and n = a coefficient of dilution. Horn (1972) applied Equation
18 to the chlorination of oxidation pond effluent. He found that if n > 1.0,
chlorine concentration is more important than contact time. For n < 1.0, the
contact time has the greater effect on chlorination efficiency. And for n =
1.0, chlorine concentration and contact time are of equal importance in attain-
ing the desired coliform kill. According to Moore (1951), n = 1.0 is the most
common value of n, although values of n may vary from 0.75 to 2.0. Horn (1970)
has suggested that when HOC1 is the disinfectant species, n values vary from
0.67 to 1.6. When chlorine is in the form of NHC12, n varies from 0.75 to
1.0. Weber (1972) uses values of n = 0.86 and k = 0.24 for a 99 percent kill
in time t and C in the form of free chlorine.
Fair et al. (1948) have proposed the following relationship to describe
the amount of free chlorine necessary to produce a certain percent of bacterial
kill in a specified time and as a function of pH.
(19)
R is the total residual chlorine, A is the concentration of HOC1 required to
produce the desired kill, and B is the disinfection efficiency of OC1~ compared
with HOC1. The B value is approximately equal to 1/80. K is the ionization
constant between HOC1 and H+. This equation has some application to wastewater
chlorination, although its most useful application is in drinking water
chlorination.
A relationship which Horn (1972) has used to describe the bacterial die-
off resulting from chlorination of algal laden waters is as follows.
dN tn n
dF = ~KNt C ................ (20)
*
Here, dN/dt is the number of organisms killed per unit time, K is a rate con-
stant, t is time, m is a time or rate kill constant, C is the concentration of
26
-------
disinfectant, n is a dilution coefficient, and N is the number of bacteria in
the water. When m and n are equal to zero, this equation reduces to Chick's
Law.
Reid and Carlson (1974) applied Equation 20 to low temperature water and
eliminated the variable n by solving for Cn in Equation 18 and substituting
into Equation 20 to get the following.
(21)
K' = kK in this equation. In linear form, this equation is expressed as
follows.
Log (Log -- = Log (=\ tm Log t ........ (22)
The slope of the line is m.
Another form of this equation presented by Horn (1972) applies when m = 0,
but n ^ 0.
=-KnLogf ............. (23)
0 o
This relationship was found to apply for chlorine residuals of 0.25-2.0 mg/1,
The reaction rate constant for the n order reaction, -K , was found to vary
between -2.2 and -3.4 for chlorinated pond effluents.
Selleck (1970) and Collins, Selleck, and White (1971) describe another
relationship for determining bacterial reduction resulting from wastewater
chlorination. Bacterial die-off is a function of chlorine residual and
contact time.
y = y [1 + 0.23ct]~3 (24)
Here, y is the coliform count at time t, y is the coliform count at t = 0,
and c is the amperometric chlorine residual. A similar type of equation is
also used to show that the type of mixing affects disinfection rates.
Selleck (1970) has used several equations to describe bacterial die-off
for various combinations of flow and mixing characteristics. Collins, Selleck,
and Saunier (1976) have also described differences in process efficiency as
functions of flow characteristics. For example, the disinfection efficiency
in a plug flow reactor is described in the following manner:
(25)
C is the chlorine residual, t is the contact time, y is the density of coli-
form organisms, and k is a time dependent constant. An important point
derived from these equations is that the mathematical representations of the
action of chlorine on bacteria becomes more complex as flow characteristics
deviate from plug flow.
27
-------
An additional equation, although not dealing with the chlorination of
wastewater, is worth mentioning. Klock (1971) used this equation to describe
the die-off of coliforms in a waste stabilization lagoon as a function of
energy terms. A similar approach may have application in wastewater chlori-
nation. The equation is as follows.
In k = g + A (26)
In this equation, k is the coliform survival rate, E is the activation energy,
R is the gas constant, T is absolute temperature, and A is a constant which is
a function of pH and the oxidation potential.
Since very little is known about the actual mechanism of chlorination on
bacteria, it is noted that mathematical representations are largely empirical.
This is the simplest and most direct approach, especially since sufficient
knowledge is unavailable for using simulation techniques. However, a serious
disadvantage of empirical approaches is that constants are generally appli-
cable only for the system from which they were developed. Generally, new
constants must be developed each time the relationship is applied to a new
system.
Although most of the emphasis has been placed on the development of
relationships to describe the effect of chlorine on bacteria, it is also im-
portant to determine the mathematical relationships between chlorine and other
water quality characteristics of lagoon effluent. One of the most important
relationships needing development is the determination of the chlorine demand
exerted by a particular wastewater.
Lin and Evans (1974) have used the following expression to determine
chlorine demand.
Demand (mg/1) = Ktn (27)
For this equation, t is the time in hours, and K and n are regression coef-
ficients which are functions of the chlorine dose to NH3~N weight ratios. One
way of expressing these coefficients would be:
n2 <28>
Cl \ 2
1 1NH--N
Here, K]_, K2, n1? and n2 are regression coefficients. Nitrogen, chemical
oxygen demand (COD), and suspended solids (SS) were found to exert most of the
chlorine demand.
>W
Another relationship for indirectly determining chlorine demand was
proposed by Horn (1970) and is based on residual chlorine.
28
-------
Rnt = k (29)
R is the residual chlorine, t is the time of reaction, n is the dilution coef-
ficient for 90 to 99.999 percent removal of bacteria, and k is a rate constant.
In this case, n was found to be 0.66 and k was found to be 1.16.
McKee, Brokaw and McLaughlin (1960) have made reference to the following
relationship for determining chlorine demand.
^t = t0.18- (0.17 log D!> (30)
Dl
D is the chlorine demand at t hours and Dj is the chlorine demand after one
hour.
An approach based on predicting the chlorine residual given an initial
dose is discussed by Selleck (1970) and Deaner (1973). The equation used is:
C = C - kt (31)
For this relationship C is the chlorine residual at time t, CQ is the initial
chlorine dose, and K is a constant, determined to be 7.1 x I0~^/m±u for one
particular batch chlorination study.
Mathematical relationships describing the interactions between chlorine
and other wastewater constituents are generally unavailable. However, infor-
mation on the basic changes which may occur in the major wastewater quality
characteristics as a result of chlorination is important in developing optimum
design chlorination systems for lagoon effluent. In discussing the effect of
chlorine on solids, Holm (1973) found that chlorination of wastewater in-
creases suspended solids (SS). Lin and Evans (1974) also found that SS are
affected by chlorine. Irgens and Day (1966) used chlorination, in conjunction
with sedimentation, to reduce volatile suspended solids (VSS) in wastewater by
81.6 percent. White (1972) observed that in algal laden waters, chlorine
reduced SS by causing algae cells to clump together and settle out. Murphy,
Zaloum, and Fulford (1975) found that chlorine oxidizes VSS in wastewater.
McKee, Brokaw, and McLaughlin (1960) suggest that chlorine reacts with amino
acids in VSS to form chlorinated hydrocarbons. An example of such a reaction
might be as follows.
H H
i i
CH3-C-COOH + HOC1 -> CH3-C-COOH + H20 (32)
NH NCI
H
Bewtra (1968) determined that there is no correlation between algal cell con-
centration, as measured by VSS, and chlorine demand. This indicates problems
in trying to predict how much VSS will be reduced, given an initial VSS and
chlorine dose.
29
-------
The effects of chlorine on oxygen demand have been largely left undefined.
This is particularly true for algal laden waters. Holm (1973) found that
chlorine reduces biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) but has no affect on total
organic carbon (TOC) . Silvey, Abshire, and Nunez (1974) also observed reduc-
tions of BOD5 in wastewater. Zaloum and Murphy (1974) observed initial reduc-
tions of BOD5 but after long contact periods, BOD5 increased. It was also
determined that there was no change in total chemical oxygen demand (COD) or
TOC before and after chlorination for doses up to 25 mg/1. Lin and Evans
(1974) determined that chlorine residual does have an effect on COD but did
not define the effect. Irgens and Day (1966) observed a reduction of COD by
71 percent by using chlorination in conjunction with settling. It is suspected
that in the latter case, chlorine performed as a flocculent aid and that most
of the COD was removed by sedimentation. Horn (1972) found that in algae laden
waters, BODr was increased at chlorine doses above 2 mg/1 and for certain con-
tact periods at lower doses. As the contact time was increased further, 6005
was observed to decrease. It was theorized that given sufficient contact time
or high enough dose, chlorine causes the release of organic material within
the algal cell causing the BOD 5 to increase. As the contact time is increased,
the chlorine oxidizes the released organics and causes the BOD^ to decrease
again. Moore (1951) found that in wastewater a 1 mg/1 uptake of chlorine
generally corresponds to a 2 mg/1 reduction of BOD,..
Temperature has been found to have significant effects on the chlorination
efficiency of wastewater. Fair et al. (1948) have used the Arrhenius equation
to describe the relationship between temperature and length of time to produce
a certain percent of bacterial kill:
108 T2 = 4.575 TlT2 .............. (33)
T, and T^ are temperatures in °K, t, and t^ are tne times required for a cer-
tain percent of bacterial kill at a fixed concentration of disinfectant, and
E is the activation energy. Butterfield (1948) and Rabosky (1972) observed
that less chlorine is required at higher temperatures to produce the same
degree of kill observed at lower temperatures. White (1972) found that for
cold winter temperatures, the contact time may have to be increased by as much
as five times the summer contact time to produce the same disinfection with a
given dose of chlorine. Reid and Carlson (1974) indicate that a 10°C rise in
temperature doubles the reaction rate of disinfection.
The pH is also an important factor contributing to the efficient chlori-
nation of wastewater. Gulp (1974) has suggested that for ideal chlorination
efficiency the pH should be near 7.5 for water containing NI^-N and less than
7.0 for ammonia-free water. It has been observed by Klock (1971), Butterfield
(1948), and Rabosky (1972) that high pH in stabilization pond effluent or other
wastewater decreases chlorination efficiency. Therefore, at higher pH values,
more chlorine is required to provide adequate disinfection.
s
Two final parameters affecting or being affected by chlorination are dis-
solved oxygen (DO) and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3~N) . DO has little affect on
chlorination efficiency. However, Silvey, Abshire, and Nunez (1974) have found
30
-------
that chlorination may actually increase DO. NHo-N is very important in affect-
ing wastewater chlorination as previously discussed. The formation of chlor-
amines greatly affects the rate and extent of disinfection. Chlorine also
removes NH^-N. The amount of chlorine required to reach breakpoint and thus,
remove almost all of the ammonia is fairly well understood. Gulp (1974) and
White (1972) indicate that 10 mg of chlorine are required to remove 1 mg of
NH^-N. A slightly different figure of 7.6 mg chlorine for 1 mg NH^-N is sug-
gested by Stasiuk, Hetling, and Shuster (1974).
MATHEMATICAL MODELING APPROACHES
The literature indicates that very little has been done towards developing
an overall mathematical model for optimizing chlorine doses and contact times
for wastewater chlorination. This is especially true for chlorination of
algae laden waters. Part of the reason for the latter is the lack of suf-
ficient data on chlorination of algae laden waters. Also, a lack of quantita-
tive information or interactions between chlorine and wastewater constituents
has hindered the modeling approach.
For optimizing the chlorination of water supplies, Kuo and Jurs (1973)
have developed a model based on a pattern vector of the form X = (x-^, x^, x^
...) to make decisions. The water quality data in the vector were normalized to
improve pattern classifications. A "weight" vector, w, was used in conjunction
with the pattern vector to produce a decision surface, S=w-X. From the
decision surface, optimal dosages were selected. From this model, it was
determined that there is a positive correlation between chlorine dose, alka-
linity, and NHyN. A negative correlation was determined for DO and temperature.
Another model for optimizing chlorination practices has been developed by
Tikhe (1976). The objective of this model is to minimize construction and
operational costs of chlorination facilities, while providing for adequate
disinfection. Optimal design is selected on the basis of solutions to a dif-
ferential equation which describes changes in the total cost with respect to
changes in chlorine dose required to produce the desired level of disinfection.
Johnson (1975) discusses another mathematical approach to optimizing dis-
infection. This approach is based upon a Poisson distribution to maximize
pathogen inactivation. The chlorine dose required is dependent upon the
initial concentration of organisms.
A mathematical modeling approach for application to wastewater chlori-
nation has been developed by Stenstrom (1975). This approach uses dynamic
solution techniques to describe the disinfection process in both batch and
continuous flow reactors. Breakpoint kinetics, as described by Weil and Morris
(1949), Morris and Wei (1969), Wei (1972), and Wei and Morris (1974), were
used to develop the differential equations which describe the interactions
between free and combined chlorine, ammonia, BOD^, and bacteria. The model is
restricted in application to wastewater which has been previously treated. It
is also limited by the fact that breakpoint kinetics, as presently understood,
are not necessarily applicable to wastewater containing high organic nitrogen
concentrations.
31
-------
SECTION 5
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
EXPERIMENTAL CHLORINATION FACILITIES
The Logan City wastewater stabilization lagoons were selected as the site
for this study. These waste stabilization lagoons are located approximately
two miles west of Logan, Utah. The lagoon system is composed of seven cells
arranged in the configuration shown in Figure 4. Cells A^ and A2 are referred
to as "primary cells," cells B^ and B2 are referred to as "secondary cells,"
and cells C, D, and E are referred to as "tertiary cells." A description of
the surface areas, volumes, and effective depths for each cell is contained
in Table 1. Under normal operating conditions, the lagoons have been found
to be very effective in removing bacteria. During summer months, groundwater
infiltration and irrigation return flow dilute the raw wastewater coming into
the lagoons. Because of the dilute nature of the influent, it is possible to
reduce the detention time in the lagoon system to well below that of the
design residence time and still achieve satisfactory bacterial removal. Dur-
ing winter months, colder temperatures require that longer residence times be
maintained in the lagoon system to provide adequate treatment. It is possible
to increase the residence time in the system during this period because of
reduced influent flows. In late fall, lagoon cells are drawn down and flows
reduced from cell to cell. For several months during the winter, discharge
of effluent is almost completely eliminated from the last cell (cell E).
Because of the relatively high bacteriological quality of the final lagoon
effluent, it was initially determined that secondary cell effluent (cell B,)
should be used for this chlorination study. Later, it was found that primary
effluent (i.e., from cell A^ or A2) would provide greater coliform concen-
trations and meaning to the data, at least in the winter months, and, there-
fore, provisions were made to chlorinate effluent from cell A2. When secondary
effluent (cell B-^) was used, it was drawn by gravity from cell B^ into a sump
beneath the main pump house. When primary effluent (cell A2) was used, it
was pumped from cell A2 through more than 4000 feet of four inch PVC pipe to
the sump. The overall experimental arrangement for chlorinating either
secondary or primary effluent is shown in Figure 5.
One of the major objectives of the project was to determine the effect
algae have on chlorination of lagoon effluents. Therefore, provisions were
made to filter a portion of the secondary or primary effluent through inter-'
mittent sand filters which were previously constructed for other experiments
at the Logan City lagoons. The filtered effluent was collected in a concrete
trough and then pumped to two 45.5 m^ (12,000 gallon) capacity storage tanks
32
-------
RAW
WASTEWATER
EFFLUENT
Figure 4. Flow diagram of Logan City Wastewater Lagoon System.
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF LOGAN CITY WASTEWATER LAGOONS
Cell
Water Surface
Area (Hectares)
Effective Vol.
Normal Operating
Depth (m)
Al
A2
B!
B2
C
D
E
Total
38.5
38.4
28.7
29.3
26.1
15.9
11.5
188.4
704,000
703,000
586,000
598,000
580,000
384,000
297,000
852,000
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Meters x 3.281 = feet; Hectares x 2.471 = acres; Meters^ x 35.31 = feet3
adjacent to the chlorination facilities. The filtered effluent was stored for
several hours until chlorinated. Each storage tank was covered with a lid to
restrict sunlight and algae growth.
The chlorination facilities were designed and constructed during the
spring and summer of 1975. The facility was designed to provide four separate
treatments or four replicate experiments at the same time. Three units were
33
-------
PRIMARY
EFFLUENT
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
SUMP
INTERMITTENT
SAND FILTERS
CHLORINE
GAS
INJECTORS
SOLUTION
CHLORINE
CONTACT
STORAGE
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TREATED
EFFLUENT
TREATED
EFFLUENT
Figure 5. Experimental chlorination schematic.
34
-------
used to chlorinate unfiltered effluent and the fourth was used to chlorii.^te
filtered effluent. General details are shown in Figure 6. The unfiltered
effluent was pumped directly from the sump beneath the main pump house to a
splitter box, where the wastewater stream was divided into three equal dis-
charges of 190 m3/day (50,000 gpd) each. The filtered effluent was pumped from
the storage tanks to the splitter box where a separate flow of 190 nH/day
(50,000 gpd) was discharged to the fourth unit. Each of the four equal streams
of effluent flowed from the splitter box into identically designed mixing cham-
bers and contact tanks.
Each mixing chamber was designed to provide a 30 second detention time.
During this short time, the chlorine solution was added to the flow from the
splitter box and mixed by use of an underflow baffle with a variable speed
mechanical mixer.^ The chlorinated wastewater then flowed over a rectangular
weir into the contact tank.
The water used to prepare the chlorine solution was filtered effluent.
The filtered water was pumped from the storage tanks to a chlorination house
where it passed through a Y-strainer before being mixed with chlorine gas.
The appropriate quantity of chlorine gas and the water were mixed with a vacuum
operated diffuser. The flow in each solution line was measured with a rotame-
ter before being introduced into the mixing chamber. The rotameter had a
capacity of 27.2 1pm (7.2 gpm) at 100 percent of flow and an accuracy of ± 2
percent. The gas flow to the injectors was also measured with a rotameter
attached to the vacuum operated chlorinators3 used in this study.
The contact tanks were designed according to recommended practices outlined
in the literature review section. Attempts were made to produce plug flow con-
ditions. The longitudinal serpentine configuration was adopted as being the
most likely practical configuration to produce plug flow. An effective length
to width ratio of 25:1 was used. Additional baffles were inserted near the
inlet and outlet of each tank to enhance hydraulic characteristics. The baffle
near the inlet was an under-flow perforated baffle and was useful in reducing
dead spaces. At the outlet, a perforated over-flow baffle was used. This not
only evenly distributed the flow across the width and depth of the tank, but
also provided a way to remove floatables from the tank. The chlorinated
effluent from the contact tanks was discharged into an irrigation ditch nearby.
Details of the mixing chamber and contact tank design are shown in Figure 7-
HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE
The hydraulic performance of each contact tank was determined by conducting
dye studies. Rhodamine B was used as the tracer dye. A given concentration
of this fluorescent dye was injected into the mixing chamber and a fluorometer
was used to monitor the concentration of dye at given points in the tank at
XLightnin Model 10.
2Fischer and Porter No. 10A1027A.
3Fischer and Porter Model 70C1710100.
35
-------
STORAGE
STORAGE
CONTACT
CHAMBER
NO. 3
CONTACT
CHAMBER
NO. 4
FILTERED EFFLUENT
SOLUTION LINES
UNFILTERED
EFFLUENT
MIX
MIX
MIX
MIX
CHLORINE
INJECTORS
-s
Figure 6. Chlorination facilities.
CONTACT
CHAMBER
NO. 2
CONTACT
CHAMBER
NO. I
•CHLORINE GAS
-------
INFLUENT
u
CHLORINE
SOLUTION
INFLUENT
CHLORINE
SOLUTION
PLAN VIEW
EFFLUENT
,p o o
O O O
O O
o o o
O O O
O O
000
O O
O O O
ELEVATION
Figure 7. Chlorine mixing and contact tanks,
37
-------
specific time intervals. Samples were taken at approximately one-third and
two-thirds the distance through the tanks and at the tank outlets. Care was
taken in positioning the sample points to avoid the effects of dead spaces and
eddy currents. It was found that samples collected at the surface were not
representative of the true hydraulic characteristics of the tank. Therefore,
a rigid siphoning apparatus was devised to draw samples from the mid-width of
the channel and at one-half the water depth. This apparatus was not only use-
ful in collecting representative samples, but it also prevented the disruption
of the water surface during sample collection.
Results from the tracer studies were analyzed using conventional methods
referred to in the literature review section. Although this is not the most
accurate approach to determining hydraulic performance, it is the most common-
ly used and, consequently, the most useful in comparing data with literature
values. Actual detention times were compared with the theoretical detention
time of one hour. Results of the tracer studies are shown graphically in
Figures 8-11. Characteristic performance indices are summarized in Table 2.
Although these indices do not indicate perfect plug flow conditions, they do
indicate that the contact tanks approach plug flow more closely than most con-
tact tanks currently used (Deaner, undated).
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF DYE STUDIES
Contact Sample
Tank Number
#1 12
13
14
#2 15
16
17
#3 18
19
20
#4 21
22
23
Average Time (Min.)
T /T
T
18.2
37.7
54.6
18.2
37.7
54.6
18.2
37.7
54.6
18.2
37.7
54.6
T
1m
9.3
25.5
38.3
10.7
26.0
35.7
11.0
28.0
38.3
11.5
31.5
47.5
Th
15.3
30.8
44.3
15.3
31.3
42.2
15.2
34.0
46.0
16.3
34.8
51.0
Ta
17.4
34.9
47.7
16.8
32.9
47.1
17.6
35.1
50.3
18.1
36.9
53.3
m
0.51
0.68
0.70
0.58
0.69
0.65
0.60
0.75
0.70
0.63
0.84
0.86
Th/T
0.84
0.82
0.81
0.84
0.83
0.77
0.83
0.91
0.84
0.90
0.92
0.93
Ta/T
0.95
0.93
0.87
0.92
0.87
0.86
0.97
0.93
0.92
0.99
0.98
0.98
Morrell
Index
3.09
2.45
2.17
2.65
2.32
2.29
3.35
2.22
2.38
3.44
2.21
1.85
T = modal time (time to reach peak tracer concentration).
1^ = mean time (time for half the tracer to pass the sampling point).
!„ = average time (time at which the centroid of the dispersion curve is located).
Morrell Index = time at which 90 percent of the tracer has passed the sampling point divided by the time at which 10 per-
cent of the tracer passed the same point (T90/T10).
Tm/T = index of modal detention time.
Tjj/T = index of mean detention time.
Ta/T = index of average detention time.
38
-------
lOO-i
u>
< 80-
OC
I-
Z
UJ
o
z
o cr.
o °o-
cc
UJ
o
a:
h-
LU
40-
5
UJ
a: 20-
Sample point 12
Sample point 13
Sample point 14
10
I
20
30
I
40
I
50
60
70
80
90
TIME (min.)
Figure 8. Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 1.
-------
I40-I
120—
O 100-
01
UJ
^ 80-
O
O
a:
UJ
o
< 60-
UJ
>
3 40-
UJ
CC
20-
Sample point 15
Sample point 16
Sample point 17
I T^ T1III
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
TIME (min)
Figure 9. Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 2.
I
80
I
90
-------
140
Sample point 18
Sample point 19
Sample point 20
TIME (min)
Figure 10. Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 3.
-------
lOO-i
-p-
ho
o
<
a:
2
LU
O
2
O
u
s
O
80-
UJ
40-
UJ
CL
20-
I
10
Sample point 21
Sample point 22
Sample point 23
I
20
I
30
I
40
I
50
I I
60 70
I
80
I
90
TIME (min)
Figure 11. Hydraulic performance—contact tank no. 4.
-------
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
Chlorination of secondary lagoon effluent was started in early August,
1975. Chlorine dosages in the four contact tanks were varied between 0.25 and
30.0 mg/1. Samples of filtered and unfiltered effluent were collected before
chlorination and at three different points in each contact tank. The points
in the contact tanks were at approximately one-third and two-thirds the hy-
draulic distance through each tank and at the tank outlets. Samples were
collected at the mid-water depth in each tank. Initially, the sampling ap-
paratus was used at all sampling locations except the outlets, where samples
were withdrawn from a port located at mid-depth. Later, it was found that the
accumulation of solids on the outlet baffle and around the port affected the
collection of representative bacteriological samples. Thereafter, a siphoning
apparatus was also used to collect samples at the outlets. At the beginning
of each experiment, a time span equal to at least two mean residence times was
allowed to elapse before samples were collected.
Samples were also collected from the influent and effluent of each cell of
the lagoon system. This was done to characterize the performance of the lagoon
system and as an aid in determining how to adjust chlorination practices to
compensate for seasonal fluctuations in lagoon performance. All samples were
collected at least twice per week. From December, 1975, through February,
1976, collection of chlorinated samples was suspended because of low coliform
counts in the secondary effluent and because of freezing problems, primarily
in the pipeline from the primary cell to the pump house. Collection of lagoon
samples was continued on a regular basis during this period. From June through
August, 1976, the collection frequency of chlorinated samples was doubled to
provide a greater data base from which to develop a mathematical model.
Sampling was concluded on August 24, 1976. The locations of all sampling
stations are shown in Figure 12 and described in Table 3. Points A and B
indicate the locations at which unfiltered lagoon effluents were withdrawn
from the lagoon system.
Bacteriological analyses included confirmed MPN total and fecal coliforms
at all 23 sampling stations. Five tubes were used for each dilution. Membrane
filter total and fecal coliform counts were also determined on all un-
chlorinated samples. Procedures described in Standard Methods (1971) were
followed. Samples were collected in autoclaved bottles. For chlorinated
samples, sodium sulfite was contained in each sample bottle to neutralize
excess chlorine. The siphoning apparatus was flushed with boiling water before
collecting bacteriological samples from the chlorine contact tanks.
Table 4 shows which parameters were analyzed at each sampling site. Be-
sides the bacteriological parameters, samples were analyzed for ammonia
nitrogen (NH-j-N), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^), dissolved oxygen (DO),
total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD), soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD),
sulfide (S=), suspended solids (SS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), free
chlorine residual (FC1), combined chlorine residual (CC1), temperature, pH,
and turbidity. For chlorinated samples, sodium sulfite was used to de-
chlorinate. Temperature, DO (measured with a DO probe), and residual chlorine
were determined in the field. The samples were then returned to the Utah Water
Research Laboratory to complete the other analyses. Chlorine residual was
43
-------
Bl
Raw
Wastewater
LAGOON SAMPLES
Legend
A = point at which primary lagoon effluent was taken
for chlorination studies
B = point at which secondary lagoon effluent was taken
for chlorination studies i
(gj
Tar
Tar
|S
,
b
k *3
k*4
\
^
ID
Unfiltered
Effluent
1
1
®
J)
|
Filtered
Effluent
<§!
Tank *
Tank *
@
3D
>
(i?)
CHLORINATION SAMPLES
Figure 12. Location of lagoon and chlorination samples.
44
-------
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE LOCATIONS SHOWN IN FIGURE 12
Sample
No.
Site Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Raw wastewater influent to Logan Lagoon System
Effluent from Primary Cell A2
Effluent from Primary Cell A.±
Effluent from Secondary Cell B£
Effluent from Secondary Cell BI
Effluent from First Tertiary Cell C
Effluent from Second Tertiary Cell D
Effluent from Third Tertiary Cell E
Final Logan Lagoon System Effluent (effluent from
Cell E passes through a small holding cell before
discharge from the system)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Raw influent to chlorination
Filtered
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
Chlorine
system
influent to chlorination system
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Contact
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
, No.
, No.
, No.
1, *
1, <
1, f
2, £
2, (
2, f
3, (
3, (
3, (
4,
4,
4,
3 = 18 min.
3 = 35 min.
3 = 50 min.
3 = 18 min.
3 = 35 min.
3 = 50 min.
3 = 18 min.
3 = 35 min.
3 = 50 min.
(filtered), (
(filtered), 1
(filtered), 1
3 = 18 min
3 = 35 min
9 = 50 min
measured with an amperometric titrator. Combined residual was measured using
the back titration method for analysis as described in Standard Methods (1971).
Free chlorine residual was measured using the forward titration method. All
other analyses were performed according to procedures_outlined in Standard
Methods (1971) with the exception of sulfide (S~). S~ samples were collected
in separate sample bottles containing a stabilizing solution suggested by Orion
Research Incorporated (undated). The samples were then returned to the
laboratory and analyzed using an Orion sulfide ion electrode.
Manufactured by Wallace-Tiernan.
Manufactured by Orion.
45
-------
TABLE 4. SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSES TO BE PERFORMED
Analysis to be Performed
Sample No.
1
2,3,4,5,6,
7,8,9
10
11
12,13,14,15,
16,17,18,19,
20,21,22,23
Description
Raw Wastewater
Lagoon Cell
Effluents
Raw Primary or
Secondary Effluent
Filtered Primary or
Secondary Effluent
Chlorinated
Effluents
Unfilt. Sol.
BOD COD COD NH3
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
Xb X X
ss
S~ Turb. &
vss
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
pH
Temp.
DO
X
X
X
X
X
Total
Coli.
(MPN)
&(MF)
XX
XX
XX
XX
xa
Fecal
Coli.
(MPN)
&(MF)
XX
XX
XX
XX
xa
ci.
Res.
X
aMF not performed.
bUnfiltered COD performed on Samples 14, 17, 20, and 23 only.
-------
LABORATORY AND FIELD EXPERIMENTATION
In developing a model for optimizing chlorination of algae laden waters,
it was necessary to conduct laboratory and field studies in addition to the
regular collection of field data. These studies were essential in the iden-
tification and quantification of several important relationships.
One of the relationships not clearly defined in the literature deals with
the effect of chlorine on measured ammonia. Initially it was not known if
ammonia, as determined in the laboratory, represented NHo-N only or if it also
included the amine associated with chloramine. To determine this, samples
containing three different known concentrations of ammonia were prepared by
adding appropriate quantities of ammonium chloride (NIfyCl) to deionized dis-
tilled water (DDW). Samples representing each of the ammonia concentrations
were then dosed with three different concentrations of chlorine. The chlorine
dosages were prepared from a standard solution of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl).
The chlorinated samples were mixed using a laboratory stirrer." After five
and 15 minutes of contact, the samples were analyzed for ammonia and for total
and free chlorine residual using the amperometric titrator.
As the literature indicates, in wastewater chlorination, chlorine not only
reacts with NH^-N, but also with organic nitrogen. This greatly affects the
shape of the breakpoint curve, as previously discussed. To get an indication
of the ratio of organic nitrogen to Nt^-N present in a waste stabilization
lagoon and an idea of how that organic nitrogen affects breakpoint chlorination,
field samples were collected on three separate sampling days in August, 1976,
and analyzed for total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). The samples represented high
and low chlorine doses, as well as no chlorine. TKN analysis was performed
according to Standard Methods (1971).
Other relationships which have generally been left unquantified include
the effects of chlorine on total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD), soluble chemi-
cal oxygen demand (SCOD), suspended solids (SS), volatile suspended solids
(VSS), and turbidity. In an attempt to more satisfactorily define these
relationships, two samples of primary lagoon effluent were collected during
different times of the year and returned to the laboratory for experimentation.
The first sample was collected in April, 1976, during the peak of an algae
bloom. TCOD, SCOD, and SS concentrations were relatively high. Half of the
samples were spiked with potassium acid phthalate to create another sample
with even higher TCOD and SCOD concentrations.
The second sample was collected in August, 1976, during a period when
algae, TCOD, SCOD, and SS concentrations were relatively low. Upon returning
to the laboratory, the lagoon samples were each dosed with several different
concentrations of a chlorine solution prepared from sodium hypochlorite and
standardized with the amperometric titrator. The samples were then mixed with
a laboratory stirrer. Each sample was mixed rapidly at maximum stirring speed
for the first 60 seconds of contact time and then at 60 rpm for the remainder
of the test. After contact periods of 15, 60, and 120 minutes, aliquots were
taken and analyzed for TCOD, SCOD, SS, VSS, turbidity, free chlorine, and
combined chlorine.
Manufactured by Phipps and Bird (Model 5P36DA1A, series 3325).
Manufactured by Wallace and Tiernan.
47
-------
Since the laboratory tests were conducted using completely mixed reactors,
it was assumed that any changes occurring in SS and VSS concentrations were
attributable to the oxidizing action of chlorine on the suspended solids, and
not to settling. However, in the field, the settling of SS was observed in
the chlorine contact tanks. To determine changes in SS due to settling and
changes due to the breakdown of SS by chlorine, a field study was conducted
during August, 1976. In each of three chlorine contact tanks, one-gallon con-
tainers were placed after the inlet baffle, in the middle of the tank, and
just before the outlet baffle. Secondary lagoon effluent was then allowed to
flow through each tank and chlorine dosages of 0, 4, and 20 mg/1 were applied.
This chlorination practice was allowed to continue, undisturbed, for one week.
SS concentrations were measured at the beginning and at the end of the study
period. The containers in the contact tanks were returned to the laboratory
at the end of the study period, where they were dried and weighed to determine
relative amounts of settling at different positions in the tanks.
DATA ANALYSIS
Each data set was given an index number and placed on file with the
Burroughs 6700 computer at Utah State University. Data having similar ranges
of values were averaged and used as data points for model calibration. When
linear regression analyses were performed, a statistical package (STATPAC)
prepared by Hurst (undated) was used to perform the regression and to calculate
correlation coefficients. Use of correlation coefficients in determining
significant levels was made as described by Mendenhall (1971) and Middlebrooks
(1976). All correlation coefficients, R and R/S are significant to the 95
percent confidence level unless otherwise indicated.
Those figures which have more than one regression line shown were tested
to determine if, in fact, the slopes of the lines were different. This was
accomplished by using statistical formulas which employ sum of squares, sum
of products, degrees of freedom, and sample regression coefficients (Steel and
Torrie, 1960).
All field and laboratory results for the entire study period are listed in
the Appendix. All these results were obtained using methods, procedures, and
calculations described earlier with the exception of total and fecal coliform
concentrations. Coliform counts that are reported as zero are results obtained
from the MPN determinations that interpret the number of bacteria to be less
than 2. Therefore, in order to work with these data the number zero was
substituted. Data which indicated these MPN numbers of less than 2 were not used
in performing the statistical work concerned with coliform bacteria. This
was done because there was no way of knowing how much less than 2 the number
really was.
48
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CHLORINATION STUDY
GENERAL
A complete listing of all field data collected for the chlorination phase
of this study between August 1, 1975, and August 24, 1976, is contained in
Appendix A. From the graphs, it is observed that for some data points, the
membrane filter fecal coliform counts were higher than those for total coli-
form. These data points must be considered in error.
LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
Measured Ammonia
Laboratory experiments to determine the effects of chlorine on measured
ammonia were performed as previously described. The results show that for all
cases, except those for which the initial Cl2:NH3~N molar ratio exceeded 1:1,
the ammonia-nitrogen measurements remained essentially unchanged with chlo-
rination. For Cl2:NH3~N molar ratios exceeding 1:1, ammonia concentrations
were reduced as predicted by breakpoint reactions. A complete summary of
these experimental results is contained in Table 5.
TABLE 5. EFFECTS OF CHLORINE ON MEASURED AMMONIA
Initial Initial
NH3-N Chlorine
Concentration Dose
(mg/1) (mg/1)
21.0
9.47 10.5
5.25
21.0
4.61 10.5
5.25
10.5
1.00 5.25
1.0
Contact Period
NH3-N
9.87
9.11
9.32
4.77
4.80
4.61
0.51
0.88
1.28
5 min.
Free
Chlorine
0.10
0.60
0.40
0.10
0.30
0.20
1.30
0.20
0.10
Total
Chlorine
19.60
9.80
4.90
19.70
9.40
5.20
3.80
2.70
1.00
NHj-N
9.70
9.50
9.79
4.84
4.61
4.45
0.14
1.49
1.00
15 min.
Free
Chlorine
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1.0
0.10
0.05
Total
Chlorine
20.1
9.8
5.05
19.1
9.4
5.05
3.0
2.7
1.00
49
-------
Although NHo-N is being converted to chloramines with the addition of
chlorine, the results show that no change in measured ammonia occurs until
after the point of maximum chloramine formation. This indicates that ammonia
as measured by the laboratory technique (Phenate Method, Standard Methods,
1971) is not really a measure of NI^-N alone, but is also a measure of the
chloramines resulting from the reaction between Nt^-N and chlorine. Therefore,
any mathematical model using data from analyses of chlorinated samples and
accounting for ammonia must be designed to show no change in ammonia concen-
trations until after the Cl2.'NH3-N mole ratio has exceeded 1:1, even though
an actual decrease of NH-j-N occurs prior to this point.
Organic Nitrogen
An indication of the amount of organic nitrogen in addition to ammonia
contained in waste stabilization lagoon effluent (cell A2) was obtained by
measuring the total kjeldahl nitrogen on three consecutive field sample days.
The results are shown in Figures 13-15. For the three days, the TKN prior to
chlorination varied between 5.6 and 6.8 mg/1, while NHg-N varied between 2.4
and 4.4 mg/1 for the same samples. The fraction of total nitrogen composed of
NH^-N varied between 0.35 and 0.83. These data should not be construed as
being typical over the entire study period, but they do reflect the vari-
ability in organic nitrogen composition of lagoon effluent and indicate how
quickly the nitrogen composition can change.
Upon examination of data obtained on each of the three sample dates,
it was observed that on August 17, 1976 (Figure 13), the TKN appeared to be
reduced more with a chlorine dose of 10 mg/1 than with a dose of 1 mg/1. At
the same time, the Nl^-N concentration was relatively unaffected for both
chlorine doses. This indicates that chlorine either oxidizes some of the
organic nitrogen or it improves the settling of nitrogenous suspended solids.
A combination of both probably exists. When 30 mg/1 of chlorine was applied,
there was reduction in the NH3~N concentrations. Since the Cl2:NH3~N molar
ratio exceeded 1:1 (1.66:1), this reduction was expected. There would also
be expected a sharp reduction in combined chlorine at this high ratio. How-
ever, after 15 minutes, the combined chlorine residual was 17.6 mg/1. (This
compares with a combined chlorine residual of 2.1 mg/1 and a free chlorine
residual of 0.5 mg/1 on August 10, 1976 (see Appendix A), when 30 mg/1
chlorine was applied to wastewater containing nearly the same NH3~N concen-
tration.) Although TKN data at 30 mg/1 chlorine on August 17 were unavailable,
the data suggest that organic nitrogen plays an important role in influencing
the shape of the breakpoint curve. It is noted that the Cl2:TKN ratio was
below 1:1 for the sample receiving a dose of 30 mg/1. If chlorine reacts with
all forms of total nitrogen, it can be estimated that the Cl2:TKN molar ratio
must exceed 1:1 for the oxidation of organic and inorganic chloramines to take
place.
On August 19, 1976 (Figure 14), there was little change in TKN or NK^-N
which could be attributed to changes in chlorine dose, except in the case of
the 20 mg/1 dose. For this dose, NI^-N was reduced by 0.8 mg/1. The C^NI^-N
molar ratio was also slightly above 1:1 for this dose.
On August 24, 1976 (Figure 15), there was little change in the NH3~N con-
centration at one and five mg/1 chlorine dose. TKN decreased slightly at both
50
-------
5 -
l±J
cr»
03
cc
TKN-lmg/l CI2
NH3-N-lmg/lCI2
NH3-N-IOmg/l CI2
NH3-N-30mg/|C|,
Chlorine Dose
CI2: NH3-N Ratio
CI2: TKN Ratio
1 mg/l
0.06
0 03
10 mg/l
0.06
0.31
30mg/l
1.66
0.94
15
30
45
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 13. The relationship between Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia-
nitrogen (NHg-N) in primary lagoon effluent receiving various
chlorine dosages and after various chlorine contact periods on
August 17, 1976.
doses, probably due to the settling of nitrogenous suspended solids.
However, because the Nt^-N concentration in this particular sample was
lower than the previous samples, addition of 30 mg/l chlorine removed
virtually all the NH3~N present. This was expected since the molar Cl2:NH3~N
ratio was 3.0 at this dose. Unfortunately, the TKN data were not avail-
able for the 30 mg/l chlorine. The combined chlorine residual of 3.2 mg/l
and free chlorine residual of 0.6 mg/l after 15 minutes, however, indicate
51
-------
N3
6 —
LJ
O
O
a:
4 —
3 —
2 -
I —
TKN- lOmg/ICI
NH3-N-20mg/l CI2
Chlorine Dose
CI2: NH3-N Ratio
CI2:TKN Ratio
Img/l
0.06
0.04
I0mg/l
0.59
0.35
20mg/l
1.16
0.70
15
30
45
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 14. The relationship between Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3~N) in pri-
mary lagoon effluent receiving various chlorine dosages and after various chlorine contact
periods on August 19, 1976.
-------
Ul
U>
6 -^
5 -
O» A
E
Ld
3 H
2 H
X
0
Figure 15.
TKN- 5 mg/ICI2
TKN - Img/l CI2
Chlorine Dose
CI2: NH3-N Ratio
CI2: TKN Ratio
Img/l
.1
.03
5mg/l
.5
.15
30mg/l
3.0
.90
NH3-N-5mg/lCI
NH3-N - 30mg/l CI2
15 TIME (Minutes) 30
45
The relationship between Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia-nitrogen (NH^-N) in pri-
mary lagoon effluent receiving various chlorine dosages and after various chlorine contact
periods on August 24, 1976.
-------
that not all of the compounds formed in the reaction between chlorine and
nitrogen were oxidized. One possible explanation of this might be that some
compounds formed reactions of chlorine with organic nitrogen could be less
susceptible to oxidation than the inorganic chloramines.
From this limited amount of data, it is impossible to make any generalized
conclusions concerning the effects of organic nitrogen on wastewater chlori-
nation other than to observe that waste stabilization lagoon effluents may
contain two or more times as much total nitrogen as ammonia-nitrogen and that
organic nitrogen appears to interfere with theoretical breakpoint reactions.
It was also observed that changes in the TKN concentration of lagoon effluent
do not necessarily correspond to changes in NH^-N concentration within the
same effluent.
TCOD and SCOP
The effects of chlorine on TCOD and SCOD were evaluated by treating pri-
mary lagoon samples, containing three different concentrations of TCOD and
SCOD, with a range of chlorine doses varying between 0 and 50.8 mg/1. Details
of the experiment have been discussed in Section 5: Method of Procedure. A
complete summary of the experimental results is presented in Table 6. It is
evident that, for all three concentrations, TCOD remained unchanged throughout
the experiment for all chlorine doses.
The SCOD increased with increasing chlorine dose and contact time in the
two samples containing large concentrations of algae (i.e., high SS). These
data are presented graphically in Figure 16. The same trends, however, were
not observed in the sample collected at a later date, when algae concentrations
were low. Figure 17 shows very little change in SCOD with increasing time and
chlorine dose for this sample. Apparently, increases in SCOD are related to
the concentration of algae, as well as to the concentration and form of chlor-
ine residual. Concentrations of COD resulting from suspended matter were not
only 60 to 75 mg/1 greater for levels I and II than for level III, but the
composition was also much different (Figure 16 and Table 6). It appears that
the difference between TCOD and SCOD for level III consisted of suspended
solids which were resistant to oxidation by chlorine, whereas the increase in
SCOD observed in Table 6 and Figure 16 for the level I and level II samples is
largely attributable to the release of oxygen demanding materials from lysed
algae cells caused by reaction with chlorine. Although increases in SCOD oc-
curred with both combined and free chlorine residuals, changes were most ap-
parent in the presence of free chlorine.
For the two samples showing increases in SCOD, regression analyses were
performed. The results are presented in Figure 18. This also shows the
relationship between SCOD and increases in chlorine dose and contact time. A
linear regression between chlorine dose and changes in SCOD is shown in Figure
19. These results compare favorably with increases in SCOD with algae concen-
tration as presented by Echelberger et al. (1971).
SS, VSS, and Turbidity
The effects of chlorine on SS, VSS, and turbidity were examined using data
from Table 6. Since SS concentrations were found to consist almost entirely
54
-------
TABLE 6. THE EFFECTS OF CHLORINE DOSE ON TOTAL CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (TCOD),
SOLUBLE CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (SCOD), SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS),
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (VSS), AND TURBIDITY OF PRIMARY LAGOON
EFFLUENT SAMPLES COLLECTED ON APRIL 9 AND 10, 1976, AND AUGUST 26,
1976
Date
4/9/76
(Level II)
4/10/76
(Level I)
8/26/76
(Level III)
Cl
Dose
(mg/1)
4.2
16.9
50.8
4.2
16.9
50.8
BLK
1.5
3.6
7.3
14.6
29.1
Contact
Time
(min.)
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
0
15
60
120
Total
COD
(mg/1)
105.5
104.2
105.5
100.1
105.5
102.0
123.0
124.5
123.0
124.6
123.0
123.7
45.5
39.1
43.2
47.9
43.2
41.2
43.2
42.6
45.5
42.1
45.5
Soluble
COD
(mg/1)
24.3
19.9
39.9
27.7
24.3
23.9
28.4
30.7
24.3
34.8
35.8
38.7
52.7
56.2
57.1
59.2
52.7
57.9
57.4
61.2
52.7
61.2
66.0
70.4
26.4
27.8
23.8
26.9
28.2
25.8
29.1
28.6
28.2
28.8
29.0
24.7
28.2
28.4
27.6
27.9
26.4
27.9
30.3
25.9
26.4
28.4
17.1
29.5
SS
(mg/1)
62.1
44.9
42.9
37.8
62.1
38.3
41.5
71.4
62.1
29.7
40.1
67.2
39.3
55.9
41.1
67.2
21.4
45.1
44.3
67.2
40.6
40.1
40.9
19.0
18.4
20.2
17.4
18.2
16.7
17.8
20.0
18.2
18.0
18.0
17.8
18.2
17.9
17.5
18.2
19.0
17.4
17.0
20.1
19.0
17.6
16.6
16.6
Free Combined
VSS Turbidity Residual Residual
(mg/1) (JTU) (mg/1) (mg/1)
58.5
42.3
40.4
32.9
58.5
36.5
39.4
49.8
58.5
27.4
37.0
35.3
47.4
42.2
44.7
44.9
47.4
43.0
43.6
43.7
47.4
44.4
39.4
38.2
18.0
17.72
20.2
17.4
17.2
16.7
17.8
19.4
17.2
18.0
18.0
17.8
17.2
17.9
17.3
18.2
18.0
17.4
17.0
19.9
18.0
17.6
16.1
14.8
12.0
12.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.5
12.5
12.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
17.5
18.0
18.0
8.7
8.5
9.0
9.2
11.0
10.0
10.0
8.6
11.0
10.0
10.0
8.5
11.0
10.0
8.9
8.5
8.7
9.2
9.0
8.6
8.7
9.8
9.3
8.8
0
0
0
0.30
0.15
0.10
8.5
5.9
4.0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
5.6
3.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.00
0.20
0.10
4.40
3.80
2.90
4.3
4.1
3.7
7.0
5.6
4.4
30.8
27.6
22.0
4.0
3.6
3.4
7.4
6.6
5.6
33.6
27.6
21.6
0
0
0
1.23
1.14
1.00
3.64
3.54
3.32
7.27
7.09
6.64
5.27
2.91
1.95
14.00
12.36
9.27
55
-------
O
O
O
70
60
50
C. 40
30
20
10
SCOD LEVEL I
A SCOD LEVEL H
mg/l
Dose =5lmg/l-
A
/
Sbose = I7mg/
r -A-^"X:
.--A
-A
A
-Dose = 4 mg/l
I I
I I
Figure 16.
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
TIME (minutes)
The effect of various chlorine dosages and contact time on
various soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD) concentrations
in primary lagoon samples collected on April 9 and 10, 1976.
56
-------
0>
E
Q
O
O
30
SCOD - LEVEL HI = 26.4mg/l
A-
20
Figure 17.
10
BLANK
A l.5mg/l DOSE
O 29.1 mg/1 DOSE
1
I
I
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
TIME (minutes)
The effect of various chlorine dosages and contact time on
various soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD) concentrations in
primary lagoon samples collected on August 26, 1976.
57
-------
Ul
oo
O
O
O
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
50.8 mg/l APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE
16.9 mg/1 APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE
4.2 mg/l APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE
R=.980,^.0.059)... __
' ' "R= .SIS^Y^ 0.024-
I
1
I
15 30 45 60 75
TIME (minutes)
90
105
120
Figure 18. Soluble COD versus chlorine contact time with different chlorine dosages for
primary lagoon samples collected on April 9 and 10, 1976.
-------
+20.
-H0_
o +5
o
o
CO
-10.
10
20 30
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE
(mg/l)
40
50
60
Figure 19. Changes in soluble COD (laboratory data) after a 120 minute contact time, due to addition
of chlorine as observed in primary lagoon samples collected on April 9 and 10, 1976.
(ASCOD = treated minus original SCOD concentration.)
-------
of organic suspended solids (VSS), any discussion of SS holds likewise for
VSS. It was found that chlorination of the samples containing high concen-
trations of algae resulted in a noticeable decrease in SS and an increase in
turbidity. This is depicted graphically in Figure 20. In the sample contain-
ing low concentrations of algae, there was little noticeable change in either
SS or turbidity, as shown in Figure 21. This indicates that changes in SS and
turbidity resulting from chlorination are due to the quantity and composition
of suspended solids and by the form of chlorine residual. The data suggest
that possibly algae are more readily affected by chlorine than are other types
of suspended organics.
The observed decrease in SS and increase in turbidity is probably the
result of the oxidation of algae cell walls by chlorine, particularly by free
chlorine. As algae cells are destroyed, a portion of the suspended solids are
converted into soluble organics. Other particles are broken down into many
much smaller suspended particles. An increase in the number of particles in
suspension results in an increase of light scattering and thus, an increase in
turbidity. When samples are filtered using approved filters as prescribed by
Standard Methods (1971), some of the very small particles contributing to
turbidity may pass through the filters. In this experiment, Whatman GF/C
filters were used. The effective pore size of these filters is 1.2 ym. Any
particles smaller than that size, which otherwise would contribute to the SS
concentration, may pass directly through the filter. This, along with the
conversion of suspended solids to completely soluble material, explains the
reduction of SS.
In this experiment, the samples were continually mixed in a batch reactor
to prevent the reduction of SS as a result of settling. Therefore, all changes
in SS concentrations are attributed to the chemical reactions between chlorine
and suspended solids. Although the data do not reflect a direct dependence of
SS reduction on chlorine dose and residual type, it is reasonable to assume
that free chlorine is more significant in reducing SS concentrations than
combined chlorine.
FIELD EXPERIMENTS
Reduction of SS by Settling
Upon examination of field data, it was observed that reductions of SS were
also accompanied by accumulation of solids in the contact tanks. To determine
the proportion of SS reduction attributable to settling, settling tests, as
described in Section 5, were performed in August, 1976. The data indicate that
most of the SS reduction occurred within five minutes in the contact tanks for
the particular quality of secondary effluent treated during the test. For this
particular study, suspended solids were composed primarily of Daphni-a spp.
Changes in the SS concentrations due to settling are shown in Figure 22. The
reduction of suspended solids was also accompanied by a large accumulation of
solids in the bottoms of the contact tanks. The largest accumulations cor-
responded with the largest reductions of SS. Relative accumulations of solids
are shown in Figure 23. It was impossible to perform a mass balance on the
data due to the variability of the influent composition during the study.
60
-------
60
- 35
Dose = 4.2 mg/l
Dose = 16.9 mg/l
Dose = 50.8 mg/l
45 60 75
TIME (Minutes)
105
120
Figure 20. Effects of various chlorine dosages on SS and turbidity of primary lagoon effluent sampled
on April 9 and 10, 1976.
-------
30 —i
i— 30
Blank
— Dose = 7.3 mg/l
— Dose = 29.1 mg/l
0
0
30
45 60 75
TIME (Minutes)
90
105
120
Figure 21. Effects of various chlorine dosages on SS and turbidity of primary lagoon effluent sampled
on August 26, 1976.
-------
LO
CO
Q
_J
O
60 —i
50 -
40 -
30
10 -
I
Influent SS on 8/27/76 with Chlorine Dose = 4 mg/l
Influent SS on 8/27/76 with Chlorine Dose = 20mg/l
Influent SS on 8/27/76 with Chlorine Dose = 0 mg/l
Influent SS on 9/1/76 with Chlorine Dose = 4 mg/l
Influent SS on 9/1/76 with Chlorine Dose = 20mg/l
Influent SS on 9/1/76 with Chlorine Dose = 0 mg/l
Locations of sample
points in chlorine
contact chamber
Q
LU
Q
Z
Q. 20
CO
ID
CO
\1L
i--— " ^-^.
'. • — •—••"• •
-.
0
15
30
45
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 22. Changes in suspended solids concentrations due to settling within chlorine contact chamber
on August 27, 1976, and September 1, 1976.
-------
3.0 -
2.0 -
t 15~
u
LU
1.0 -
£ 0.5 H
0
Omg/l CHLORINE DOSE
4mg/l CHLORINE DOSE
20mg/l CHLORINE DOSE
LOCATION OF
SAMPLE POINTS
IN CHLORINE
CONTACT CHAMBER
0
TIME (Minutes)
45
Figure 23. Relative accumulation of solids on the bottom of the chlorine contact chamber due to
settling between August 25, 1976, and September 1, 1976.
-------
The data indicate that changes in SS as a result of chemical reactions
with chlorine are probably small in comparison with changes resulting from
settling. The amount of settling is also highly variable. Inspection of all
field data shows that suspended solids reduction varied approximately 10 to
50 percent. The concentration and composition of suspended solids undoubtedly
affects the rate of settling. For example, Dagh.nia spp. were observed to
settle more readily than algae. Also, the settling velocity of untreated sus-
pended solids is probably more important than chlorine dose in determining the
fraction of suspended solids that will settle out within the tank detention
time.
Effect of Chlorine on Soluble COD
The field data were analyzed using the same technique applied to the
laboratory data in an attempt to establish comparable relationships and verify
the laboratory studies. The laboratory results indicated evidence of soluble
COD increases with time and chlorine dose (Figures 18 and 19). Figure 24 is a
graph of all filtered lagoon effluent data. The figure relates the un-
chlorinated soluble chemical oxygen demand (control) with the chlorinated or
treated soluble COD. The regression line for Figure 24 has a slope slightly
greater than orxe (1.019) but statistical calculations suggest this number is
not significantly different from one and hence no apparent overall increase
or decrease in soluble COD can be found.
Figure 25 is the same type plot as Figure 24 but with unfiltered lagoon
effluent data as the test water. The slope of Figure 25 is less than one
(0.978) but, once again, this slope was found not to be statistically dif-
ferent from one, indicating no apparent overall increase or decrease in
soluble COD.
To determine if a relationship between unchlorinated soluble organic
oxygen demand (control) and chlorinated soluble organic oxygen demand (treated)
existed with respect to chlorine dose, the data were grouped according to
chlorine dose and analyzed similarly to Figures 24 and 25. However, no
significant relationship could be established.
In all cases, the regression analysis was performed by forcing the inter-
cept through the origin because a zero chlorinated SCOD must be equivalent to
a zero unchlorinated SCOD when measured on the same influent.
Volatile Suspended Solids Versus Soluble
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Since the volatile suspended solids parameter acts as a gross estimate of
the total microbial and algal mass, changes in the concentration of VSS may
directly affect changes in the SCOD levels due to chlorination. With this in
mind, it would be of interest to observe any patterns existing between volatile
suspended solids and soluble COD. Of particular concern would be increases or
decreases in soluble COD (ASCOD) between the unchlorinated and chlorinated
(i.e. control and treated) samples with respect to concentrations of volatile
suspended solids. Figure 26 (filtered lagoon effluent) and Figure 27 (un-
filtered lagoon effluent) illustrate the overall response of ASCOD to varying
65
-------
Q
O
O
V)
0
UJ
z 20-
CE
O
I
O
Equation of line:
Y= 1.019 X
R=.953
UNCLORINATED SCOD (mg/l)
Figure 24. Observed soluble COD in the chlorinated or treated sample with
respect to the unchlorinated or control soluble COD using filtered
lagoon effluent.
Equation of line:
Y=.978X
R = .974
~T
20 30 40
UNCHLORINATED SCOD
-------
O 0.
O
O
• •••••
I
20
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Figure 26. Effects of volatile suspended solids on the changes seen in soluble
COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated samples using filtered
lagoon effluent. (ASCOD = chlorinated minus unchlorinated
concentration.)
t30_
01
Q 0-
o
O
<" _<=
-30.
—r~
20
~T~
40
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Figure 27. Effects of volatile suspended solids on the changes seen in soluble
COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated samples using unfiltered
lagoon effluent. (ASCOD = chlorinated minus unchlorinated
concentration.)
67
-------
volatile suspended solids concentrations. No distinct pattern of increased
or decreased ASCOD can be observed in either Figure 26 or 27. This indicates
that volatile suspended solids have little effect on observed soluble COD
changes when chlorine is applied. Appendix C, Figures C-l through C-8, con-
tain plots of ASCOD versus volatile suspended solids (VSS) concentrations
over much narrower ranges of volatile suspended solids (VSS) concentrations
(0-5 mg/1, 5-10 mg/1, 10-20 mg/1, 20-30 mg/1, and 30-60 mg/1). These ranges
of volatile suspended solids (VSS) concentrations were arbitrarily selected.
Again, no distinct pattern can be observed between ASCOD and VSS.
Effect of Chlorine Contact Time on
Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand
The effect of chlorine contact time on soluble COD under laboratory con-
ditions is illustrated in Figure 18. This illustration indicates increasing
soluble COD concentrations with increasing chlorine contact time. Similar
results were not observed when field data for filtered or unfiltered lagoon
effluents were treated in a like manner. There is no indication of any change
in soluble COD concentration with respect to time in either type lagoon
effluent.
Effect of Chlorine Dosage on Soluble
Chemical Oxygen Demand
The literature (Echelberger et al., 1971) and laboratory experiments indi-
cate the chlorine dosage is an important parameter which will affect the
soluble chemical oxygen demand. As the dosage increases, an increase in
soluble COD can be expected. The field data described in Figures 28 and 29
do not express this increase nor is there any indication of a possible de-
crease in COD. Volatile suspended solids versus ASCOD at selected ranges of
applied chlorine dosage (0-2 mg/1, and greater than 2 mg/1 for filtered lagoon
effluent; 0-2 mg/1, 2-4 mg/1, and greater than 4 mg/1 for unfiltered lagoon
effluent) are depicted in Appendix C, Figures C-9 through C-13. These figures,
again, do not indicate any increase or decrease in soluble COD concentration
as a result of chlorination, suggesting that chlorine dosage does not produce
the same effects on soluble COD in the field as seen in the laboratory.
Chlorine Effects on Volatile Suspended Solids
Figure 30 shows the results obtained when plotting volatile suspended
solids concentrations in chlorinated samples versus volatile suspended solids
in the original unchlorinated samples. The relationship exhibited in this
figure, which is for filtered lagoon effluent only, indicates volatile sus-
pended solids reductions by as much as 35 percent at the higher volatile sus-
pended solids concentrations. Figure 31, unfiltered lagoon effluent data,
shows similar results, with the same 35 percent reduction at the high solids
concentrations. These reductions are similar to those reported in the
literature (Dinges and Rust, 1969). This earlier report suggests volatile
suspended solids reductions are due to the destruction of organic solids by
the oxidizing power of chlorine. While this explanation may also be true with
the field data presented here, it is not unreasonable to assume that a per-
centage of the volatile suspended solids are simply settling out in the
68
-------
Q o
O
O
cn
< -H
i
IB
r
24
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 28. Effects of applied chlorine dosage on the changes seen in soluble
COD between treated and untreated samples using filtered lagoon
effluent. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated concentration.)
Q
o
o
-------
6 12 18
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS ' UNCHLORINATED (mg/l)
Figure 30. Volatile suspended solids relationships between treated and un-
treated or chlorinated and unchlorinated samples using filtered
lagoon effluent.
Q
UJ
Z 50.
or
3
4,0 _
30 _
CO
Q
_J
O
CO
Q
LU
Q
LjJ
Q.
CO 20 .
3
CO
UJ
o
Equation of line:
Y=.650X
R = .947
10
T~
30
T~
40
20 30 40 5O
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS' UNCHLORINATED (mg/l)
1
70-
Figure 31
Volatile suspended solids relationships between treated and un- *
treated or chlorinated and unchlorinated samples using unfiltered
lagoon effluent.
70
-------
chlorine contact tanks. This second explanation is in line with the overall
indications that there is no apparent increase in soluble COD when chlorine
is applied (refer to Figures 24 and 25).
Effect of Free Chlorine Residual on Soluble
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Figure 32 shows the effects of free chlorine residual on the changes in
soluble COD in unfiltered lagoon effluent. This figure closely resembles the
laboratory data of Echelberger et al. (1971), which suggested increased soluble
chemical oxygen demand due to chlorine. Thus, it may be possible that the
increase in soluble COD in algal laden systems attributed to chlorination may
only result when breakpoint chlorination is practiced. It should be noted
that this phenomenon was not observed with the filtered lagoon effluent free
chlorine residual data. Possible explanations are: a) lower soluble COD con-
centrations in the control samples, b) fewer data containing free chlorine
residual concentrations, or c) reduced suspended solids and subsequent waste-
water quality changes in the filtered lagoon effluent.
The results obtained from Figure 32 must be considered with some caution.
Careful observation of this graph shows almost as many data points falling
below the zero line as above. However, the majority of these points are at
lower free chlorine residual levels. Increased soluble chemical oxygen demand
is seen almost exclusively at free chlorine residual concentrations greater
than 1.8 mg/1, suggesting the trend shown by the regression line in this
figure. Laboratory results presented early in this section also indicate free
chlorine residual may be causing the increase in soluble COD. The statement
Q
O
O
Equation of line:
Y=4.69ZX- 2.948
R = .547
2 3
FREE CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/U
Figure 32. Changes in soluble COD when free chlorine residual is present in
unfiltered lagoon effluent.
71
-------
made above that increases in soluble COD in algal laden systems due to chlo-
rination may be the result of free chlorine residual concentration is based
on these observations.
Using the unfiltered lagoon effluent free chlorine residual data and test-
ing to determine if greater volatile suspended solids reductions could be
observed added little information to the volatile suspended solids reductions
discussed earlier. Results of this test (refer to Figure C-14 in Appendix C)
indicated no increases in volatile suspended solids reductions over those
reported in Figures 30 and 31. This suggests that volatile suspended solids
reductions are not affected by free chlorine residual concentration to any
significant level from those reductions observed with total chlorine residual
present. A further comparison of these free chlorine residuals with combined
chlorine residual effects on volatile suspended solids also indicated no con-
trasting information.
The similar effects that chlorine residual species have on volatile sus-
pended solids reduction may further add to the idea that volatile suspended
solids are simply settling out in the chlorine contact tanks as suggested
earlier.
Effects of Chlorination on Coliform Reduction
General—
The most probable number technique (MPN) for the measurement of coliform
bacteria concentrations was used throughout this study. This analysis was
employed because it is generally accepted by most researchers and because of
the reduced possibility of chemical and biological interferences (APHA, 1971).
Several of the coliform data indicated inconsistencies when related to
chlorine contact time and dose. The inconsistencies were in the form of in-
creased coliform concentrations reported at the 50 minute chlorine contact
time from those concentrations reported at the 35 minute chlorine contact time
within the same contact tank and for the same applied chlorine dose. It was
found that the problem was related to the method of sample collection. Samples
were collected at the 18 and 35 minute chlorine contact times with a siphoning
apparatus, while the 50 minute chlorine contact time sample was collected
directly from the discharge pipe. A change to the siphoning apparatus for all
samples corrected the inconsistency. A correction of the inconsistent data
was performed using the lower limits of the MPN confidence interval. These
corrected coliform data appeared to be more consistent with the data collected
using the siphoning apparatus at the earlier chlorine contact times (i.e. no
increase in coliform concentration over those data collected at the earlier
chlorine contact times). The results obtained by using the siphoning apparatus
for all chlorine contact times were similar to the results obtained when using
the corrected data.
Because of the above indicated consistencies, the corrected data have been
substituted for the original data and are reported in Appendix A, Table A-l.
An asterisk prior to the sample month indicates corrected data. There are
1,804 pieces of coliform data listed in this appendix, of which 93 have been
72
-------
corrected. This represents 5.2 percent of the total coliform information
collected. It is felt that the inclusion of this small amount of corrected
data in the total data analysis for coliform reduction will not significantly
bias the results.
To determine disinfection efficiency (with respect to both total and fecal
coliforms) as a function of total chlorine residual, the data were fitted with
a linear regression equation, which expresses the logarithm of the fraction of
coliform remaining as a function of total chlorine residual. The results of
this analysis are reported in Appendix D, Figures D-l to D-16. The intercept
values for these regression equations range from -0.3 to -1.3, indicating that
a zero total chlorine residual concentration will produce a coliform reduction
of from 50 percent to 95 percent. This does not agree with reports in the
literature (Butterfield, 1943; Fair et al., 1968; Horn, 1972; Metcalf and Eddy,
Inc., 1972). A possible explanation for this anomaly is that chlorine com-
bined with ammonia, organic materials, sulfides, and other compounds and thus
dissipates leaving no measurable chlorine residual. However, at some point in
time (perhaps only an instant after addition) the chlorine is also in contact
with the bacteria in the water and available for disinfection, resulting in
decreases in coliform concentrations indicated by the intercept values. The
intercept values may also be due to the statistical confidence intervals
associated with the MPN values.
In an attempt to relate the results of this study with those reported in
the literature (Butterfield, 1943; Fair et al., 1968; Horn, 1972; Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc., 1972) a similar regression analysis as discussed above was perform-
ed using a forced zero intercept (Hurst, undated a,b). The results of this
analysis are illustrated in the discussion presented later in this chapter.
The correlation coefficients were significant at the 5 percent level for all
reported regression equations. Because of this high degree of statistical
significance, the forced zero intercept regression analysis was used in dis-
cussing the results in this section.
The effect of total chlorine residual on total and fecal coliform density
for filtered and unfiltered lagoon effluent are shown in Figures 33 through
48. These results are expressed as the log-^QN/N0 (in which N = the number of
organisms per 100 ml after chlorination, and No = the original number of
organisms per 100 ml), or the logarithm of the fraction remaining after
chlorination versus varying concentrations of total chlorine residual.
Filtered Lagoon Effluent—
Total coliform reduction—The effect of total chlorine residual on total
coliform numbers after chlorine contact times of 18, 35, and 50 minutes using
filtered lagoon effluent is reported in Figures 33 through 35. These figures
were constructed using the data obtained from the total coliform analysis of
the MPN determination. For discussion purposes, Figures 33 through 35 have
been summarized in Figure 36. Analysis of Figure 36 indicates that the
rate of total coliform removal increases with increasing total chlorine residu-
al. This result is in agreement with reports in the literature (Butterfield,
1948; Chambers, 1971; Green and Stumpf, 1944; Horn, 1970; Kott, 1971; White,
1972). Results from Figure 36 indicate that a total coliform organism
73
-------
0.0
-i.o -
I I
18 WIN. CONTACT TIME
R = .922 , Y = -I.I39X
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 33. Total coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a function
of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes contact time.
-2.0-
o
o
O -3.0-
-4.0-
35 MIN. CONTACT TIME
R .939, Y = -1.807 X
Figure 34.
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Total coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a function
of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes contact time.
74
-------
0.0
-i.o -
-2.0 -
-3.0-
-5.0
1 T
50 MIN. CONTACT TIME
R = 908 , Y - 2.I6IX
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 35. Total coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a function
of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes contact time.
o.o.
-1.0 _
3 -3.0 I
-4.0 _
-5.0.
18 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R = .922
— — 35 " " " , R=,939
• 50 " " " , R = .908
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 36. Summary of total coliform removal efficiency in filtered lagoon
effluent as a function of total chlorine residual at various
chlorine contact times.
75
-------
o
o
o
O
-3.0—
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 37. Fecal coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a function
of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes contact time.
-2.0-
o
-I -3.0-
-5.0-
35 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R = .8B4, Y=-l.764x
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 38. Fecal coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a function
of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes contact time.
76
-------
0.0-
-2.0-
o
z
z
50 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.8I3, Y=-l.8llx
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 39. Fecal coliform reduction in filtered lagoon effluent as a function
of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes contact time.
o.o.
-2.0 _
-3.0 _
-4.0 _
-5.0.
I
18 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R = .897
35 " " " , R=.884
• 50 " " " , R=.8I3
\
01234.
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 40. Summary of fecal coliform removal efficiency in filtered lagoon
effluent as a function of total chlorine residual at various
chlorine contact times.
77
-------
o
*•-
H
o
O
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 41. Total coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a func-
tion of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes contact time.
z
o
CD
3
-3.0 —
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 42. Total coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a func-
tion of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes contact time.
78
-------
-2.0—
o
Q
O
O
-5.0-
1
T
50 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R= .823 , Y = -l.098ic
10
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 43. Total coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a func-
tion of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes contact time.
o.o
-1.0 -
o
0
o.
-3.0 -
-4.0-
-5.0-
50
\
18 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R= .876
35 " " , R=.843
11 , R=.823
10
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 44. Summary of total coliform removal efficiency in unfiltered lagoon
effluent as a function of total chlorine residual at various
chlorine contact times.
79
-------
-2.0 —
o
Q
o
o
-4.0—
18 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
= .883, Y=-0.88lx
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 45. Fecal coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a func-
tion of total chlorine residual after 18 minutes contact time.
-i.o—
-4.0—
-5.0-
35 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.844, Y=-l.237x
10
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (tng/l)
Figure 46. Fecal coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a func-
tion of total chlorine residual after 35 minutes contact time.
80
-------
-1.0—
-2.0 —
o
3
-3.0—
-5.0-
50 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R = .804. Y=-1.399
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 47- Fecal coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent as a func-
tion of total chlorine residual after 50 minutes contact time.
18 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R=.883
35 " " " , R = .844
„ Rz.804
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure 48. Summary of fecal coliform removal efficiency in unfiltered lagoon
effluent as a function of total chlorine residual at various
chlorine contact times.
81
-------
reduction of 99.9 percent in filtered lagoon effluent can be expected with a
total chlorine residual concentration of 2.7 mg/1 after 18 minutes chlorine
contact time. The 99.9 percent level of reduction was chosen for discussion
because at this removal efficiency the data and subsequent regression lines
are well developed and interpretation of results is accomplished with less
inference.
By using a statistical test which employs sums of squares, sums of products,
degrees of freedom, sample regression coefficients, and regression equation
slopes (Steel and Torrie, 1960), it was determined that the slopes of the
regression equations for the 35 and 50 minute chlorine contact times reported
in Figure 36 were not significantly different from one another and could be
regarded as having the same slope. This statistical procedure is used in
determining whether confidence intervals for two regression lines overlap. If
an overlap does occur, it is an indication that the regression equations
(regression lines) are not statistically different. Statistical results of
this kind further suggest that the two regression lines describe a range in
which a single regression line would be found. Therefore, if the data for
both the 35 and 50 minute chlorine contact times were analyzed together and
fitted with a regression equation, the line described by this equation would
fall somewhere between the 35 and 50 minute chlorine contact time regression
lines shown in Figure 36. However, this approach was not used because it was
apparent that to group two different operational time period data would be
statistically incorrect. Because these two regression lines are not signifi-
cantly different and because grouping data is invalid, interpolation between
the 35 and 50 minute chlorine contact time regression lines in Figure 36 indi-
cate that a total chlorine residual of 1.5 mg/1 is required to produce a 99.9
percent total coliform reduction at chlorine contact times between 35 and 50
minutes. This concentration is contrasted with the 2.7 mg/1 total chlorine
residual needed for the same level of reduction at the 18 minute chlorine con-
tact times, which is consistent with earlier reports (Butterfield, 1948;
Chambers, 1971; White, 1972).
The above experimental and statistical results imply that an increase in
chlorine contact time from 18 to 35 minutes will require 1.2 mg/1 or 44 per-
cent less total chlorine residual to obtain the same level of total coliform
destruction. However, at chlorine contact times between 35 and 50 minutes,
there is no statistically significant difference in total chlorine residual
required to produce a 99.9 percent reduction in total coliform concentration.
The consistency of this latter observation is confirmed in Figures 40, 44,
and 48. These figures summarize the disinfection data for total and fecal
coliforms versus total chlorine residual in both filtered and unfiltered lagoon
effluent. A possible explanation for this affect occurring consistently at the
35 and 50 minute chlorine contact time is that coliform concentrations are
reduced to such low levels within the 35 minute chlorine contact time that
further reductions with increasing time are not statistically measurable.
Fecal coliform reduction—The effects of total chlorine residual on fecal
coliform bacteria in filtered lagoon effluent are illustrated in Figures 37^,
39 at 18, 35, and 50 minutes of chlorine contact time, respectively. Figure
40 is a summary of Figures 37-39. This figure depicts a trend in reduction
82
-------
of fecal coliform levels with increasing total chlorine residual concentration
and chlorine contact time similar to the trend indicated by Figure 36 for total
coliform reduction. The 35 and 50 minute chlorine contact time regression
lines for Figure 40 were also found to have statistically similar slopes. An
average of 1.7 mg/1 total chlorine residual after 35 to 50 minutes contact
time is needed to effect a three log fecal coliform reduction. At the 18
minute chlorine contact time, 2.7 mg/1 total chlorine residual were required
to reduce fecal coliform bacteria to this same level. This is a difference of
1.0 mg/1 or 37 percent less total chlorine residual. This suggests longer
chlorine contact times will produce the same level of fecal coliform removal
as higher total chlorine residual concentrations. Again, these results are
similar to earlier published reports (Chambers, 1971; Horn, 1970; White, 1972).
Unfiltered Lagoon Effluent—
Total coliform reduction—Figures 41 through 48 relate the response of un-
filtered lagoon effluent coliform concentrations to total chlorine residual.
Total coliform reduction versus residual chlorine at three different contact
times (18, 35, and 50 minutes) is illustrated in Figures 41-43. A summary of
these three figures is presented in Figure 44. Figure 44 indicates, again,
that increasing amounts of total chlorine residual and chlorine contact time
will increase the reduction of total coliform concentration. This summary
graph (Figure 44) indicates that a 99.9 percent reduction of total coliform
bacteria can be achieved with 18 minutes of chlorine contact at total chlorine
residual concentrations of 4.2 mg/1. The regression lines in this figure
illustrating the 35 and 50 minute chlorine contact times are statistically
the same for reasons discussed earlier, in connection with filtered lagoon
effluent, and suggest that an average of 3.0 mg/1 total chlorine residual is
required to reduce total coliform concentrations by 99.9 percent at these
chlorine contact times. This is a 29 percent, or 1.2 mg/1, reduction of total
chlorine residual for the 35 to 50 minute chlorine contact times over that for
the 18 minute chlorine contact time.
Fecal coliform reduction—The effect of total chlorine residual on fecal
coliform reduction in unfiltered lagoon effluent is shown by Figures 45-47
for chlorine contact times of 18, 35, and 50 minutes, respectively. These
results are summarized in Figure 48. Figure 48 indicates reduced fecal coli-
form concentrations with increased chlorine contact time and total chlorine
residual. A 3.4 mg/1 total chlorine residual with an 18 minute chlorine con-
tact time and an average of 2.3 mg/1 of total chlorine residual for 35 and 50
minutes chlorine contact times is suggested by this figure to reduce fecal
coliform levels by 99.9 percent. This means 32 percent less total chlorine
residual is required at the longer contact times than for that at 18 minutes
chlorine contact to produce the same level of reduction.
Results obtained from the unfiltered lagoon effluent fecal coliform data
indicate that the 99.9 percent reduction levels are achieved at lower concen-
trations of total chlorine residual than for total coliform reduction in un-
filtered lagoon effluent (an average of 5.7 mg/1 total chlorine residual for
fecal coliform compared to 7.2 mg/1 total chlorine residual for total coliform,
or 21 percent less). Fecal coliform bacteria may be less resistant to chlorine
in unfiltered lagoon effluent. The different wastewater characteristics from
83
-------
those of filtered lagoon effluent in combination with chlorine may cause the
fecal coliform to die-off at a greater rate in the unfiltered lagoon effluent.
This reason may help to explain why total chlorine residual concentrations
vary in effectiveness between total and fecal coliform reduction with unfil-
tered lagoon effluent and not with filtered lagoon effluent.
Summary—
Results indicate that increasing total chlorine residual will produce in-
creased total and fecal coliform reduction for both filtered and unfiltered
lagoon effluent. Results also suggest that statistically significant reduc-
tions in coliform concentration can be accomplished at the same residual
chlorine level with increasing chlorine contact times.
Indications are that less total chlorine residual is required for dis-
infection of filtered lagoon effluent over that of unfiltered lagoon effluent.
An average of 3.6 mg/1 total chlorine residual is required for a 99.9 percent
reduction of total coliform numbers in unfiltered lagoon effluent, while only
2.1 mg/1 is needed for the same reduction in filtered lagoon effluent, a 42
percent lower chlorine residual requirement. In addition, 23 percent less
total chlorine residual (2.2 mg/1) is required to achieve a 99.9 percent
reduction of fecal coliform numbers in filtered lagoon effluent, as compared
with unfiltered lagoon effluent (2.85 mg/1).
There is also evidence that fecal coliform bacteria in unfiltered lagoon
effluent are reduced to the 99.9 percent level with smaller concentrations of
total chlorine residual than are the total coliform bacteria.
Factors Affecting Chlorine Residual
General—
As discussed in the literature review section, the chlorine demand is
affected by many different wastewater characteristics. Among these are
volatile suspended solids, ammonia, and temperature. These parameters are
important because of their effect upon disinfection practices and also be-
cause of resultant effects that chlorination has on ammonia and volatile
suspended solids.
Effects of applied chlorine dose on
total chlorine residual—
The overall relationships found between the applied chlorine dosage and
the observed total chlorine residual for all chlorine contact times studied
(i.e., 18 min, 35 min, and 50 min) and for filtered and unfiltered lagoon
effluent are described by Figures 49 and 50, respectively. The difference
between the applied chlorine dose and the total chlorine residual is the
chlorine demand. Both figures (regardless of lagoon effluent type) indicate
similar results. They suggest an expected total chlorine residual of about
one-half the applied chlorine dose. Therefore, about one-half of the chlorine
is being taken up by materials that create a chlorine demand. These results
are comparable to the results reported in the literature on other types of
84
-------
13
CO
or
UJ
z
Or
O
Equation of line:
Y = 0.509X
R=.954
5 10 15
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 49. Observed total chlorine residual remaining versus chlorine dosage
for chlorine contact times of 18, 35, and 50 minutes using filtered
lagoon effluent.
o- 'M
Q
CO
UJ
ir
o:
3
I
Equation of line
Y = 0.49IX
R=.904
I
12
I
18
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 50. Observed total chlorine residual remaining versus chlorine dosage
for chlorine contact times of 18, 35, and 50 minutes using un-
filtered lagoon effluent.
85
-------
secondary treated wastewater (Durham and Wolf, 1973; Echelberger et al., 1971;
Eliassen and Krieger, 1950; Horn, 1970; Kott, 1971; Laubusch, 1962). However,
the typical lag in the chlorine demand curve is not illustrated by the data,
because chlorine residual was measured after a specified contact time (i.e.,
18 min, 35 min, or 50 min).
The relationship between applied chlorine dose and observed total chlorine
residual at various chlorine contact times using filtered lagoon effluent is
illustrated in Figures 51-53 and summarized in Figure 54. Statistical com-
parison of the slopes of the regression lines indicates no difference at the
5 percent level of significance, and, therefore, these regression lines are
considered to have the same slope. Thus, regardless of the contact time, the
chlorine residual was always approximately one-half the total applied chlorine
dose, suggesting that very little residual die-away occurred in the chlorine
contact chamber.
In Figures 55 to 57, similar data from unfiltered lagoon effluent are
presented. Figure 58 is a composite of those data. Statistical analysis
indicates that the slopes of the regression lines which describe the data at
the various chlorine contact times are not significantly different. Thus, the
chlorine demand in unfiltered lagoon effluent was constant regardless of
chlorine dosage and contact time.
Effects of volatile suspended solids
on chlorine residual—
The literature suggests that organic solids exert a moderate chlorine
demand (Snow, 1952; Wallace and Tiernan, undated). It follows, therefore,
that large concentrations of volatile suspended solids, which are an index
of organic solids, would create a high chlorine demand. A statistical plotting
method (Hurst, undated a) was employed to find ranges of volatile suspended
solids, in both the filtered and unfiltered lagoon effluent, that would indi-
cate a relationship with total chlorine residual concentration. Results of
this analysis were inconclusive and, therefore, are not included in this
section (see Appendix C, Figures C-15 to C-24).
Effects of ammonia on chlorine demand—
The reactions between chlorine and ammonia (NH3-N) in wastewater are
important because chloramines are less effective disinfectants than free
available chlorine (McKee et al., 1960; Weber, 1972). The chlorine break-
point curve, as shown in Figure 1, describes the resulting chlorine residual
concentrations with increasing chlorine dose at various mole ratios of
C12:NH3-N. As the molar ratio of C12:NH3-N exceeds 1.0, further increases
in applied chlorine dose result in a marked decrease in titrable chlorine
residual.
An adaptation of Figure 1 is illustrated in Figure 59 and indicates the
chlorine demand (applied C12 dose minus total C12 residual) at various mole
ratios of C12 to NH3. A constantly increasing slope is suggested by Figure,59
with the greatest incline occurring between the 1.0 and 2.0 mole ratios. The
field data for this study relating applied chlorine dose minus total chlorine
86
-------
18 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.933, Y = 0.534x t 0.062
o>
10-
g
co
LU
CC
cc
o
o
Figure 51.
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 18 minutes con-
tact time only versus chlorine dosage using filtered lagoon
effluent.
o
CO
UJ
oc
z
cc
3
o
35 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R = .933, Y= 0.505 x t 0.007
r
10
20
Figure 52.
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 35 minutes con-
tact time only versus chlorine dosage using filtered lagoon
effluent.
87
-------
o>
o
CO
UJ
o:
UJ
E
o
o
5-
50 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.932, Y = 0.479«+ 0.010
I
10
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 53. Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 50 minutes contact
time only versus chlorine dosage using filtered lagoon effluent.
a
CO
UJ
tr
UJ
o:
3
X
" 5-
16 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R=.933
35 " " " , R = .933
50 " " " . R = .932
~r
10
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 54. Summary of total chlorine residual remaining after various contact
times versus chlorine dosage using filtered lagoon effluent.
88
-------
Q
CO
LU
CC
CC
3
i
u 5-
18 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.847, Y=0.507x + 0.139
I
12
24
30
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 55. Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 18 minutes con-
tact time versus chlorine dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent.
<
O
LL|
cc.
-------
10-
ID
g
in
LU
CC
o;
O
I
o
<
o
5-
50 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R = .822, Y =0.460 x + 0.076
~T
12
T~
18
24
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 57. Observed total chlorine residual remaining after 50 minutes con-
tact time versus chlorine dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent,
Q
LL)
o:
o:
O
I
o
5-
18 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R = .847
35 " " " , R=.833
50 " " " , R=.822
T"
12
30
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 58. Summary of total chlorine residual remaining after various con-
tact times versus chlorine dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent,
90
-------
lU
1C
UJ
8
o
_J
0.
0.
MOLE RATIO, CI^NHj-N
Figure 59. An adaptation of the chlorine breakpoint curve with C19:NH~-N mole
ratios. J
residual to C^NI^-N ratios for filtered and unfiltered lagoon effluent are
illustrated in Figures 60 and 61. The data in both Figures 60 and 61 are
widely dispersed and no resemblance to Figure 59 can he observed. No consis-
tent change in chlorine demand with respect to C12:NH3-N mole ratios is indi-
cated by either of these two figures. Regression analysis of Figure 61 (un-
filtered lagoon effluent) does indicate an overall increase in slope over the
entire mole ratio range. However, the confidence intervals are greater than
50 percent and the correlation does not approach the 5 percent level of
significance. Correlation coefficients fall in the range of 0.08-0.31 and
are also greater than the 50 percent level of statistical significance.
Regression analysis of the filtered lagoon effluent data do not show any con-
sistent increases in regression line slopes (i.e. negative slopes are obtained
along with positive slopes when performing linear regression analysis on the
0.0-1.0, 1.0-2.0, 2.0-4.0 C12:NH3-N mole ratio ranges). In summary, results
obtained from Figures 60 and 61 do not show the expected results predicted by
Figure 59.
Lagoon effluents contain various concentrations of inorganic and organic
nitrogenous compounds. The breakpoint curve (Figure 1) indicates what occurs
in relatively pure laboratory water containing ammonia and chlorine. Influences
of the other nitrogenous compounds as well as other organic and inorganic mate-
rials may hinder the development of a similar breakpoint curve and thus produce
the results observed in Figures 60 and 61. These results indicate that no
conclusive effect on chlorine demand by ammonia can be determined without
additional data (i.e. nitrites, nitrates, total organic nitrogen, etc.).
91
-------
13
Q
CO
LU
cc
CO
=>
S 1-
UJ
co
g
o
UJ
_
Q.
0.
MOLE RATIO, CI2 : NH3-N
Figure 60. Chlorine demand with respect to C12:NH«-N mole ratios for filtered
lagoon effluent.
Q
CO 15 —
UJ
ir
<
o
CO
ID
UJ
CO
o
Q
O
UJ
_
Q.
Q.
MOLE RATIO, CI2:NH3-N
*
Figure 61. Chlorine demand with respect to C12:NH3-N mole ratios for unfll-
tered lagoon effluent.
92
-------
Effects of Temperature on Chlorine Residual—
General—The effect of temperature on the level of chlorine residual pro-
duced from chlorination practices is of interest due to the reports that lower
temperature will create the need for greater chlorine dosage to achieve the
same level of coliform reduction (Reid and Carlson, 1974).
Unfiltered lagoon effluent—The unfiltered lagoon effluent field data sug-
gest agreement with the above concept. Figures 62-65 indicate the effects of
temperature at 0°-5°, 5°-10°, 10°-15°, and greater than 15°C ranges on the
relationship between chlorine dosage and total chlorine residual. The overall
effect of temperature is summarized in Figure 66, which indicates that total
chlorine residuals will increase with increasing temperatures. The 5°—10 C
and the 10°-15°C regression lines in Figure 66 were not significantly different
in slope. This indicates that the relationship of total chlorine residual to
applied chlorine dose over the temperature range of 5°-15°C is essentially the
same. These temperature ranges were selected to compare the results of this
study to earlier reported findings (Butterfield, 1943; Reid and Carlson, 1974).
Analysis of Figure 66 indicates that approximately 83 percent more applied
chlorine is required to obtain the same concentration of total chlorine residu-
al at the 0°-5°.C temperature range over the greater than 15°C temperature
range for the unfiltered lagoon effluent.
Filtered lagoon effluent—The indication that chlorine demand will increase
with a decrease in temperature was not observed with filtered lagoon effluent
data. Figures 67-70 present the data for varying temperature ranges plotted
to illustrate their effects on chlorine demand. Figure 71 is a summary of
Figures 67-70. Figure 71 does not indicate the trend noted with unfiltered
lagoon effluent. This could possibly be attributed to the fewer number of
data available; or perhaps this pattern does not exist with filtered lagoon
effluent regardless of what reported literature suggests. With a higher
quality effluent (reduced solids, ammonia, BOD^, etc.) the temperature may
not have any definite impact on chlorine residual formation.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
General
A basic model to be used in optimizing the chlorination of waste stabili-
zation lagoon effluent was developed with the objective of constructing a
practical design model for application under typical lagoon conditions. This
required a determination of the significant relationships pertaining to the
chlorination process. Information obtained from the literature was used to
estimate the parameters and relationships likely to be most important. Upon
examination of field and laboratory data, the parameters observed to be least
important were eliminated from consideration. The most acceptable approach in
representing chemical and biological interactions was considered to be the
application of chemical reaction kinetics. This approach was used wherever
possible and practical. Optional provisions were made to enhance model
sophistication. These provisions, however, required significantly more com-
puter time and, therefore, restricted the practical applicability of the model.
93
-------
U)
UJ
o:
cc
o
I
O 5
0° - 5°C
R = .813, Y = 0.369X - 0.9IB
12 18 24
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
O
Figure 62. Total chlorine residual remaining at 0 -5 C versus chlorine dosage
using unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min) .
Q
-------
CO
Ul
ca
o:
3
o
10° - I5°C
R=.933, Y = 0.474 X * 0.375
I I I
12 18 24
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 64. Total chlorine residual remaining at 10 -15 C versus chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min)
o>
CO
U
15 C versus chlorine dosage
using unfiltered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min).
95
-------
• 0°-5° C, R = .8I3
• 5°-IO°C, R = .957
IO°-I5°C, R=.933
> I5°C, R = .85I
Q
W5
Ul
(E
tr
o
i
o
_l
<
I
12
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 66. Summary of temperature effects on the relationship between total
chlorine residual and applied chlorine dosage using unfiltered
lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min).
Q
-------
CO
tu
ir
cr
o
i
o
5"-10° C
R = .957, Y = 0.725n-O.I40
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 68. Total chlorine residual remaining at 5 -10 C versus chlorine dosage
using filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min).
a
CO
UJ
cc
o:
3
10° - 15° C
R=.977, Y= 0.595 x - 0.036
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 69. Total chlorine residual remaining at 10 -15 C versus chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min).
97
-------
cn
1U
o:
ir
o
i
o
> 15" C
R=.928, Y= 0.501 x - 0.090
15
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 70. Total chlorine residual remaining at >15 C versus chlorine dosage
using filtered lagoon effluent (contact time = 50 min) .
0°-5°C AND IO°-I5° C, R = .986 AND R = .977
• 5°-IO°C, R = .957
• > 15° C, R-32B
O
(O
UJ
IE
LJ
Z
tc
o
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 71. Summary of temperature effects on the relationship between total
chlorine residual and applied chlorine dosage using filtered lagoon
effluent (contact time = 50 min).
98
-------
Inspection of field data provided observations which allowed for model
simplification. One of these observations involved the practice of breakpoint
chlorination. The breakpoint, and thus, the production of free chlorine
residual, was reached for less than 6 percent of the total data after a con-
tact time of 18 minutes. Free chlorine residual was observed only when
chlorine dosages higher than necessary to achieve adequate disinfection were
applied concurrently with low NHo-N concentrations. In all cases involving
breakpoint chlorination, MPN fecal coliform counts were reduced to less than
2/100 ml in less than 18 minutes. All but two MPN total coliform counts were
also reduced to less than 2/100 ml in the same contact time. From this ob-
servation, it can be concluded that it should seldom, if ever, be necessary
to use breakpoint chlorination to achieve satisfactory disinfection for lagoon
effluents. Since the mechanisms and kinetics involved in breakpoint chlori-
nation are only rarely applied, they can be eliminated or greatly simplified
in the model. This is particularly welcome since, at present, little is
understood about the breakpoint chemistry in wastewater containing high
amounts of organic nitrogen.
For those times when free chlorine residual did appear, the NHo-N concen-
trations in the unchlorinated lagoon effluent were generally found to be less
than 1.0 mg/1. Usually, conditions of low ammonia concentrations resulted
from algae blooms or from filtering effluent through intermittent sand fil-
ters. The biological reactions which occur with the intermittent sand filter
substantially reduce lagoon effluent ammonia concentrations. For this particu-
lar lagoon system, algae blooms were observed in early September, 1975, early
May, 1976, and late June, 1976. Fortunately, bacterial concentrations were
also reduced as a result of filtering and algae blooms. Thus, less chlorine
dose was required to achieve disinfection. Under these conditions, satis-
factory bacterial removal should be achieved without resorting to breakpoint
chlorination.
During six weeks in March and early April, 1976, it was observed that as
much as six to seven times more chlorine was required to produce the same
residual as observed during other times of the year. This was apparently a
result of anaerobic conditions created by the lagoons freezing over during
the winter months. Under conditions of very little dissolved oxygen, hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) levels as high as 1.8 mg/1 were produced. t^S reacts very
rapidly with chlorine, reducing it to the innocuous chloride ion. Therefore,
it became obvious that provisions in the model must be made to predict changes
in sulfide concentrations and to determine the amount of chlorine consumed by
H2S.
One other field observation was important in formulating the model.
Generally, the pH value for the untreated effluent remained between 8.0 and
9.0 during most of the year. Occasionally, the pH value dropped to as low
as 7.5 or rose to as high as 9.5. The lagoon effluent was observed to possess
excellent buffering capacity. The pH was shifted only under conditions of
very high chlorine doses. These variations in pH could be considered to be
quite important if free residual chlorination was being used. However, since
most of the disinfection is accomplished with combined chlorine, the slight
altering of the distribution of chloramines across this pH range is less
critical in achieving satisfactory disinfection. In general, this pH range
99
-------
is typical of other lagoon systems; therefore, little attention need be given
to the effects of pH on combined chlorine disinfection of lagoon effluent.
To provide for conditions where pH may be important, however- a model option
is included for determining the distribution of chlorine species as a function
of pH.
With these field observations and with information derived from literature
and laboratory experiments previously discussed, a general structure for the
mathematical model was developed. The basic model was developed based upon
the following general assumptions and considerations.
1. The chlorine demand exerted by sulfide occurs so rapidly that it is
considered to be instantaneous.
2. The hydrolysis of chlorine gas in aqueous solution is instantaneous
and complete.
3. Because of the lack of appropriate field data and since extremely low
coliform counts were in the presence of any free residual chlorine,
no distinction was made between the disinfection properties of
hypochlorous acid (HOC1) and hypochlorite ion (OC1~). These two
components were treated together as free chlorine.
4. Breakpoint chlorination was considered to have little or no practical
value in lagoon disinfection. Therefore, the representation of break-
point reactions was reduced to a simplified steady state approach.
5. It was assumed that in all cases, satisfactory disinfection can be
achieved with combined chlorine residual.
6. Because reactions between chlorine and ammonia occur so much more
rapidly than bacterial disinfection, chlorainine formation is con-
sidered to be instantaneous. No distinction is made between species
of chloramines and all are treated as combined chlorine.
7. Chemical reaction kinetics for batch and plug flow reactors as des-
cribed by Levenspeil (1962) are used to describe the dynamic portion
of the model.
8. The effects of chlorination on pH were neglected because of the
buffering capacity of the particular lagoon effluents studied.
9. Temperature dependence was assumed for the rates of disinfection and
exertion of chlorine demand. Changes in rates of chemical reactions
are described using the Arrhenius equation.
10. The rate at which chlorine demand is exerted is considered to be a
function of the concentration of suspended and soluble, organic and
inorganic oxidizable materials, as well as the concentration of
chlorine residual. Total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD), therefore,*
is used in describing chlorine demand.
100
-------
11. Soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD) and suspended solids (SS) are
two water quality parameters which have the potential of being
altered by the chlorination process and, therefore, are included
in the model.
The basic model, hereafter known as CHLOR-I, is restricted in application
to chlorine contact chambers approaching plug flow hydraulic conditions.
Dispersion is not considered in this model. Alterations to enhance the
sophistication of the basic model are discussed under the heading "Model
options" and are incorporated in a second model referred to as CHLOR-II.
Complete listings of the computer programs, along with descriptions of vari-
ables for CHLOR-I and CHLOR-II, are included in Appendix F and Appendix G,
respectively. Detailed descriptions of the development of both models are
contained in the following sections.
Sulfide
According to Laubusch (1962), Karchmer (1970), and Chen (1974), the
theoretical weight ratio of chlorine consumed to sulfide oxidized is 8.5:1.
However, as these authors have indicated, it is possible to produce a chlorine
residual with dosages well below this ratio. This indicates that sulfides
are not necessarily completely oxidized by chlorine. Under conditions of
complete oxidation, the following reaction takes place.
4HOC1 + H2S -> H2S04 + 4HC1 (34)
This reaction is favored at pH 9. For lower pH values a smaller chlorine dose
is required to remove sulfide. At pH 5, the following reaction is favored.
HOC1 + H2S -> HC1 + H20 + S+ (35)
Further oxidation by chlorine is slow once elemental sulfur has been formed.
The chlorine dose required to remove sulfide is reduced by 75 percent in
dropping from pH 9 to pH 5. Since the pH of the lagoon effluent varied
between 7.5-8.0 during the period for which sulfide was produced, it was
anticipated that the ratio of chlorine to sulfide would be somewhat less
than that required for complete oxidation.
Nickless (1968) has pointed out that the reactions between chlorine and
sulfide are extremely rapid and often quite violent. Although actual kinetic
data are limited, it is assumed from literature previously referenced and
field observation that the reactions are rapid enough to be considered
instantaneous. Therefore, steady state assumptions are used to determine
the amounts of chlorine and sulfide consumed as a result of chlorination.
One approach used by Chen (1972) to determine the amount of chlorine con-
sumed per mole of sulfide reacted is described by the following empirical
equation.
R = atb (36)
101
-------
In which
R = ratio of chlorine to sulfide reacted
t = reaction time in minutes
a = extent of reaction in one minute
b = rate of change in experimental ratio with time
It is important to point out that not all of the sulfide produced in an
anaerobic system is in the form of H2S. Studies performed by Gloyna and
Espino (1969) on sulfide production in waste stabilization ponds indicates
that at pH 7 only about 50 percent of the total sulfide produced is in the
form of H2S. Other sulfide forms can be expected to react differently with
chlorine. This further complicates the determination of the amount of chlorine
consumed by sulfide.
From evaluations of sulfide removal in sewage collection systems, Shepherd
and Hobbs (1973) found that when 5 mg/1 of chlorine was added to wastewater
containing 2.4 mg/1 sulfide, the sulfide concentration was reduced to 1.5 mg/1
after 40 minutes. For longer periods, regeneration of sulfide was observed.
In the present study laboratory experiments indicated that 2.1 to 8.4 pounds
of chlorine were required to remove one pound of H2S. This compares with field
data from the present study which indicates that 3 to 7 pounds of chlorine
is required to remove 1 pound of fl^S.
Data from this study indicates that the ratio of chlorine consumed to
sulfide oxidized is highly variable. The mean of all data gives a Cl2:S~ mole
ratio of 2.54:1. Because of the high variability of the data, the median
value was also selected to be used as an initial estimate of the moles of
chlorine consumed per mole of sulfide. This value was determined to be 3.6:1,
after eliminating several questionable data points. Both ratios fall within
the range of theoretical mole ratios of 1:1 to 4:1. In applying the two ratios,
it was found that the ratio 3.6:1 was more satisfactory when used in con-
junction with the completed model.
When sulfide did appear in the lagoon effluent, the concentrations were
generally between 1.0-1.8 mg/1. For this range of sulfide, a linear regression
was performed to determine the relationship between chlorine dose and chlorine
residual. The results of this regression are presented in Figure 72. It is
expected that this relationship is quite different for sulfide concentrations
above 1.8 mg/1 and below 1.0 mg/1. The results do indicate that once the
chlorine demand exerted by sulfide is satisfied, sulfide plays no further role
in affecting the chlorine dose to residual relationship.
It was observed from field data that after the application of chlorine,
sulfides were reduced but not completely eliminated. The accuracy of the
laboratory method used to evaluate sulfide may have contributed to this
phenomenon. However, preliminary evaluations of the method indicated that
it was accurate at levels above 0.1 mg/1 sulfide. Another explanation for the
remaining sulfide may be that some sulfide was regenerated, as observed by
Shepherd and Hobbs (1973). Also, some of the measured sulfide may have been
associated with organic sulfide complexes, which were less readily oxidized,
by chlorine.
102
-------
o
u>
15 -
10
ID
Q
en
LJ
LU
2
cr
o
I 5
CJ
O
o
-Residuol= - 1.552 + 0.346 (Dose)
R= 0.956
0
10 15
CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
20
Figure 72. Chlorine residual vs. dose for initial sulfide concentrations of 1.0 - 1.8 mg/l.
-------
The reduction, but incomplete elimination, of sulfide was considered to
follow an exponential decay with increasing chlorine doses. Therefore, the
following equation was assumed for predicting the amount of sulfide oxidized
by chlorine.
S = ST + (S - ST) e ............ (37)
L o L
j
in which
S = mg/1 sulfide remaining after a specified chlorine dose
S = mg/1 initial sulfide concentration
S^ = lower limit of sulfide detection (0.1 mg/1 in this case)
K = empirical constant
C17 = mg/1 chlorine dose
A regression analysis was performed on the field data to determine the
value of K. This was found to be equal to -0.141, with a resulting correlation
coefficient, R, of 0.674. This is significant at the 95 percent confidence
level. An illustration of how predicted values compare with observed data for
an initial sulfide concentration of 1.2 mg/1 is presented in Figure 73. Upon
application in CHLOR-I, the amount of sulfide consumed, as a function of
chlorine dose, is calculated using Equation 37. The amount of chlorine re-
quired to oxidize the consumed sulfide is then determined from the C^iS" ratio
developed from field data.
Breakpoint Chlorination Approximation
As previously discussed, free chlorine residual was observed in less than
6 percent of the field data. Since breakpoint chlorination was found to be of
limited practical value in application to wastewater, it was assumed that a
steady state approximation of breakpoint kinetics was sufficient, in most
cases, to describe the oxidation of chloramines and the appearance of free
chlorine. Kinetically, the formation of chloramines is extremely rapid,
particularly in comparison with the rate of disinfection. Therefore, steady
state assumptions are also used in CHLOR-I to describe the reactions between
chlorine and NF^-N and organic nitrogen. This is a reasonable assumption
since, as Jolley (1973) has pointed out, the reaction between HOC1 and NHo-N
to form monochloramine is 99 percent complete within one minute. Reaction
rates for the formation of other chloramines are also very rapid.
Although it has been well documented by White (1972) that the breakpoint
is highly variable in wastewater, the ideal breakpoint curve, with modifications
to represent reactions between chlorine and organic nitrogen, is used to ap-
proximate chloramine formation and oxidation. To examine the merit of this
approach, a breakpoint chlorination curve for secondary lagoon effluent from
the Logan Lagoon System was constructed during December, 1975. The results
are shown in Figure 74. These results should not be interpreted as being
typically representative for lagoon effluent. However, they do suggest that
there is some basis for using the ideal breakpoint curve as a starting point
to represent steady state assumptions previously described.
*>
Major alterations to the shape of the breakpoint curve may be expedited to
result, at least in part, from reactions between chlorine and organic nitrogen.
104
-------
o
Ln
1.5 -
1.0 -
o>
0.5 -
A Predicted
• Observed
-S = SL+(S0-SL)e
-0.141 (Chlorine Dose)
5 10 15
CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
20
Figure 73. Sulfide vs. chlorine dose for initial sulfide = 1.2 mg/l.
-------
0
10
20 30 40 50 60
APPLIED Cl DOSE (mg/l)
Figure 74. Breakpoint chlorination curve for secondary lagoon effluent sampled on
December 15, 1975. Initial NHg-N - 5 mg/l. Contact time = 30
minutes.
Laubusch (1962) and Jolley (1973) have indicated that chlorine reacts with
many organics. These reactions may include chlor-addition and substitution
and even complete oxidation of organics. The rates of these reactions are
also rapid enough for steady state assumptions to apply. As Jolley (1973)
has pointed out, the formation of some organic chloramines is even faster than
the formation of inorganic chloramines.
Data previously presented point out that the total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
content of lagoon effluent may be two, three, or more times greater than
NH3~N. It is not known if chlorine would react with all of the total nitrogen
if a high enough dose were applied, or if all organic chloramines would be
oxidized before free chlorine would appear. However, field data suggest that
at least some of the proteins, amino acids, and other organic nitrogen com-
pounds react with chlorine to produce compounds which are less readily oxi-
dized by additional chlorine than are inorganic chloramines. Chlorine to
106
-------
ammonia molar ratios exceeding 1:1 with little apparent oxidation of chloramines
give evidence of these types of reactions. This would explain in part why
relatively large concentrations of combined chlorine, and even ammonia, remain-
ed after the appearance of the free chlorine. This observation suggests that
a simple shifting of the ideal breakpoint curve to account for the formation
of organic chloramines could be used to approximate the reactions between
chlorine and total nitrogen.
In making an approximation of the breakpoint curve in CHLOR-I, a correction
factor (CORNH3) is used to shift the ideal breakpoint curve. This factor is a
function of the composition and quantity of nitrogenous material in addition
to NH3~N which could react with chlorine. Theoretically, the C12:NH3-N ratio
is 1:1 for maximum chloramine formation in an ideal breakpoint curve. In
application, the factor increases the Cl2:NH3~N molar ratio necessary to
achieve maximum chloramine formation. Under ideal conditions, the C^iNHg-N
molar ratio at the breakpoint is approximately 2:1. However, in application
the breakpoint itself is shifted to the right by the same factor. The actual
value of this ratio has been questioned by Wei and Morris (1974). They sug-
gest that the ideal ratio of reduced chlorine to oxidized nitrogen is closer
to 1.65:1 and that this value is independent of pH. Therefore, the 1.65:1
ratio is used in CHLOR-I to estimate breakpoint.
As the breakpoint is shifted horizontally, it is also shifted vertically
to represent the complex N-chloro compounds which are not oxidized with the
appearance of free chlorine. At this point, the chloramines formed from the
reaction between chlorine and NH^-N have been completely oxidized. This cor-
responds with a reduction of measured NHo-N. As the C^^Ho-N ratio increases
beyond breakpoint, the combined chlorine residual remains constant, subject to
the exertion of chlorine demand, while free chlorine residual increases. An
example of the shift in the shape of the breakpoint curve is illustrated in
Figure 75 for a correction factor of 0.5.
Chemical Oxygen Demand
As previously discussed, the results from laboratory experiments indicate
that there is little or no change in total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD) with
increases in applied chlorine dose. However, it was also observed that under
some conditions there was a tendency for chlorine to break down suspended
organic solids into soluble organics as evidenced by increases in soluble
chemical oxygen demand (SCOD). This condition was particularly noticeable
when there were large initial concentrations of suspended chemical oxygen
demand (TCOD minus SCOD) and high combined and free chlorine residuals, as
shown in Figure 16.
In 'examining the field data, it was observed that there was very little
change in SCOD with increasing chlorine doses for the filtered lagoon effluent.
This is shown in Figure 28 and indicates that the removal of suspended chemical
oxygen demand also removes the organics and inorganics which chlorine could
oxidize to increase the SCOD. However, the same trend was also observed for
unfiltered lagoon effluent as shown in Figure 29. This suggests that the type
of chlorine residual, free or combined, may also have an impact on changes in
SCOD. It is reasonable to assume that free chlorine would more readily oxidize
107
-------
2.5 -|
3.5
INITIAL CI2/NH3-N MOLAR RATIO
Figure 75. Shift in the breakpoint curve using a CORNH3 factor of 0.5.
chemical oxygen demanding particulates to increase the SCOD. Therefore, the
changes in unfiltered effluent as a function of free chlorine residual were
examined. The results, as shown in Figure 32, indicate that there is a cor-
relation between increases in SCOD and free chlorine residual. The same
trend was not observed, however, for free chlorine and filtered lagoon ef-
fluent. This was because of lower concentrations of suspended oxygen demand-
ing solids and limited free chlorine data.
Using the information derived from laboratory and field observations, it
has been hypothesized that increases in SCOD result from the reaction between
free chlorine (FC1) and suspended chemical oxygen demand (TCOD minus SCOD). This
can be expressed by the following equation:
FC1 + (TCOD - SCOD) -> ASCOD (38)
If second order kinetics are assumed, the rate of increase in SCOD can be
determined from the following rate equation:
D(SCOD)
dt
= CC1 (FC1) (TCOD - SCOD)
(39)
108
-------
Q
O
O
CO
Q
O
O
.c
O
d)
-2 -
-3 -
-4 -
-5 -
— -6 -
-7
Chlorine Dose 29 mg/|
I
30
60
TIME (Minutes)
90
120
Figure 76. Determination of reaction order between free chlorine and sus-
pended COD.
In this equation, CC1 is a rate constant expressed in 1/mg-min.
To determine if second order kinetics are actually followed in this
reaction, an approach described by Levenspeil (1962) was used. A plot of
In (FC1/(TCOD - SCOD)) versus time was constructed for several pieces of data,
as shown in Figure 76. A straight line plot indicates second order kinetics.
Since most of the lines are straight in Figure 76, it was concluded that the
reaction is indeed second order.
Using second order kinetics and laboratory data, a regression analysis
was performed to determine the value of CC1. Laboratory data were used in
order to eliminate some of the variables associated with field data. The
result of the regression is represented by the following equation.
dt
= (7.24 x 10 4)(FC1)(TCOD - SCOD)
(40)
109
-------
The rate of SCOD change is in units of mg/l-min. The correlation coefficient,
R, obtained from this regression was 0.74. This value of R is significant at
the 95 percent confidence level; therefore, the determined value of CC1 is
used in CHLOR-I to describe increases in SCOD.
Suspended Solids
Suspended solids (SS) concentrations were largely composed of volatile
suspended solids (VSS), and the discussion of the effects of chlorine on SS
also refers to the effects of chlorine on VSS. Laboratory data suggest that
reductions in SS may result directly from chlorination. Evaluation of field
data also shows reduction of solids between unchlorinated and chlorinated
lagoon effluent. The changes in solids before and after chlorination for both
filtered and unfiltered lagoon effluents are shown in Figures 30 and 31. From
data previously presented, it is known that most of the reduction of SS in the
field data is the result of settling. However, it is not known if chlorine
assists in settling by acting as a flocculent aid. To reduce the effects of
undefined variables, initially only laboratory data were used to determine
the correlation between chlorine and suspended solids. Later, field data were
also used to determine the values of rate constants. This was done by elimi-
nating from consideration the time period during which most of the settling
was observed to occur, and examining the remaining data. Although it is
expected that free chlorine is more important in oxidizing SS, there was no
confirming evidence, as there was in evaluating SCOD increases, to indicate
that combined chlorine is not involved in the reduction of SS. Also, the ratio
of free and combined chlorine which causes SS to settle during the chlorination
process is not known. Therefore, it was initially assumed that both free
chlorine (FC1) and combined chlorine (CC1) react with SS to cause reductions,
either by oxidation or by flocculation.
If second order kinetics are assumed, the following equations may be used
to describe the reaction between chlorine and SS:
FC1 + SS -> Soluble Products (41)
CC1 + SS -> Soluble Products (42)
The rate of SS reduction may be expressed as follows:
d(SS)
= CC2 (FC1) (SS) + CC3 (CC1) (SS) (43)
CC2 and CC3 are rate constants. To determine if second order kinetics are
actually followed, In (chlorine/SS) was plotted versus time, using the ap-
proach described by Levenspeil (1962). This was performed for both free and
combined chlorine. The results, as shown by the straight line plots in Figure
77 indicate second order reactions.
Upon performing a regression analyses, values of CC2 and CC3 were determined
as shown in the following equation:
= (-5.85 x ID'5) (FC1) (SS) + (-3.5 x 10~4) (CC1) (SS)
(44)
110
-------
-2 -A
CO
CO
^ -3H
-------
The rate of SS decrease is in units of mg/l-min. The correlation coefficient,
R, was found to be 0.33. Although the value of R is small, significance is
indicated at the 95 percent confidence level because of the large quantity of
data used in performing the regression. The results indicate that combined
chlorine is more important in reducing SS. Although this would seem to be
very unlikely, it must be considered that since combined chlorine was observed
in most of the data and free chlorine appeared in only a fraction of the data,
the regression was more heavily influenced by combined chlorine residuals.
Also, these values were obtained only to be used as initial estimates in
calibrating CHLOR-I.
Chlorine Demand
In developing a rate expression to describe the exertion of chlorine
demand, it was observed from field data that the rate at which chlorine residu-
al was consumed was slower in filtered lagoon effluent than in unfiltered ef-
fluent. The chlorine residual remaining for particular chlorine dosages at
three different residence times for both filtered and unfiltered effluent is
illustrated in Figures 54 and 58, respectively. Apparently, the removal of
suspended solids decreases the rate of exertion of chlorine demand. In addi-
tion to suspended organics and inorganics, it is reasonable to assume that
some of the chlorine demand is exerted by soluble organics and inorganics.
TCOD is used to represent these possible reactants in describing the reactions
between chlorine and chlorine demanding constituents of wastewater.
In using TCOD, the exertion of chlorine demand for both free and combined
chlorine may be expressed by the following reactions.
TCOD + FC1 ->- Complex A (45)
TCOD + CC1 ->- Complex B (46)
There is some difficulty in using this approach to represent the rate of
exertion of chlorine demand. When chlorine reacts with TCOD, the products
formed also contribute to TCOD. Therefore, the equations, as written, cannot
be used to describe the chemical rates of reaction. Since TCOD does not change
in these reactions, it is assumed that the reaction rate constants must there-
fore change. This approach is useful in explaining why the greatest exertion
of chlorine demand occurs within the first few moments of contact. Since the
exertion of chlorine demand is related to the initial chlorine dose, the
following expressions are used to describe the rates of exertion of chlorine
demand.
CHOCLT
(47)
. CC5 (ICOD)cxcoc
112
-------
CC4 and CC5 are rate constants, and CHOCLT and CNH2CL are factors used to
effectively reduce reaction rates as chlorine residual decreases with in-
creasing time. CTCOD is a constant initially set equal to 1.0, but included
in these equations as a quality factor for adjusting the importance of TCOD
in exerting chlorine demand. FC1O and CC1O are initial concentrations of free
and combined chlorine, respectively, after previously described steady state
assumptions have been made. Values of CC4, CCS, CHOCLT, and CNH2CL were
determined by assuming initial values and then adjusting them during the model
calibration process to fit the data.
Disinfection
The disinfection model was developed by initially assuming that chlorine
reacts with total coliforms (TC) and fecal coliforms (FC) in a manner similar
to other chemical reactions. If second order kinetics are used to describe
these reactions, the following rate expressions result.
d(,TC) = CC6 (CC1) (TC) + CC7 (FC1) (TC) ....... (49)
dt
' = CCS (CCl) (FC) + CC9 (FC1) (FC) ....... (50)
CC6 to CC9 are reaction rate constants.
To determine if these reactions truly follow second order kinetics, In
(coliforms/total chlorine residual) was plotted against time for several sets
of data. The results are shown in Figure 78, and suggest that the reaction
kinetics are probably more complex than can be explained by second order
kinetics. Since stoichiometric ratios are not known, the general chemical
reactions are written as follows:
CTOTAL(TC) + BNH2CL(CC1) -> Products ......... (51)
CTOTAL(TC) + BHOCLT(FCl) -> Products ......... (52)
CFECAL(FC) + BNH2CL(CC1) -> Products ......... (53)
CFECAL(FC) + BHOCLT(FCl) -> Products ......... (54)
CTOTAL, CFECAL, BNH2CL, and BHOCLT are stoichiometric constants.
Kinetically, the rates of reactions in MPN counts/ 100 ml-min. are expressed
by the following differential equations:
= CC6 (TC)CT°TAL (CC1)BNH2C1 + CC7 (TC)CT°TAL (FC1)BH°CLT
(55)
= CC8 (FC)CFECAL (CC1)BNH2CL + CC9 (FC)CFECAL (FC1)BH°CLT
dt
......... (56)
113
-------
Fecal Coliform (7/27/76)
Fecal Coliform (8/10/76)
Total Coliform (7/27/76)
0
0
15 30
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 78. Determination of reaction order for total and fecal coliform reduction for three sample runs.
-------
The rate constants, CC6 to CC9, have been found to be temperature dependent.
Butterfield (1943) found that at pH 8, twice as much free chlorine is required
to produce the same bacterial kill at 2-5°C as at 20-25°C. Butterfield and
Wattie (1946) have also indicated that for combined chlorine, a coliform reduc-
tion of 99 percent requires a contact time of nine times longer or a chlorine
dose of 2.5 times greater at 2.5°C than at 20-25°C. It was also found that at
2-6°C there was little bacterial kill with less than 1.2 mg/1 combined residual,
while at 20-25°C significant kill was observed down to 0.3 mg/1 combined
chlorine.
Since rate constants were found to be temperature dependent, it was neces-
sary to separate the field data into temperature ranges in order to obtain
initial values of stoichiometric and rate constants. For the 20°C temperature
range, regression analyses were performed to obtain initial estimates for
values of the constants. These initial estimates were used as the starting
point in calibrating CHLOR-I and were later adjusted for temperature by trial
and error.
Temperature Dependence
Grouping of field data by temperature range and performing preliminary
regression analyses reinforces what the literature indicates concerning the
temperature dependence of disinfection. Preliminary inspection of data in
Appendix A suggests that chlorine demand is also affected by temperature.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. (1972) have used the Arrhenius equation, as follows, to
express the effect of temperature on bacterial kill.
tj E(T2 - Tx)
108 T2 = 4.58 TlT2 .............. (57)
In this equation, t^ and t£ are the times required for a specific percentage
of kill at temperatures T| and T£ (°K) , respectively, and E is the activation
energy.
Weber (1972) has used the Arrhenius equation as the basis for determining
the change in rate constants with temperature. When the activation energy, E,
is not known, the following expression is used:
k, = k2Q 3- .......... ..... (58)
The rate constant at temperature T C is kT; k£o is the rate constant at 20°C;
and 3 is an empirical constant. The expression was used in CHLOR-I to describe
the effects of temperature on the reaction rates for disinfection and chlorine
demand. Initial values of 3 were determined from a reference made by Reid and
Carlsdn (1974) that the reaction rate doubles for each 10°C rise in temperature.
Using this approach, the value of 3 was determined to be 1.08. This value was
used as an initial estimate and later adjusted to f,it the data during model
calibration.
115
-------
Numerical Solution
In CHLOR-I, expressions to describe sulfide reduction, chlorine consumed
by sulfide, reactions with ammonia and organic nitrogen, and breakpoint chlori-
nation are independent of time and therefore solved algebraically. Dynamic
approaches as previously discussed are used to define the changes in SCOD, SS,
chlorine demand, and disinfection. The resulting system of differential
equations is solved by using a general second order Runge-Kutta solution
technique. Two sub-routines presented by Franks (1972) are used to give the
option of using either first or fourth order solution techniques, in addition
to second order. A complete listing of the computer program is present in
Appendix F along with descriptions of all variables. Rate constants are
expressed in mg/l-min. except for disinfection, which is in units of counts/100
ml-min. The integration time step was experimentally adjusted to 0.05 minutes.
Smaller time steps were found to be unnecessary and larger time steps resulted
in model instability.
Model Options
In addition to the model components of CHLOR-I as described to this point,
an option was developed to replace the steady state representation of break-
point chlorination with a more sophisticated kinetic approach. In exercising
this option, the model becomes completely dynamic, with the exception of sul-
fide reactions. The model is not only described more accurately by the kinetic
approach, but is also represented in more detail. Free chlorine is handled as
HOC1 and OC1~, while combined chlorine is broken down into monochloramine and
dichloramine. This reflects pH dependence. Incorporation of these model
options into CHLOR-I is referred to in a different model, hereafter known as
CHLOR-II. A complete computer listing of CHLOR-II, along with a description
of variables, is contained in Appendix G.
Most of the kinetics used to describe breakpoint chlorination reactions
have been defined and discussed by Weil and Morris (1949), Morris (1967), Wei
(1972), and Wei and Morris (1974). These kinetics have been applied in a
dynamic model developed by Stenstrom (1975) to describe chlorination in batch
and continuous flow reactors. Since the kinetics have been discussed con-
siderably in the literature, only a brief discussion will be presented.
The hydrolysis of chlorine gas and dissociation of hypochlorous acid, as
previously discussed, are assumed to be instantaneous. The reactions between
HOC1, OC1~, NH-j, and NH71" are described by the following equations:
kl
NH3 + HOC1 •+ NH2C1 + H20 (59)
-kl'
NH4 + OC1 -> NH2C1 + H20 (60)
In these equations, free chlorine in both its forms reacts with ammonia and
ammonium. Morris (1949) has pointed this out to show that the reactions are
highly pH dependent. The reaction rate constants are expressed by k^ and k? .
Although both equations describe the formation of monochloramine equally well,
116
-------
Morris (1974) has indicated that the formation of NI^Cl is sufficiently
explained by the first reaction. Using that equation, the rate of mono-
chloramine formation (r^) is described by
rl = kL [HOC1][NH3] (61)
in which [ ] denotes molar concentrations.
The
value of the rate constant, k.. , is expressed by Morris (1974) as
= 9.7 x 108 e ............ (62)
in which T is temperature in K and R is the universal gas constant (1.99
cal/°K-gmole). At 25°C, ki is 5.1 x 106 I/mole-sec. The magnitude of the
rate constant indicates how rapidly monochloramine is formed.
The reaction describing dichloramine formation is as follows:
k
2
+
The reaction rate, r~, is expressed by
NH2C1 + HOC1 + NHC12 + H20 ............ (63)
r2 = k2[NH2Cl][HOCl] .............. (64)
The rate constant, k?, is also temperature dependent and is calculated by
Morris (1967) from
k2 = 7.6 x 107 e(-7300/RT) ............ (65)
f\
At 25°C, k£ has a value of 3.4 x 10 I/mole-sec. It has also been found by
Morris (1967) that the reaction is catalyzed in the presence of hydrogen ion
concentrations [H*"] and acetic acid [HAG]. The catalyzed rate constant is
expressed by
k2 (catalyzed) = V1 + [H+] + [HAC]) ......... (66)
An additional reaction of interest is the formation of nitrogen trichloride.
This is expressed in the following reaction:
HOC1 + NHC12 t NC13 + H20 ............ (67)
However, since this reversible reaction predominates to the right only below
pH 4.4, it is considered to be relatively unimportant in chlorination of
waste stabilization lagoon effluent. Therefore, rate expressions for this
reaction are not included in CHLOR-II.
The overall reaction for breakpoint chlorination is described by Wei and
Morris (1974) by the following reaction:
2NH2C1 + HOC1 -»- N2 t + H20 + 3H+ + 3C1~ ........ (68)
In developing the mechanisms for this reaction, a basic mechanism proposed by
Chapin (1931) is used. This reaction is as follows:
117
-------
k3
NHC1 + H»0 •+ NOH + 2H+ + 2C1 .......... (69)
The nitroxyl group, NOH, is an intermediate product. Wei (1972) and Wei and
Morris (1974) have hypothesized that NOH reacts with NHC12, NH2C1, and HOC1
as described by the following reactions:
k4
NOH + NHC12 + N2 + HOC1 + H+ + Cl~ .......... (70)
k5 +
NOH + NH2C1 -> N2 + H20 + 01 + H .......... (71)
k6
NOH + 2HOC1 -»- N03 + 3H+ + 2C1 .......... (72)
Values for the rate constants k3 to k5 were determined experimentally by
Morris and Wei (1969) or calculated from their work by Stenstrom (1975). These
values at 20°C and pH 7 are as follows:
k3 = 0.05 I/mole-sec .............. (73)
k. = 1.0 x 106 I/mole-sec ............ (74)
4
k5 = 2.0 x 107 I/mole-sec ............ (75)
k, = 4.26 x 107 I/mole-sec ............ (76)
D
The rate expressions for these breakpoint reactions are described in the
following equations
r3 = k3 [NHC12] ............... (77)
r4 = k4 [NOH] [NHC12] ............. (78)
r5 = k5 [NOH] [NH2C1] ............. (79)
r6 = kg [NOH] [HOC1]2 ............. (80)
In all of the previous equations, [ ] refers to molar concentrations,
HOC1 refers to unionized hypochlorous acid, and NH3 refers to unionized am-
monia. To determine the distribution of ionized and unionized hypochlorous
acid, the following equation is used:
[H+][HOC1 ]
HOCl = - Tp_tal_ ............. (81)
HOClT
-------
[OH ][NH3
NH, = -- (82)
3
NHo is the sum of NHQ and NH, . Kxra0 is the equilibrium constant. Values
JTotal J 4 "H3 ^
of KHQC^ and Kfljj. are adjusted for temperature between 0-25°C. From data pre-
sented by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. (1972) and Weber (1972) at 20°C, K^ocl is
2.62 x 10~8 and K™, is 1.71 x 10~3.
NH3
From the rate expressions previously described, the following differential
equations were developed to determine the rates of change in concentrations of
key chemical constituents.
d[HOCl ]
Total /OIN
dE = - rl - r2 + r4 - r6 (83)
d[NHo ]
3lotal (84)
dt
d[NH0Cl]
= r. - r0 - r, (85)
dt "I "2 "5
d[NHC!2]
- rQ - r, (86)
dt ^2 "3 "4
d[NOH] _
dt ~ r3 " r4 r5 ~ r6 (87)
d[NO
r, (88)
dt 6
In the model developed by Stenstrom (1975), differential equations were
also used to describe rates of disinfection and chlorine demand. The rate
constants for these reactions were calculated from data presented in the
literature. However, they are only applicable to highly treated wastewater.
Therefore, the rate expressions developed in CHLOR-I to describe disinfection
and chlorine demand, as well as SS and SCOD changes, are also used in CHLOR-II.
The numerical solution for CHLOR-II also utilizes a second order Runge-
Kutta technique with some modification from that used for CHLOR-I. However,
because of the mixture of extremely rapid reactions with relatively slow
reactions, the solution technique is extremely sensitive. Rate constants are
in units of seconds, rather than minutes, and concentrations in units of
moles/1, rather than mg/1 as used in CHLOR-I. As a result of the rapid reac-
tions in CHLOR-II, it is necessary to use an extremely small time step in
obtaining a solution. It was found by trial and error that for most data an
initial time step of 0.002 seconds was necessary to prevent instability. The
additional computer time necessary to obtain a solution is a serious dis-
advantage of CHLOR-II, particularly when most of the time it is unnecessary to
calculate solutions for those reactions involved in breakpoint chlorination.
119
-------
In an effort to improve the efficiency of CHLOR-II, a step optimization
subroutine, as described by Gear (1971), was incorporated in the model. A
listing of this subroutine is found in Appendix G. The objective of the
subroutine is to keep the error below a specified minimum while allowing the
step size to get as large as possible. Step optimization is brought into
action every fifth time to appraise the maximum allowable size of the
integration time step. As time increases, the stability of the model also
increases and the rate at which the step size is adjusted also increases.
MODEL CALIBRATION
Since most of the field data collected for this study does not involve
breakpoint chlorination, the primary objective of model calibration was to
determine values of rate constants and other coefficients used in CHLOR-I for
all conditions except breakpoint. Secondary objectives involve the calibra-
tion of the steady state breakpoint assumptions used in CHLOR-I and a com-
parison between how well CHLOR-I and CHLOR-II describe breakpoint chlorination.
Because of the large amount of data collected and the computer time
involved in making each solution, it was impractical to use all of th'e field
data to calibrate the model. Therefore, to reduce the data to representative
samples, all of the data were grouped into similar ranges of coliform, TCOD,
NH -N, temperature, and chlorine dose, and then averaged. The groups which
contained the most replications and also represented the extreme initial
conditions of temperature, chlorine dose, coliform concentrations, etc. were
selected as the unfiltered data to be used for calibration. Six groups rep-
resenting chlorine doses of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 mg/1 chlorine and a tempera-
ture range of 4.0 - 22 C, were selected as the calibration data. The number
of replications from all groups represented approximately 5 percent of the
total data.
The correlation coefficient, R , was selected as the objective function
in determining how well predicted values compared with observed data. Four
key parameters, free and combined chlorine residual and total and fecal coli-
forms, were selected tc calculate the correlation coefficients. Other param-
eters were observed, although they were considered to be of less importance
in calibrating the model. Coefficients were adjusted and correlation coef-
ficients calculated until the sum of the correlation coefficients for all key
parameters and all six sets of calibration data were maximized. Initial
estimates of the values of coefficients were obtained from regression analyses
performed as previously described. The coefficients were then adjusted one
at a time by trial and error until predicted values compared favorably with
observed data.
The results of the calibration of total and fecal coliforms for the six
sets of calibration data are shown graphically in Figures 79-85. For all but
one of the sets of data, the correlation coefficient, R , was above 0.92 indi-
cating significance at the 99 percent confidence level. The predicted values
were within the ranges specified for the MPN test at the 95 percent confidence
level for all but one of the data points. For this set of calibration data,
free chlorine was not produced. Therefore, the calibration was restricted to
combined chlorine residual. The results of the calibration for combined
120
-------
E
O
Q
c
o
O
to
10*
ICr
10
TOTAL COLIFORM
-• Predicted
A Observed
FECAL COLIFORM
TCOD = 71 mg/l
Temperature = 21° C
I
I
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 79. Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 1.0 mg/l,
121
-------
10s |=
I04
E
O
o
o
O
U)
O
o
-------
Predicted
A A. Observed
TCOD 44mg/l
Temperature = 22 ° C
TOTAL COLIFORM
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 81. Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 3.0 mg/1.
123
-------
Predicted
A Observed
TCOD - 43 mg/l
Temperature - 23° C
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 82. Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 4.0 mg/l.
124
-------
I05rz
10'
E
O
o
o
O
(O
h-
o
o
5
o:
o
o
o
0.
S
10
Predicted
A Observed
TCOD - 71 mg/1
Temperature = 21° C
\ TOTAL COLIFORM
FECAL \\
COLIFORM
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
60
Figure 83. Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 5.0 mg/1.
125
-------
io6-,
10" =
E
o
O
o
10 -
h-
ID
O
O
10 -
rr
o
u.
_i
o
o
Q- -
io2H
10
• Predicted
Observed
0
TOTAL COLIFORM
\
\
FECAL COLIFORM \
TCOD = 60mg/l
Temperature - 4.0°C
Sulfide = 1.2 mg/l
I I I I I
10 20 30 40 50
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 84. Calibration of CHLOR-I for a chlorine dose of 7.0 mg/l.
126
-------
3.01-
O 2.5
\
o>
E
I 2.0
CO
UJ
QL
UJ
? 1-5
CC
X
o
Q
UJ
z
CD
2
O
O
1.0
0.5
PREDICTED
A OBSERVED
Dose= 5 mg/l
TCOD = 71 mg/l
Temp = 21° C
[— Dose =2
TOOD= 65 mg/l
Temp = 8° C
Dose= 4 mg/l
TCOD= 43 mg/l
Temp = 23 ° C
Dose = 3 mg/l
TCOD= 44mg/l
Temp = 22 ° C
Dose = 7 mg/l
TCOD = 60mg/l
Temp = 4 ° C
Sulfide= 1.2 mg/l
Dose = I mg/l
-TCOD= 7lmg/l
Temp = 21 " C
10
15
20 25 30
35
40
45
50
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 85. Calibration of CHLOR-I for combined chlorine.
-------
chlorine are shown in Figure 85. All correlation coefficients were above 0.92
and were significant at the 99 percent confidence level.
For NH3~N and SCOD, the model indicated no changes in concentrations.
The observed data show only slight changes and these were too small to dis-
tinguish from experimental error. For sulfide, there was only one piece of
calibration data which had an initial sulfide concentration. This was for the
chlorine dose of 7.0 mg/1. The model predicted a reduction from 1.2 mg/1 to
0.5 mg/1 sulfide. The observed data show that sulfide decreased from 1.2 to
0.3 mg/1. Changes in SS were highly variable and dependent upon the settling
fraction, F. F is not a constant for all data and was found to vary consider-
ably for the calibration data. This is because the value of F is a function
of the quality, as well as quantity, of SS. As an example of the correspon-
dence between predicted and observed values of SS, three sets of data having
a settling fraction set at 0.10, are presented in Figure 86.
In determining the values of coefficients associated with free chlorine
or with breakpoint chlorination, four sets of field data were selected for
evaluation. The coefficients were adjusted and predicted values compared with
observed data. The results are presented in Table 7. It is observed that
although the model predicts reasonably well for ammonia and combined chlorine,
there is a great deal of variation between predicted and actual values of free
chlorine. The difficulty in fitting free chlorine is partially associated
with two coefficients. The organic nitrogen correction factor, CORNH3, was
found to be extremely variable as indicated in Table 7. These values were
determined by adjusting CORNH3 until the combined chlorine residual compared
reasonably well with actual data. At that point, the resulting correspondence
between predicted and actual free chlorine was observed. The other coef-
ficient to lend difficulties was CHOCLT, a coefficient related to the rate of
exertion of free chlorine demand. No value of CHOCLT was found which explained
all the changes in free chlorine concentrations. Therefore, a value repre-
senting average changes was selected. Limited free chlorine data, coupled
with the lack of knowledge concerning the exertion of free chlorine demand,
limits the model in adequately representing changes in free chlorine.
To determine if the model options contained in CHLOR-II are better able
to describe breakpoint chlorination, the model was compared with CHLOR-I. This
was done by selecting a set of field data and adjusting the coefficients in
CHLOR-I until predicted and observed values compared favorably. Those coef-
ficients were then used in CHLQR-II. Since most of the breakpoint reactions
take place rather rapidly, it was not necessary to use CHLOR-II to calculate
predicted values for the entire time period. The evaluation of CHLOR-II was
made by interfacing CHLOR-II with CHLOR-I. During the first few minutes of
reaction, CHLOR-II was used to calculate concentrations of chemical constitu-
ents. When the rates of changes in those constituents involved in breakpoint
reactions began to slow down, the dynamic portion of CHLOR-I was used to
calculate solutions for the remainder of the time period. The results of
interfacing the two models in comparison with using CHLOR-I only and with
observed data are presented in Table 8.
*
These results indicate that there is no advantage in using the completely
dynamic model to represent breakpoint chlorination for lagoon effluents. The
128
-------
PREDICTED
A OBSERVED
SETTLING FRACTION = 10%
^--Dose -2.0 mg/l
vo
A
-A-
^--Dose = 7.0 mg/l
-Dose = 3.0 mg/l
A
A
10 15 20 25 30 35
TIME (Minutes)
40
45
50
Figure 86. Relationship between observed and CHLOR-I predicted values of suspended solids concentrations
-------
TABLE 7. FLUCTUATIONS OF THE ORGANIC NITROGEN CORRECTION FACTOR
(CORNH3) FOR DATA WHERE BREAKPOINT KINETICS APPLY
Date
8-26-75
5-27-76
6-1-76
8-24-76
Parameter
Free Chlor.
(mg/1)
Comb. Chlor.
(mg/1)
NH3-N
(mg/1)
Free Chlor.
(mg/1)
Comb. Chlor.
(mg/1)
NH3-N
(mg/1)
Free Chlor.
(mg/1)
Comb. Chlor.
(mg/1)
NH3-N
(mg/1)
Free Chlor.
(mg/1)
Comb. Chlor.
(mg/1)
NH3-N
(mg/1)
CORNH3
3.50
1.00
2.50
0.70
Time (Minutes)
0
10.0 >
0.40
20.0 >
0.97
20.0 >
0.57
30.0 \
2.03
17.6
0.43a
[1.35]b
2.57
[5.20]
0
[0.25]
5.20
[11.01]
2.22
[2.26]
0
[0.33]
5.30
[6.65]
3.20
[3.18]
0
[0.06]
4.22
[0.55]
2.58
[2.66]
0
[0.12]
35.0
0.39
[1.25]
2.29
[5.35]
0
[0.33]
4.67
[10.22]
2.00
[1.82]
0
[0.50]
4.76
[6.60]
2.87
[3.12]
0
[0.20]
3.82
[0.35]
2.31
[2.54]
0
[0.04]
49.6
0.37
[1.10]
2.16
[5.40]
0
[0.21]
4.42
[9.94]
1.89
[1.65]
0
[0.23]
4.50
[6.70]
2.72
[2.80]
0
[0.09]
3.61
[0.25]
2.18
[2.14]
0
[0.02]
Predicted values.
Observed values.
probable reason for this is that breakpoint kinetics, as presently defined,
are not necessarily applicable in wastewater containing high concentrations
of nitrogenous organics. On the other hand, there are several disadvantages
in using CHLOR-II. One of these is that CHLOR-II requires considerably more
computer time in obtaining solutions. Also, the model is highly sensitive to
differences in input data. The model may work for one set of data, while
failing to apply for another set. The size of the integration time steps and
maximum permissible error is also somewhat variable and is reflected in the,
sensitivity of the model.
130
-------
TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF CHLOR-I AND CHLOR-II AS DESCRIBING BREAKPOINT
CHLORINATION
Time (Minutes)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
O = Observed results
I = CHLOR-I; settling fraction, F, = 0.40; CORNH3 = 0.70.
II = Interface of CHLOR-I and CHLOR-II.
50
Free
Chlor.
Comb.
Chlor.
NH3-N
Coli
Coli
SS
SCOD
0
I
11
n
i
ii
0
i
ii
o
1
11
0
1
11
0
I
II
0
I
II
30.0
30.0
30.0
0
0
0
2.03
2.03
2.03
940
940
940
13000
13000
13000
45.10
45.10
45.10
38.60
38.60
38.60
.
1.50
4.02
3.12
1.98
_
0
0
0
0
1.2
0
26.79
26.88
39.21
40.08
0.96
2.62
2.81
1.77
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
26.58
26.74
39.45
40.73
0.55
0.74
2.02
2.66
2.64
1.66
0.12
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
23.24
26.40
26.63
43.85
39.62
41.19
-
0.61
1.68
2.52
1.59
„
0
0
0
0
0
0
26.22
26.52
39.76
41.56
0.53
1.45
2.43
1.54
0
0
0
0
0
0
26.06
26.43
39.87
41.86
0.47
1.29
2.36
1.49
0
0
0
0
0
0
25.90
26.34
„
39.98
42.13
0.35
0.42
1.16
2.54
2.31
1.46
0.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.10
25.74
26.25
39.84
40.07
42.37
0.39
1.07
2.26
1.43
0
0
0
0
0
0
25.60
26.18
40.15
42.59
0.36
0.99
2.22
1.40
0
0
0
0
0
0
25.45
26.10
40.23
42.79
0.25
0.33
0.92
2.14
2.19
1.38
0.02
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.35
23.31
26.03
41.15
40.30
42.98
Although CHLOR-II was not found to be particularly applicable to this set
of waste stabilization lagoon data, it has been discussed here in the event
that it may find application to other systems for which breakpoint chlorination
is more likely to occur. Remaining discussions of the chlorination model are
restricted to CHLOR-I. A listing of the values for the coefficients obtained
from the calibration of CHLOR-I are contained in Table 9. A description of
these variables is found in Appendix F.
MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A sensitivity analysis was performed on one set of data to show the ef-
fects of variations in key coefficients on predicted results. This was done
131
-------
TABLE 9. VALUES OF COEFFICIENTS USED IN CHLOR-I
Coefficient3
Values
SRATIO
TADJ
TADJ2
COKNH3
F
CHOCLT
CTCOD
CNH2CL
CTOTAL
CFECAL
BHOCLT
BNH2CL
CC1
CC2
CCS
CC4
CCS
CC6
CC7
CCS
CC9
3.6
1.03
1.15
0.70 - 3.50
0.10-0.50
7.4
1.00
7.4
1.10
1.08
1.30
1.35
7.24 xlO'4
-5.00 x 10-4
-S.OOx 10-4
-0.20
-0.10
-0.055
-0.20
-0.085
-0.35
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
1/mg-min
Refer to Appendix F for definition of terms.
by increasing and decreasing the values of coefficients obtained from cali-
bration by specified percentages. When the coefficients CC6 and CCS were
varied by ± 25 percent, the effects on total and fecal coliform as shown.in
Figure 87 resulted. BNH2CL and BHOCLT were varied by +10 percent. The result-
ing coliform variations are shown in Figure 88. CTOTAL and CFECAL were also
varied by ± 10 percent. The results are shown in Figure 89. When CCS was
varied by ± 50 percent, as shown for coliform reduction in Figure 90, the
combined chlorine residual was also varied. Results showing these chlorine
residual fluctuations are shown in Figure 91. Likewise, the variation of
CHOCLT and CNH2CL by ± 10 percent produced fluctuations in both coliform
reduction and in the chlorine residual remaining. Results for total and
fecal coliform reduction and for the exertion of chlorine demand are shown
in Figures 92 and 93 respectively.
The temperature adjustment coefficients of TADJ and TADJ2 were also
varied. These coefficients were varied by ± 5 percent. For TADJ, the results
for coliform reduction at 22°C and 5°C are shown in Figures 94 and 95. Fluc-
tuations in TADJ2 for coliform reductions at 22°C and 5°C are shown in Figures
96 and 97. The effects of varying this coefficient on chlorine residual ar»e
shown in Figures 98 and 99 for the same two temperatures.
132
-------
10'
E
O
O
^
§ IQ3
o
o
O
O
cr
o
O
o
10
FECAL COLIFORM
10
TOTAL COLIFORM
- 25 %
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 87- Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of CC6 and CCS by ±25
percent.
133
-------
TOTAL COLIFORM
-10 %
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 88. Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of BNH2CL and BHOCLT
by ± 10 percent.
134
-------
TOTAL COLIFORM
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 89. Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of CTOTAL and CFECAL
by ± 10 percent.
135
-------
TOTAL COLIFORM
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 90. Variation of coliform MPN with fluctuations of CCS by ± 5Q
percent.
136
-------
Figure 91. Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of CC5 by ± 50 percent.
-------
TOTAL COLIFORM
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 92. Variation of coliform, with fluctuations of CHOCLT and CNH2CL t>y
± 10 percent.
138
-------
3.0t—
bo
VD
0>
3 2.0
o
CO
UJ
tr
UJ
z
cc
3
o
Q 1.0
UJ
m
o
o
0.5
10
-10%
15
20 25 30
TIME (Minutes)
35
40
45
50
Figure 93. Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of CHOCLT and CNH2CL by ± 10 percent.
-------
TOTAL COLIFORM
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 94. Variations of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ by ± 5 percent
at 22°C.
140
-------
10s
10'
6
o
o
o
O
V)
i-
O
O
cc
o
o
o
z
Q.
10
TOTAL COLIFORM
-5%
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 95. Variation of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ by ± 5 percent at
5°C.
141
-------
TOTAL COLIFORM
+ 5%
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 96. Variation of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ2 by ± 5 percent at
22°C.
142
-------
ioa r:
E
O
o
O
V)
h-
z
o
o
o
cr
o
O
o
10
FECAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
-5%
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 97. Variation of coliform with fluctuations of TADJ2 by ± 5 percent at
5°C.
143
-------
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 98. Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of TADJ2 by ± 5 percent at 22 C.
-------
3.5
3.0
2.5
< 2.0
Q
CO
LU
or
^ 1.5
E
3
o
Q 1.0
LLl
z
CD
O
O
0.5
10 15 20 25 30
TIME (Minutes)
35
40
45
50
Figure 99. Variation of chlorine residual with fluctuations of TADJ2 by ± 5 percent at 5 C.
-------
Results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that at colder temperatures,
TADJ is the most sensitive parameter in affecting the reduction of total and
fecal coliforms. At warmer temperatures of around 20 C, CTOTAL and CFECAL are
the most sensitive parameters in determining bacterial reduction. Of the
parameters evaluated, CCS was found to be the least sensitive. For fluctuations
in chlorine residual, TADJ2 was found to be the most sensitive parameter at
colder temperatures while CHOCLT and CNH2CL were found to be the most sensitive
at about 20°C. For those parameters affecting chlorine residual, CCS was found
to be the least sensitive.
MODEL VERIFICATION
A determination of the ability of CHLOR-I to predict reasonable results
was made by comparing the model results for a given set of initial conditions
with each set of field data for the entire study period. This was done by
calculating the correlation coefficient, R, between each set of predicted and
observed values for free and combined chlorine and for total and fecal coli-
form. SS reductions were observed, but correlation coefficients were not
calculated between predicted and observed values because of the variability
of the settling fraction, F. NHg-N and SCOD changes were also observed, but
because of the small amount of data involved in breakpoint chlorination,
changes in these chemical parameters were of limited importance in verifying
the model.
When free chlorine was produced, the R between predicted and observed
data was found to be greater than 0.96, indicating correlation at the 99 per-
cent confidence level. This high level of correlation is heavily influenced
by the initial conditions, where the observed and predicted values are equal,
and these values are large in comparison with the results after several
minutes of contact. However, the model does appear to adequately describe the
chlorination of lagoon effluents well within the limits of the precision of
most field and laboratory analyses, particularly when consideration is given
for the multitude of immeasurable variables.
In comparing the degree of fit between predicted and observed combined
chlorine residual, it was found that 60 percent of all data sets produced a
correlation coefficient, R, of 0.86 or better. This represents a confidence
level of 95 percent. The predicted values compared poorly with observed data
for cases in which breakpoint chlorination was involved. This is largely due
to the high variability in the organic nitrogen correction factor, CORNH3.
When the data involving breakpoint chlorination were eliminated from con-
sideration, 65 percent of the data sets produced values of R within the 95
percent confidence level.
For coliform reduction, it was found that for both total and fecal coli-
form, 81 percent of the data sets produced an R of 0.87 or greater. This
corresponds to a confidence level of 95 percent. An R of 0.96 or better was
achieved for 72 percent of the data sets, representing the 99 percent confi-
dence level. *
146
-------
The model, CHLOR-I, was used to construct a series of design curves for
selecting the optimal chlorine dose necessary to achieve a desired level of
disinfection. CHLOR-II was not used in the preparation of these curves for
reasons previously discussed. Assuming that the data collected from this
study are typical for waste stabilization lagoons, it should rarely, if ever,
be necessary to use breakpoint chlorination to achieve satisfactory dis-
infection. Therefore, the design curves are based upon disinfection using
combined chlorine residual only. If cases arise where it may be necessary to
use free chlorine to achieve a desired level of disinfection, the model can
be applied directly to obtain estimates of the chlorine dose required.
The design curves presented in Figures 100 through 114 show the levels of
total and fecal coliform reduction expected for various combinations of com-
bined chlorine residual and time. Each design curve represents a different
combination of initial coliform concentrations and temperature. Total and
fecal coliform ranges may vary between 10^-10" MPN counts/100 ml. Temperatures
vary between 5-25°C. The percentage of bacterial kill within a certain contact
period is indicated by log (NO/N), where No is the initial bacterial concen-
tration and N is the bacterial concentration at time t. For example, if log
(NO/N) is equal to 2.0, it indicates a 99 percent removal of bacteria. Each
chart includes removal up to 99.999 percent.
After determining the concentration of combined chlorine residual neces-
sary to achieve a certain level of bacterial reduction within a specified con-
tact period, it is necessary to determine the chlorine dose required to pro-
duce that residual. Since the residual obtained for a specific chlorine dose
is primarily determined by temperature, sulfide, and TCOD, a series of curves
have been prepared to determine the dose required to produce the desired re-
sidual under varying conditions. Rather than referring to a large number of
design curves for covering a wide range of possible combinations of these key
parameters, the determination of chlorine dose has been reduced to several
curves expressed in terms of equivalent chlorine residual.
Once the chlorine residual necessary to produce adequate disinfection at
any particular temperature is known, it is converted to the equivalent chlorine
residual that would result from the same chlorine dose if the temperature was
20°C. This conversion is made by use of Figure 115. If sulfide is initially
present in the wastewater, this figure is bypassed and it is necessary to go
directly to Figure 116.
Sulfide production in stabilization lagoons is generally limited to times
of the year when the lagoons freeze over and anaerobic conditions prevail.
These conditions are accompanied by colder water temperatures. Therefore, it
is assumed that most sulfide production will occur around 5°C or less. At 5°C
it is riot necessary to compensate for temperature in using Figure 117. This
graph is used to convert the residual necessary at 5°C and any TCOD to the
equivalent chlorine residual which would be produced from the same chlorine
dose if the TCOD were 60 mg/1. It is now possible to select one of Figures
117-120 to determine the chlorine dose required to produce the desired equiva-
lent chlorine residual for a given initial sulfide concentration between 0.5
and 2.0 mg/1. The amount of sulfide reduction for a given combination of
chlorine dose and initial sulfide is determined from Figure 121.
147
-------
5.O
4.0
3.0
CD
O
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN I02/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN IOE/IOOml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
Figure 100. Combined chlorine residual at 5°C for coliform MPN = 10 .
148
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
Z
o
8
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I04/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN - I04/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
o 4
Figure 101. Combined chlorine residual at 5 C for coliform MPN = 10 /100 ml.
149
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I06/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN = I06/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 102. Combined chlorine residual at 5°C for coliform MPN = 106.
150
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN I02/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN- I02/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
I
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
Figure 103. Combined chlorine residual at 10 C for coliform MPN =
151
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
o
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
o
2.0
1.0
0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I06/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN = I06/100ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
mg/l
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
Figure 105. Combined chlorine residual at 10 C for coliform MPN = 10 .
153
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
Z
~x
o
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = l02/IOOml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN = I02/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
Figure 106. Combined chlorine residual at 15°C for coliform MPN =
1C2,
154
-------
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN I04/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN = I04/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
o 4
Figure 107- Combined chlorine residual at 15 C for coliform MPN = 10 ,
155
-------
CO
o
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I06/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN -I06/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.5 mg/l
30 40
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 108. Combined chlorine residual at 15 C for coliform MPN = 10
156
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
o
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN I02/I00ml
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I02/I00ml
FECAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.3 mg/l
I
10 20 30 40 50
TIME (Minutes)
60
Figure 109. Combined chlorine residual at 20 C for coliform MPN = 10 .
157
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I04/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN = I04/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.3 mg/l
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
Figure 110. Combined chlorine residual at 20 C for coliform MPN = 10
158
-------
o
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I06/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN - I06/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined
Chlorine Residual 1.3 mg/l
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
Figure 111. Combined chlorine residual at 20°C for coliform MPN =
159
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I02/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN = IOZ/IOOml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual = 1.2 mg/l
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50 60
Figure 112. Combined chlorine residual at 25°C for coliform MPN =
160
-------
5.0
4.0
3.0
o
2.0
1.0
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN - II
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN = I04/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined Chlorine Residual 1.2 mg/l
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
5O 60
o 4
Figure 113. Combined chlorine residual at 25 C for coliform MPN = 10 .
161
-------
o
INITIAL FECAL COLIFORM MPN = I06/I00ml
INITIAL TOTAL COLIFORM MPN - I06/I00ml
• FECAL COLIFORM
A TOTAL COLIFORM
Combined
Chlorine Residual 1.2 mg/l
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 114. Combined chlorine residual at 25 C for coliform MPN = 10 .
162
-------
OJ
o
o
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.O
COMBINED CHLORINE RESIDUAL AT TEMP I (mg/l)
4.5
5.0
Figure 115. Conversion of combined chlorine residual at Temp 1 to equivalent residual at 20 C,
-------
Figure 116.
COMBINED CHLORINE RESIDUAL AT TCOD I AND TEMP = 5° C (mg/l)
of c(
TCOD = 60 mg/l.
Conversion of combined residual chlorine at 5 C and TCODl to equivalent residual at 5 C and
-------
4.0
3.0
Q
CO
UJ
oc.
oE
3
o
o
UJ
2
03
O
0
2.0
1.0
-Chlorine Dose = 7.0 mg/l
-Chlorine Dose = 1.0 mg/l
I
10 20 30 40 50
TIME (Minutes)
60
Figure 117- Determination of chlorine dose required when S
= 60 mg/l, and Temp. = 5°C.
0.5 mg/l, TCOD
165
-------
4.0i-
~ 3.0 -
O>
E
Q
CO
UJ
cc
UJ
2
or
3
o
Q
UJ
z
CD
2
O
O
Chlorine Dose-10 mg/l
Chlorine Dose = 9.0 mg/l
LChlorine Dose = 8.0 mg/l
Chlorine Dose = 7.0 mg/l
^
6
Chlorine Dose = 6.0 mg/l
Chlorine Dose - 5.0 mg/l
Dose = 3.0 mg/l
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 118. Determination of chlorine dose required when S =1.0 mg/l, TCOD
= 60 mg/l, and Temp. = 5°C.
166
-------
2.5 -i
2.0 -H
1.5 H
LU
o:
z
cc
o
_J
X
o
Q
LJ
z
CO
s
o
o
1.0 -
0.5 —I
0
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
Chlorine
Dose
12.0 mg/l
II.0 mg/l
10.0 mg/l
9.0 mg/l
8.0 mg/l
Figure 119. Determination of chlorine dose required when S
= 60 mg/l, and Temp. = 5°C.
60
=1.5 mg/l, TCOD
167
-------
2.5 -i
2.0 -
Q
(f)
Ul
IT
UJ
(T
O
_J
X
O
Q
LU
Z
00
s
O
O
5 -
.0 -
0.5 -
0
Chlorine
Dose
17.0 mg/l
IG.Omg/l
15.0 mg/l
14.0 mg/l
13.0 mg/l
0
10 20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
50
60
Figure 120. Determination of chlorine dose required when S =2.0 mg/l, TCOD
= 60 mg/l, and Temp. = 5°C.
168
-------
Limit of detectability
0
0
6 8 10 12 14
CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
18 20
Figure 121. Sulfide reduction as a function of chlorine dose.
-------
If there is no initial sulfide in the wastewater, it is necessary to go
directly from Figure 115, after the temperature dependent residual chlorine
conversion has been made, to Figure 122. Here, the residual at 20°C and any
TCOD is converted to the equivalent chlorine residual that would be produced
from the same chlorine dose if the TCOD was at 60 mg/1 and temperature at 20°C.
The desired chlorine dose required to produce the equivalent residual at 20°C
and 60 mg/1 TCOD is then determined for any contact period from Figure 123.
This is the chlorine dose required to produce the desired level of bacterial
reduction. Figure 123 is good for chlorine doses up to about 10 mg/1 when
NH3-N is 1.0 mg/1 or greater and the TKN is about 2.0 mg/1 or greater. It
also may apply for chlorine doses of less than 10 mg/1 when NI^-N concen-
trations are below 1.0 mg/1 and TKN below 2.0 mg/1. This depends on the value
of the organic nitrogen correction factor, CORNH3.
Design curves are not included for NH^-N reduction because of the vari-
ability of CORNH3. The value for this variable must be determined experimental-
ly for each particular quality of lagoon effluent chlorinated. Also, from field
data it was determined that for most cases, adequate disinfection is achieved
with very little or no reduction in NI^-N. Changes in SS and SCOD are also not
included in the design curves. This is because they are of limited importance
in comparison with changes in bacteria and chlorine residual. Also, the value
of F, the settling fraction, is highly variable and is of importance only when
determined specifically for the lagoon effluent to be chlorinated. CHLOR-I
must be applied to a particular effluent, after the determination of CORNH3
and F, if it is desired to know specifically how NH^-N, SCOD, and SS may be
expected to change.
An example may best illustrate how these design curves are applied. As-
sume that a particular lagoon effluent is characterized as having a fecal
coliform concentration of 10,000/100 ml, 0 mg/1 sulfide, 20 mg/1 TCOD, and a
temperature of 5°C. If it is necessary to reduce the fecal coliform counts
to 100/100 ml, a combined chlorine residual sufficient to produce a 99 percent
bacterial reduction must be obtained. If an existing chlorine contact chamber
has an average residence time of 30 minutes, the required chlorine residual is
obtained from Figure 101. A 99 percent bacterial reduction corresponds to log
(NQ/N) equal to 2.0. For a contact period of 30 minutes, a combined chlorine
residual of between 1.0 and 1.5 mg/1 is required to produce that level of fecal
coliform reduction. Upon interpolation, the actual chlorine residual is
determined to be 1.30 mg/1. This is indicated by point (T) in Figure 101.
Going to Figure 115, it is determined that if a chlorine dose produces a
residual of 1.30 mg/1 at 5°C, the same dose would produce a residual of 0.95
mg/1 at 20°C. This is because of the faster rate of reaction between TCOD and
chlorine at the higher temperature. This is indicated by point (2) in Figure
115. For an equivalent chlorine residual of 0.95 mg/1 at 20°C and 20 mg/1
TCOD3 it is determined from Figure 122 that the same chlorine dose would pro-
duce a residual of 0.80 mg/1 if the TCOD were 60 mg/1. This is because higher
concentrations of TCOD increase the rate of chlorine demand. Point (§) in
Figure 122 corresponds to this residual. The chlorine dose required to pro-
duce an equivalent residual of 0.80 mg/1 at 20°C and 60 mg/1 TCOD is determined
from Figure 123. For a chlorine contact period of 30 minutes, a chlorine dose
of 2.15 mg/1 is necessary to produce the desired combined residual as indicated
170
-------
0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
COMBINED CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 122. Conversion of combined chlorine residual at TCOD1 and 20 C to equivalent residual at 20°C
and TCOD = 60 mg/l.
-------
5.01-
4.0
3.0
V)
LU
rr
LU
z
o:
3
X
o
LU
Z
CD
O
O
20
^U
1.0
Chlorine Dose - 10.0 mg/l-
-Chlorlne Dose-7.0 mg/1
-Chlorine Dose = 5.0 mg/l
-Chlorine Dose = 3.0 mg/l
Chlorine Dose - 2.0 mg/l
Chlorine Dose =1.0 mg/l
10
20 30 40
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 123. Determination of chlorine dose required for equivalent combined
residuals at TCOD = 60 mg/l and Temp. = 20°C.
172
-------
by point (4) on Figure 123. This dose will produce a reduction of fecal coli-
form from 10,000/100 ml to 100/100 ml within 30 minutes at 5°C and with 20
mg/1 TCOD.
If, in the previous example, the initial sulfide concentration was 1.0
mg/1 instead of 0 mg/1, it would be necessary to go directly from Figure 101
to Figure 116. Here, a chlorine residual of 1.30 mg/1 at a TCOD of 20 mg/1
and a temperature of 5°C is converted to an equivalent chlorine residual of
1.10 mg/1 for a TCOD of 60 mg/1. This is represented by point (jf) in Figure
116. Going to Figure 118, which corresponds to an initial sulfide concen-
tration of 1.0 mg/1, it is determined that a chlorine dose of 6.65 mg/1 is
necessary to produce an equivalent chlorine residual of 1.1 mg/1 after a con-
tact period of 30 minutes. Point (6) on Figure 118 corresponds to this dose.
The sulfide remaining after chlorination is determined to be 0.44 mg/1 from
Figure 121 as indicated by point (7). A summary of the sequential use of the
figures for this example is contained in Table 10.
The design curves may also be used to determine the size of chlorine
contact tanks. As an example, if initial conditions are the same as in the
previous example and discharge requirements restrict chlorine residual to less
than 1.3 mg/1 ±n the treated effluent, it is determined from Figure 101 that a
minimum detention time of 30 minutes is required to produce a 99 percent kill.
Proceeding sequentially from Figure 101 to Figures 115, 122, and 123 in the
same manner as described in the previous example, it is determined that for
the minimum contact time, a maximum of 2.15 mg/1 applied chlorine dose is
required. Using economic considerations, the chlorine dose may be reduced by
increasing the size of the contact tank to produce a longer detention time.
In applying these design curves, it must be realized that they were
developed from data collected from one particular lagoon system. Although the
data appear to be reasonably typical of that collected from other systems,
variations in effluent characteristics from lagoon to lagoon may alter the
chlorine dose required to achieve a desired level of disinfection. However,
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF EXAMPLE FOR SELECTING CHLORINE DOSE FOR FECAL COLIFORM
REDUCTION FROM 104/100 ML TO 102/100 ML IN 30 MINUTES
Figure No.
Ill
125
132
133
111
126
128
131
TCOD
(mg/1)
20
20
60
60
20
60
60
60
Temp. °C
5°
20°
20°
20°
5°
5°
5°
5°
Sulfide
(mg/1)
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.44
Combined
Residual
(mg/1)
1.30
0.95
0.80
0.80
1.30
1.10
1.10
1.10
Chlorine
Dose
(mg/1)
..
--
--
|2.1S|
—
-
1 6.65|
6.65
173
-------
these curves should be useful in estimating general ranges of chlorine doses,
as well as residence times required to achieve disinfection. This information
can be used in designing chlorine contact tanks with the limitation that it
applies only to contact chambers exhibiting plug flow hydraulic characteristics.
174
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF LAGOON COLIFORM REMOVAL STUDY
GENERAL
A brief description of the Logan City Lagoon performance observed be-
tween June 1, 1975, and August 24, 1976, is contained in this section. De-
tails are presented in tabular and graphical form in Appendix E.
OPERATION OF THE LOGAN CITY LAGOON SYSTEM
Operation of the Logan City Lagoon System is related to seasonal climatic
conditions. In general, during the winter months, when the rate of biological
stabilization of organic wastes is reduced due to reduced temperatures, the
contents of the lagoon system are stored. This is accomplished by closing the
final effluent discharge gates and eliminating any discharge from the lagoon
system. Thus, because there is a constant inflow to the lagoon system the
overall depth of the lagoon system is increased.
However, because the discharge between each cell within the system is
controlled by an overflow weir, the water level of the last cell within the
system increases before the water level in the next to the last cell increases.
Thus, the stored water within the lagoon system tends to "back-up" within
each cell until it is finally stored within the primary cells. As a con-
sequence, during this winter period, the average hydraulic residence time of
the final cell within the system is significantly greater than that of the
primary cells.
As the temperature begins to increase during early spring and when the
storage capacity of the entire lagoon system has been reached, the final ef-
fluent gates are opened and the lagoon system begins to discharge. However,
during this early spring discharge, the level of the discharge weirs between
the lagoon cells is reduced. Thus, the contents of each cell is discharged
in a relatively short period. This rapid spring discharge tends to "flush"
the lagoon system. As a result, the contents of the primary cell which have
had a relatively short hydraulic residence time under low temperature
conditions, tends to move through the lagoon system as a single mass or slug.
The movement of this single mass or slug through the lagoon system is
accompanied by high coliform counts (10^/100 ml) in the final lagoon effluent.
During summer and fall seasons, the lagoon system is operated as a
standard flow-through lagoon and final coliform counts are less than 200/100 ml.
175
-------
OVERALL LAGOON PERFORMANCE
The data indicate that COD, both soluble and total, was slightly higher
in the influent between December and April than during the remainder of the
year. This was probably because water from irrigation return flow and from
groundwater infiltration dilutes the wastewater during summer months. BOD^
was also found to follow the same trend, varying between a high of 100 mg/1
during winter months to a low of 10 mg/1 during the summer. Total COD varied
between a high of 300 mg/1 during the winter to a low of 20 mg/1 during the
summer. Soluble COD varied between 100 and 10 mg/1. The total and soluble
COD in the effluent were found to be nearly equivalent, varying from 15 to 90
mg/1. Seasonal trends in effluent COD were not observed. However, seasonal
variations in BOD^ were observed with peak values occurring in early April and
minimum values occurring during June. Effluent BOD varied from 2 to 23 mg/1.
Ammonia also fluctuated with the seasons. In the influent, peak ammonia
concentrations of 14.5 mg/1 occurred during February while minimums of less
than 1.0 mg/1 were observed during summer months. Effluent ammonia was
observed to be approximately 3.0 mg/1 during winter months and 8.0 mg/1 during
early spring. The increase in ammonia during early spring is attributed to
the annual operation procedure for the Logan Lagoon System. During the winter
months (i.e., generally January, February) the effluent gates of the final cell
in the Logan Lagoon System are closed and there is no discharge from the sys-
tem. Thus, the lagoon contents are stored. In early spring, the final ef-
fluent gates are opened and the stored contents are discharged over a very
short period (i.e., 30 days). During the summer months, effluent ammonia
decreased to less than 1.0 mg/1. Low ammonia concentration was found to cor-
respond to algae blooms in the lageon system.
Variations in suspended solids and volatile suspended solids also follow-
ed seasonal trends. Influent SS varied between 100 mg/1 in the winter to 15
mg/1 in the summer. Results were highly variable depending on the exact time
when grab samples were collected. When 24 hr. composite samples were taken,
the results were also found to be quite variable. In the influent, VSS was
found to comprise a smaller percentage of total SS than in the effluent. The
VSS in the effluent were in excess of 90 percent of the total SS. Peaks in
the effluent occurred during the spring discharge resulting from winter storage
and reached as high as 35 mg/1. Minimums occurred primarily during summer
months when SS dropped to less than 5 mg/1.
Variation in the influent temperature was found to be minimal, varying
only between 9 and 17°C during the year. For all other cells and the final
lagoon effluent, the temperature varied according to air temperature. Lagoon
temperatures fluctuated between 1 and 25°C.
The influent dissolved oxygen level was consistently between 2.5 to 7.3
mg/1. In other lagoon cells and final lagoon effluent, the DO varied from less
than 0.2 mg/1 during the winter, when ice covered the lagoons, to nearly 25
mg/1. From spring through fall, peaks in dissolved oxygen were observed to
correspond to algae blooms. *
176
-------
The influent pH was generally between 7.5 and 8.5 during the year. In
lagoon cells and final effluent, the pH varied between 7.5 and 9.5. Lowest
pH values were observed during February and March, while peaks in pH occurred
between May and September, depending on when algae blooms occurred. The high-
est pH values were associated with algae blooms.
In evaluating coliform reduction in the lagoon system, membrane filter
TC and FC counts were found to be in close agreement. Occasionally membrane
filter FC counts were higher than TC counts. One problem with the use of the
membrane filter technique for enumerating coliforms in lagoon effluent is the
extensive overgrowth of algae and other types of microorganisms on the filter.
Samples containing moderate numbers of algae are difficult to filter due to
clogging. Influent total and fecal coliform densities varied from 10^ to
10"/100 ml throughout the study. Slight reductions in the influent coliform
counts were observed during the warmer months due to dilution. Total and fecal
coliform numbers ranged from 10 to 10 /100 ml (occasionally these numbers
reached 10/100 ml) during these times. In the winter months, coliform counts
increased approximately ten-fold.
Approximately 99.9 percent of total and fecal coliform reductions in the
lagoon system occurred in the two primary cells. Further reductions in succeed-
ing cells resulted in fecal coliform levels in the final effluent below 10/100
ml. The only exception occurred during the spring discharge, when the effluent
gates in the last lagoon cell were opened to allow wastewater to flow through
lagoon cells at a faster rate. During this time, fecal coliform numbers reached
a high of 105/100 ml.
COLIFORM REMOVAL PERFORMANCE
Introduction
The objective of this part of the study was to establish representative
values of the first order decay rate for fecal coliforms in the Logan City
lagoon system under summer and winter conditions. A preliminary step toward
achieving this objective is the estimation of inter-pond flows using an inter-
active flow balance model. Values for the first order decay rates are obtained
by a trial-and-error calibration procedure for a fecal coliform model of the
lagoon system. Estimates of the variation of retention time during summer and
winter periods are also obtained. This subsection is divided into three parts:
a description of the flow balance model, a description of the fecal coliform
model, and a results section.
Flow Balance Model
Inflows to the lagoon system are measured before the raw wastewater enters
the A ponds (Figure 124). Outflows are measured from pond E. Flows between
ponds, or storage volumes in each pond, are not measured. To facilitate
simulation of fecal coliform die-away, the flow rates between each pond, and
the storage volume in each pond, are needed.
177
-------
00
POND 6 (D)
POND 7 (E,
OUTFLOW
= «9
(Effluent)
POND 5 (C,
I" 5
POND 2 (B.)
POND 4 (B2)
POND 3(A-
Diffusers
POND I (A,)
INFLOW
(Raw
Wastewater
Influent)
Figure 124. Flow diagram of Logan City wastewater lagoon system.
-------
Direct estimation of the inter-pond flow rates and storage volumes from
the inflow and outflow data for the entire system was not possible, because
a set of quantitative operating procedures for the control structures between
ponds could not be obtained from Logan City. Therefore, the inter-pond flows
and storage volumes were estimated through an interactive simulation process
using a flow balance simulation model developed for the Logan wastewater
lagoon system. Figure 124 is a flow diagram of the Logan City wastewater sys-
tem and also serves as a key to the "a" notation used to represent the inter-
pond flows.
The flow balance model simulates the following annual cycle of operating
conditions in the lagoon system:
1. All seven ponds operating.
2. Ponds D and E drawing down while the entire inflow is stored in the
first five ponds (07 = 0).
3. Only the first five ponds working (a = a,. = a = 0) .
4. Filling ponds D and E from storage in the first five ponds.
Operating condition 1 applies for most of the year with the exception of
the winter period of ice cover, when condition 3 applies. Generally, ponds D
and E are drawn down sometime after the flow (ay) between ponds C and D is
closed off. Draw down in ponds D and E is represented by operating condition
2. During the winter period levels in the first five ponds rise until the
flow (ay) into ponds D and E is restarted. At this time, wastewater with
fairly high coliform levels passes into ponds D and E, and the effluent is
characterized by a transient period of high coliform levels. The previous
draw down of ponds D and E tends to reduce the coliform levels slightly by
providing some storage for the high coliform water before it becomes effluent.
Operating condition 4 represents the filling of ponds D and E from storage in
the first five ponds. Other operating conditions are possible but the four
conditions described above are the most important for the period of the flow
balance (June 1975 - June 1976).
The following sections describe the flow balance equations used to
simulate each operating condition on a daily basis. Notation used below is
as follows:
A. = water surface area of the ith pond
V£ = volume of wastewater stored in the ith pond
V.^ = capacity of the ith pond
e = pan evaporation depth measured at Utah State University Experiment
Station
Operating Condition 1—
Change of storage through the entire system: DQ = a - a_ . . . (89)
179
-------
Assumption: the fraction of DQ stored in the ith pond is proportional
to the ratio of the capacity of the ith pond to the capacity
of the entire system
ot = a /2
ai V
a— a ~
9 1
_ _
Ct _ ~~ (X _,_ ™
a = a /2
3 O7
ct = a -
4 3
a = ct
6 3
a = a
7 0
«„ = ct -
no &
JJV^ rt
no *
JJW 7s
DO *
^x
DO ft
-i-'X «
DQ ft
DO *
V /
V
2
2
1=1
V /
3X
4
Z
1=3
5
Z
1=1
6
Z
7
1 2
V
V .
1
2
2
1=1
v.
v.
V.
v ....
7
/ y V .
1=1 X
V ....
Vi
7
/ Z V
1=1
7
/ Z V .
1=1
7
/ Z V. . . . ,
. (90)
. (91)
. (921
(93)
. (94)
. (95)
. (96)
. . . . (97)
1=1 1=1
Operating Condition 2—
(a) First five ponds.
Change in storage: DQ = a (98)
Assumption: the fraction of DQ stored in the ith pond is proportion-
al to the ratio of the capacity of the ith pond to the
total capacity of the first five ponds
Inter-pond flows: a = a /2 (99)
5
a = a - DQ ft V / Z V (100)
1=1 X
2 5
a = a - DQ ft Z V./ Z V (101)
1=1 X 1=1 1
a3 = V2 (102)
5
a = a - DQ * V / Z V. (103)
i=1
4 5
a6 = °S - DQ ft Z V / Z V (104)
1=3 1=1 X
180
-------
a? = 0 ............ (105)
(b) Ponds D and E
Change in storage: DQ' = a ............ (106)
Assumption: the fraction of DQ' from the ith pond is proportional to
the ratio of the capacity of the ith pond to the com-
bined capacity of ponds D and E
7
Inter-pond flow: ctQ = DQ' * V,/ Z V ......... (107)
8 6 1=6 X
Operating Condition 3 —
(a) First five ponds
Identical to 2 (a)
(b) Ponds D and E
Assumption: no flow into or out of ponds D and E
Inter-pond flow: a0 = 0 ............. (108)
o
Operating Condition 4 —
Assumptions: 1) inter-pond flows are basically as calculated under
operating condition 1
2) ponds D and E are filled by augmenting the cty calculated
under assumption 1 with a flow of Q7. This flow comes
from the first five ponds, the contribution from the
ith pond being proportional to the ratio of the volume
of wastewater in the ith pond to the total volume of
wastewater in the first five ponds. The fraction of
Q7 stored in pond D is proportional to the ratio of the
capacity of pond D to the capacity of ponds D and E.
The remainder of Q7 is stored in pond E.
Inter-pond flows: the values for a^ through a^ calculated under operating
condition 1 are modified using the following equations:
+ Q7 *
+ Q7 A
+ 07 *
5
v / E
1=1
2
£ v.,
1=1 1
v / E
V.
1
5
1 Z
1=1
•sr
(109)
(111)
181
-------
4 5
Q7 * Z v./ Z v.
1=3 1=1 1
a7 " a7 + Q7 ............ (113)
ag = a? - (a? - a ) * Vg/ V ...... (114)
1=6
The new volume of each pond is calculated from the previous day's volume
using the following flow balance equations, which include a term for the
evaporation losses:
v = v + a - a - A * e, v > 0 ........... (115)
V2 = V2 + a2 " a5 " A2 * 8' V2 ~
V3 = V3 + a3 " a4 " A3 * e' V3 ~
v, = v. + a, - a., - A. * e, v. s 0 ........... (118)
444644
vc = vc + a_ - a, - a - Ac * e, v > 0 ......... (119)
5 J 5 o / D J
v, = v, + a_ - a vfi > 0 .............. (120)
O O / O D
v? = v? + ag - ag, v? > 0 .............. (121)
Values for the water surface area (A) and capacity (V) of each pond are given
in Table 11. Calculated values for the pond volumes are expressed as a volume
ratio, as follows:
Initial values for the pond volumes are also expressed in the ratio form of
Equation 122.
From a study of the flow data, discussions with Logan City, and inter-
active simulation, the dates on which operating conditions were changed from
one type to another were approximated. These dates are as follows:
1/06/76 condition I/condition 3
2/19/76 condition 3/condition 2
3/09/76 condition 2/condition 4
3/23/76 condition 4/condition 1
Another variable which was estimated during the interactive simulation pro-
cedure was Q7. The basis for estimating Q7 is that the volume ratios in ponds
D and E should be approximately equal to the volume ratios in the other ponds
182
-------
TABLE 11. WATER SURFACE AREA AND CAPACITY OF EACH POND IN THE LOGAN CITY
SEWAGE LAGOON SYSTEM
i Pond
1 A!
2 BI
3 A2
4 B2
5 C
6 D
7 E
Water Surface Area (A.)
(Hectares)
38.5
28.7
38.4
29.3
26.1
15.9
11.5
Capacity (V )
(m3)
704,000
586,000
703,000
598,000
580,000
384,000
297,000
Total
188.4
3,852,000
Meters x 3.281 = feet; Hectares x 2.471 = acres; Meters3 x 35.31 = feet3
at the end of the filling period (operating condition 4).
for Q7 is 15.0 cfs.
The value obtained
The initial values of the volume ratios for the first day of the simu-
lation (June 12, 1975) were not available. Therefore, these initial conditions
were estimated on the basis of the operating rules used by Logan City, and
then refined during interactive operation of the flow balance model. Two
criteria were established to guide the refinement of the initial conditions:
1. Maximum volume ratios should be close to unity.
2. Volume ratios one year after the commencement of the simulation
should be approximately the same as the initial volume ratios.
As a result of this procedure the initial volume ratios for all ponds
were estimated to be 0.8. Volume ratios and inter-pond flows calculated by
the flow balance model were read as input by the fecal coliform model of the
lagoon system.
Fecal Coliform Model
Hydraulic Submodel—
Actual hydraulic characteristics of the Logan lagoon system are quite
complex. During a dye study Mangelson (1971) observed short circuiting in the
Logan lagoons. He concluded that the degree of short circuiting is influenced
by wind, the relative positions of the inlet and outlet, and density stratifi-
cation. Each pond may be considered to consist of two parts:
1. A dead space through which negligible flow takes place.
2. An effective space through which most of the flow takes place.
183
-------
It was assumed that the effective space is a fixed proportion of the
total volume of wastewater in a pond, according to the following relationship:
v „ . = C _, . v. (123)
eff,i eff,i i
in which
Ceff -j_ = proportionality constant
v _ = effective volume in the ith pond
ef f ,i
A precise hydraulic model for the Logan lagoon system would require
extensive tracer experiments, wind data at the site of the lagoon system, and
flow measurements between each pond. Since none of these were practical with-
in the limitations of this project, it was decided to adopt a simple plug flow
model. Under this assumption the effective space in a pond is considered to
comprise a series of slugs of wastewater, where each slug entered the pond on
a different day (Figure 125). On each day, a new slug of wastewater with the
volume of the inflow on that day enters the pond. Outflow from the pond is
equal to the outflow calculated by the flow balance model, and is made up from
one or more slugs nearest to the outlet. With each day that passes existing
slugs in the pond move closer to the outlet and eventually enter the next pond
in the system. No mixing between adjacent slugs is simulated although some
mixing between the dead space and the effective space is represented to keep
the total volume of the slugs consistent with the effective volume calculated
in Equation 123.
Coliform Submodel—
Bacterial reduction in stabilization ponds depends on many factors.
Among these factors are: retention time, water temperature, composition of
algae populations, predators, sunlight, and aerobic-anaerobic nature of the
wastewater. The model used in this study is based on Chick's law and does
not explicitly consider the last two factors although these will affect the
value used for the decay rate (K2o)• Thus, the reduction of the coliform
level in each slug is simulated using the following equation:
in which
N = fecal coliform in the jth slug of the ith pond
t J = time
K2Q = first order decay rate for all ponds at 20°C
9 = empirical temperature correction coefficient (= 1.072)
T± = wastewater temperature in the ith pond
Results
was
Since coliform levels were generally very small in ponds D and E, it ...
decided to model only the first five ponds. To establish representative values
of K20 for both summer and winter conditions, two periods were simulated*:
184
-------
Pond Inlet
Pond Outlet
th
|gf Outflow Volume on (j+l) Day
— — Boundary of Outflow Volume on (j + l)thDay
Figure 125. Schematic of the dead and effective spaces, and plug flow through
a pond.
1. Summer period (6/12/75 - 9/9/75)
2. Winter period (1/2/76 - 2/19/76)
During the summer period inflows are high due to the infiltration of irrigation
water. Evaporation constitutes an important loss of water from the ponds
during the summertime.
The coliform model was calibrated to the summer period by adjusting the
decay rate (K^Q) and the proportionality constants for each pond (Ceff ^).
Model performance was assessed by inspection of the graphs of calculated and
measured coliform levels leaving each pond, and by comparison of the values of
the mean square error between the calculated and measured coliform values in
185
-------
successive model runs. The model was validated for the winter period using
the Ceff j_ values established during the summer period simulation, but using
a new value for K^Q to represent the slower rate of bacterial decay during the
winter period.
The following factors should be considered when evaluating the adequacy
of the simulation results:
1. Fecal coliform data used in this simulation study were obtained using
the membrane filter technique. Results from this analytical procedure proba-
bly have an accuracy represented by a high coefficient of variation of 0.5 -
0.1.
2. Fecal coliform samples from lagoon inflow and the effluents from each
pond were taken only twice weekly (Tuesdays and Thursdays) but the model has a
daily time step. For about 25 percent of the sample days, one or more of the
coliform samples were invalidated (due to lack of sample, experimental error,
etc.) during the analytical procedures. Fecal coliform levels in the lagoon
inflow are approximated on days without sampling by using the measured coliform
value from the most recent sample. This procedure may lead to very inaccurate
inflow levels since actual coliform levels in the input vary considerably from
day to day.
3. Coliform levels for the slugs in a pond were initialized by a
logarithmic interpolation between the observed coliform levels in the inflow
and outflow of the pond. Again, these values may be very inaccurate because
of the high variability in daily coliform levels of the inflow.
4. The hydraulic characteristics of the lagoon system are complex, but
because of data limitations they are approximated by a simple plug flow model.
Effective volumes are assumed to be a fixed proportion of the total volume of
wastewater in a pond. Inter-pond flows and total volumes are approximated
using the interactive flow balance model.
5. The coliform model combines the many factors affecting bacterial die-
off into a simple first order decay model. Sedimentation and resuspension
are therefore incorporated into the first order decay process. However, this
assumption is considered to be consistent with the accuracy and availability
of coliform and flow data.
6. Coliform levels in the dead space of the ponds are neglected. This
is justified because coliform levels in the effective space are presumed
much higher than coliform levels in the dead space.
7. The selection of a K^Q value and Ceff?i values during calibration of
the coliform model is complicated by the problem of balancing the similar
effects of a high decay rate (K2o) and a small retention time (and hence small
Ceff,i's)> or conversely a low decay rate and a large retention time.
In an attempt to address the last factor listed above, the values of»
Ceff,i obtained by Mangelson (1971) during a dye study in August, 1970, on
ponds Al and A2 were used as a guide for establishing the Ceff ± values for
186
-------
the 1975 summer period. Table 12 contains the values of the model coef-
ficients obtained for the summer and winter periods. Ceff ± values are the
same for both periods with the exception of pond C. For the winter period,
Ceff c was increased to 1.0 to represent the situation of pond C having no
outflow since a.j = 0. The very small value of Ceff c for the summer period
is a result of the combined flow from the two parallel systems, A1-B1 and
A2-B2, flowing through pond C which has a smaller capacity than the upstream
ponds. Ceff i values for ponds Al and A2 may be compared with Mangelson's
values of 0.6 for pond Al and 0.8 for pond A2 based on the passage of 50 per-
cent of the dye and including a correction for the loss of dye by mixing with
the bottom sludge.
The winter period value for K£O is much lower than the summer period
value. This is expected because during the very cold winter period little
reduction takes place except that due to sedimentation.
Results for the summer period of simulation are shown graphically in
Figure 126 and for the winter period in Figure 127. Two types of plots are
presented:
1. Calculated and measured coliform in pond outflow vs. time (Figures
126a and 127a).
2. Retention time in pond vs. time (Figures 126b and 127b).
The results presented in Figures 126a and 127a were obtained through a
trial-and-error minimization of the mean square error between the calculated
and observed coliform values by varying the K.20 and Ceff ^ coefficients. From
Figure 126a it will be observed that, in general, the adequacy of the calcu-
lated values of coliforms decreases through the lagoon system. That is, the
measured values are better approximated by the model for the A ponds than for
TABLE 12. MODEL COEFFICIENTS FOR THE SUMMER AND WINTER PERIODS
Model Summer Winter
Coefficient Period Period
K2Q (Per Day) 0.50 0.03
Ceff,Al
Ceff,Bl
Ceff,A2
Ceff,B2
r
eff.C
v^
0.65
0.40
0.70
0.25
r
0.05
j
\
1.00
187
-------
Figure 126a.
KEY
* calculated
0 measured
Simulation results for the summer period (6/12/75 - 9/9/75)—
calculated and measured coliform vs. time.
188
-------
Figure 126b.
Simulation results for the summer period (6/12/75 - 9/9/75)—
retention time vs. time.
189
-------
KEY
* calculated
0 measured
Figure 127a.
Simulation results for the winter period (1/2/76 - 2/19/76)—
calculated and measured coliform vs. time.
190
-------
Figure 127b.
Simulation results for the winter period (1/2/76 - 2/19/76)—
retention time vs. time.
191
-------
pond C. This characteristic is due to the accumulation of model errors
through the lagoon system.
During the winter period coliform levels from pond C were measured in
samples taken from water leaking through the closed outflow structure between
pond C and pond D. These samples were characterized by very low coliform
levels, probably because the leakage came from dead space in pond C adjacent
to the outflow structure. Since the small outflow from pond C is neglected
in the model, the results for pond C shown in Figure 127a are the coliform
levels in the slug adjacent to the outflow structure. Coliform levels in this
slug decay exponentially from their initial value at the beginning of the
winter period.
The number of slugs in a pond is used as an estimate of the retention time
in each pond. This estimate of retention time appears to be more realistic
than dividing the effective volume by the outflow rate, especially during the
winter period when outflows become quite small and are zero for pond C.
The calculated values of retention time show little variation during the
summer period when inflow, outflow, and evaporation rates are all fairly uni-
form. During the winter period the retention time increases because outflow
from pond C (ay), and evaporation are both zero, and therefore the entire
inflow is stored. Thus, for pond C the increase in retention time is linear
with time from the day on which outflow from pond C was closed off. There is
little difference between the retention times for ponds Al and A2 because the
effective volumes in both ponds are similar. Although the travel path between
inlet and outlet in pond Al is longer than for pond A2, the diffusers used in
both ponds appear to roughly equalize the effective volumes, and therefore,
the retention times. The retention time in pond Bl is greater than the
retention time in pond B2 as would be expected because of the greater inlet-
outlet distance in pond Bl.
On the basis of the retention times estimated for the winter period, the
total retention time for the first five ponds averages 80 days during the win-
ter period when the outflow from pond C is closed off. The average total re-
tention time for the first five ponds during the summer period is about 22 days.
Figures 128 and 129 are based on Equation 124 for the summer and winter
periods, respectively. They show the number of days retention time required
in the Logan lagoon system to reduce influent coliform levels to a required
effluent coliform level. In each case, the K2Q value used is the value con-
tained in Table 12, and the temperature (T) is typical for the period. As an
example, to reduce an influent coliform level of 10^/100 ml to an effluent
coliform level of 102/100 ml, 23 days retention time would be required under
summer conditions (see Figure 128). From Figure 129 it is evident that coli-
form decay during the winter period is very slow.
Summary
Data were collected for a 15 month period to determine the coliform re-
moval efficiency of the Logan lagoon system. A mathematical model was devel-
oped which describes the coliform die-away through the lagoon system. „
192
-------
10'
UJ
>
UJ
tr
2
8
LU
ID
UJ
^
_J
UJ
>
UJ
a;
o
o
o
UJ
D
10
10'
10'
0 10 20 30 40
REQUIRED RETENTION TIME (Days)
Figure 128. Retention time required in the Logan lagoon system to reduce an
influent coliform level to a required effluent coliform level
under summer conditions.
193
-------
200
REQUIRED RETENTION TIME (Days)
Figure 129. Retention time required in the Logan lagoon system to reduce an
influent coliform level to a required effluent coliform level
under winter conditions.
The results of the study indicated that the summer coliform decay rate
coefficient, K20, was equal to 0.50 per day and that the winter coliform decay
rate coefficient, K20, was equal to 0.03 per day. Thus, the rate of coliform
die-away in the lagoon system was approximately 16 times greater during the
summer period than during the winter period. Based on the results of this
study, during the summer period it would take a hydraulic residence time of
23 days to reduce an influent coliform concentration of 107 organisms/100 ml
to an effluent coliform concentration of 102 organisms/100 ml.
The greater coliform removal efficiency occurring during the summer
no?S u° a comblnation of sever*l factors. Macko (1976) and Reynolds
et al (1976) have indicated that the amount of. incident sunlight is a very
significant factor in coliform die-away in lagoon systems.
The Logan lagoon system is covered over by ice during the winter period.
This ice cover prevents sunlight penetration, which may account for the low
coliform die-off rate during the winter period.
Data from the Logan lagoon system (Appendix E) indicated that the final
T™ r rm °Te"tratlon (Station Number 9) exceeded 1000 organ-
ml 33.5 percent of the time based on MPN measurements and 13.1 per-
cent of the time based on MF measurements. The final effluent fecal coliform
concentration (Station Number 9) exceeded 200 organisms/100 ml 17.8 percent of
the time based on MPN measurements and 10.3 percent of the time based on MF
194
-------
SECTION 8
COMPARISON OF MPN AND MF COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS IN LAGOON EFFLUENT
GENERAL
It is well established that comparison of absolute numbers of coliforms in
a sample as determined by the MPN or MF technique should be based on the com-
pleted MF and the completed MPN procedure. Many operating personnel and
regulatory agencies continue to employ the confirmed test for the MPN as a
means of comparison with the MF results. Therefore, a careful evaluation of
the confirmed and MF procedures for total and fecal coliforms is needed if
the results of the two tests are to be interpreted correctly. Many comparisons
of the MPN and MF techniques have been made for potable waters, lakes, rivers,
various types of wastewater treatment plant effluents, and a very limited com-
parison has been made for wastewater stabilization lagoon effluents. To
provide a better comparison of the two techniques for wastewater stabilization
lagoons, a 15 month study was conducted at the Logan, Utah, wastewater stabili-
zation lagoon.
The objectives of the study were to determine if the results of enumerating
coliform bacteria in a waste stabilization pond system using the most probable
number (MPN) technique are significantly different from results obtained using
the membrane filter (MF) technique and to determine the relationship between
results obtained employing the two different techniques. The analysis was
performed on the lagoon performance data presented in Appendix E, Table E-l,
and Figures E-l through E-31. The location of each sample point is illustrated
in Figure 12 and described in Table 3 of Section 4.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Since the introduction of the membrane filter (MF) technique to the USA
(Goetz, 1953), many comparisons of the results of MF and most probable number
(MPN) bacteriological analyses of water and wastewater have been made (Kabler,
1954; Thomas and Woodward, 1956; Thomas et al., 1956; ORSANCO, 1959; Streeter
and Robertson, 1960; Hoffman et al., 1964; Henderson, 1959; Benedict, 1961;
McCarthy et al., 1958, 1961; McKee and McLaughlin, 1958; McKee et al., 1958;
Mailman and Peabody, 1961). Considerable discussion of the merits and dis-
advantages of the two tests have been presented and as techniques continue to
improve comparisons continue to appear (Green et al., 1975; Moran and Witter,
1976; Peterson, 1974; Presswood and Brown, 1973; Rose et al., 1975; Schaeffer
et al., 1974; Geldreich et al., 1965). Many of these comparisons are made
employing the results of the MF technique with the confirmed portion of the
multiple tube technique. As pointed out by Geldreich (1972 and 1975) and many
other investigators, this is not a valid comparison for actual numbers of
195
-------
coliform organisms. The completed MF technique should be compared only with
the completed dilution tube procedure. Several examples of confirmed-
completed MPN results can be found in the literature (Geldreich et al., 1962
and 1965). The results of these studies demonstrate that a significant dif-
ference in coliform numbers can occur between these two MPN procedures. The
variables accounting for these differences are bacterial flora found in a
given water, sample age, suppression of the non-coliform organisms by brilliant
green dye and bile salts used in the confirmatory medium, among others.
Considerable variation in the results obtained with the MF technique when
applied to chlorinated samples of wastewaters has been reported (Lin, 1973;
Mowat, 1976; McKee et al., 1958). However, corrections in the procedure have
overcome this difficulty, and Geldreich (1975) has discussed the limitations
of the MF technique and modifications to be employed with chlorinated ef-
fluent samples.
When the limitations of the two procedures are considered, it is not dif-
ficult to understand why direct comparison of numerical values is difficult.
There is little reason to place a great deal of significance on the actual
values reported by either technique. Thomas (1955), Thomas et al. (1956),
Thomas and Woodward (1956), and Laubusch (1958), among others, have pointed
out that there is no reason to treat the results of the MPN procedure as
absolute. Both the MF and MPN techniques are capable of giving results which
can be used to determine the quality of a potable or treated wastewater
effluent.
TOTAL COLIFORM REGRESSION ANALYSES
Various relationships between total coliform concentrations determined by
the MPN and MF techniques were evaluated, and it was found that log-log
relationships produced the best fit for the data as shown in Figure 130. Be-
cause a zero value does not exist in bacteriological analyses and the log of
zero is undefined, all analyses reported as less than a given concentration
were excluded from the log analyses. Figure 130 shows these log-log relation-
ships, the equations of the lines of best fit, and the correlation coefficients.
A highly significant (0.1 percent significance level) relationship exists be-
tween the total coliform concentrations determined by the two techniques.
Better agreement between the two techniques was obtained at coliform concen-
trations greater than 103 coliforms per 100 ml (Figure 130).
High concentrations of algae or other solids could interfere with the MF
technique. To determine if variations in solids concentrations contributed
to the lack of agreement between the two techniques at lower coliform concen-
trations, the data were sorted by month and analyzed using a log-log relation-
ship. The characteristics of the regression lines obtained are summarized in
Table 13. Suspended solids data are available only for Sampling Stations 1
and 9 (see Figure 12, Table 3, and Figure E-4). The larger the deviation of
the slope of the regression line from a value of 1, the greater the difference
between the results of the two techniques. A comparison of the suspended .
solids concentrations and the months when the deviation of the slopes of the
lines from a value of 1 were greatest indicates no relationship between
196
-------
8 i—
•- Unbiased (theoretical)
Y 0.77X + 1.40
R 0.89
Y 0.40X +1.90
R 0.24
Y 0.52X <• 1.79
0-1,000 R _ o.41
—--— Y 1.11X + 0.33
100-1,000 R 0.45
- Y 1.03X + 0.10
= 1,000 R 0_91
J_
O I 234567
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure 130. The relationship between the log of the total coliform concen-
trations determined by the MPN technique and the log of the total
coliform concentrations determined by the MF technique.
suspended solids concentrations and the MPN and MF tests. The lower regression
coefficient (slope of the line) between the MPN and MF techniques occurred dur-
ing July and August of 1975 (see Table 13). However, these two months were
also identified as having very low suspended solids concentrations (see Figure
E-4, Appendix E) .
Because of the wide variation in the relationship between the log of the
MPN total coliform concentrations and the log of the MF total coliform concen-
trations at concentrations less than 1000 counts per 100 ml, a series of plots
were prepared utilizing ranges of MF values varying from 0 to 100, 0 to 1,000,
100 to 1,000, and ^ 1,000. The lines of best-fit for these ranges of values
are shown in Figure 130. The characteristics of the regression lines for the
relationships between the total coliform concentrations are summarized in
Table 14. The slope of the line of best-fit for the ranges of MF values from
0 to 100 and 0 to 1,000 are significantly different (1% level) than the slope
obtained with a fit of all (15 months) data (Snedecor, 1956). However, the
intercepts of the lines of best-fit changed proportionately, and the predicted
lower concentrations obtained with the equations of the line of best-fit for
the MF concentrations of less than 1,000 counts per 100 ml do not differ
significantly from the values obtained with the fit of all the data or at MF
197
-------
TABLE 13. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGRESSION LINE FOR THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE TOTAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED BY THE
MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) (ORDINATE) AND THE MEMBRANE FIL-
TER (MF) (ABSCISSA) TECHNIQUES
Month
&
Year
6-75
7-75
8-75
9-75
10-75
11-75
12-75
1-76
2-76
3-76
4-76
5-76
6-76
7-76
8-76
All Data
(15 Months)
Number
in Each
Analysis
43
67
50
57
63
54
47
45
56
75
80
70
60
51
55
873
Intercept
1.68
2.27
2.70
1.92
1.43
1.05
1.19
1.28
0.73
1.00
0.21
0.98
0.38
0.92
1.76
1.40
Slope of
the
Line
0.65
0.58
0.47
0.67
0.80
0.83
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.87
0.94
0.83
1.02
0.86
0.65
0.77
Correlation
Coefficient
0.84
0.75
0.68
0.82
0.87
0.93
0.94
0.96
0.98
0.81
0.93
0.93
0.96
0.87
0.83
0.89
Significance
Level
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 14. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGRESSION LINES FOR THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE TOTAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED BY THE
MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) AND THE MEMBRANE FILTER (MF)
TECHNIQUES WITH THE DATA DIVIDED INTO RANGES OF VALUES
Range of Number
MF Values of
Analyzed Analyses
0-100
0-1000
100-1000
^ 1000
All Data
(15 Months)
390
501
127
375
873C
ft
Intercept
1.90
1.79
0.33
0.10
1.40
Slope
of the
Line
0.40
0.52
1.11
1.03
0.77
Correlation
Coefficient
0.24b
0.42b
0.45b
0.91b
0.89b
Significance Residual
Level Mean
% Square
1
1
1
1
1
0.86
0.80
0.55
0.24
0.62
When slopes differ, a comparison of intercept has no meaning.
Slope differs at the 5% significance level from the slope of the line of
best fit for all data (15 months).
Number of analyses do not add due to inclusive end points. Excluding
end points did not vary results of regression analyses.
198
-------
concentrations of 100 counts per 100 ml or less. Correlation coefficients for
the 0 to 100 and 0 to 1,000 range of MF values were much lower than the value
obtained for the fit of all of the data; however, the correlation coefficients
were still significant at the 1% level principally because of the large number
of data points involved in the analysis. A comparison of intercepts is mean-
ingless if the slopes differ; therefore, levels of significance are not shown
in Table 14.
The least square fit of the data in the lower ranges leads to a question-
able relationship and the equations should not be used to predict concentrations
of total coliforms when measurements by either the MPN or MF techniques are
available. Because of the positive bias of the fit of all data (Figure 130),
this relationship is also questionable although statistically the prediction
equation based upon all the data is indicated to be more reliable and has less
positive bias than that exhibited by the fits of the lower ranges of values.
Theoretically the line of best-fit for the relationship between the re-
sults obtained with the two techniques of determining total coliform concen-
trations should have an intercept of 0. As illustrated in Table 14 there was
a significant deviation from a zero intercept. To determine if a valid
relationship could be obtained by forcing the line of best-fit through 0, a
series of regression analyses were completed for the same range of MF values
utilized in Table 14. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table
15. Correlation coefficients are not shown in Table 15 for the forced zero
fit relationships because very little significance can be attached to cor-
relation coefficients when forced 0 intercept analysis is employed. Residual
mean square values for the least squares fit and the forced intercept fit can
be compared to determine if the relationship is improved by employing a forced
zero intercept analysis. Comparing the residual mean square values for the
least squares fit for the range of MF values varying from 0 to 100, from 0 to
1000 and for all 15 months of data in Table 14 with values for the forced zero
fit shown in Table 15, the intercept least-squares fit for the lower range
comparisons contains approximately one-half the error associated with the zero
intercept fit. Therefore, the equations obtained with the intercept fit is
superior and would yield more reliable predicted values. The analyses of the
MF values lying between 100 and 1000 and ^ 1000 showed that the forced zero
fit and the intercept least-squares fit residual mean square values are ap-
proximately equal. Therefore, the fit of the data at total coliform concen-
trations within these ranges is approximately equal with or without an inter-
cept value.
Utilizing the equations of the lines of best-fit for the lower ranges
(0-100 and 0-1000) of MF values and the line of best-fit for the total of 15
months of data to calculate predicted values, a comparison of total coliform
concentrations determined by the MF and MPN techniques is presented in Table
16. Although the predicted values differ considerably, in all cases higher
concentrations of total coliforms are predicted for the MPN technique. Thomas
(1955) has shown that the MPN is inherently biased on the positive side and
that the common 5-5-5 tube MPN test yields results that average 18% above the
"true" coliform population. An examination of the data according to sampling
station and month of the year shows that both the MPN and MF techniques mea-
sure the same trends; however, considerable differences exist between the num-
bers of organisms measured by the two techniques (see Table 14).
199
-------
TABLE 15. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGRESSION LINES (FORCED ZERO INTERCEPT)
FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOTAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
DETERMINED BY THE MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) AND THE MEMBRANE
FILTER (MF) TECHNIQUES WITH THE DATA DIVIDED INTO RANGES OF
VALUES
Range of
MF Values
Analyzed
0-100
0-1000
100-1000
^ 1000
All Data
(15 Months)
Number
of
Analyses
391
502
128
376
874
Intercept
0
0
0
0
0
Slope
of the
Line
1.75
1.48
1.24
1.05
1.10
Correlation
Coefficient
*
*
*
*
*
Residual
Mean
Square
1.57
1.53
0.54
0.24
1.23
Little significance can be attached to correlation coefficients when
forced zero intercept analysis is employed. Must compare residual (error)
mean square values for intercept fit and forced zero intercept fit.
o
Number of analyses do not add due to inclusive end points. Excluding
end points did not vary results of regression analyses.
TABLE 16. EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR MPN AND MF TOTAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FROM REGRESSION EQUATIONS
Range of MF Equivalent MPN Value, Counts/100 ml
Values Used
To Determine Given MF Value, Counts/100 ml
f\
Regression Equations
10 100 500 1,000
Intercept Employed
0 - 100 200 500
0 - 1000 204 676 1,560 2,240
All Data 148 871 3,010 5,130
(15 months)
Forced Zero Intercept
0 - 100
0 - 1000
All Data
(15 months)
56
30
13
3,160
912
158
_
9,870
931
_
27,500
2,000
*
See Tables 14 and 15 for equations used to calculate equivalent values
200
-------
There are many reasons why discrepancies between the two techniques exist;
i.e., difficulty in counting the coliform organisms on the surface of the mem-
brane filter, interference of solids, interference of other colonies, dif-
ferences in media base, culturing conditions, filter manufacturing techniques,
the statistical base for the MPN technique, etc. Based upon the results of
this study, it appears reasonable to assume that at MF coliform concentrations
of less than 1000 counts per 100 ml, the two techniques measure different
populations. Similar results have been reported by Geldreich et al. (1962)
and Geldreich (1972 and 1975) among others.
TOTAL COLIFORM GEOMETRIC MEAN COMPARISONS
To determine the amount of difference between actual values measured by
each technique, the geometric mean monthly concentrations of total coliform
bacteria by sampling station were analyzed by the standard t-test to determine
if the log of the concentrations measured by both techniques differed (Snedecor,
1956). The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 17. An "X" in a
significance level column indicates that the results obtained with both tech-
niques do not differ at that level. The lower the percentage significance
level, the greater the probability that there is no difference between the
two means. For example, if the log of the geometric means of the total coli-
form concentrations measured by both techniques employed at Station 1 during
June, 1975, lie between the interval of 5.4886 to 6.6738 there is no signifi-
cant difference between the two values at the 10 percent level. The acceptable
interval at the 1 percent level is 4.8954 to 7.2670. Standard confidence
limits calculations are used to determine the intervals.
At Sampling Station 1 (raw sewage) the MPN and MF values for the total
coliform concentrations were in agreement at all three levels of significance
for ten months out of the total of 15 months studied. There appeared to be no
relationship between the season and the variation between the two techniques.
Suspended solids concentrations at Station 1 varied widely, but the variation
between the two techniques for measuring total coliform concentrations did not
follow a similar pattern (see Figure 15).
At lower total coliform concentrations (i.e., Sampling Stations 4 to 9)
the number of months during which the two techniques produced statistically
similar results ranged from 7 months to 11 months. Agreement did not seem to
follow any seasonal or other identifiable pattern. In general, there was
agreement between the total coliform concentrations determined by the MPN and
MF techniques 67% of the time. This suggests that direct comparison of
bacterial concentrations determined by the two techniques may not be valid.
However, both techniques appear to detect the same trends and relative concen-
trations of coliform bacteria. Solids concentrations in the samples may ac-
count for some of the differences detected between the techniques, but it does
not appear that much of the variation can be attributed to solids interference
on the surface of the MF filter.
Trends shown by both MPN and MF results are in excellent agreement, and
it appears reasonable to accept the results of either technique to evaluate
the performance of wastewater stabilization ponds. Cognizance of differences
201
-------
TABLE 17. COMPARISON OF GEOMETRIC MEANS FOR TOTAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
BY THE MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) AND MEMBRANE FILTER (MF)
TECHNIQUES
Month „ , . p.
Sampling'1
Station
Year
Geometric Mean
Total Coliform
Counts/ 100 ml
Do Not Differ At
The Significance
Level, %
MPN MF
6-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
1,190,000 1,220,000
14,900 12,000
2,380
396
90
36
170
46
17
1,330,000 1,600,
3,410 2,
7,650
201
4,520
218
678
516
967
793,000 235,
2,030
941
424
5,320
2,000
1,100
7,290
7,420
619,000 186,
1,800
20,800
218
426
784
151
597
863
1,750,000 526,
52,800 19,
17,700 1,
8,250
182
1,410
70
21
13
3
4
5
2
000
130
6
15
13
15
11
6
9
000
847
13
11
35
12
6
9
24
000
309
547
23
46
32
16
13
8
000
700
980
768
57
31
10 5
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
#
X
202
-------
TABLE 17. CONTINUED
Month _, , . a
Sampling
„ Station
Year
10-75 7
Continued 8
9
11-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-76 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2-76 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3-76 1
2
3
4
5
6
Geometric Mean
Total Coliform
Counts/ 100 ml
MPN
133
155
366
2,310,000
50,800
7,130
969
217
302
99
73
99
.13,400,000
41,600
6,920
716
445
102
18
28
83
12,200,000
2,300,000
412,000
613,000
2,490
214
52
79
22
4,850,000
1,700,000
80,000
824,000
120,000
131
42
42
59
2,160,000
748,000
1,110,000
646,000
351,000
265,000
MF
26
7
11
909,000
39,600
2,000
904
25
46
18
4
9
3,120,000
7,780
928
62
25
11
2
1
2
4,140,000
579,000
41,300
226,000
162
25
7
7
2
3,910,000
749,000
296,000
299,000
35,700
24
7
4
1
1,700,000
579,000
370,000
263,000
193,000
160,000
Do Not Differ At
The Significance
Level, %
10
X
X
X
X
X
b
b
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
b
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
b
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
203
-------
TABLE 17. CONTINUED
Month „ , . a
Sampling
Station
Year
3-76
Continued
4-76
5-76
6-76
7-76
8-76
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
Geometric Mean
Total Coliform
Counts/ 100 ml
MPN
147,000
62,300
80,700
974,000
35,900
33,500
3,520
1,390
806
373
359
418
1,760,000
46,500
4,220
1,600
109
89
70
90
93
4,180,000
12,200
1,740
73
99
57
43
22
14
2,350,000
4,390
2,370
146
1,300
313
528
845
1,450
800,000
2,780
3,260
311
384
MF
72,400
38,900
32,900
1,270,000
21,200
27,600
2,910
2,230
848
526
478
442
1,080,000
32,700
2,270
541
59
33
8
7
7
846,000
7,540
594
67
24
27
26
6
8
659,000
2,610
394
45
318
114
324
250
15
852,000
946
253
78
28
Do Not Differ At
The Significance
Level, %
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
s.
X
X
204
-------
TABLE 17. CONTINUED
Month
&
Year
Sampling*"
Station
Geometric Mean
Total Coliform
Counts/100 ml
MPN
MF
Do Not Differ At
The Significance
Level, %
10 5 1
8-76
Continued
6
7
8
9
3,100
207
401
671
55
9
7
68
X
Sampling Station 1 =
Sampling Station 2 =
Sampling Station 3 =
Sampling Station 4 =
Sampling Station 5 =
Sampling Station 6 =
Sampling Station 7 =
Sampling Station 8 =
Sampling Station 9 =
Raw Wastewater
Effluent from Cell A-
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
from Cell
from Cell
from Cell
from Cell
from Cell
from Cell E
Effluent from Chlorine Contact Tank (Chlorine was
not added)
Insufficient data to make comparison.
in organism concentrations obtained by the two techniques is necessary when
interpreting results.
FECAL COLIFORM REGRESSION ANALYSES
A log-log relationship best describes the fecal coliform concentrations
determined by the MPN and MF techniques. All results reported as less than a
given concentration were again excluded. Figure 131 shows a plot of the
relationships, the equations of the lines of best fit, and the correlation
coefficients. The relationships are significant at the 0.1 percent level, arid
there are a relatively small number of points which deviate from the general
trend of the data. There appears to be no significant difference in the
relative (not absolute numerical values) concentrations determined by the two
techniques. The fact that the slope of the line describing the relationship
for all of the data collected during the study is 1.00 and the intercept is
0.46 indicates that slightly higher concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria
are expected from the MPN technique.
Monthly data were plotted and analyzed to determine if seasonal variations
in the fecal coliform counts were produced by the two techniques. The charac-
teristics of the lines of best fit are summarized in Table 18. The lower cor-
relation coefficients correspond with the slopes of the lines (regression
205
-------
•-Unbiased (theoretical)
Y 1 .OCX -i- 0.46
R - 0.96
Y 0.73X + 0.71
R - 0.64
- -,--- Y 0.83X -i- 0.64
0-1,000 R = 0,79
~foo-T,ooo R = 0;56
Y 0.94X + 0.84
81-°°° R = 0.85
_L
I
I
123456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / ICOml)
Figure 131. The relationship between the log of the fecal coliform concen-
trations determined by the MPN technique and the log of the fecal
coliform concentrations determined by the MF technique.
coefficients) which deviate the most from a value of 1.0. These deviations
occurred during August, 1975, and March, 1976. During these months, the sus-
pended solids concentrations at Sampling Stations 1 and 9 did not differ
significantly from previous or following months. Actually a reduction in
suspended solids concentrations occurred in March, 1976, but the agreement
between the results of the two techniques was poor. There appears to be no
relationship between season or suspended solids concentrations and the variance
between the fecal coliform counts determined by the two techniques. Based upon
the relationship found for all of the fecal coliform bacteria data as well as
the monthly regression analyses, it appears reasonable to assume that either
technique will yield reliable estimates of the fecal coliform concentration.
However, the absolute numerical values obtained from each technique may not
agree.
Although the wide variation observed in the relationship between the logs
of the MPN and MF total coliform concentrations at MF concentrations of less
than 1000 counts per 100 ml were not observed for the fecal coliform measure-
ments, regression analyses utilizing ranges of MF values varying from 0 to *100,
0 to 1000, 100 to 1000, and 2 1000 were also analyzed to determine if some
obvious relationship had been overlooked. The lines of best-fit for these
206
-------
TABLE 18. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGRESSION LINE FOR THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED BY THE
MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) (ORDINATE) AND THE MEMBRANE FIL-
TER (MF) (ABSCISSA) TECHNIQUES
Month
&
Year
6-75
7-75
8-75
9-75
10-75
11-75
12-75
1-76
2-76
3-76
4-76
5-76
6-76
7-76
8-76
All Data
Number
in Each
Analysis
49
68
51
64
58
46
31
45
47
72
66
55
51
58
58
819
Intercept
0.42
0.60
0.46
0.63
0.81
0.58
0.97
0.87
0.36
1.24
0.28
0.31
0.23
0.14
0.42
0.46
Slope of
the
Line
0.93
0.92
0.88
0.87
0.89
0.96
0.96
1.00
1.06
0.84
1.02
1.04
1.09
1.13
1.00
1.00
Correlation
Coefficient
0.96
0.96
0.77
0.95
0.93
0.96
0.98
0.97
0.98
0.83
0.97
0.96
0.98
0.97
0.95
0.96
Significance
Level, %
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
(15 Months)
ranges of values are shown in Figure 131. The characteristics of the regres-
sion lines for the relationships between the fecal coliform concentrations are
summarized in Table 19. The slopes of the lines of best-fit for the ranges
of MF values from 100 to 1000 and ^ 1000 counts per 100 ml do not differ
statistically (5% level) from the slope of the line of best-fit for all of
the data (15 months). The intercept of the line of best-fit for the range
from 100 to 1000 counts per 100 ml differed (5% level) from the intercept of
the line of best-fit for all data. As mentioned earlier, a comparison of
intercepts is meaningless if the slopes differ; therefore, levels of signifi-
cance are not indicated in Table 19 for intercepts except when the slopes are
parallel. The slopes of the lines of best-fit for the ranges of MF values
from 0 to 100 and 0 to 1000 counts per 100 ml differ statistically (5% level)
from the slope of the line of best-fit for all of the data. Correlation
coefficients for all of the regression analyses of the subdivisions of the
data were less than the correlation coefficients obtained for the fit of all
data collected over the 15 months of study. But all regression analyses were
significant at the 1% level. A definite relationship appears to exist between
the fecal coliform concentrations measured by the MPN and MF techniques.
There is a positive bias in the relationship, but the bias is much less than
that observed for the total coliform relationship.
207
-------
TABLE 19. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGRESSION LINES FOR THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS DETERMINED BY THE
MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) AND THE MEMBRANE FILTER (MF)
TECHNIQUES WITH THE DATA DIVIDED INTO RANGES OF VALUES
Range of
MF Values
Analyzed
0-100
0-1000
100-1000
^ 1000
All Data
(15 Months)
Number
of
Analyses
435
536
105
284
819C
Intercept
0.71
0.64
-O.lla
0.84
0.46
Slope
of the
Line
0.73b
0.83b
1.17
0.94
1.00
Correlation
Coefficient
0.64
0.79
0.56
0.85
0.96
Significance
Level, %
1
1
1
1
1
Residual
Mean
Square
0.25
0.26
0.23
0.25
0.27
Intercept differs at the 5% significance level from the intercept
for all data (15 months). When slopes differ, a comparison of intercepts has
no meaning.
Slope differs at the 5% significance level from the slope of the line of
best fit for all data (15 months).
Number of analyses do not add due to inclusive end points. Excluding
end points did not vary results of regression analyses.
Forced zero intercept regression analyses were also performed with the
ranges of values reported in Table 19 even though the intercepts obtained with
the fecal coliform concentrations analyses were smaller than those determined
for the total coliforms. The results of these analyses are summarized in
Table 20. As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to use residual mean squares
to compare the intercept and the forced zero fits of the data. The residual
(error) mean square values for the ranges of MF values between 0 to 100, 0 to
1000 and the fit of all 15 months of data were smaller with the intercept fit;
however, at the higher concentration ranges of 100 to 1000 and equal to or
greater than 1000 counts per 100 ml the two methods of analysis produced
approximately equal statistical results. Improvement does not result from a
forced zero intercept fit of the data, and the intercept fits of the data
should yield more reliable estimates of fecal coliform concentrations.
Using the equations of the lines of best-fit for the lower ranges (0-100
and 0-1000) of MF concentrations and the line of best-fit for the total of 15
months of data to calculate predicted values, a comparison of fecal coliform
concentrations determined by the MF and MPN techniques is presented in Table
21. The slopes of the regression equations differ statistically, and the
numerical values calculated from the equations and presented in Table 21 show
that the equations for the 0 to 100 and 0 to 1000 ranges produce better
numerical agreement between the MF and MPN techniques. However, statistically
the regression equation for all of the data should yield a more reliable
estimate. There appears to be a definite relationship between the fecal
208
-------
TABLE 20. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REGRESSION LINES (FORCED ZERO INTERCEPT)
FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
DETERMINED BY THE MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) AND THE MEMBRANE
FILTER (MF) TECHNIQUES WITH THE DATA DIVIDED INTO RANGES OF
VALUES
Range of
MF Values
Analyzed
0-100
0-1000
100-1000
£ 1000
All Data
(15 months)
Number
of
Analyses
436
537
106
285
820a
Intercept
0
0
0
0
0
Slope
of the
Line
1.28
1.20
1.12
1.11
1.12
Correlation
Coefficient
*
*
*
*
*
Residual
Mean
Square
0.39
0.37
0.23
0.27
0.35
Little significance can be attached to correlation coefficients when
forced zero intercept analysis is employed. Must compare residual (error)
mean square values for intercept fit and forced zero intercept fit.
Number of analyses do not add due to inclusive end points. Excluding
end points did not vary results of regression analyses.
TABLE 21. EQUIVALENT VALUES FOR MPN AND MF FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
CALCULATED FROM EQUATIONS
Range of MF
Values Used
To Determine
Regression Equations0
Equivalent MPN Value, Counts/100 ml
Given MF Value, Counts/100 ml
10
100
500
1000
Intercept Employed
0 - 100
0 - 1000
All Data
(15 months)
Forced Zero Intercept
0 - 100
0 - 1000
All Data
(15 months)
28
30
29
19
16
13
148
200
288
363
251
174
759
1440
1350
2880
1730
1050
3980
2290
aSee Tables 19 and 20 for equations used to calculate equivalent values,
209
-------
coliform concentrations measured by the MPN and MF techniques, and it appears
reasonable to assume that both techniques measure similar trends but do not
necessarily result in the same bacterial concentrations.
FECAL COLIFORM GEOMETRIC MEAN COMPARISONS
The geometric mean monthly concentrations of fecal coliform by sampling
station were compared using the standard t-test to determine if the log of the
concentrations measured by both techniques differed. The results of these
analyses are summarized in Table 22. As before an "X" in a column indicates
that the monthly means obtained by both techniques do not differ at the
designated significance level.
Monthly fecal coliform concentrations for the raw sewage (Station 1) were
in agreement at all three levels of significance for only 5 months out of the
total of 15 months. There appears to be no relationship between agreement and
the seasons or suspended solids concentrations (compare Table 22 with Figure
E-4). When high concentrations of fecal coliform occurred at other stations,
a significant difference was detected in the means. At lower concentrations
of fecal coliforms there was excellent agreement in the results obtained by
the MPN and MF techniques.
Apparently variations between the results obtained with the MPN and MF
techniques to determine fecal coliform concentrations can be attributed to
inherent differences in techniques, and results from both techniques appear
to be acceptable for identifying relative fecal coliform concentrations. How-
ever, the absolute numerical values obtained from the two techniques may not
agree.
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Using an F-test, the standard deviations from the log of the means for
both techniques do not differ statistically at the 1% level of significance
(Table 23), and one technique does not appear to be more reliable than the
other. The same trends are indicated by the results obtained with both
techniques (Table 23).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The inherent variations in the MPN and MF techniques for measuring total
and fecal coliform bacteria appear to be equivalent, and thus one technique
does not appear to be more reliable than the other.
Both techniques appear to show the same trends. Variations in results when
analyzing a common sample appear to be equal for both the total and fecal MPN
and the MF techniques (see Table 23). However, the absolute numerical value
obtained from the two techniques may differ substantially. *
210
-------
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF GEOMETRIC MEANS FOR FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS
DETERMINED BY THE MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) AND MEMBRANE FILTER
(MF) TECHNIQUES
Month „ i . a
Sampling
Station
Year
6-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9-75 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-75 1
2
3
4
5
Geometric Mean
Fecal Coliform
Counts /I 00 ml
MPN
500,000
4,420
434
59
16
14
31
5
5
913,000
930
416
33
30
16
31
4
5
298,000
561
234
55
52
49
37
7
10
202,000
570
520
60
48
33
11
11
34
285,000
4,230
1,760
258
68
MF
310,000
1,660
211
31
7
7
19
3
2
442,000
289
273
12
2
10
8
1
3
8,400
166
118
64
37
94
61
10
7
155,000
224
176
43
15
4
6
8
5
87,600
2,120
239
104
15
Do Not Differ At
The Significance
Level, %
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
211
-------
TABLE 22. CONTINUED
Month _ -, . a
Sampling
,r Station
Year
10-75
Continued
11-75
12-75
1-76
2-76
3-76
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
Geometric Mean
Fecal Coliform
Counts /I 00 ml
MPN
77
22
9
30
736,000
26,000
775
127
59
37
19
5
13
1,720,000
14,000
1,400
120
18
24
6
6
17
5,960,000
983,000
107,000
355,010
649
101
9
44
11
3,290,000
813,000
313,000
616,000
63,700
100
386
14
71
1,110,000
209,000
390,000
235,000
MF
8
7
3
2
146,000
4,110
73
160
17
12
8
2
2
407,000
263
115
28
3
3
2
1
0
1,290,000
187,000
13,400
70,600
39
16
2
5
2
1,240,000
196,000
71,500
66,600
6,550
7
3
4
2
572,000
89,200
81,300
68,400
Do Not Differ At
The Significance
Level, %
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
b
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
^
X
b
b
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
b
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
"x
X
X
212
-------
TABLE 22. CONTINUED
Month . a
& Sampling
„ Station
Year
3-76
Continued
4-76
5-76
6-76
7-76
8-76
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
Geometric Mean
Fecal Coliform
Counts /I 00 ml
MPN
189,000
184,000
62,100
40,700
27,000
768,000
6,570
6,550
493
253
178
102
101
112
1,010,000
5,820
1,278
93
7
15
18
7
6
1,320,000
2,330
100
10
5
15
4
3
4
830,000
664
145
19
61
52
23
42
96
228,000
301
122
MF
60,900
45,500
25,400
14,800
17,100
474,000
2,980
3,260
394
77
70
24
33
34
193,000
3,620
212
61
2
7
6
3
4
185,000
1,170
36
5
3
2
2
1
3
127,000
192
36
15
26
12
16
10
10
512,000
71
61
Do Not Differ At
The Significance
Level, %
10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
213
-------
TABLE 22. CONTINUED
Geometric Mean
Fecal Coliform
Month
&
Year
8-76
Continued
f\
Sampling
Station
4
5
6
7
8
9
Counts/ 100
MPN
49
20
40
19
7
11
ml
MF
19
8
23
7
3
4
Do Not Differ
The
10
X
X
X
X
At
Significance
Level, %
5
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
Sampling Station 1 = Raw Wastewater
Sampling Station 2
Sampling Station 3
Sampling Station 4
Sampling Station 5
Sampling Station 6
Sampling Station 7
Sampling Station 8
= Effluent from Cell A2
= Effluent from Cell A,
= Effluent from Cell B2
= Effluent from Cell B^
= Effluent from Cell C
= Effluent from Cell D
= Effluent from Cell E
Sampling Station 9 = Effluent from Chlorine Contact Tank (chlorine was
not added)
Insufficient data to make comparison.
TABLE 23. THE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE LOG VALUES OF THE TOTAL
AND FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS AT THE VARIOUS SAMPLING
STATIONS
MPN Total
Coliform
MF Total
Coliform
MPN Fecal
Coliform
MF Fecal
Coliform
Sampling
Station
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Log Deviation Log Deviation Log Deviation Log Deviation
Mean of the Mean of the Mean of the Mean of the
Sample Sample Sample Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6.33
4.50
4.20
3.38
3.13
2.72
2.40
2.45
2.53
0.61
1.14
1.22
1.49
1.31
1.21
1.23
1.21
1.24
6.01
4.16
3.32
2.79
2.30
1.83
1.53
1.46
1.50
0.68
1.11
1.51
1.61
1.43
1.24
1.28
1.33
1.43
5.92
3.85
3.29
2.61
2.14
1.92
1.66
1.40
1.52
0.64
1.26
1.38
1.66
1.47
1.35
1.23
1.30
1.20
5.38
3.35
2.76
2.23
1.55
1.36
1.15
0.96
0.91
0.78
1.21
1.31
1.44
1.45
1.19
1-13
1.19
1.19
214
-------
Seasonal variations and suspended solids concentrations do not appear to
account for the differences in absolute numerical values obtained by the MPN
and MF techniques. Large variations due to inherent differences between the
two techniques could account for much of this difference.
215
-------
SECTION 9
LITERATURE CITED
Amin, P. M. and S. V. Ganapati. 1972. Biochemical changes in oxidation
ponds. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 44(2):183-200.
APHA. 1971. Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater.
American Public Health Association, Inc. 874 p.
Benedict, I. J. 1961. Membrane filter technique. Water & Sewage Works,
108(2):74-76.
Bewtra, J. K. 1968. Contribution of algae to physical and chemical
characterictics of water. Water and Sewage Works 115(3):124-126.
Bradley, R. M. 1973. Chlorination of effluents and the Italian concept.
Effluent and Water Treatment Journal 13(11):683-740.
Brungs, William A. 1973. Effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 45(10):2180-2193.
Burkhead, C. E. and W. J. O'Brien. 1973. Lagoons and oxidation ponds.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 45(6):1054-1059.
Butterfield, C. T. 1943. Influence of pH and temperature on the sur-
vival of coliforms and enteric pathogens when exposed to free
chlorine. Public Health Reports 58:1837-1866.
Butterfield, C. T. 1948. Bactericidal properties of chloramines and free
chlorine in water. U.S. Public Health Reports 63(7):934-940.
Butterfield, C. T., and E. Wattie. 1946. Influence of pH and temperature
on survival of coliforms and enteric pathogens when exposed to
chloramine. Public Health Reports 61:157-193.
Chambers, Cecil W. 1971. Chlorination for control of bacteria and viruses
in treatment plant effluents. Journal Water Pollution Control Fed-
eration 43(2):228-241.
Chapin, R. M. 1931. The influence of pH upon the formation and de-
composition of chloro derivatives of ammonia. Journal of the
American Chemical Society 53:912-920.
216
-------
Chen, Kenneth Y. 1974. Chemistry of sulfur species and their removal
from water supply. In: Chemistry of Water Supply, Treatment, and
Distribution. A. J. Rubin (ed.). Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 109-135.
Chick, Harriet. 1908. Investigation of the laws of disinfection. Journal
of Hygiene 8:92.
Collins, Harvey F. and David G. Deaner. 1973. Sewage chlorination
versus toxicity-a dilemma? Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division of American Society of Civil Engineers 99(EE6):761-772.
Collins, Harvey F., Robert E. Selleck, and Bernard M. Saunier. 1976.
Optimization of the chlorination process using either combined or
free chlorine residual. Paper presented at the Conference of the
Environmental Engineering Division of American Society of Civil
Engineers, Seattle, Washington. June.
Collins, Harvey F., Robert E. Selleck, and George C. White. 1971. Prob-
lems in obtaining adequate sewage disinfection. Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering Division of American Society of Civil Engineers
97(SA5):549-562.
Gulp, Russell L. 1974. Breakpoint chlorination for virus inactivation.
Journal of the American Water Works Association 66(12):699-703.
Davis, Ernst M., and Earnest F. Gloyna. 1972. Bacterial die-off in
ponds. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division of American
Society of Civil Engineers 98(SA1):59-69.
Deaner, David G. 1970. Chlorine contact chamber study at Redding sewage
treatment plant. Technical Paper, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,
California State Department of Public Health.
Deaner, David G. 1973. Effect of chlorine on fluorescent dyes. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation 45(3 pt 1):507-514.
Deaner, David G. Undated. A procedure for conducting dye tracer studies
in chlorine contact chambers and to determine detention times and
flow characteristics. Technical Paper, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,
California State Department of Public Health.
Dinges, Ray and Alfred Rust. 1969. Experimental chlorination of stabi-
lization pond effluent. Public Works 100(3):98-101.
Durham, David, and Harold W. Wolf. 1973. Wastewater chlorination: panacea
or placebo. Water and Sewage Works 120(10):67-71.
Echelberger, Wayne F., Joseph L. Pavoni, Philip C. Singer, and Mark W.
Tenney. 1971. Disinfection of algal laden waters. Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering Division of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 97(SA5):721-730.
217
-------
Eliassen, Rolf, and Herman L. Krieger. 1950. Control of bacterial numbers
in chlorinated sewage effluents. Sewage and Industrial Wastes 22(1):
47-54.
Fair, Gordon M., et al. 1948. The behavior of chlorine as a water dis-
infectant. Journal of the American Water Works Association 40(10):
1051-1061.
Fair, Gordon M., John C. Geyer, and Daniel A. Okun. 1968. Water and waste-
water engineering. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York,
Volume II. 659 p.
Fischer and Porter Co. 1973. Parts list 70-1700B (Revision 1), "Vacuum
operated gas dispensers.'' Warminster, Pennsylvania.
Franks, Roger G. E. 1972. Modeling and simulation in chemical engineer-
ing. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 411 p.
Franzmatb.es, Joseph R. 1970. Bacteria and lagoons. Water and Sewage
Works 117(3):90-92.
Gear, C. William. 1971. Numerical initial value problems in ordinary
differential equations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
253 p.
Geldreich, E. E., C. B. Huff, R. H. Bordner, P. W. Kabler, and H. F. Clark.
1962. The faecal coli-aerogenes flora of soils from various geographical
areas. Journal Applied Bacteriology, 25(1):87-93.
Geldreich, E. E., H. F. Clark, C. B. Huff, and L. C. Best. 1965. Fecal-
coliform-organism medium for the membrane filter technique. Journal
American Water Works Association, 57(2):208-214.
Geldreich, E. E. 1972. Personal communication to P. D. Hancy. Discussion
of paper on membrane filter procedures by a Dr. Burman.
Geldreich, E. E. 1975. Handbook for evaluating water bacteriological
laboratories, 2nd Edition. EPA-670/9-75-006. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
Glaze, William H., James E. Henderson, IV, Johnny E. Bell, and Van A.
Wheeler. 1973. Analysis of organic materials in wastewater
effluents after chlorination. Journal of Chromatographic Science
11(11):580-584.
Gloyna, Earnest F., and Ernesto Espino. 1969. Sulfide production in
waste stabilization ponds. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division of American Society of Civil Engineers 95(SA3):607-627-
Goetz, A. 1953. Application of molecular filter techniques to the bacterial
assay of sewage. I. Proposed technique. Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
25(10):1136-1144.
218
-------
Gordon, Ronald C., Charlotte V. Davenport, and Barry H. Reid. 1974.
Chlorine disinfection of treated wastewater. Symposium on Wastewater
Treatment in Cold Climates, Economic and Technical Review, Report
EPA-3-WP-74-3, Water Pollution Control Directorate, pp. 438-481.
Green, B. L. , E. Clausen, and W. Litsky. 1975. Comparison of the new millipore
HC with conventional membrane filters for the enumeration of fecal
coliform bacteria. Applied Microbiology, 30(4):697-699.
Green, D. E., and P. K. Stumpf. 1944. The mode of action of chlorine.
Journal of the American Water Works Association 38:1301.
Hart, Fredrick L., Richard Allen, and Joseph Dzialo. 1975. Modifica-
tions improve chlorine contact chamber performance. Water and
Sewage Works 122(9):73-75 and 122(10):88-90.
Henderson, W. L. 1959. Studies on the use of membrane filters for the
estimation of coliform densities in sea water. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, 31(1):78-91.
Hoffman, D. A., J. H. Kuhns,.R. C. Stewart, and E. I. Crossley. 1964. A
comparison of membrane filter counts and most probable numbers of
coliforms in San Diego's sewage and receiving waters. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 36:109-117-
Holm, John D. 1973. A study of treated wastewater chlorination. Water
and Sewage Works 120(4):68-70.
Horn, Leonard W. 1970. Chlorination of waste pond effluents. In: Second
International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, (ed. Ross
McKinney), University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Horn, Leonard W. 1972. Kinetics of chlorine disinfection in an ecosystem.
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division of American Society of
Civil Engineers 98(SA1):183-194.
Hufham, James B. 1974. Evaluating the membrane fecal test by using
Escherichia coli as the indicator organism. Applied Microbiology
27(4):771-776.
Hurst, Rex L. (undated). Statistical program package (STATPAC).
Terminal Version. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Irgens, R. L. and D. L. Day. 1966. Laboratory studies of aerobic stabili-
zation of swine waste. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research
n(1):1-10.
Johnson, J. Donald (ed.). 1975. Disinfection--water and wastewater.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 425 p.
219
-------
Jolley, Robert Louis. 1973. Chlorination effects on organic constituents
in effluents from domestic sanitary sewage treatment plants. Techn-
ical Publication-Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
342 p.
Joshi, S. R., N. M. Parhad, and N. U. Rao. 1973. Elimination of salmonella
in stabilization ponds. Water Research 7:1357-1365.
Kabler, P. 1954. Water examinations by membrane filter and most probable
number procedures. Report of a Field Study of the Standard Methods
Committee for the Examination of Water and Sewage. American Journal
of Public Health, 44(3):379-386.
Karchmer, J. N. (ed.). 1970. The analytical chemistry of sulfur and its
compounds-Part I. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 534 p.
Kinman, Riley N. 1972. Disinfection. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation 44(6):972-977.
Klock, John W. 1971. Survival of coliform bacteria in wastewater treat-
ment lagoons. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 43(10):
2071-2083.
Kokoropoulos, Panos. 1973. Designing post-chlorination by chemical
reactor approach. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 45(10):
2155-2165.
Kokoropoulos, Panos, and George P- Manos. 1973. Kinetics as design
criteria for post chlorination. Journal of Environmental Engineering
Division of American Society of Civil Engineers 99(EE1):73-84.
Kothandaraman, V. and R. L. Evans. 1972. Hydraulic model studies of
chlorine contact tanks. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
44(4):625-633.
Kothandaraman, V., and R. L. Evans. 1974a. A case study of chlorine con-
tact tank inadequacies. Public Works 105(1):59-62.
Kothandaraman, V., and R. L. Evans. 1974b. Design and performance of
chlorine contact tanks. Circular 119, Illinois State Water Survey,
Urbana, Illinois.
Kott, Yehuda. 1971. Chlorination dynamics in wastewater effluents.
Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division of American Society of
Civil Engineers 97(SA5):647-659.
Kott, Yehuda. 1973. Hazards associated with the use of chlorinated
oxidation pond effluents for irrigation. Water Research 7:853-862.
Kuo, Kang-Sheng, and Peter C. Jurs. 1973. Send-quantitative determina-
tion of chlorine dosages for water treatment using pattern recogni-
tion techniques. Journal of the American Water Works Association
65(10):623-626.
220
-------
Lapin, Lawrence. 1975. Statistics: meaning and method. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., New York, New York. 591 p.
Laubusch, E. J. 1958. As a yardstick of pollution, how good is the KPN
coliform index. Water & Sewage Works, 105(8):334-338.
Laubusch, E. J. 1962. Water chlorination and wastewater chlorination.
In: Chlorine: Its Manufacture, Properties,, and Uses. J. S. Sconce
(ed.). American Chemical Society Monograph Series. Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York. 901 p.
Levenspeil, Octave. 1962. Chemical reactor engineering. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York. 501 p.
Lin, Shundar. 1973. Evaluation of coliform tests for chlorinated
secondary effluents. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
45(3):498-506.
Lin, Shundar and Ralph L. Evans. 1974. A chlorine demand study of
secondary sewage effluents. Water and Sewage Works 121(1):35-44.
Lin, S. D. 1974. Evaluation of methods for detecting coliforms and
fecal streptococci in chlorinated sewage effluents. Report of
Investigation 78, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, Illinois.
Louie, David S. and Martin S. Fohrman. 1968. Hydraulic model studies of
chlorine mixing and contact chambers. Journal Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation 40(2, pt. 1):164-184.
McCarthy, J. A., H. A. Thomas, Jr., and J. E. Delaney. 1958. Evaluation
of the reliability of coliform density tests. American Journal of
Public Health, 48(12):1628-1635.
McCarthy, J. A., J. E. Delaney, and R. J. Grasso. 1961. Measuring coliforms
in water. Water & Sewage Works, 108(6):238-243.
McKee, J. E., and R. T. McLaughlin. 1958. Application of molecular filter
techniques to the bacterial assay of sewage. II. Experimental results
for settled sewage. Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 30(2):129-137.
McKee, J. E., R. T. McLaughlin, and P- Lesgourgues. 1958. Application of
molecular filter techniques to the bacterial assay of sewage. III.
Effects of physical and chemical disinfection. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, 30(3):245-252.
McKee, Jack E. , Charles J. Brokaw, and Ronald T. McLaughlin. 1960. Chemical
and colisidal effects of halogens in sewage. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation 32(8):795-819.
Macko, Christine A. 1976. The effects of solar radiation on fecal bacteria
die-off. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
221
-------
Mallmann, W. L., and F. R. Peabody. 1961. Multiple-tube dilution and
membrane filter methods. Water & Sewage Works, 108(10):284-289.
Malone, J. R. and T. L. Bailey. 1969. Oxidation ponds remove bacteria.
Water and Sewage Works 116(4):136-140.
Mangelson, K. A. 1971. Hydraulics of waste stabilization ponds and its
influence on treatment efficiency. A dissertation submitted in
partical fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy at Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 164 p.
Marais, Gerrit V. R. 1974. Faecal bacterial kinetics in stabilization
ponds. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division of American
Society of Civil Engineers 100(EE1):119-139.
Marske, Donald M., and Jerry D. Boyle. 1973. Chlorine contact chamber
design-a field evaluation. Water and Sewage Works 120(1):70-77.
Mendenhall, William. 1971. Introduction to probability and statistics.
3rd Ed. Duxbury Press, Belmont, California. 466 p.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1972. Wastewater engineering. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York. 782 p.
Middlebrooks, E. Joe. 1976. Statistical calculations: how to solve
statistical problems. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 120 p.
Moore, Edward W. 1951. Fundamentals of chlorination of sewage and
waste. Water and Sewage Works 108(3):130-136 .
Morris, J. C. 1967. Kinetics of reactions between aqueous chlorine and
nitrogen compounds. In: Principles and Applications of Water
Chemistry. S. D. Faust and J. J. Hunter (eds.). Proceedings of
Fourth Rudolfs Research Conference, Rutgers - The State University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
PP. 23-53.
Morris, J. C., and I. Wei. 1969. Chlorine-ammonia breakpoint reactions:
model mechanisms and computer simulation. Paper presented at the
American Chemical Society, Minneapolis, Minn,
Moran, J. W., and L. D. Witter. 1976. An automated rapid method for
measuring fecal pollution. Water & Sewage Works, 123(5):66-67.
Mowat, A. 1976. Most probable number versus membrane filter on chlorinated
effluents. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48(4):724-728.
Murphy, K. L., R. Zaloum, and D. Fulford. 1975. Effect of chlorination
practice on solubile organics. Water Research 9:389-396. *
222
-------
Nickless, G. (ed.). 1968. Inorganic sulfur chemistry. Elsevier
Publishing Company, London. 770 p.
Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission. 1959. ORSANCO's 10th Annual
Report. Water & Sewage Works, 106(3):140-141.
Orion Research Incorporated. Undated. Determination of total sulfide
content in water. Applications Bulletin No. 12. Orion Research,
Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Parhad, N. M. and N. U. Rao. 1974. Effect of pH on survival of Escherichia
coli. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 46(5):980-986.
Peterson, J. 1974. Comparison of MF techniques and MPN techniques for the
estimation of coliforms in water. Proposed paper for presentation at
Inter American Congress on Sanitary Engineering, August 1974, Mexico
City. Millipore Ltd., Toronto, Canada.
Poduska, Richard A. and Daniel Hershey. 1972. Model for virus inactiva-
tion by chlorination. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
44(5):738-745.
Post, F. J. 1970. Ecology of selected bacteria in a small intermittent
sewage pond. Water Research 4:341-351.
Presswood, W. G. and L. R. Brown. 1973. Comparison of Gelman and Millipore
Membrane Filters for enumerating fecal coliform bacteria. Applied
Microbiology, 26(3):332-336.
Rabosky, Joseph G. 1972. Disinfection of water and wastewater. Pollu-
tion Engineering 4(Dec):25-28.
Rebhum, M. and Y. Argaman. 1965. Evaluations of the hydraulic efficiency
of sedimentation basins. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Divi-
sion of American Society of Civil Engineers 91(SA5):37-45.
Reid, Leroy C., Jr. and Dale A. Carlson. 1974. Chlorine disinfection of
low temperature waters. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division of American Society of Civil Engineers 100(EE2):339-351.
Reynolds, J. H., R. E. Swiss, C. A. Macko, and E. Joe Middlebrooks. 1976.
Performance evaluation of an existing seven cell lagoon system. Final
Report EPA Contract Number 68-03-2060. Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Rose, Robert E., Edwin E. Geldreich, and Warren Litsky. 1975. Improved
membrane filter method for fecal coliform analysis. Applied Micro-
biology 29(4):532-536.
Sawyer, C. M. 1967- Tracer studies on a model chlorine contact tank.
M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia.
223
-------
Sawyer, Glair N. 1960. Residual chlorine and chlorine demand. In:
Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
New York. pp. 246-256.
Sawyer, Clair N. , and Perry L. McCarty. 1967- Chemistry for sanitary
engineers. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company» New York, New York*
518 p.
Scarpino, Pasquale V., Merrilee Lucas, Daniel R. Dahling, Gerald Berg,
and Shih Lu Chang. 1974. Effectiveness of hypochlorous acid
and hypochlorite ion in destruction of virus and bacteria. In:
Chemistry of Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 446 p.
Schaeffer, D. J. , M. C. Long and K. G. Janardan. 1974. Statistical analysis
of the recovery of coliform organisms on Gelman and Millipore Membrane
Filters. Applied Microbiology, 28(4):605-607.
Selleck, R. E. 1970. Kinetics of wastewater chlorination in continuous
flow process. In: Advances in Wastewater Research, 5th Inter-
national Conference of Pollution Research, San Francisco, California.
pp. II-19/1-11.
Shepherd, John A., and M. Floyd Hobbs. 1973. Control of sewage hydrogen
sulfide. Water and Sewage Works 120(8):67-71 .
Shindala, Adnan and Jerome L. Mahloch. 1974. Evaluation of three waste
stabilization ponds in series. Water and Sewage Works 121(3):57-59.
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa.
/
Snedecor, George W. 1962. Statistical methods. Iowa State University
Press, Ames, Iowa. 534 p.
Snow, William Brewster. 1952, Biochemical oxygen demand of chlorinated
sewage. Sewage and Industrial Waste 24:689-704.
Sobsey, Mark D., and Robert C. Cooper. 1973. Enteric virus survival in
algal-bacterial wastewater systems-I. Water Research 7:669-685.
Stasiuk, William N., Leo J. Hetling, and William W. Shuster. 1974.
Nitrogen removal by catalyst-aided breakpoint chlorination. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation 46(8):1974-1983.
Steel, Robert G. D., and James H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures
of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, New York, p. 173.
Stenstrom, Michael K. 1975. A dynamic model and computer compatible
control strategies for wastewater treatment plants. PhD Dissertation,
Clemson University.
224
-------
Stephensen, R. L. and J. R. Lauderbaugh. 1971. Baffling chlorine con-
tact tanks. Water and Sewage Works 118(Reference No. 1971):R100-R103.
Streeter, H. W., and D. A. Robertson, Jr. 1960. Evaluation of membrane
filter technique for appraising Ohio River water quality. Journal
American Water Works Association, 52(2):229-246.
Thomas, H. A., Jr. 1955. Statistical analysis of coliform data. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 27(2):212-222.
Thomas, H. A., Jr., R. L. Woodward, and P. W. Kabler. 1956. Use of molecular
filter membranes for water potability control. Journal American Water
Works Association, 28(11):1391-1402.
Tikhe, Madhov L. 1976. Optimal design of chlorination systems. Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division of the American Society of
Civil Engineers 102(EE5):1019-1028.
Venkobachar, C., Leela lyengar, and A. V. S. Prabhakara Rao. 1975.
Mechanism of disinfection. Water Research 9(1):119-124.
Wallace and Tiernan. Undated. Installation, operation, and maintenance
instructions-amperometric titrator. Book No. WBA 50.261. Wallace
and Tiernan Division. Belleville, New Jersey.
Ward, R. W., R. D. Giffin, G. M. DeGraeve, and R. A. Stone. 1976. Dis-
infection efficiency and residual toxicity of several wastewater
disinfectants. EPA-600/2-76-156, Washington, D.C. pp. 131.
Warwick, J. W. 1968. Tracer studies on a circular chlorine contact
tank. B.S. Thesis. Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia.
Weber, Walter J., Jr. 1972. Disinfection. In: Physiochemical Processes
for Water Quality Control. Wiley-Interscience, New York. pp.
413-456.
Wei, I. 1972. Chlorine ammonia breakpoint reactions: kinetics and
mechanisms. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Wei, I., and J. C. Morris. 1974. Dynamics of breakpoint chlorination.
In: Chemistry of Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 446 p.
Weil, I., and J. C. Morris. 1949. Kinetic studies on the chloramines-I.
The rate of formation of monochloramine, N-chlormethylamine, and
N-chlordimethylamine. Journal of the American Chemical Society
71(5):1664-1671.
White, G. C. 1972. Chlorination of wastewater. In: Handbook of
chlorination. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York. pp. 420-465.
White, G. Clifford. 1973. Disinfection practices in the San Francisco
Bay area. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 46(1):89-101.
225
-------
Wolf, D. and W. Resnick. 1963. Residence time distribution in real
systems. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 2(4):
287, 293.
Zaloum, R., and K. L. Murphy. 1974. Reduction of oxygen demand of treated
wastewater by chlorination. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion 46(12) -.2770-2777.
Zillich, John A. 1972. Toxicity of combined chlorine residuals to fresh-
water fish. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 44(2):212-220.
226
-------
APPENDIX A
CHLORINATION FIELD DATA
AUGUST 1, 1975 - AUGUST 24, 1976
50 -i
40 -
— 30 -
10
O
O
CO 20
10 -
Sample Station No. 10
(Unfiltered Effluent)
Sample Station No. II
(Filtered Effluent)
-Frozen pipeline -
No chlorinotion
samples collected
Dec.1,1975-Feb. 26, 1976
r i i i i i i i i i i i i i
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure A-l.
Seasonal biochemical oxygen demand for unfiltered and filtered lagoon effluent (Sample Nos.
10 and 11.
-------
TABLE A-l. CHLORINATION FIELD DATA COLLECTED FROM AUGUST 1, 1976 TO AUGUST 24, 1976.
MONTH DAY YEAR SAMPLE MPN TC
NUMBER /100ML
00
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
11 75
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
19
21
21
21
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
75
75
13 75
19 75
19 75
11 75
19 75
19 75
19 75
19 75
19 75
19 75
19 75
75
75
75
75
75
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
10
11
12
1 3
24000.
2400.
la.
0.
0.
4 .
0.
0.
430.
930.
930.
4600 .
430.
2400.
75.
70.
4 .
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0.
1500.
4600 .
0.
0.
0 .
0.
4.
4 .
0.
0.
0 .
750.
11000.
20.
4.
4 .
0 .
0.
0.
75 .
9.
9.
430.
2400.
93.
el .
MPN FC
/100HL
30.
4.
0-
o.
o.
0-
0.
0-
0.
(.
0-
0 -
o.
0.
0-
90.
0.
0-
0-
0-
•
0-
0-
4O.
7.
0-
0-
0-
0-
0.
4»-
0-
0-
0.
UNFILT
coo
MG/L
45.06
59.36
** *» **
** ** **
44.00
** »* **
** ****
36.00
** ** **
»* ** **
34. 00
** »* **
** * * **
** ** *•*
* * ** **
29. 46
** ** **
59. 00
55.00
** ** **
55. 00
81. 17
28. 47
65.00
ft* ** **
56. 50
** ** **
41. 00
** ** **
** ** **
******
FILf /
COO
MG/L
38.49
14.96
30.00
30.00
1.00
31.00
24.00
32.50
7.50
32.00
26.00
5.00
5.00
5 .00
48.53
36.74
35.00
36.00
40.00
30.00
42.00
24.76
17.88
34.50
40.50
50.00
36.00
49.00
128.79
5 .00
4.00
iHMONIi
MG/L
4 .89
1.59
4 .02
5.16
4 .35
3.98
4.20
4.15
5.24
3.66
4 .80
* * ft* *
** ft* *
ft* ** *
3. 32
0.14
3.01
3.52
1 .92
3.67
1 .99
0.32
I .96
2.17
0.19
1 .29
I .71
1 .96
*****
*****
** ** *
JL
FIDE
MG/L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
ss
MG/L
7. 86
4.54
5.69
5. 40
5. 29
5.71
5. 31
4. 90
6.57
6. 03
5.91
24.91
1. 20
19. 69
19.23
18. 06
16. 77
16. 16
11. 46
16. 24
15. 24
16. 28
21. 92
2.77
18. 06
17. 23
17.94
18. 86
17.57
17. 00
18. 71
17. 83
17. 89
40. 09
6.54
34. 04
40. 90
32. 80
37.49
30. 74
29.06
7. 17
7. 31
7. 49
62.70
15. 66
49.68
46. 10
VSS
MG/L
5. 77
2. 89
3.57
3.54
3. 71
3.43
3. 17
3. 34
3.97
3.49
3.49
22.06
2. C5
16.26
17.54
14.94
15.26
14.44
14.60
15.40
14. 16
15.40
16.80
2.26
13.46
12.86
13.29
13.91
13. 11-
12.91
12.94
12.91
13. 20
29.82.
3.94
25. 18
31. CO
25. 32
25.00
23.17
22.49
5.03
4.40
4. 77
51. 30
12.63
42.88
44. 90
TURB
JTU
8. 0
i. T,
6.2
6. 6
6. 5
7. 4
7.2
7. 2
7. 8
7. 4
7. 0
19. 0
0. 8
IS. 0
19. 0
20. 0
21.0
22. 0
25. 0
23. 0
26. 0
26. 0
21.0
2.9
26. 0
25.5
25.5
24. 0
24. 0
25. 0
23. 0
23.0
25. 0
32.0
7. 1
35. 0
32. 0
36. 0
43.0
41.0
40. 0
7.7
7. 5
6. 7
44. 5
15. 5
54. 0
56. 0
PH
8. 09
7. 80
8. 00
9.00
8. 1C
3.06
8.05
8. 10
8.03
8. 10
8. 00
8.58
7.92
8.45
8.48
8.49
8.46
8.47
8.48
8. 40
8.40
8.40
8. 60
8. 06
3. 19
8.45
8.58
8.59
8.52
8.63
8.58
8. 58
8.62
9.22
8.60
9.05
9.05
9.00
8.54
8. 50
8.50
8. 30
8.25
8. 31
9. 37
8.76
9.13
9.10
TEMP
"C"
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.5
2 1.5
21.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
21.5
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22. T
22.0
22.0
20.0
20.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20. a
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
DC
MG/L
3.8
5.2
4.8
4 .8
4 .6
4.1
4 .7
4.7
4.7
4 .7
4.7
11.1
20.0
9.3
9.1
9 .0
9 .2
8.9
8.8
8.9
8.7
8 .6
8.5
3.9
6 .5
6.6
6.9
7.7
7.4
6.5
7.5
7 .6
7.5
9 .6
5.1
7.6
7 .'6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
10.0
10 .0
10.0
14.9
6 .1
9.0
9.4
APPLIED TOTAL FREE
CL2 RESIDUAL RESIDUAL
MG/L
0
0
13
.00
.00
.60
13.60
13
9
9
9
4
4
4
0
0
4
4
4
9
9
9
13
13
13
0
0
15
15
15
11
11
11
6
6
6
0
0
6
6
6
20
20
20
10
10
10
0
0
4
4
.60
.07
.0 7
.07
.58
.58
.58
.00
.00
.58
.58
.58
.07
.07
.07
.06
.06
.06
.00
.00
.86
.88
.88
.35
.35
.35
.81
.81
.81
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
MG/L
0.00
0.00
10.00
9.20
8.80
7.90
7.60
7.40
4.55
4.30
4.05
0.00
0.00
1.75
1.15
1.15
8. 10
7.30
7.20
12.40
12.88
11. 80
0.00
0.00
10.70
10.20
9.70
10.00
9.80
9.50
6.45
6.40
6.30
0.00
0.00
2.33
2.20
2.05
5.60
4. 80
4. 00
2.45
2.30
2. 10
0.00
0.00
1.45
1.30
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.80
1.12
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
NJ
t-0
VO
ITH
H
8
U
li
a
8
b
8
8
6
a
3
8
d
3
8
a
3
3
8
a
8
8
a
8
8
a
a
a
8
8
3
a
a
a
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
')AY
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
23
28
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
YEAR
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
VJ-BEH
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
1 1
12
1 J
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MPN 1C
/10C1I.
23.
0.
4 .
9.
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
280.
500.
S3 .
11CO.
930.
150 .
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
930.
9300.
240.
150 .
40.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
1 10.
93CO.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
flPN FC
/100HL
0.
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0.
40-
390-
ij .
It •
1*.
ft.
0-
0-
0-
0-
0.
0-
0-
D.
30.
23ft.
5-
0-
0-
0-
0-
S.
-
o.
0-
0-
0-
0-
30 .
40.
0.
0.
0-
ft.
0-
0-
0-
0-
MNFILT
CJO
MG/L
56. 00
******
56. 00
** ** **
47. 00
11 1.94
133.26
56. 00
** ** **
16. 50
******
80.00
** ** **
******
26. 00
84.56
42. 43
******
162.00
66.00
67. 00
******
39.50
61.51
47. 19
******
66.00
50.50
******
** ** **
FILT H
cm
MG/L
5.00
5.0(1
6.50
7.00
11.50
11 .50
29.30
30.00
31.50
33.00
34.00
31.50
29.50
51 .50
48.00
49.50
22.50
25.50
24.00
44.51
36.0 1
76.00
44.00
37.50
56 .00
37.50
35.00
37.50
37.50
39.50
62.30
32.00
35.00
40.02
27.61
31.00
33.50
47.00
68.00
30.50
35 .00
50.00
45.50
iMMQNIA
MG/L
*****
*****
*****
*•* ** ft
** ** *
0.40
0 .66
0 .42
0.40
0 .29
0 .25
0.33
0.21
0 .10
0.23
0 .33
0.37
0.01
0.59
0.05
0.11
0 .0 3
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.15
0.05
0.12
0.12
0.05
0.12
0 .12
0.11
0.04
3 .16
0.10
0.09
0 .10
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.09
SULFIOE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
>.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.33
: ss
MG.'L
49.73
40. 83
41. 30
37.20
40. 33
35.63
49.80
16. 67
21. 40
13.11
3 3. 50
11. 30
29.40
30. 60
28. 90
29.33
20. 20
42.50
34.20
3 2. 30
34. 93
27.30
7.50
15.30
47.58
18. 68
42. 80
34. 37
41. 90
40. 07
37.69
40. 00
38. 80
38.43
35. 60
19. 10
13.00
19.54
33. 10
46.12
26.60
23. 43
25.45
24.56
22.63
23.48
25. 44
43. 27
VSS
Hr, /L
47.67
37.67
37. !5
30. 40
33. 30
32.07
32.20
11.53
13.65
1.51
29.80
6.43
25.87
24.93
23. 00
23.94
17.15
30.33
26.90
26.87
23.60
10.52
6. 76
9. 23
39.83
9.80
36. CO
30. 74
37.50
32. C7
32.69
33. C8
32.13
33.67
31. C4
9. 17
3.91
3.57
27. CO
21.24
21.15
20. 29
19.55
17.92
17.40
17.92
18.36
35.91
TURB
JTU
59. 0
52. 0
54. 0
55. 0
46. 0
• 43.0
43. 0
14. 0
14. 0
14. 0
* ** *
10.5
32. 0
32. 0
32.0
36.0
34. 0
33.0
44. 0
44. 0
42. 0
20.0
18. 0
19. 0
36. 0
18. 0
40. 0
42. 0
41.0
51. 0
51. 0
51. 0
50. 0
51. 0
50. 0
21.0
19. 0
22. 0
25. 0
21.0
32. 0
32. 0
32. 0
33. 0
34. 0
34. 0
33. 0
31. 0
PH
9. 10
3.9C
8. 90
8. 85
8.64
8.63
8.61
8. 42
8.42
3.42
9.49
8. 89
9. 23
9. 39
9. 38
9. 30
9. 30
9. 30
9.18
9. 18
9.11
8.93
8.93
8. 82
9. 30
9. 00
9.27
9. 30
9. 32
9.25
9.20
9.20
9. 14
9. 08
9. 09
8.98
8.99
9.00
9. 25
8.94
9.22
9.25
9.26
9. 14
9. 13
9. 11
9.06
9.02
TEMP
-C-
20.0
20. n
20.0
23.0
20.0
20. n
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.5
20.3
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.5
18.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
OC
MG/L
9.5
9.7
9.7
9.3
9.2
9.2
9.8
5.2
5.3
6.1
10.3
10. 5
10.5
10 .1
9.5
11.1
10.0
10 .2
10.8
7.7
10.2
9.2
9 .4
9.6
12.7
7 .9
10 .5
10.4
10 .3
10 .3
10.2
10 .3
10 .1
10. 0
10 .0
7.5
7.5
7 .5
8 .6
7.0
7.2
7 .4
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.5
6.8
7.1
APPLIED
CL2
HG/L
4.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
29.76
29.76
29.76
8.00
8.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
24.58
?4.58
24.58
6. On
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
19.66
19.66
19.66
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
4 .30
4.00
4.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
29.33
29.33
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
1.20
5.30
3.60
3.00
14.00
11.20
9.40
1.85
1.55
1.50
3.00
0.00
0.55
0.48
3.43
6.55
6.60
6.50
11.80
11.60
11.50
5.95
5.45
4.85
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.20
0.15
4. 85
4.00
3.35
2.95
0.32
0.00
2.03
1.70
1.33
0.00
0.00
1.45
1.20
0.85
7.40
6.65
5.90
1 4.40
13.40
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
1.40
1.30
0.60
3.90
4.30
2.70
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Q.OO
).00
J.OO
1 .35
1.25
1.10
3.85
3.35
3.15
1.80
1 .49
1.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.03
1.05
o.ai
0.48
2.95
0.32
0.00
0.34
0.19
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.35
1.60
1.35
4.35
3.70
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
U)
O
NTH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
HAY
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
16
18
YEAR
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
SAMPLE
NUN BE R
20
23
10
13
14
16
17
19
20
23
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
•20
21
Z2
23
10
11
MPN tC
/100ML
0.
0.
40.
9 .
4.
0.
0.
0.
0.
39.
150.
110.
120,
z
APPLI ED
CL2 1
MG/L
29.33
3.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
10.00
10.00
24.67
24.67
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.00
6.00
I. 00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL f
MG/L
1 1.60
0.85
0.00
0.50
0.45
5.40
5.00
11.20
10.20
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.95
0.85
0.75
2.35
1.95
0.63
0.55
0.45
0.00
0.00
FREE
IE SI DUAL
MG/L
3.30
0.00
0.00
u "
0.00
O.OG
1.50
1.20
3.20
2.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
OJ
TH
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
DAY
18
18
18
1 6
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
23
23
23
23
23
2 3
23
23
23
2 3
23
2 3
23
23
25
25
25
2 5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2 5
25
30
3C
30
30
3C
3 0
3 0
3C
YEAR
r5
75
75
7 5"
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7 5
75
75
75
7 5
7,5
7 5
75
75
75
75
75
7 5
75
75
7 5
75
75
75
75
75
7 5
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7 5
75
SAMPLE
NUMBER
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
12
1 3
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
HPN TC
/1COML
75.
21.
23 .
15 CO •
1500.
1500.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
4.
230.
430.
S3.
43.
9.
230.
93.
30.
5.
2 •
5.
0 •
0.
0.
930.
15CO.
38.
4 5
43.
43 .
230.
230.
0.
0.
C.
430.
930.
430.
43CO.
43CO.
2400.
930.
240 .
930.
230*
S3.
MPN f C
/100ML
A.
6.
£'
p-
6.
^,
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
30-
§.
.
.
5-
9-
t.
.
ft-
0'
0-
-
0-
0-
30-
30.
I.
•
15 .
5-
0-
0.
0-
o.
.
z.
3ft.
40.
It-
0-
t-
0-
0 -
5-
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
**** **
******
49.50
******
49. 00
******
** ** **
49.50
** ** **
** ** **
17. 00
77.43
45.65
******
******
57. 00
******
39.00
******
51.00
* * * * * *
42. 00
45. 70
36.71
** ** **
47.00
39.50
.... **
......
36.00
......
37. 00
29.56
24.26
30. 42
*•* *• **
2". 83
32.53
FILT
COO
MG/L
16.50
22.50
29.50
26 .00
27.00
21.00
33.50
17.00
28.50
25.00
20.00
14.00
36.83
32.63
35.50
35.50
37.50
31 .50
35.00
36.00
29.00
16 .50
34.00
27 .00
31.00
30.50
38.55
32.05
36 .00
30.50
36.50
34.00
13.00
27.00
27.50
34.00
25.50
31.50
34.00
36.00
35.4 1
22.93
47.09
30.34
??•!'
- 0 . / 5
29.56
36. 5£
AMMONIA
MG/L
0.61
0.63
0.59
0.64
0.57
0.61
0.46
0.42
0.46
o.i a
o.ie
0.21
0.82
0.62
0 .79
0.83
0.60
0.80
0 .66
0.90
0 .6 4
0.76
0.07
0 .4 0
0.15
0.1 4
1 .05
0.29
0.50
0 B 2
0.78
0 .5 ft
0*31
1.17
0.47
0 .41
0.57
0.51
0.21
0.28
1 .32
0.47
1 .47
1 .40
1 .3 4
1 . J fi
1*31
2 .21
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
u.oo
0.00
0 • 0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
32.93
32.93
29.67
3 0. 75
29. 06
28.38
2'. 60
30. 05
29.23
11. 00
10. 72
11.54
29. 80
11. 46
29.00
6. 17
25. 16
2 7. 36
28.92
25.95
24.85
25. 00
24.90
17.04
16. 66
18.19
16.41
It. 15
15.57
15. 74-
1 6. 03
1 b. :><:
15.96
16.24
17.5?
15. 86
15. 23
10. as
1 1 . 64
11. 44
1 4 . 32
1.93
14. 14
1 2. 14
1 n. 9H
14.14
14.52
13.84
VSS
MG/L
22.87
21.C7
20.27
21. 25
19.81
20.50
19.40
20.85
21.03
4. 36
4.02
4.48
20.83
4.54
19.04
16. 33
16. 72
16 . 83
17. 80
16. 70
15.25
t 5. 80
15.85
S. 7 fl
5.66
6.96
11.76
4. IS
9. 30
10.28
10.90
9.56
ID. 36
12.09
9.53
9.8?
3. 90
'i . 0 6
4.21
1. 13
2.90
6.52
6.C2
4. 16
6*16
6. H
TURB PH
JTU
26. 0 9.05
26. 0 9.07
25.0 9.07
26*0 9» 06
25. 0 9. 10
25.0 9.10
32.0 8.98
32.0 8.95
34.0 8.98
12.0 3.81
11.0 8.60
11.0 8.80
17.0 9.25
11. 0 >). 78
21. 0 9. 15
17. 0 9.22
1 9. 0 9. 25
19.0 9*27
20. 0 9.29
20. 0 9.29
20. 0 9.25
21. 0 9. 00
12.0 8. 7Q
12. 0 3. 38
12. 0 9.60
10.0 9.25
5. 6 9. OC
10. 5 9. 30
11.0 9.34
11. 0 9. 32
11.0 9. 34
1 1 • 0 9 • 32
11. C 9. 35
11. 0 9.28
15. 0 9. 30
15. 0 9.2fl
10. 0 9. 02
1 0. 5 9 . 03
1C. 5 9. CC
* * * 9. 09
* .* fl. 79
- •* 9.43
« • * 9. 10
. .. 1. 02
" p
> .' 9.05
TEMP DO
"C" MG/L
18.0 9.8
18.0 9.8
18.0 9.8
i 8. 0 9 *7
19.0 9.7
18.0 9.9
18.0 9.8
18.0 9.7
18.0 9.8
16.5 6.8
16.5 6.6
16.5 6.8
16.0 14.0
16.0 8.6
16.0 10.4
16.0 10.2
16.3 10.4
16.0 10 ..8
16.0 10 .6
16.0 10.7
16.0 10.3
1 6. 0 10 «2
16.0 10.3
16*0 7.2
15.0 7.8
16.0 7.3
16.0 14.3
15.0 6.7
1S..1 14.0
16.0 14.7
16.0 14 .7
15.0 14.7
16.0 14.9
16.0 14 .5
15.0 1 4 .8
16. -0 14.2
16.0 14 .7
15.1 7.2
15.0 7.3
15.0 7.6
15.0 6.2
15.1 5.4
15. 1 6 .3
15.0 5 .4
15.0 6.1
1 f, . rj 6 •?
1 'i . 0 6 «2
Id.O 6.?
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
2.00
2.00
2.00
Oy <$
• £. j
0.25
0.25
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
0 .5 0
0.50
0.50
4.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
2 .00
2.00
2.00
0.25
0.25
0.25
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.25
0 • 2 5
0.25
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0 .5 ^
0.50
0.50
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.98
0.65
0.48
0| T
. 1 J
0.00
0.00
3.75
3.38
3.15
1.85
1.63
1.48
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.40
0.40
01 C
• * J
0.30
0.35
3.60
3.40
1 • 85
1.40
1. 15
0. 00
0.00
1. 10
0. B5
0. 00
0 • CO
0.00
3.80
3.40
l.?5
0.25
0 • ?5
0. JO
0. 00
0.00
0.55
0. 50
0. 30
0 35
0. 35
FREE
RESIDUA
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.20
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
o.oo
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
'0.00
0.00
o.nn
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
ro
DNTH
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
1 n
1U
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
DAY YEAR
* n f c
i U (3
30 75
JO 75
30 75
30 75
30 75
7 75
7 75
77 c
f J
7 75
7 75
7 75
1 75
7 75
7 75
7 75
7 75
7 75
7 75
7 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
9 75
1* 75
1* 75
1* 75
14 75
1* 75
14 75
14 75
14 75
14 75
14 75
14 75
14 75
14 75
14 75
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1 8
19
20
21
2Z
23
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
Z2
23
MPN TC
/100ML
0 •
0.
0.
2400.
430.
140.
9300.
15000.
1 1000
1 10 00 •
1500.
2400.
1500.
930.
21.
2 •
2.
430.
2 .
0.
930.
930.
210.
43.
43.
430.
230.
93.
0.
0.
0.
75.
9 •
5.
230.
2300.
0.
0.
0.
2 20 •
46.
27.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
HPN FC
/lOO'tL
0 •
0.
0.
5.
5.
2.
2300.
90.
IT n
Hi J m
93 •
230.
230.
940.
2T.
0.
0 •
0.
2.
0.
3.
90.
30.
9.
0.
0.
21.
93.
240.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
20.
20.
0.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
UNFILT
COD
KG/L
24.34
33.93
** ** *»
******
22.62
5 3.85
32. 40
4 9m 20
50.85
** ** **
******
49,75
*•* ** **
51.05
**** **
** ****
35.45
47.01
43.07
41.50
** ****
36.93
** ****
** ****
38.03
******
** ****
30.08
******
53. 46
33.60
23.00
******
******
35. 81
******
35,02
** ** **
******
** ** **
******
******
34.68
FILT
COD
MG/L
29 . 8 t
29.49
30.27
10.34
^7.69
22.54
33.45
18.98
26 • 7 C
36.44
38.90
25.05
19.20
32.55
1 9 .2 9
21.60
31.25
56.25
33.40
20.63
17.95
26.14
22.21
18.50
29.21
31.02
26.14
45.28
19.2 1
23.47
32.44
14 . 8 C
25.96
33.28
12.49
29.33
25.53
29.72
30 .04
31.84
33.44
38.34
26.48
33.44
17.23
20.95
18.02
AMMONIA
MG/I
1 .5 0
1.83
1 .34
0.47
0.58
0.61
7.21
4.71
7 12
7 »4 6
7.01
7.39
7.24
7.10
6.84
6 .9 5
7.46
4.56
4.49
4.54
3.89
3.54
3.66
4.49
4.1 4
3.98
4.05
3.75
3.54
3.77
3.61
2.55
2 .4 8
3.10
4.85
2.66
4.64
4.90
4.72
71 y
.4 C
4.90
3.33
3.27
4.85
4.38
1.70
2.68
3.45
SULFIOE SS VSS TURB PH TEMP DO
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "C" MG/L
0.00 14.38 6. 70 ** 8. 95 16.0 6.5
0.00 13.82 6.62 ** 8.80 16.0 6.2
0.00 13.72 5.92 •* 8.90 16.0 6.1
0.00 8.84 2.76 •* 8.81 15.0 5.9
0.00 8.34 2.20 ** 8.83 15.0 6.3
0.00 8.50 2.06 «* 8.82 15.0 6.9
0.00 32.38 12.74 ** 8.65 16.0 2.5
0.00 8.50 2.86 ** 8.50 16.0 7.3
0 00 4 '. 65 14.10 ** 8 55 16.0 4 .7
0.00 52. 47 16.00 ** 8.60 16.0 4.7
0.00 37.70 13.50 *« 8.65 16.0 4.6
0.00 42.15 12. CO ** 8.64 16.0 4.7
0.00 39.35 12.40 •* 8.60 16.0 4.5
0.00 39.25 11.10 ** 8.66 16.0 4.6.
0.00 45.15 14.30 ** 8.48 16.0 4.8
0.00 41. 15 13. 80 ** 8.48 16.0 4.9
0.00 38.10 12.70 •« 8.58 16.0 4.8
0.00 10.40 4.90 ** 8.43 16.0 7.1
0.00 6.26 2.60 *• 8.45 16.0 6.8
0.00 8.02 2.44 ** 8.50 16.0 7.4
0.00 24.10 9.85 •* 8.50 13. a 3.4
0.00 4.56 3.20 11.0 8.30 12.0 9.4
0.00 21.96 8.66 15.0 8.30 13.0 7.0
0.00 14.33 6.40 11.0 8.40 13.0 7.4
0.00 11.72 8.84 10.0 8.50 13.0 7.5
0.00 20.70 7.67 15.0 8.50 13.0 7.1
0.00 23.23 8.13 15.0 8.50 13.0 7.5
0.00 18.40 7.40 12.0 8.50 13.0 7.5
0.00 19.87 7.57 15.0 8.30 13.0 7.0
0.00 18.70 7.50 15.0 8.20 13.0 7.6
0.00 18.17 7.17 15.0 8.30 13.0 7.4
0.00 7.24 2.38 7.4 8.40 12.0 7.7
0.00 7.40 2.54 8.0 8.40 12.0 7.5
0.00 6.98 2.54 7.5 8.40 12.0 7.5
0.00 18.24 6.28 ** 7.83 11.0 2.7
0.00 5.34 2.16 ** 7.95 10.0 6.6
0.00 15.38 4.00 *• 8.12 11.0 5.0
0.00 15.08 4.24 •• 8.22 11.0 4.9
0.00 15.22 4.74 »« 8.19 11.0 5.3
0*00 15. 96 5-. 27 ** 8* 20 11.0 4.8
0.00 15.03 5.38 •* 8.11 11.0 5.1
0.00 15.20 5.45 •* 8.10 11.0 5.1
0.00 15.00 5.00 *• 7.88 11.0 5.1
0.00 13.58 4.58 » 7.72 11.0 4.7
0.00 15.23 5.40 •* 7.83 11.0 4.9
0.00 5.54 2.36 ** 7.89 10.0 7.0
0.00 5.90 2.26 «* 7.91 10.0 7.1
0.00 5.42 2.16 •• 8.01 10.0 7.5
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
8.00
8.00
8.00
0.50
0'.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
4.00
i rt rt
1 «U O
4.00
2.00
Z.OO
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.25
0.25
0.25
6.00
6.00
6.00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
24.14
24.14
24.14
4.00
4.00
4.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
HG/L
6. 60
6.30
6.00
0.50
0.40
0.35
0.00
0.00
0. 63
0 49
0.39
0.50
0.50
0.50
3.01
241
* 7l
2.82
1.17
1.04
0.97
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.88
0.88
0.25
0.22
0.17
4.61
4.56
4.42
0.98
0*90
0.85
0.00
0.00
2.55
2.45
2.33
0.47
0.42
0.37
14.00
13.48
13.32
2.55
2.48
2.43
FREE
RESIDUAL
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR SAMPLE MPN TC
NUMBER /100ML
CO
U>
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
n
11
11
11
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21 75
21 75
21 75
21 75
21 75
23 75
23 75
Z3 75
23 75
23 75
23 75
23 75
23 75
23 75
23 75
23 75
23
23
75
75
23 75
30 75
30
30
75
75
30 75
30 75
30
30
30
30 75
30 75
30 75
30
30
30
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
90.
3300.
0.
0.
0.
4.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1700.
7000.
110.
6.
6.
2400.
230.
230.
2 .
0.
0.
24000.
24CO.
1800.
490.
2200.
0.
0.
0.
330.
17.
17.
0.
0.
0.
790.
230.
130.
220.
3300.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
MPN FC
/1001L
20.
20.
3.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
140 .
490.
7.
4.
4.
9k.
22.
2?.
2.
0.
3.
330.
49.
28.
330.
230.
0.
0.
0.
46.
5 .
?.
0.
0 •
a.
35.
6.
2.
40.
20.
0.
0.
f).
(1 -
UNFILT
COD
MR/L
20.60
24. 25
** ***•
******
20.68
******
******
22.24
******
******
20.75
** ****
******
1 8. 82
4 4. 65
3 0. 10
** ** **
******
35.28
** ** **
** •***
31.62
** ****
******
38. 48
** ****
******
35.28
34.53
24.50
** ****
******
28.96
******
******
30. 48
** ** **
35.84
******
******
33.16
27.78
21. 00
33.68
******
25.06
FILT
COD
HG/L
16.74
17. 7C
17.93
32.88
15.92
22.24
37.76
18.37
4.6 1
15.32
19.12
31.46
21.12
31 .5 4
29 .56
49.60
31.70
29.56
27.20
27.05
28.65
8.6 1
28.57
35.43
30.25
32.31
31 .,4 7
23.75
33.30
29.68
27.95
16.65
27.29
26.06
25.20
28.45
29 «6 €
34.6 1
23.6 1
24.62
25.48
23.22
19.5 3
21.74
23.95
24.62
77 -i ?
A MM CM IA
MG/L
6.34
7.67
4.49
4.49
6.34
6.78
8.36
6.85
5.65
6.78
5,58
3.60
5.24
6 .4 7
5*14
4.96
5.75
5.10
4.96
4.92
4.84
4.40
4.43
7.17
3.17
3.27
3.03
4.78
3.54
4.80
4.11
4.73
4.48
4.98
4 .68
4 .98
4.46
4.40
3.64
2.92
3.51
5.16
4.10
4 .84
4.63
4.34
L -ft?
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n _nn
ss
MG/L
12.92
11.20
11.75
11. 32
10.48
10.94
11. 16
10.80
10. 44
11. 28
10.80
12. 00
11.08
1 0« 4 8
1 2« 24
1 3. 84
10.24
11.50
15.00
10.16
10.94
11. 48
13.14
13. 38
11.65
13.90
13. 02
9. 74
8.90
8. 16
9.02
8.56
8. 32
9.02
8.74
8. 74
8. 88
8. 84
9. 02
8. 33
a. 46
8. 98
8. 70
8.27
a. 36
7. 70
a. oo
7. An
vss TDRB'PH TEMP DC
MG/L JTU •<:• N6/L
5.64 12.0 8.10 11.0 3.0
3.44 14.0 .00 11.0 6.4
3.96 17.0 .10 12.0 4.6
3. 76 12.0 .10 12.0 4.7
3.28 13.0 .10 12.0 5.0
3.24 18. 0 .05 12.0 4.7
1.24 17. 0 .15 12.0 4.9
3.78 12.0 .15 12.0 4.9
3.28 14.0 7.80 12.0 5.0
3.65 15.0 7.80 12.0 4.3
3.65 13. 0 7.90 12.0 5.0
3. C4 17. 0 7.95 12.0 6.6
2.68 17.0 8.00 12.0 6.9
2. 54 17.0 8. 05 12.0 7.4
3.88
4.44
6.68
3.70
3.58
3.62
4.43
4. 76
3.90
4.16
2.52
0.58
3.33
2.53
3.28
3.24
2-42
• 3.18
3.22
3.22
3. 16
3.26
3. CO
1.96
2. 30
2.22
* 8.03 10.0 7".!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
»
*
*
*
8.05 10.0 8.9
8. 15 10.0 7.8
8. 11 10.0 8.0
8.09 1C. 0 8.0
8.17 10.0 8.7
7.80 10.0 9.1
7.79 1C.O 8.9
7.83 10.0 7.8
8.09 8.0 11.2
8. 09 8.0 12.2
8.16 8.0 12.0
8.46 7.0 5.2
a. 51 6.5 9.5
B.08 7.0 7.0
8.09 7.0 8.0
8.17 7.0 8.0
8.16 7.0 8.0
8.19 7.0 7.5
8.35 7.0 7.7
7.82 7.0 8.1
8.80 7.0 7.2
7.82 7.0 8.0
8.03 6.5 9.7
8.10 6.5 9.8
8.24 6.5 10 .2
3.60 3. 0 B. 10 3.0 5 .8
2.67 9.4 8.05 8.0 10. 0
3.20 8.7 5.08 9.0 7.0
'2.92 8. 0 8. 17 a.O 7 .2
2.72 8.4 8.08 8.0 6.9
?_ AA A_ /. A _ 1 1 fl.n £./.
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
0.00
0.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
6.00
6.00
6 »00
0.00
0 . 00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.25
0.25
0.25
25.58
25.58
25.58
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
18.97
18.97
18.97
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
i _nn
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
M6/L
0.00
0.00
3.54
3.51
3.51
0.97
0.90
0. 80
12.40
12.00
11.80
3.54
3.49
3*41
0. 00
0« 00
1.05
1.02
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.40
12.00
11.60
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.25
2.20
2.15
0.40
0.30
0.30
6.40
6. 20
6.20
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.00
0.00
3. 63
3.79
3.54
i _ ni
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 «00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
p. oo
0.00
0.00
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n . nn
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
ONTH
1 1
11
n
1 1
11
1 1
1 1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1 1
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
HAY YEAR
4 75
4 75
4 75
4 75
4 75
*t I J
4 75
6 7*,
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
6 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
11 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
13 75
18 75
18 75
18 75
18 75
SAMPLE
NM^BE^
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
2 1
? ?
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
10
11
12
13
1PN TC
/ JOCML
2 *
2.
0.
0 •
0.
33.
0 •
0.
20.
490.
8.
5.
5.
8.
5.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5 40 CO •
1700.
24000.
24000.
3500.
9200.
1700.
1300.
170.
0.
0.
20 •
20 •
20.
33CO.
4900.
31*
2.
2.
0 •
0.
0.
33CO.
54000.
33.
13.
MPN ft:
/100U.
-
0-
0-
0-
S.
-
0 '
0-
20-
20.
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
o.
0-
0-
0-
<* bQ u •
2 0 •
9203.
9200.
3500.
2200.
490.
490.
73.
0.
0.
20 •
20 •
20.
790.
1100.
13.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
83.
80.
8.
2-
UNFILT
COO
CG/L
24.54
** ** *ft
?5. 43
26. 16
18.76
19. 19
23.07
******
25.94
** ** **
******
22.28
** ****
** ** **
24. 15
** ****
** ** **
21.56
2 8» 02
2 3. 35
******
** ** **
26.30
** ****
** ** **
29.57
*•* *•***•
** ** **
29.73
31.13
43.28
17.34
** ** **
25.70
** ****
29.22
31. 42
19.94
29.57
******
FILT
COT
MG/L
26 .90
26.16
21.00
24 .65
?6.16
23 • 5 (
18.79
19.83
23.36
22.35
20.05
20.27
22.7 1
19.48
22. 2E
18.76
20.76
17.54
20.70
20.19
19.04
22.21
29 .11
24 .13
26.38
25.53
25.60
26.62
23.19
28.02
27.24
25.06
26.46
24.90
22 .6 5
21.56
20.7 6
22.50
18.44
19.53
22.73
18*44
21.09
19.77
29.1 1
23.33
31.42
29.11
AHHONIA
KG/L
5.16
5.10
4 .82
4 .8 6
4. 66
5 .fa U
3 • 1 4
3.92
5.66
5.70
7.07
6 .25
10.06
5.74
5.43
6.21
5.35
5.55
5.20
5.70
6 .45
5.12
7.16
4 .92
7.33
6 .10
6.48
6.57
8.48
6.14
6.06
6.70
6.14
5.34
4 .92
5.93
5.55
4.92
11.18
6.72
7.32
12.01
7.87
6.58
5.05
2.91
8.19
16.26
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
u .0 u
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OiOO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
8. 40
8. 04
9.10
6. 10
n. 10
o. bb
8. 50
8.22
7.64
8. 58
6.46
5. 88
8. 76
7.06
8.12
10. 12
9.98
9.64
7.50
10.50
6. 38
1 9 \L
1 £.* 3H
6. 24
12. 12
12.26
11.70
10.92
11. 96
11.30
11. 60
11.72
11.70
6. 86
6. 88
6.70
2.27
10.53
6. 04
8. 16
7.64
1 1. 16
7.72
7. 16
12.80
11.64
12.78
13.80
VSS
HG/L
2» 92
J.92
3.10
2. 60
2.82
(.• CD
21 L
• It
2. C2
2.84
2.34
3. 34
2.58
2.64
3.14
J.50
3.10
3.50
3.50
4. 10
2.42
2.82
2.20
L n?
t* 0£
2. 22
4.50
4. 72
3.56
4. 36
4.66
4.60
4.52
10.68
4.48
2. 18
2. 12
2.22
5.20
4.60
2. 68
3.24
4. 04
3. 44
2.88
2. 00
3.14
1.96
3.20
2.96
TURB
JIU
8 6
si 5
8.3
g 9
8. 4
9C
. D
9. 2
9. 0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*.
*
*
*
•
*
8.7
5. 3
9.8
9.5
10. 0
14.0
10. 0
12.0
11.0
8a 9
7* 4
7.2
6.7
8.6
9* 4
a. 6
8.5
1 0. 0
8.6
9.0
* ***
* ** *
7.4
7.7
PH
81 7
• Ic
8. 10
7.90
7 90
7.90
81 y
. if.
a 07
8. 10
8.58
8. 52
8. 13
8. 15
8.20
8. 15
8.30
8.19
7.90
7.98
7.90
8. 03
8. 19
8.13
8.28
8.28
8.30
8.21
8.22
8.28
8.15
8.13
8. 19
8. 02
8. 10
8. 10
8.16
8. 12
8.^16
8.21
8.23
8. 16
8.00
7.99
8.34
8. 12
8.25
8.33
TEMP
"C"
3. 0
8.0
8.0
8. 0
3.0
8. 0
8.0
8.0
3.5
7.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
6 0
6.0
6.0
6.0
S.O
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
4.5
5. 0
5.0
5.0
5. 0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
DC
HG/L
6.4
6.9
6.7
6 »9
6.6
9.6
9 .3
9.2
**
•**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
7 2
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7 .8
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.9
7.9
8 .0
8.3
8.6
6 .2
9.5
8.7
8.3
8.5
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
9 .0
8.9
8.7
APPLI ED
CL2
H&/L
1.00
1.00
14.75
14.75
14.75
1.00
1 .00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.25
0.25
0.25
10.00
10.00
-10.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
4.00
4.00
4.00
.4 • 00
4 .00
4.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
o.oo.
2.00
2.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0. 95
0.90
8.54
8.34
8.34
1 . 00
1. 00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.25
1.10
1.05
0.30
0.25
0.20
4.40
4.30
4.20
2.25
2. 10
2.00
Oflfi
• uu
0. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.37
0.30
3.27
3.07
3.02
3. 19
3. 17
3.32
0.00
0.00
0. 92
0.75
0.65
6. 08
6.00
6.08
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.80
FREE
RESIDUAL
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
a. oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.po
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
N>
OJ
Ul
NONTH
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1 1
11
11
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
DAY
18
IB
ie
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
yc
£.j
25
2b
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
YEAR
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7fi
71.
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
T **
I 3
75
75
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 f
76
76
7 6
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
It
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
It
15
16
17
18
19
20
y 1
£ I
22
23
10
11
12
13
14.
15
1 ft
1 O
17
19
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
IT
16
17
18
19
MPN TC
/100HL
11.
49.
79.
Z7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
270.
5.
13.
2.
34.
79.
49.
0 .
0.
0.
TC nn
JJ UU •
130.
33.
230000.
790CO.
130000.
140COO.
11CCOO.
170000.
•»c nn r n
jj UU LU •
240000.
2800GO.
1 3 00 C 0 •
1300CO.
3 3 CO •
220.
1 10.
490CCO.
33000.
1400CO.
13COCO.
330CO.
13COCO.
130000.
540000.
SCO.
50.
MPN ft
SI 004 L
0.
u.
17.
4.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20.
20.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
n.
0.
79000.
22000.
49000.
110000.
70001.
79000.
79000.
70001.
33000.
35.
2'.
220001.
33000.
9400D.
49000.
33000.
49001 .
79000 .
70000.
20".
50.
UNFILT
COO
HG/L
30.49
******
** ** **
29.11
******
******
3*. 57
** ****
«* ****
19.17
24.32
21.90
** ****
******
27.20
** ****
**** **
45.36
22.68
******
26. 11
******
23.46
58.30
36.50
** ***•
** ** »*
57.90
******
52. 10
** ** **
56.50
******
37.10
46. 64
25.31
******
** ** **
47.53
******
******
52. 43
*» ****
** »* »*
FILT
COO
MG/L
27.57
29.80
28.95
29.57
20.56
24.64
24.03
23.7 2
27.57
23. ie
28.92
22. 6 t
23.36
21.90
27.12
25.02
22.06
27.83
27.59
26.58
25.62
21*90
26.89
41.23
40.60
23.70
36.60
39.80
40.60
39.70
38 • 9 0
40.80
44.50
36 .80
38.30
25 . 30
25.30
23.00
26.64
14.90
31.46
21.59
26.05
24.19
26.05
26 .79
27.16
37.42
AMMONIA
MG/L
5.7»
14.22
6.31
7.04
4.61
6.86
7.93
4.76
3.30
6.86
5.69
3.70
4.83
4.21
5.24
4 .45
5.03
5.24
4.73
4.01
5.86
5 m7 5
5.10
4.62
7.69
5.46
6.43
7.65
7.14
7.40
7-w c
• 3 D
7.98
7.23
6 • 89
7.02
3*87
3 .24
3.91
7.71
5.23
1.52
8.62
7.71
7 .97
7.12
7.67
7.52
7.56
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.o-o
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0-00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.30
0.56
0.56
0.50
0.60
0.58
0.54
0.4 8
0.42
ss
MG/L
16. ZO
6.32
6.30
6.36
6.30
19.54
6.30
6. 00
6.10
3.52
5.55
3.33
3.86
4. 16
4.60
3.52
4. 42
5.50
3.34
3. 48
3.86
4*16
3.63
3. 04
7.72
8. 48
7.28
7.68
6. 92
7. 60
7. 40
7.72
8» 32
8.52
1 1. 52
10.20
10. 72
8. 60
9.04
7. 80
7.76
8.08
8. 03
8. 12
7.68
7. 08
7.84
vss
MG/L
3.t-0
2.8?
2.66
5.16
2.36
Z.32
2.54
1.28
2.10
1.96
3.05
3.60
3.28
3.32
3.02
3.04
3.60
4.26
2.86
2.32
2.96
2* 88
2. 18
2.52
7.12
7. C3
6. 76
7.16
6. 76
7.44
6 40
6.63
7. 00
6* 72
3.40
6. 44
6.12
•5.83
7.36
5.30
7.32
7. 76
'.36
7.56
7.92
7.28
6. 76
7.24
TURB
JTU
8. 1
7.0
6. 1
8.5
7.6
5.8
8.0
6.0
5.9
5. 8
* ***
6.6
7. 1
6. 1
7.2
6.2
6.5
7.0
5.9
6. 4
6.2
6 a
• O
6. 3
5.4
15. 0
11. 0
5.6
6.2
6. 8
5. 8
6 ft
• U
6. 3
9.5
9» 5
9. 6
8« 8
9.4
9. 8
16. 0
7. 7
6. 4
3. 3
10. 0
9. 0
10. 2
10. 1
6. 8
6.6
PH
8. 32
8.38
8.30
8.50
8.08
7.98
8.02
8.12
8.11
8.13
8.17
8. 11
8.25
8.00
8.22
8.20
8.26
8.33
8.30
7.98
8. 07
8yr
• £.1
8.15
a. 24
8.32
7.99
8.17
8.32
8.26
8.48
8 35
8.49
6.41
8» 19
8.38
3. 25
8.27
8.38
8. 18
6.00
8.13
3. 38
8.23
8.22
8. 38
3.22
7.88
3. 12
TEMP
"C"
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
*•:?
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
3 ft
* U
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2n
• U
2.0
2.0
2« 0
2.0
2» 0
2.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
DC
HG/L
8.3
8.2
8.3
8.0
8.4
8.3
8.3
9 .1
10.0
10.0
7.8
9.0
10.8
10.8
10.3
9.2
9 .5
10.4
9.5
10.4
9.6
Uf
• D
11.9
12.8
1.1
3.5
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.1
2 2
2 .0
2.5
2« 7
2 .8
3 »7
4.2
4 .7
0.4
2.9
2.0
2.2
2.4
1 .8
2.0
2.3
2 .2
2.6
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
2.00
0.25
0.25
0.25
15.00
15.00
15.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
19.48
19.48
19.48
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
0 • 25
0.25
4.00
4.00
4.00
2. 00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
9.83
' 9.83
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.80
0.25
0.24
0.22
8.58
8.48
8.44
3.95
1.93
3.90
0.00
0.00
2.17
2.02
1.98
0.41
0.29
0.22
10.84
10.44
10.44
Ooc
• £.J
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0* 00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
1. 05
1.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.25
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.40
2.30
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 • 0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
MONTH 1AY YEAR SSMPLE MPN TC HP N F C UNFILT FILT AMMONIA SULFIOE SS VS S T UR 8 PH TEHP DC APPLIED TOTAL FREE
NUMUtR /100ML /1001L COT COO CL2 RESIDUAL RESIDUAL
MG/L I1G/L HG/L MG/L HG/L MG/L JT U "C" HG/L MG/L HG/L HG/L
OJ
5
5
3
3
!
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
it
4
4
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
g
9
9
11
11
It
1 1
11
11
1 1
11
11
11"
11
11
11
11
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
is
76
7 6
76
7f>
76
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
20
2 1
22
23
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
IB
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
50.
1 7 0 •
8.
7.
4900CO .
130000.
24 00 CO »
24 CO 00 •
550000.
350000.
92CC CO .
2400CO.
9.
0 .
0.
2 30
2.
0.
330CCO.
79000.
2300CO.
79 CO 00 •
280000.
500.
5 CO •
500.
0.
0.
0.
5*00.
16000.
14CO.
330000.
490CO.
490000.
330000.
130000.
4000.
490.
49.
0.
0.
0.
17000.
790CO.
46000.
330000.
220000.
•tf-
1 7A
I/O-
0-
5-
330000.
49001 .
240 00 ) .
2 40 000 •
11000J .
3 50 000 .
3 50 000 .
49000.
M-
0 •
n .
2.
1-
330000.
49000.
130000.
70 000 .
180000.
50T.
500 .
500.
0.
0 .
0.
3500.
3500.
1400.
1 30 000 .
23000.
330000.
70000.
49000.
2000.
333.
0.
0.
9.
0.
17000.
22003.
21000.
49000.
46 000 .
46.64
** •* **
10. 44
64.94
37.00
59. 90
62.90
** ** **
60. 45
******
22.94
62.71
33.40
******
62. 90
******
57.58
** ****
** ****
58. 11
******
** ****
34.89
61.52
39. 11
******
******
63.39
******
******
59.96
******
******
71.14
******
******
36.37
60.65
34.51
29.02
14 • 3 1
17.1 3
24.93
38.00
24.40
43.24
39.76
38.64
37 • 5 0
36 • 3 5
37.50
36.35
38 • 0 0
34.79
22 • 9 4
24.23
38.7 3
38.26
12.43
45.98
36 • 3 9
52.86
39.39
36 «5 4
36.77
38.19
37.14
37.14
22.84
Z5.98
23.66
40.4 1
20.48
42.83
44.32
39.85
42.01
41.34
36.87
42.83
40.60
36.28
20.63.
21.82
30.32
42.74
24.08
7.08
5.15
4.86
10.35
7.04
977
• / c.
10 .4 1
10.12
10 .35
9 »8 3
9.89
9.77
9 .6 6
9 .38
7 «7 8
6.98
7.44
8.08
6.00
7.27
7 mJ 3
7.42
7.19
7 «5 8
6.50
6.69
6.96
7.50
6.19
5.92
5.62
9.63
7.02
8.73
8.95
9.05
9.86
8.32
8.50
8.4.1
10.77
8.50
6.36
6.77
6.59
8.84
6.55
0.39
0.30
0.30
0.30
1.00
0.14
0.52
0.52
0.54
0 .7 C
0.74
0.74
0.45
0*48
0.45
0*16
0.13
0.12
1.25
0.00
0.6 1
0 • 6 3
0.65
0.63
0 «6 3
0.63
0.65
0.64
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.00
0.66
0.62
0.66
o.s a
0.51
0.55
0.54
0.55
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
7.68
7 88
8. 00
8.00
19. 44
6.60
7 1ft
{ - io
6*48
8. 80
"
8* 72
8. 80
8. 08
8.32
8.36
5. 72
6.28
6.24
21. 40
5.64
8.52
8. 30
9.28
9. 32
9m 36
8.04
8.92
8.64
8.24
6. 44
6. 12
7.84
12.24
9.94
11.12
11.60
11.56
12.04
10.64
8. 92
10.92
9. 00
10.20
9.44
11. 04
1 3. 44
9.42
9.94
7.50
5 • 64
5.28
4.96
17.40
6.20
7m C8
8.43
™
Om 24
3.52
7.60
7 44
3.28
5. 72
5.96
5.24
21.10
5.20
8.52
8* 63
8.52
8.36
7m 84
7.44
8.60
8.24
7.88
5.63
5.08
5.24
7.60
5.96
8.32
8.84
8.92
3.36
8.32
6.92
9.08
8.20
8.36
6.48
6.92
6.96
7.80
6.32
6.6
7m 2
7. 3
7.6
11. 0
5. 0
8« 6
7 -f
12. 0
1 4» 0
9m 6
8. 5
7. 3
7 4
7. 9
5. 0
5.6
6. 1
28. 0
5.2
10. 0
1 7m 0
13. 0
22. 0
21*0
15. 0
12.0
19.0
21. 0
7.5
8. 0
7.0
30.0
6.5
16. 0
21.0
20. 0
8.2
7.5
7.7
7.9
6.4
8.5
6.7
7. 3
11. 0
38.0
a. s
7.99
8» 29
3. 11
8.23
7.72
7.72
7m 88
7m 80
7.39
7m 87
7m 90
8. 10
7.73
7m 64
7.80
7. 75
7.82
7.83
8.28
8.20
8.12
7 97
• 71
8.02
7.89
7» 90
7.91
7.82
7. BO
7.85
7.98
8.00
8.02
7.71
7.58
7.75
7.80
7.82
7.65
7.69
7.75
7.55
7.55
7.53
7.75
7.73
7.82
7.69
7.59
2.5
!• 0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2» 0
2 0
2.0
2 0
2 0
2.0
2.0
2 0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.5
2.5
2*5
2.5
2.5
2« 9
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
3 • 4
3 .6
4.0
0.5
1 .5
3 «0
2 • 7
2.9
2 «6
2*7
2.7
2.8
2 6
3.0
3 .0
3.5
3.8
0.6
1.0
2.7
2*8
2.9
3 .8
2 •
3.
3.
3 .
3.
3.
2.
3.
0.
1.4
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
3.1
3.9
4.5
5.2
0.5
1.3
9.83
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
6 .00
6.00
6.00
0 «5 0
0 «5 0
0.50
14.75
14 «75
14.75
6 .00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
6 »00
6.00
8.00
8 »00
8.00
19.48
19.48
19.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
24.14
24.14
24.14
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
2.25
2. 20
2.05
2.00
0.00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
3.45
3« 30
3.25
3.45
3.30
3.30
0.00
0.00
0.02
OB 00
0.00
2.02
!• 98
1.90
5.90
5.62
5.33
0.48
0.38
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.94
0.92
6.43
6.15
6.06
0.21
0.16
0.16
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
a. oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
-------
TABJ.E A-l. CONTINUED
K)
ITH
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
3
3
5
3
DAY
IS
IB
18
18
18
18
1 8 '
18
18
18
18
18
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
2 3
23
23
23
23
25
25
25
25
25
25
2 5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
30
3C
3 0
i n
-1 U
3C
30
3 0
30
YEAR
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 t
I D
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 ft
/ o
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7"b
7 6
7 A
I D
76
76
7 c
f b
76
SANPLE
NUMBER
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
i 6
IT
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
IS
1 6
17
HPN TC
/100ML
4900.
13000.
46 CO.
940.
13.
2.
•
11.
6.
17000.
280CO.
49000.
220000.
49000.
49000.
4900CO.
230000.
1300.
79.
31.
5400.
70*
49.
54000.
7000.
22CO.
4900CO.
130000.
350000.
1700CO.
330000.
170CO.
46 00 *
490.
2800.
1 10.
79.
11CO.
23.
2.
790000.
£000 .
1 70 CO •
1700 .
170.
0 •
0.
MPM "C
/1001L
4900.
3300.
3300.
80.
2.
2.
•r
( •
4.
».
3300.
7900.
7000.
170000.
49000.
33000.
220001).
130000.
330.
5.
1.
790.
13 •
2.
1700.
4600.
1300.
79001.
14000.
170000.
170000.
130000.
1 70n .
700 .
130.
630.
5 .
?.
49.
n.
0.
170000.
2001.
330
170.
m.
3 •
1.
UNFILT
COO
HG/L
******
** ****
56.21
•* ****
******
59.00
******
61.71
** ****
******
59.12
66.50
42.24
******
******
61.01
******
******
63.62
** ****
59.33
** ****
******
38.76
56.26
29.29
** ****
******
57.38
** ****
45.36
**** **
** ** **
58.73
• * • * **
******
28.73
62.89
35. 10
64.64
******
63. 12
FILT
CDD
HG/L
43.12
39.92
38.17
38.55
39.47
22.40
38.5 5
39.47
37.64
23.3 1
22.55
25.60
39.14
25.10
37.45
9.44
40.29
38.53
29.39
40.29
44.74
36 .99
36.99
22.64
25.02
19.57
35.56
17.02
37.50
37.88
35.78
35.28
34 * 8 f
34.88
34.50
36. 3 C
34.13
18.23
18. 3E
16.13
38.67
23.3 1
44*00
44.56
49.91
38.56
37.95
40.66
AMMONIA
HG/L
8.47
8.10
7.85
8.10
8.14
8.22
8n •
• U 1
7.73
8.14
6.41
6.12
6.49
3.31
7.66
8.41
9.58
8.20
8.53
8.41
9.83
8.33
8 .5 3
8.49
7.39
6.62
7.23
8.94
7.52
8.74
8.74
8.70
9.17
8 »87
8.96
9 .00
9.00
8.65
7.39
7 .70
7.70
9.91
8.46
9.71
10 .8 1
10.00
9.95
10 .0 0
10.62
SULFIOE
HG/L
0.17
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.14
.0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.80
0.00
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.55
0.56
0.56
0 *5 5
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.10
0.29
0.30
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.35
0.3 1
0.31
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.10
0.00
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.37
ss
HG/L
9.32
10. 44
9.20
11. 16
10. 12
9.58
9* 64
10.08
9.28
11.20
9. 48
10.24
9. 44
8.64
9.64
9.24
10. 76
8.28
8. 36
8.64
8.68
8. 84
8.64
8.04
8. 64
8.92
9.84
7.56
8. 40
8.76
9.56
8. 44
8.68
9.20
8.72
9. 32
9.52
7. 12
7.84
7.20
11.13
7.54
1 0. 04
1 2« 04
11.32
10.92
1 1. 20
1 0.. 60
IfSS
HG/L
7.52
7.68
7.20
9.12
7. CS
7.28
7 G8
7.68
7.64
5.64
6.28
6.56
9. C8
6.56
8.84
9.16
9.04
8.28
8.12
8.40
8.68
8. 56
8.64
6.24
7.20
6.56
8. 12
5.80
7.60
8.32
8.52
8.84
7* 84
8. 08
8..0'4
8.60
5. 44
6. 00
6.32
5. 76
9.82
5.48
8» 92
9« 44
8.56
9. 16
9. 36
8.52
TURB PH
JTU
12.0 7.78
16.0 7.80
22.0 7.92
14.0 7.72
17.0 7.80
14.0 7.80
1 *V n 7 7*\
1 *• U f * I J
16.0 7.80
18.0 7.83
16.0 7.98
1 0. 0 7. 89
13.0 7.90
34.0 7.58
6. 1 7.62
7. 8 7.58
8.6 7.61
9. 0 7. 72
9.6 7.65
8. 6 7. 66
9.6 7.73
10.0 7.64
9. 5 7» 63
9. 4 7. 54
6. 2 7. 62
6.4 7.64
6. 0 7. 82
32.0 7.80
5.0 7.78
9. 4 7. 66
9.3 7.75
1 0. 0 7. 75
9. 0 7. 58
9 • 5 7. 73
8. 6 7. 72
9. 3 7. 16
8.5 7.72
7. 8 7. 80
5. 6 7.68
6. 6 7. 85
5.4 7.80
32. 0 7.80
4.7 8.50
14.0 7. 55
12.0 7*60
14. 0 7.62
16. 0 7. 50
13.0 7. 46
16. 0 7.58
TEHP
•C-
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4 0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3. 0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
4. 0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
DO
HG/L
2.1
2.5
2.9
2.2
2.7
2.7
2 .9
1.8
1.9
3 .5
3.5
3.8
0.9
0.8
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.8
2.5
Ze
»j
2.8
2.8
3.2
3 .4
0.5
0.7
2.2
2.8
2 .9
2.6
2*6
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.2
3.6
3.8
0.3
0.3
2 »7
2 .8
3.2
2.9
3.1
3.2
APPLIED
CL2
HG/L
7.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.84
8.84
8.84
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
8 00
8.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
7 • 00
7 . 00
7.00
8.00
8*00
8.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
HG/L
0.66
0.42
0.23
1.13
0.99
0.89
1. 18
1.06
0.99
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 10
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.79
0.79
1.22
1. 00
0.79
0.45
0.31
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0. 59
0.59
1. 18
1.04
0.90
1.51
1.42
1.37
0.00
0.00
0 . 79
0« 70
0.51
2.57
2.48
2.29
FREE
RESIDUAL
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
U>
oo
INTH
3
J
3
J
3
3
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
DAY
30
T f»
J U
30
30
30
30
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
TEAR
76
7 P.
f O
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MPN TC
/100ML
110.
2 •
0.
7SO.
110.
11.
490000.
2200.
110CO.
230.
170.
230.
0 .
0.
130.
0.
0.
790.
170.
49.
49000.
13000.
11000.
79000.
17000.
9.
0.
0.
13.
2.
1.
2200.
790.
230.
49000.
4900.
17000.
140000.
33000.
24000.
79CO.
17000.
3500.
2400.
1300.
330.
11CO.
330.
MPN FC
/1001L
11.
() •
0.
49.
r .
2.
110000.
700.
700.
20.
5.
3!.
0.
0.
33'.
•0.
0.
130.
46.
33.
49000.
13000.
4900.
7000.
11000.
0.
0.
0.
13.
0.
0.
700.
170.
23.
49000.
1100.
17000.
94000.
23000.
3300.
460.
79.
790.
33.
17.
210.
110.
35.
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
** ** **
62. 43
******
** ** **
25.32
56.70
32.21
******
******
5*. 7-6
******
******
56.26
** ****
******
54.31
** *•**
** ** **
35.96
69.30
28.87
******
******
60.72
******
** ** **
62.22
** ****
******
61.62
** ****
******
33.79
62.02
31,71
******
** ****
59.35
******
** ****
57.12
** •***
******
60.98
** ****
******
32.05
FILT
COO
HG/L
J7.80
39 .32
38.40
18.76
23.35
13.99
33.29
22.84
38.05
36.10
48.69
33.71
38.28
46.97
33.26
37.45
34 ..1 6
28.46
21.72
22.85
35.29
24.62
32.53
21.34
26.1 1
25.81
28.05
24.32
22.68
22.08
20.59
20.59
22.83
19.10
25.38
19.29
26.34
24.26
24.26
27.30
28.85
26. 2 6
26.93
27.15
29.15
17.95
19.07
19.73
AMMONIA
MG/L
10.05
10.14
8.57
9.10
8.52
9.71
12.09
3.30
7.78
7.57
8.00
8.04
10.91
9.26
14.35
9.22
9.35
9.65
8.09
8.17
5.33
6.71
6.97
6.20
6.63
5.57
5.95
7.05
5.82
6.25
7.10
6.20
5.52
5.82
6.01
5.36
7.93
6.01
7.12
5.5.3
6.39
6.39
6.06
6.64
7.12
6.01
6.15
5.63
SULFIOE
MG/L
0.36
0 . 3 fi
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.12
0.27
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.17
0.19
0.22
0.15
0.16-
0.1 8
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.10
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.25
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
SS
HG/L
10. 12
1 0. 68
11.16
.6. 88
7.56
7. 48
13.40
6.20
11. 12
11.00
11. 84
12.32
12.08
11.56
11.28
11.00
11. 40
5.28
5. 44
5. 84
31.95
8.43
26.30
23.87
26.55
23. 12
22.76
21.32
23.06
22.29
21.08
8. 84
9. 48
8.08
22.20
8. 48
19.70
20. 80
20.26
19.35
18. 32
17.56
20.28
17. 48
18.38
7.60
7.24
7.48
VSS
MG/L
3.60
9. 48
9.63
5.76
5. 09
5.52
12.24
5.50
10. 32
10. 96
11.24
11.96
11.52
11.28
11.28
10.60
11.40
5.28
5.12
4. 44
29.68
3.12
23.85
22.58
25.00
22.04
21.04
20.56
21.70
21.67
20.-88
7.36
8. 76
3.32
29.18
7. C8
19.10
18.95
20.10
15.95
17.53
16.28
18.84
16.00
17.43
6.76
6.56
6.40
rURB
JTU
17.0
1 5. 0
17.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
9.7
3. 5
8.5
11. 0
12.0
8.5
9. 6
9. 4
9.5
9.2
8. 8
4.4
4.3
3. 8
8.0
4.3
9. 1
S. 6
10.0
a. 3
10.0
13. 0
12.0
11.0
8.0
5.0
6.2
4.2
8. 1
3. a
11. 0
8. 8
8.9
9.2
15.0
9.0
11.0
12.0
8.6
4.0
4.5
*. 1
PH
7.52
7. 50
7.53
7.65
7.63
7.72
8.59
B.48
7.90
7.82
7.83
7.77
7.72
7.72
7.83
7.78
7.79
7.33
7. 32
7.80
8. 10
8.76
7.82
7.84
7.81
7.75
7.79
7.80
7. ao
7.fl9
7.92
7.61
7.86
7.65
8.67
8.58
8.14
8.05
8. 13
8.03
8.10
8.08
8.09
8.10
8.10
7.98
7.90
8.01
TEMP
-c-
4.0
4 • Q
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.5
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
3.0
8.0
8.0
00
HG/L
3.0
3 .4
3.3
2.7
3 .1
3.2
0.5
0 .4
2.5
2.6
2 .7
2.8
2. a
3 .2
3.4
3.5
3 .5
3.2
3.4
3 .6
2.1
1.5
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.3
3.7
3.8
4 .1
3.8
4.1
3.5
4.1
4.1
1.9
0.8
3.3
3.4
3.7
3.6
3.7
4.0
4.6
4.3
4.5
3.6
3.7
4.2
APPLIED
CL2
HG/L
10.00
10.00
10.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.50
S.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
2.76
2 • 59
2.55
0.84
0.77
0.70
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.61
0.58
2.08
2.06
2.01
1.90
1.75
1.50
0.30
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
3.20
3.02
2.95
1.52
1.33
1.17
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.20
0.00
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.98
0.78
0.58
0.05
0.00
0.00
FREE
RE SI DUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR SAMPLE
to
Ul
VO
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 -76
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 76
13 76
15 76
15 76
15
15
76
76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
2C 76
20 76
20 76
20 76
20 76
20 76
2C 76
20 76
20 76
2C 76
20 76
20 76
2C 76
20 76
22 76
22 76
22 76
22 76
22 76
22 76
IMPLE
IMBER
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
12
13
1*
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
2 2
23
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
11
1 Z
13
It
1 S
MPN TC
/100HL
22000.
220.
700.
20.
20.
170.
eo.
to.
230.
23.
7.
2 30 •
80.
50.
8000.
170.
1100.
220.
79.
79 *
8.
7.
13*
0.
0.
22 •
17 *
17.
500.
240.
110*
33 •
20.
70.
33.
33.
1 7 m
2 •
1.
49.
110.
1,9.
160CO.
280.
54 CO •
1300.
450 .
TI nn .
MPN FC
/lOOtL
2000.
20.
80.
20.
5.
29.
20.
17.
23.
2.
1.
20 •
20.
5.
2000.
20.
33.
11.
0.
4 •
0.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
0 •
0 *
0.
200.
8.
•
5 •
i .
z.
0.
0.
0 .
0 •
1.
0.
0.
3.
1300.
2-
1 100 •
240.
9ft.
A.9A-
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
53.66
31.03
******
******
50.08
******
•* ****
53. 13
** ****
*.* ****
53.78
** ** »*
32.20
56. 59
23.82
** **•*
******
46.20
******
50.22
** ****
51.99
27.85
67.19
30.38
60.60
** ****
** ****
60.20
57.49
******
** ****
28.90
57.35
34. 43
******
50. 92
FILT A
CDD
MG/L
23.23
18.64
26.57
21.74
21.74
17.55
22.73
24.15
18.52
13.04
25.51
19*32
17.55
16.91
18.5 1
14.97
21.41
25.59
19.80
IB *9 0
22.13
22.13
16 *6 0
22.86
11.99
26 • 0 8
16*51
17.70
20.04
18.08
20.12
21.64
19.32
20.92
20.12
22. 3 ft
25 • 0 7
19*06
21.72
15.33
16.35
16.93
29.46
16.06
27 .4 2
26. 4 t
27.18
?n _n q
MMONIA
MG/L
4.80
3.83
5.90
5.35
5.12
5.25
4.26
4.57
5.70
4.10
4.53
4 *6 1
4.92
5.86
4.76
3.76
4.05
4.37
3.84
4*13
4.17
3.72
4 *0 9
3.72
3.52
3*31
2*94
2.98
3.16
2.78
3 .2 4
2.87
2.99
3.37
2.95
2.65
3.16
3 .2 9
3.24
3.12
2.7 4
2.36
1 .33
2.71
1*54
1 .50
1.54
T -?7
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 *0 0
0.00
0.00
0 *0 0
0.00
0.00
0 *>Q 0
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 • 0 0
0.00
0.00
n _ n n
ss
MG/L
20.77
7.00
18. 80
17. 34
18.47
19.87
17.67
18.00
IB. 06
16.74
17.13
5» 52
6.84
7.24
24. 33
4.20
20.07
17. 36
17. 95
1 7» 32
20.68
19.94
19* 94
21. 07
20.55
4 • 16
A* 04
4. 32
31.50
10.50
31.93
27.39
10. 43
32.12
30.79
26.92
25. 98
27. 56
28. 05
10.-20
10.12
10. 16
17.54
11.80
1 1. 32
16.92
16.48
1 7- 1?
vss
MG/L
18.10
6.76
17.1*
17.14
16.65
16.60
16. 72
16.53
16.46
15.58
16.26
5cy
• j£.
6.84
6.64
19. 33
4.20
17.33
17.36
17.10
15*14
16. 74
16.84
17* 24
17.40
17.13
3» 38
3* 72
4.12
29.15
9.22
2 8» 29
27* 39
27.29
28. 79
26.78
24.95
2 3. 84
22. 99
2J.54
9. 32
9.16
9.12
16. 18
10.46
1 0» 48
IS. 52
15.84
i =;_ «*7
TURB
JTU
8.3
M
7.4
7.3
7.3
8.2
8. 1
8.0
8.2
8.7
9.0
5C
* J
3.8
3.7
8. 3
2.2
7.7
7. 4
6. 9
8* 1
8.2
7.8
8* 2
8.2
7.8
2*2
£• 2
2.5
7. 5
4. 0
8* 7
8*0
n. 8
7.7
9.2
7. 8
S. 2
8. 2
7.6
3. 8
4. 1
4. 0
6. 6
4.5
6. 2
6.2
5.8
t _ C
PH
7.90
7.63
7.77
7.82
7.91
7.89
7.87
7.95
7.90
7.93
7.92
774
• f 1
7.72
7.82
8.03
7.72
8.00
8. 13
8.16
8* 12
8. 12
8. 12
8* 08
8. 12
8.02
7* 75
7* 73
7.30
8. 85
7.85
7« 95
7« 90
7.90
7.93
7. 90
7.90
7. 80
7. 75
7.75
7.40
7.42
7.45
9.12
8. 16
9. CC
9. 05
9.00
o _ nn
TEMP
"C"
10.0
10.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11 ft
1 !• U
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11*0
1 1.0
11.0
11*0
1 1.0
11.0
10*0
1 C* 0
10.0
10.0
8.0
11*5
1 1 • 5
1 C. 5
10.0
11.0
1 C. 5
10.5
10.5
1 C.I)
10. o
10.0
9.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
i •> n
DC i
NG/L
0.4
2.3
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.4
3 6
3.8
4.4
3.1
2.2
4.1
4 .2
4.5
3*9
4 .2
4.4
4*2
3.9
4 .5
4*0
4*1
4 .1
15.8
5.1
1 1 .6
13.2
10.8
6.6
9.0
10.6
7 .8
8.8
6 .5
5 .5
5.6
5 .7
10. 2
4.3
8*1
7.9
8.0
7 7
»PPLIED
CL2 i
MG/L
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0*75
0.75
0.75
0.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1*00
1.00
1.00
3*00
3.00
3.00
1*00
1*00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0 *50
0 *5 0
0.50
1 .00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7 . nn
TOTAL
iESIDUAL 1
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.60
0.55
0.55
0.45
0.40
1.05
0.95
0.90
0» 15
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.83
0.75
IOC
• CJ
1.15
1.05
2* 33
2.30
2.25
0* 83
0* 80
0.80
0.00
0.00
0* 25
0*> 17
0.08
0. 14
0.03
0.00
1. 20
1.12
1.03
0. 11
0.08
0.03
0.00
0. 00
0. 87
0.76
0.70
1 . t K
FREE
RESIDUAL
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n n n
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
-C-
O
NTH
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
BAY
22
22
22
2 2
22
2 2
22
22
27
27
2 7
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
4
4
4
4
4
*
4
4
4
4
•4
4
YEAR
7b
76
76
7 C.
( b
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
16
17
16
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
HPN TC
/lOCrtL
330.
110.
140.
0 •
0.
ISO*
1 70.
110.
54COO.
490.
92 C 0 .
5400.
160CO.
24000.
460.
130.
9200.
3500.
24CO.
7CO.
790.
230.
17000.
2 2O.
110CO.
110CO.
79CO.
4900.
330.
100.
1300.
230.
170.
110.
49.
33.
4600.
23.
23CO.
3300.
1100.
1100.
790.
3CO.
1700.
330.
230.
17.
HPN FC
/100'.
31 .
•
0-
4 •
n.
r .
7900-
2-
1 700*
1300.
1400-
1600.
230.
17.
1300.
790.
173.
1J.
1! .
S-
7900.
i-
3300.
3300.
1700.
460.
230.
110.
330.
130.
9.
13.
23.
a.
200.
7.
230.
170.
130.
130.
110.
49.
23.
13.
11.
0.
UNFILT
con
KG/L
******
4 9.93
******
54. 14
******
40.66
66.51
30.40
•** ** **
57.54
• * *» **
** ft* **
60.80
** ****
** ** **
53.51
** ** **
******
28.31
62.91
31.62
** ****
** ** **
56.37
** ****
******
5*. 77
******
******
55.01
** ****
******
3Z. IS
95.61
2Z. 91
******
** ****
93.09
******
******
67.99
** ** **
** •***
67. ZO
** ****
rILT
cjn
MG/L
20.90
24 .9 9
27.4?
24 .6 fi
27.26
16 . 9 C
17.23
16.45
31.79
18.30
26 »6 0
31.02
30.6 3
29.86
35.9 1
30.0 1
37.84
32.1 1
26.75
16.67
15.20
12.72
27.62
13.01
29.54
25.23
27.15
43.19
30.82
29.86
27.63
26.51
31.46
14.85
11.66
16.77
33.33
16.65
33.37
33.91
34.80
33.52
34.29
38.72
13.67
35.82
36.72
19.47
AHHONIA
HG/L
3.65
2 .55
1.69
1*08
1.31
2 • 7 ?
3.39
2.58
1 .69
1.02
1 >5 4
1.65
1.34
1 .65
1 .97
1.34
1.61
1.50
1.38
0.95
1 .06
0.67
1.29
0.57
1 .40
1.40
1 .27
1.12
1.34
1 .36
1.36
1.21
2.02
0.68
0.48
0.79
0.82
0.17
0.72
0.76
0.76
0.78
0.72
0.71
0.74
0.72
0.74
0.24
SULFIOE
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
Hi/L
16.56
16.52
16.12
1 6. 43
15.68
1 6. 40
12. 8«
1 3. 04
24.92
25. 12
2 1. 84
23.24
23.52
22.72
22.24
20.96
22. 48
21.80
22. 52
17. 84
16.00
15. 80
21.88
17.16
20.28
19.04
19.64
19. 32
18. 72
20.02
18. 80
17.84
17.72
15. 19
12.75
14.40
41.24
5.04
35.29
36.28
35.33
35.06
34.60
3 3. 19
33.80
33. IB
35. 31
4.76
vss
13 /L
[•5. 48
15.52
15.92
1 5. 24
14. 44
1 4 • 56
10.34
11. 44
23.88
23.68
21. 40
21.84
21.40
20.88
20.64
20.56
20. 76
20.40
20.44
12.68
11.44
11.68
20.04
16. 14
18.60
17.88
17. 32
17.52
17.20
17.04
16.84
16.40
IS. 32
7.88
11.80
13.00
38.27
4. 08
32.24
31.59
32. 00
31.56
30.60
29. 75
30.67
28.71
39.94
4.32
TURB
JTU
6. 1
6. 3
5. 9
6.5
6. 4
4« 5
5. 1
5. I
6. 2
7.2
6. 4
6.8
7.0
6.7
6.3
6. 7
6. 9
6.3
7.0
7.7
6.9
6.7
8.4
6. 8
6. 9
6.4
9.0
8. 1
7. 5
3. 7
6.9
7.9
7.2
5.8
4. 8
5. 1
12.0
2.7
12.0
12.0
13. 0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
13. 0
13.0
3.2
»H
9.05
9. OC
8.92
8. 93
8.95
8. 20
8.23
8.23
8.62
8. 30
8*7
• •» f
8.53
8.52
8.47
8.47
8.51
8.51
8.52
8. 53
8.28
8.30
8.29
9.90
8.65
8.83
8.82
8.85
8.80
8.77
3.80
8.75
8.75
8.80
8.51
8.55
8.60
8.07
8. 05
3.12
8.10
8.10
8.11
8.10
8.10
9.15
9.13
9.12
9.28
TEMP
"C"
12.0
12.0
12.0
12*0
12.0
11.0
11.0
1 1.0
9.5
6.5
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
12.0
10.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12. 0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
14.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
DO
HG/L
8.3
9 .5
7.8
7 9
9.2
5*1
5.6
6.2
6.6
7 .2
6 9
6.6
7.8
5.8
6.8
7 .9
7 .4
6.4
8.2
8.4
3-. 5
8.8
9.8
7.1
7.3
8.9
8.3
3.1
7.4
8.3
6.9
8.1
8.4
6.5
6.5
6.8
11 .8
7.1
7.5
8.3
9.5
8.0
9.3
9.3
9.0
9.6
9.6
6.7
APPLIED
CL2
HG/L
3.00
3.00
5.00
5 00
5.00
0 50
•olso
0.50
0.00
0.00
0 50
0.50
0.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.50
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
HG/L
1.04
0. 98
2.89
2 • 70
2.61
0. 11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 39
0.33
0.22
1.67
1.56
1.39
0.67
0.61
0.50
0.44
0.39
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.03
0.00
0.86
0.78
0.72
1.33
1.28
1.14
0.53
0.47
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.29
0.17
1.44
1.26
1.21'
2.07
1.84
1.72
0.78
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0-0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABJLE A-l. CONTINUED
ho
•e-
MONTH
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
OAT
4
*
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
11
11
11
1 1
11
1 1
1 1
11
| 1
L 1
1 1
11
1 1
11
11
13
13
1 3
1 3
13
13
| T
1 J
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
18
18
1 A
1 O
18
YEAR
76
76
76
76
76
f f
f O
76'
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
f (•
f b
76
7 f.
f O
76
76
76
76
7 f.
f D
7 &
/ o
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
22
23
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
in
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
1 2
1 3
MPN TC
/10CML
13.
13.
13000.
70.
490.
1300.
490.
80.
49.
33.
22..
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
35000.
3500.
5400.
35 00 •
1700.
7 ~tn
j iU •
49-«
49.
•
0 •
0.
0 •
11.
11.
1700CO.
49CO.
3 50 C 0 •
1 70 C 0 •
17000.
160GO.
92 C 0 •
790.
17.
2 .
2.
13CO.
700.
250.
490CO.
160CCO.
1 1 0 C 0 •
2300.
HPN FC
/ 100*1 L
0.
0.
2300.
8.
130.
140 •
70.
20.
13.
5.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
13000.
490.
793.
171
1 F J m
170.
i \n
lip •
-
3.
•
0.
3 •
0.
3.
23000.
70f>.
1 3 00 ") •
13 00 1 •
4903.
1100.
,*A
3iU .
7».
z.
D.
0 .
220.
4».
-•9.
17000-
4900.
700
490.
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
** ****
20.47
88.61
21.84
ft* ** **
74.67
*• ****
******
90. 52
******
** ** **
77.38
******
** ** **
18.44
86.21
28. 49
** ****
80. 13
76. 99
71.51
** ** **
32.16
96. 34
30.97
77. 86
******
72.19
******
** ** **
76.32
******
** ** **
35.46
147. 13
36. 46
** ** **
FILT
COD
MG/L
17.33
24.29
30.2 J
13.22
34.62
33 *7 7
35.79
36.79
28.66
33.00
34.82
32.92
35.0 1
15.10
15.96
16.73
37.34
24 .1 8
35.08
36 .66
37.4 1
40*41
67 .39
40.25
77 L 1
5t ••» 1
40 .11
40.4 1
23.17
24.44
25.4 1
41. 08
24.2 1
36 .30
33.37
39.36
41.25
36 .86
37.33
40.62
39.05
39.20
28.42
29.10
25.36
45.4 1
29.47
49.04
47.65
AMMONIA
NG/L
0.97
1.03
0.42
0 .15
0.39
0*35
0.35
0.38
0.55
0.49
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.03
0.08
0.04
Oi79
0.14
1.01
1.01
0.98
1 *0 3
0 .9 0
0.97
07 L
• f H
0.70
0.60
0.15
0.16
0.17
1.41
0.31
1.48
1 .54
1.43
1 .47
1.36
1.49
0.61
0 .59
0.63
0.33
0.31
0.35
4.32
1 .91
4.56
4.15
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 *0 0
0.00
o.co
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
5.12
5. 20
41.12
3.70
31. 95
31* 5.2
31.59
29. 85
31.27
31.00
31.53
28.53
29.50
3.64
3.56
3.88
38.93
5.92
33.89
3 3. 31
32. 60
31. 87
3 1. 67
30. 45
31* 80
31. 87
31. 40
5. 60
5. 72
6. 00
30.12
10. 32
2 7. 19
3 0. 50
28. 77
28. 80
26. 25
26. 06
25. 93
27.56
27. 33
6. 68
6. 88
6. 29
27. 43
6.36
2 1. 32
24. 15
vss
MG/L
4.44
4.48
37.44
3.32
28.54
22* 56
27.81
26.62
28.13
28.53
28. 73
27. 00
26.00
3.44
2.96
3.88
34.63
2.80
29.94
27. 38
28. 33
27 94
27. 67
25.96
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
MONTH OAT YEAR SAMPLE MPN TC
NUMBER /100HL
MPN FC UNFILT FI LT AMMONIA SULFIDE SS VS S T LR E PH TEMP DC APPLIED TOTAL FREE
/100HL COD COD CL2 RESIDUAL RESIDUAL
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L •« /L JTU "C" MG/L KG/L MG/L MG/L
NJ
-Ps
N)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
18
18
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2C
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
11CO.
220.
0.
. 0.
700.
49.
25.
1700.
140.
8.
490CO.
17000.
49000.
23000.
17000.
13.
11CO.
130.
130.
170.
920.
240.
130000.
170000 .
170CO.
3300.
230 .
130.
130.
79.
79.
79.
180000.
460CO.
3500.
330.
330.
7900.
1300.
700.
4900.
280.
250.
490.
130.
11.
20.
0.
0.
s.
3.
5000*
2000.
2300.
1 1.00 .
0.
0.
94.
•
5.
11.
0.
8000.
110.
80.
20.
Z.
z-
).
ZOOO.
350.
Z.
1700.
2.
?.
330.
2?.
2?.
•».
108.25
******
86.34
** ** **
162.98
32.26
87.73
24.66
* * ** **
77. 98
******
7 8. 89
** ****
99.33
** ****
24. 12
******
******
110.70
** ** **
******
99.30
99. 13
49.56
** ** **
66.67
** ****
** ****
90.03
******
** ****
73.04
40.09
49.79
63.66
47.74
43.36
26 .4 6
43.21
21.23
38.17
50.39
39.16
42.05
38.08
42.09
23.30
24.54
59.46
57.17
56.84
49.73
44.6 1
53.70
57.50
12.66
11.09
13.48
33.25
37.40
33.81
26.06
36.44
10.93
4.39
3.30
3.28
4.20
4.03
1 .69
4.66
1.72
4.62
4.42
4.06
4.12
4.02
4.06
1.95
1.70
4.70
4.10
4.08
3.70
3.70
4'. 00
4.10
3.29
3.63
3.50
3.44
3.20
3.73
3.48
3.36
3.34
1 _T1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.56 20.84
22.85 19.80
20.54 17.50
20.15 16.90
20.65 17.40
17.95 16.25
18.76 16.34
5.56 4.80
5.66 4.76
5.80 5.12
39.73 34.13
9. 60 5. 37
30.68 26. C5
29.78 25.17
28.73 24.07
31. 40 27.00
29.47 25.13
28.90 23.95
35.67 29.27
37.73 27.60
30. 73 26. C7
5.52 5.04
5.12 3.12
5.20 4.64
115.27101.87
36.60 30.80
34.07 29.47
35.67 29.20
34.37 23.00
40. 40 3.5.47
41. 07 27.60
39.13 32.67
32.27 25.80
21. 87 24.53
46.73 40.45
6. 16 6. 16
39.60 29.53
40.80 34.27
38.33 33.73
41. 00 35.33
43.27 36.60
34.20 31.93
21.76 21.76
44.00 3T..32
4.5.13 30.80
5.96 4.88
5. 80 4. 92
5.80 4.60
15. 0
15.0
14.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
15. 0
4. 2
4. 1
4. 0
21. 0
3.4
17.0
20. 0
19.0
20. 0
18.0
19.0
18. 0
20.0
16. 0
3.8
3.6
4.8
25.0
20. 0
21. 0
20. 0
20.0
20.0
18. 0
19.0
18. 0
18. 0
22.0
4. 5
20. 0
18.0
20. 0
1 9. 0
18. 0
1 9. 0
19. 0
19. 0
1 9. 0
4.6
3. 8
4.2
8. 32
7.89
7.73
7.82
8.34
8.32
8. 32
6. 18
6. 17
6.26
8.72
8.23
8.22
8.23
8. 32
7.92
7.93
8. 02
8. 11
8.08
8. 31
6.21
8.13
8.24
8.28
8.22
8. 15
8.22
7.80
7.78
7.90
8.07
8.12
8.13
8.28
8. 12
8.11
8.27
8.20
8.24
8.20
8.28
8.19
8. 17
8.26
8.19
8.03
8.32
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.5
17.5
17.5
16.5
18.5
16.5
16.0
16.0
16.5
16.0
16.0
16.5
16.0
16.0
18.0
16.0
18.0
19.0
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
4.1
3.4
3 .7
4.3
3.8
4.0
4.4
4.3
3 .7
4.8
4.3
4 .4
4 .3
4.1
5.0
4.1
5.0
5 .3
4.5
4.3
5.1
4.3
5.0
5.0
3.7
3.9
3.9
4.5
3.7
3.5
4.7
4.0
4.1
4.7
5.5
4.6
6.7
6.2
7.0
4 .6
5.0
5.4
5 .1
5.7
6.1
4 .1
4.5
5.7
3.00
19.48
19.48
19.48
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
. 0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.92
9.92
9.92
4.00
4.00
4.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
14.88
14.88
14.88
5.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.24
1 7.75
17.52
17.30
2.42
2.30
2.19
1.40
1.29
1. 18
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.44
0.39
9.39
9.17
9.00
2.42
2.33
2.25
1.06
0.94
0.89
0.00
0.61
0.53
0.47
14.19
13.74
13.63
2.82
2.74
2.68
0.00
0.00
2.68
2.51
2.32
1.50
1.38
1.27
1.81
1.67
1.58
1.33
1.27
1.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
-P-
Co
ITH
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
DAY
ZT
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
a
a
a
a
a
a
YEAR
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
f f
I Q
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
ia.
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
la
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
HPN TC
/100ML
79000.
5*000.
2300.
9200.
4900.
9 .
2.
1.
170 .
230.
68.
0 .
0.
0.
22000.
79CO.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
5.
2 •
i.
0.
0 .
0.
79000.
33CO.
33.
11.
10 .
23.
2.
2 .
23.
5.
5 .
0.
0.
0.
3 40 CO.
22000.
11000.
33CO.
3000.
1 10.
MPN fC
/100SL
79000.
260.
2300.
1100.
200.
0.
0.
0.
5.
5.
5.
0.
0.
0.
4000.
3300.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0^
0.
0 •
0.
0.
0.
0 .
13000.
803.
s.
S-
S-
£.
2-
IT-
0-
0-
0-
o.
0-
200G.
203.
140.
130.
34.
0.
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
99.84
24.84
** ****
******
91. 43
»• *•**
*• ***•
86.19
******
** ****
87.62
** ** **
** • * **
17.86
120.09
34.57
»* ** **
******
109.07
** ** **
103.62
******
101.29
** ****
** ** **
31.61
109.93
30. 36
** ****
*• ** **
90. 97
******
** ****
** ** **
******
******
** ** **
** ** **
** ** **
31.75
108.98
25.75
** ****
******
83.79
******
FILT
COD
MG/L
37.74
12.70
31.51
31.67
36.43
36.96
35.48
35.63
33.10
34.13
37.06
15.79
18.17
15.32
33.25
23.12
35.58
38.07
14.09
37.60
37 .6 0
36.98
37.06
37 .60
40.4 1
23.43
24.33
29.19
32.34
Z0.74
34.7 1
36.03
32.76
31.05
34.7 1
34.09
41.17
36.50
36.42
19.14
22.80
16. 81
54.40
23.55
53.19
44.2 1
48.63
57.88
AMMONIA
HG/L
2.62
0.97
3.13
2.54
2.94
1.40
1.29
1 .96
2.38
2.65
2.35
0.33
0.50
0.23
2.07
0.57
2.00
2.11
1.96
2.37
i .8 9
1.94
2.37
2 .3 7
2.17
0.06
0.20
0.09
0.53
0 .27
0.45
0 .49
0 .85
0.38
0 .49
0 .96
0.52
0.79
0.81
0.21
o.i a
0.22
1.43
0.45
1.56
1 .63
1.53
1 .55
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 *0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
48.88
5.32
43.10
41. 87
40. 93
37.07
32. 80
42. 13
38.53
39.67
38. 40
4.08
4. 24
4. 40
62.46
6. 06
50. 00
50.53
49.67
46. 33
43 • 67
45. 20
44. 73
4 3 • 33
41. 27
5. 36
6.04
5. 63
53. «3
7.00
38.92
39. 00
36.80
39. 70
38.25
36.45
37. 30
35. 25
35.10
8. 55
6. 16
5.68
55. 14
6. 98
33.64
29. 93
32.07
33.93
VSS
MG/L
43.59
5.32
37.15
37. CO
35.93
32.87
32. 47
33.40
34. 13
27.87
27.60
3.72
4. 00
3.68
53.44
5.50
47.77
48.20
47.67
44.40
42. 87
43.40
42.80
4 1. 27
39.27
5.36
5.40
4.92
43.90
7.00
35.84
36.40
33.60
38. 15
36.30
34.50
36. CO
36. 15
33.95
7. 60
6.56
5.52
43. 11
5.92
32.32
25. -5
26.67
30.67
TURB
.
JTU
20.0
3.1
20.0
20.0
18. 0
20.0
20. 0
20.0
18.0
20. 0
18.0
2. 7
2. 9
2. 8
15. 0
3. 6
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
1 3* 0
13. 0
13. 0
12.0
13. 0
4.4
4.2
4. 4
15. 0
3. 0
14.0
13.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13. 0
14.0
13. 0
3. 6
4. 0
3. 5
20. 0
4. 4
21. 0
1 9. 0
18. 0
21. 0
PH
8.92
8.19
8.68
8.68
8.67
7.98
7.88
7.98
8.55
8.55
8.56
7.79
7.76
7.83
8.40
8. 39
7.72
7.72
7.80
7.70
7. 65
7. 75
7.88
7. 90
7.92
7.64
7.71
7.79
9.20
3.66
9.00
8.95
8.91
8.91
8.89
8.85
8.92
8.88
8.82
8.51
8.50
3.60
a. 62
8.42
8.69
8.72
8.72
8.55
TEMP
"C"
17.0
17.0
17.0
1 7.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.5
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
13.0
18.0
18.5
19.0
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
18.5
ia.o
18.0
13.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
21.5
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
DC
HG/L
11.0
6.0
7.3
7.0
8.9
8.0
7.4
8.9
7.8
7.2
8.5
5.0
5.4
5.9
4.5
5.1
4.9
4.9
5.6
4.8
4*9
5.6
4.8
4.9
5 .9
5.3
5.3
6.7
10.5
4.4
7.6
7.5
8.2
7.2
7.4
7.6
5 .4
5.6
6.1
4 .3
4 .9
5.3
5.5
3.9
5.6
5.0
5.3
4.2
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20 .00
20.00
19.27
19 «2 7
19.27
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.92
0.92
4.59
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
1.18
1.04
0.93
13.15
12.81
12.47
2.92
2.78
2.72
13.27
12.04
11.09
0.00
0.00
16.87
16.09
15.75
16.87
15. 87-
14.86
12.63
11* 84
1 1.26
9.83
9.72
9.50
0.00
0.00
4.44
4.33
4.24
4.83
4.72
4.63
4.21
4.19
4. 16
2.05
1.88
1.69
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.39
0.28
4.89
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.0 1
10.22
9.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
6.65
6.60
6.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAK SAMPLE HPN TC
NUM8ES /10CML
*PN f 0 UKFILT FILT AMMOMIA SULFIHE SS VS S T UR B PH TEMP DC APPLIED TOTAL FREE
/100HL COD COR CL2 RESIDUAL RESIDUAL
MG/L HG/L Mf./L MG/L KG/L H5/L JTU "C" «/L MG/L HG/L MG/L
-P-
-P-
6
6
f,
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
&
6
6
6
8
R
8
8
8
8
a
8
3
8
1C
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1C
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
7k
76
Tl>
re
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7£
17
18
20
23
10
12
14
15
17
20
10
1 1
14
15
16
17
18
20
Zl
23
10
14
15
16
17
19
20
10
11
13
14
1 q
0 .
7CO.
35.
5.
J100CO.
940 -
240.
17.
C.
17.
350000.
35000.
3000.
79.
0'.
0.
J5CO.
130.
4900.
330.
130000.
130.
11 .
2.
2.
13.
13.
54000.
350CO.
4600.
30CO.
n .
O-
0-
iT-
0-
T
n.
4000.
79.
,-f
17.
0.
').
n.
2000.
200.
50.
0.
0.
130.
17.
0.
3.
1..
200ft.
i-
n.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3400.
3300.
499.
7.
rt_
66. 64
** * * **
71.08
31. 44
118. 39
* * ** **
96.63
** ** **
101.20
109.94
74.66
72.07
72.75
******
** ** **
67.28
** ****
67.81
** ****
33.33
90. 18
73.52
** ****
******
93.30
******
94.44
52.52
18.96
******
51.39
47.12
45.6 1
42.43
25.7 1
55. 2 e
45.92
52.96
48.32
44.68
52.73
43.80
43.27
46.33
43.66
44.60
48.40
40.4 1
47.03
24.05
25.42
68.95
72.22
66.89
66:97
68.19
74.81
72.75
24.96
20.91
22.21
25.46
y*^ -Le.
1.56
1 .50
1 .74
O.lif.
1 .46
1 .44
1 .59
.75
.67
.42
2.04
2.22
2.23
2.03
2.12
2.08
1.79
2.10
1.05
0.99
2.06
2.03
2.02
2.03
2.17
2.02
2.04
2.91
0.81
2.72
3.02
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23. 47
34.67
26. 40
6.68
59. 07
34. 33
29. 75
33.33
31. 40
36. 07
32.40
34.96
16.00
18.64
15.08
16. 16
17.84
15.96
5. 36
5. 68
42. 32
17. 40
20.56
16.52
15.56
18.56
18. 40
18.94
3.62
17.28
17.76
23. 33
29.87
22.80
5.44
51.40
29.87
25.50
29.73
26.93
30.33
26.90
29. 12
13.12
15.64
12.16
12.28
14.24
13. C3
4.28
4.52
36.16
15.12
17.76
14.16
13.56
15.60
15.28
17.08
2.84
15.56
15.68
20.0
18. 0
16.0
5. 4
20.0
21. 0
1 9. 0
20.0
22.0
23.0
15. 0
15.0
15.0
15. 0
14.0
14.0
15. 0
14.0
3.7
4. 2
15.0
15.0
16.0
15. 0
15.0
15. 0
15.0
8.6
4. 0
8.9
8.7
8. 59
8.68
8.68
8.43
8. 50
8.63
8.74
8.45
8.48
0. D D
8. 56
8.08
8.20
8.44
8.25
8.24
8.22
8.34
8.40
8.24
8.23
8.23
8. 33
8.15
8.13
8.16
8.25
8.30
8.06
8.15
8.19
8.13
19.0
19.0
19.0
21.0
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.0
20.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20. 0
2C.O
20.0
20.0
20. 0
14.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
6 .0
5.6
6.7
5 .8
5.1
5.0
4 .9
4.3
5.1
5.2
3.8
1 .8
5 .2
5.0
4.5
5.1
4.8
5.4
4.4
4 .8
3.7
4.5
3.8
4.4
4.5
4.0
4.6
6.2
6.3
5.6
6.1
4.59
2.75
2.75
2.75
0.00
1.83
1.83
5.50
5.50
3.67
0.00
0.00
0.92
4.59
4.59
4.59
2.75
2.75
1.83
1.83
0.00
1.83
5.50
5.50
5.50
3.67
3.67
0.00
0.00
i.po
1.00
4.64
1.84
1.68
1.37
0. 00
1.23
1.03
5.75
5.25
2.. 01
0.00
0.00
0.30
4.48
4.40
4.31
1.65
1.35
0.91
0.69
0.00
0.96
5.82
5.66
5.49
3.49
3.44
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00"
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
NJ
-o
Ui
ITH
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
&
&
6
6
6
6
6
6
DAY
15
IS
15
IS
15.
15
15
15
IS
IS
IS
15
15
15
IS
15
15
15
17
ir
If
IT
17
17
IT
1 7
IT
17
1 7
17
17
1 7
17
1 7
17
17
1 7
17
22
22
2 2
22
22
2 2
22
22
22
22
YEAR
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
10
12
15
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
10
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
IS
1 g
20
10
11
1 2
1 5
14
1 5
16
17
1 8
1 9
HPN TC
/100ML
0.
0.
700.
540.
23.
9200.
1100.
70.
310000.
11CO.
170.
44.
0.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
79000.
79000.
49000.
79000.
17.
13.
13.
330*
17.
17.
4600CO.
35CO.
920.
220.
340.
7.
2.
2
2.
49CCO.
54COO.
7 00 00 •
49000 •
230CO.
54 CO.
3500.
790.
130*
13.
HPN FC
/100HL
0.
0.
110.
0.
0.
79.
5.
0.
130000.
330.
0.
T.
0-
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
33000.
13000.
HOOT.
3300.
0.
Z-
j-
m •
0.
0-
110000.
280.
0-
^•
0-
0-
0-
0-
i.
33 OOP .
49Q.
330 00 .
17 000.
15000-
/ 70 •
26O.
ll
13 •
5-
UNFILT
COD
HG/L
»* ** »*
5*. 91
** ****
** ****
55.26
*• •***
******
17.72
58.13
** ****
******
57.97
** *•**
** ** **
57.82
******
** ** **
51.86
62.51
** ****
** ****
5 8. .90
******
** ** **
57.84
** *.* **
59.81
68.54
** ****
k* *ft **
61. 86
******
63. 15
** •* **
32. 65
84. 91
22. 65
68. 97
** ** **
68.32
******
FILT
COO
HG/L
28.36
29.99
31.32
28.13
27-90
22.17
20.46
25.67
21.59
29.10
24.46
25.77
25.3)
25.62
21 .08
21.59
30.42
21.98
23.76
23.53
21.94
25.43
24.29
26.87
27.70
27.32
25.88
27.32
16.85
23.91
16.70
21 .4 6
33.09
25 .96
24.06
23.83
2 1 j c
25.58
26.15
16.89
21.60
22 .10
25.02
24 «55
27.1 1
26.36
26 .36
25.77
AMMONIA
MG/L
2.59
2.76
2.44
2.78
2.44
0.63
0.58
0.71
2.29
2.05
2.18
2.35
1.96
2.13
2.18
2.55
2.22
2.00
2.57
2.64
2.42
2.40
2.38
2.54
2.30
2 .56
2.34
2 .48
1.75
1.99
1 .99
2.28
2.08
1.94
1 .9 4
1.55
1 73
1 .79
0.60
0.1 7
0.76
0.76
0.63
0.65
0.48
0.7 4
0.75
0 .61
SULFIDE
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss vss
HG/L HG/L
15. SO 14.28
15.76 14.36
16.72 15.20
16.16 14.36
15.12 14.00
3. 56 2. 44
3.32 2.88
3.04 2.60
1 ». 7Z 1 6. 96
15.12 13.88
15.20 13.64
14.96 13.76
14. 40 12.84
15.04 13.64
14.32 13.12
15. 28 13. 76
16.40 14.56
15.56 14.36
25.24 22.40
22.76 20.32
22.28 19.88
21.96 19.44
21.20 19.44
20.68 18.72
20.72 19.48
2 1. 04 1 3. 72
17.84 18.84
24. 16 18. 80
27.52 24.76
22. 32 20. 12
21.38 19.72
22.08 20.40
20.60 11.24
20.12 1 8. 92
20.76 19.24
20. 28 19. 12
2 0« 52 1 B. 12
19.16 17.28
38. 43 34. 43
5.54 5.44
29* 66 27.11
2 8« 75 27. 70
23. 48 23.48
23. 20 22. 20
27.55 25.40
28.65 26. 70
27. 10 2"5 . 25
27.25 27.25
TURB PH TEHP
JTU "C-
9.4 7.95 14.0
8.6 8.00 14.0
8.4 3.11 14.0
8. 3 8.02 14.0
8.4 8.07 14.0
3. 3 8.09 15.0
3.2 8.18 15.0
3. 1 8. 12 15.0
9.7 8.55 16.0
8.7 8.30 14.0
9.2 8.30 15.0
7.9 8.25 14.5
8.3 7.98 15.0
8.6 7.93 15.0
8. 6 8.09 15.0
S. 4 8.43 15.5
9.Z 8.25 15.0
8.6 8. 13 15.0
8. 9 7.77 16.0
11.0 8.05 15.5
1 1. 0 8.05 15.0
10. 0 7. 10 15.0
11.0 7.95 15.0
11. 0 7.88 15.0
11. 0 7.80 15.0
11.0 7. 95 15.0
10.0 7.91 15.0
10. 0 8.02 15.0
12. 0 8.28 16.0
9. 1 8. 15 16.0
11.0 8. 12 16.0
11.0 8. 04 16.0
1 2. 0 8.15 16.0
11.0 8. 05 16.0
10.0 8.09 16.0
9. 0 7. 98 16.0
9.4 8.05 16.0
10.0 7.95 16.0
15. 0 8.78 19.0
3. 1 3. 13 21.5
12.0 8. 78 18.5
12.0 3.72 17.0
12.0 8.75 19.0
1 2. 0 8. 55 1 8* 0
13.0 1.65 17.0
12.0 8.67 19.0
12.0 8.58 16.0
13.0 8. 51 1 7.0
DC
HG/L
5.6
5.4
6.3
6.1
5.3
5 .6
6 .1
6.9
8.0
6.9
7.6
7.8
6.2
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.8
7 .6
5.3
5.5
5.4
5.9
5.4
5 .7
6 .0
5.4
5.2
5.7
7.6
6 .0
5.9
5.9
6 .1
7.2
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
9 .3
5.5
4.5
3 .1
5.1
6.7
4.5
7.4
4.1
6 .0
APPLIED
CL2
HG/L
6.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
L.OO
1.00
1.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.041
5.00
5.00
5.00
8.00
8 .0 0
8.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL 1
HG/L
5.89
5.84
2.19
2.08
2.08
0.73
0.67
0.62
0.00
1.63
1.S4
1.40
9.89
9.78
9.66
2.92
2.81
2.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.68
3.61
3.53
2. 74
2.56
2.49
0.00
1.58
1.47
1.37
2.99
2. 86
2.86
6.37
6. 32
6.17
0.00
0.00
0. 38
0. 33
0.25
1 . 50
1. 30
1.18
3.33
3. 10
FREE
RESIDUAI
NG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o . o 9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
NTH
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
r
7
r
r
7
7
7
7
7
our
22
22
22
22
22
22
2 2
22
22
2 2
22
22
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
2 4
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
1
1
TEAR
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
20
21
22
23
10
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
1]
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MPN TC
/100HL
11.
7900.
24000.
240CO.
310000.
14000.
3500 .
3000.
3500.
4 90 •
70.
130.
11.
11.
17000.
160000.
22000.
13000.
16000.
54 00 •
24CO.
9200.
1100.
490.
49.0.
0.
240.
8.
430000.
700.
70.
57.
230.
130.
90.
8.
9.
8.
70000.
49000.
22000.
33000.
33000.
17flO.
130.
50.
49.
33.
MPN CC
/100HL
1.
490.
790.
330.
130000.
4600.
490 •
79.
790.
3 J <•
0.
11 .
?.
2.
500.
790.
170.
460.
230.
46 •
63.
I.
g.
13.
13.
0.
?.
9.
9000.
230.
11 .
6-
2?.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
14000.
2803.
1200.
1300.
4300.
170.
4.
0.
17.
5.
UNFILT
COO
MG/L
68.72
******
** **•*
25.69
125.20
******
102.92
******
86.99
• * ****
******
78.57
97.70
22.10
******
******
86.99
******
91.87
** ** **
** ****
83.26
** ** **
******
27.81
130.68
******
** ***•
87.56
******
** ****
84.75
*• ****
• * ****
83. 9Z
57.18
37.28
******
******
62.30
******
******
62.94
******
** **-**
FILT
COO
MG/L
29.27
16.76
15.43
15.85
34.53
36.36
42 »37
37. 7 e
47.37
44 «2 0
35.6 1
37.70
38.53
40.28
31.62
19 .1 2
34.26
35.84
34.43
36 • 9 1
40.22
41.2?
42.21
44.36
38.57
20.36
20.03
16.55
34.76
34.51
34.43
48.91
34.60
35.67
36.91
36.91
108.92
41.72
31.39
25.23
36.83
38.44
30.1 1
34.83
40.92
38.92
38.92
36.75
AMMONIA
MG/L
0.63
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.36
0.78
0 »5 7
0 ,65
0.59
0 «5 3
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.53
1.74
0.24
0.31
0.29
0.32
0 «3 3
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.43
0.40
0.28
0.24
0.23
0.39
0.36
0.42
*****
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.29
0.26
0.25
4.26
3.56
3.58
4 .20
4.20
4.20
3.45
3.58
3.73
4.05
SULFIOE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 *0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
HG/L
21.00
5.60
6.08
5. 84
50.80
43.07
3 8» 33
36.40
39.93
3 4» 40
31.27
32.13
29.73
25.20
26.72
15.70
31.60
30.53
31.93
3 1* 07
29.07
30.67
32.13
29.40
27.73
13.60
12.76
1 3.04
49.07
36.40
31.73
33.20
31.60
29.60
29.73
29.80
29.53
28.87
15.08
6.20
15. 44
14.80
14.72
14.72
12.88
13.52
12.52
13.20
VSS
MG/L
21.00
5.36
5.84
5.84
46.65
39.87
3 6« 60
34.90
37.73
3 «?• 93
29.33
29.80
29.26
24.87
25. 18
6.50
28.67
27.73
29. C7
29m 20
26.53
27.67
27.60
25.53
26.93
7.44
7.64
6. 04-
44.80
33.87
29.00
28.30
31. 33
26.80
27.80
25.20
27.73
6.13
12.04
4.94
12.64
12.20
11.92
11.72
12.08
11.28
10.52
10.52
T UR B P H
JTU
11. 0 8.60
3.1 8.25
3.2 8.25
3. 4 8. &
16.0 8.91
15.0 8.62
1 7* 0 8«> 67
17.0 8.66
15.0 8.67
13*0 8« 65
14.0 8.67
15.0 8.58
13.0 8.57
14.0 8. 57
13.0 8.71
10.5 8.62
14.0 8.75
15. 0 8.67
15.0 8.75
1 6* 0 8* 63
15.0 8.68
15.0 8.70
15.0 8.62
15.0 8.63
15.0 8.64
11.0 8.18
12.0 8.23
11.0 8.23
17.0 8.10
16.0 8.51
15.0 8.31
1 5. 0 8. 35
1 4. 0 8. 27
1 5. 0 8. 22
1 6. 0 8. 42
15.0 7.96
1 5. 0 8. 12
15.0 7.82
10.0 8.10
4. 1 7. 97
11.0 8.03
11.0 8.00
10.0 8.05
10.0 7.97
10.0 7.98
11.0 8. 05
11.0 7.90
11.0 7.86
TEMP
"C"
19.0
20.0
20.0
2C.O
20.0
20.0
2 0" 0
20.0
20.0
20 0
2olo
20.0
20.0
20.0
16.0
17.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
1 ft S
1 O» J
16.5
16.0
16.0
16.5
16.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
17.0
1.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
20.0
23.0
20.0
20.0
2C.O
20.0
20. 0
2C.O
20.0
19.5
00
MG/L
7.4
5.9
6.1
6.4
6.5
5.6
4 6
5.5
5.1
C |
sl2
4.8
4.5
4.9
6.5
3 .9
5.3
5.6
6.0
5y
• C
6.0
5.9
3.2
5.0
5.5
3.9
4.2
4.4
6.3
6.8
7.3
6.5
6.0
6 .3
6.8
7.0
6.8
6.8
3.9
3.7
4.8
5.0
5.4
4.6
4.7
5.5
4.8
4.7
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
5.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
2.00
2 00
2.00
4.00
4 00
4.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3 • 00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
9.92
9.92
9.92
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
2.95
0.25
0.20
0.18
0.00
1.15
0 95
0.85
2.95
1 80
U65
3.83
3.63
3.40
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.22
0.20
!• 35
1.28
1.23
2.76
2.68
2.59
1.35
1.30
1.26
1.26
1.28
1.11
1.03
2.17
2.0*
2.00
3.72
3.45
3.25
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.25
0.22
1.43
1.33
1.26
2.88
2.78
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo.
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
On n
• u u
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
ITH DAY YEAR
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
76
76
7 A
r b
76
76
76
7 A
r b
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
7 6 76
7 6/6
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 676
7 676
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 676
7 676
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 676
7 6 76
7 676
7 676
7 676
7 6 76
7 6 76
7 676
7 676
7 6 76
7
7
3 76
9 76
7 876
7
9 76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
20
21
22
23
10
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 O
i y
20
21
22
23
10
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
2 2
23
10
11
12
13
MPN TC
/100HL
47.
24000.
54 00 •
3500.
310000.
2300.
23 .
23.
230.
11.
0.
0.
0.
0.
35 00 •
0.
0.
33000.
240CO.
79.
5.
0.
23000.
33000.
330CO.
330.
240.
130.
14.
0.
79000.
5.
0.
0.
80.
20 •
0.
49 •
7.
0.
49 •
0 •
0.
7900.
330CO.
26.
0.
MPN FC
/1001L
2.
5400.
280 •
25.
230000.
330.
5 .
0.
7-
0.
o.
0.
0.
•<•
17 «
0.
0.
500.
1300.
0.
0.
0.
490.
490.
490.
130.
2.
11.
0.
0.
2000.
o .
o1.
0.
20.
0 •
T.
0.
n.
-
•
0-
500.
21^ .
*.
0.
UNFILT
COO
MG/L
67.58
*• ** ft*
35.79
53.40
******
55.24
*• ****
******
54.20
»* ** **
**** **
48.04
**** »*
29.62
109.35
37.32
******
** ****
84.59
** ** **
******
84.95
** ** **
84.01
**** **
** *•**
37.04
95.94
******
******
68.66
** •• •*
66.65
** ** **
72.54
44.79
60.96
37.52
** ****
ft*** **
FILT
COO
NG/L
44.92
25.62
yf n ^
1 1 • y -
26.10
32.03
29.46
•»» T <
33 • 3 7
33.79
37.15
36.83
34.35
32.27
38.19
37.87
26 *9 C
21.70
23.94
43.67
30. 8 B
53.47
51.69
59.52
47.20
48.67
41.70
54.09
41 67
43.24
28.36
32.55
27.96
44.10
46.50
49.60
43.79
45.03
43*2'
42.47
45.7!
44.64
48.05
34 »5 E
TT O L
33 • y %
32.0 1
25.35
21.82
34.22
31.49
AMNONIA
NG/L
3.43
3.06
31 9
• 1 £.
2.93
3.23
3.62
3.54
3.69
4.85
3.60
3.25
3.30
3.75
277
• f £.
2.91
2.97
2.53
2.45
1.66
1.51
1.58
1.79
2.09
2.83
2.06
2 «0 6
2.20
1.15
3.54
1.75
0.74
0.75
0.95
0.61
0.73
07 B
• r O
0.75
0 »7 3
0.79
0.87
In ^
• U J
I «0 5
0 .89
2.12
1 .94
2.43
1.92
SULFIOE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0 *0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 »0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 «0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 »0 Q
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 »0 0
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0 • 0 0
0 »0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
14.56
6.00
ft n no,
b u* uu
6.32
13.84
13.00
1 1 1ft
1 J» JO
11.80
10. 40
10.80
11. 40
10.76
10.56
10.92
5* 80
4.92
6. 16
64.53
5.84
30.96
31.87
60.07
40.53
36.27
33.27
40.73
3 8 07
33.87
5.60
5.76
5.76
25. 07
16. 88
14.92
16.96
17. 15
15* 48
16. 08
1 7« 04
16.32
15.32
5« 72
5* 20
9.56
29.67
10.78
21.00
19.92
VSS
NG/L
11.76
5.12
e n A?)
TURB
JTU
11.0
5.1
/c 9 n
5! 16 5. 8
11.96
9.88
9*£
• 3O
10.32
10. 16
9.24
9.84
9.00
9.16
9.24
5nn
• uo
4.16
5.20
48.93
4.84
25.16
26.40
20.07
32.53
28.47
26.73
33. 73
28 87
25.40
2. 76
4.68
4.92
22. CO
14.12
12.76
14.64
14.44
1 3* 60
13. 72
1 4a 44
13.40
13. C3
7* 21
4* 80
9.48
25.76
•J.4S
17.32
1 '.. 60
8.7
8.4
8« 5
8. 9
8.6
8.6
8.7
8.7
9. 0
9.0
i 7
^« f
4.9
5.0
28.0
41 6
18.0
17.0
19.0
21. 0
21.0
20. 0
22.0
23 0
22. 0
5.2
5. 3
5.4
13.0
12.0
12.0
11. 0
12.0
11 n
1 1 • U
11. 0
1 2» 0
12.0
12.0
5* 0
5» 2
5. 4
11.0
4.5
11.0
12.0
P H T EMP
•C-
7.93 20.0
7.99 22.5
Bnfl 99 S
• Uo C C*J
8.02 22.5
7.95 20.5
8.07 20.5
8 01 20 5
8.00 20.5
7.95 20.5
7.99 20.5
8.00 20.5
7.80 20.5
7.77 20.5
7.85 20.5
Tf 97 2 2* 5
7.91 22.5
7.94 22.5
8.90 21.0
7.86 21.5
7.92 21.0
7.95 21.0
7.95 21.0
8.03 21.0
8.04 21.0
8.12 21.0
7.95 21.0
7Q» y i n
• yj 1 1* u
7.99 21.0
7.89 21.0
7.96 21.0
7.96 21.0
8.43 23.0
8.00 23.0
8.02 23.0
8.00 23.0
8.25 23.0
6 • 26 23*0
8.23 23.0
8. 18 23.0
8.20 23.0
8.23 23.0
7« 88 2 5» 0
7* 80 2 2« 0
7.92 22.0
8. 58 22.0
8. 12 24.0
8.37 21.5
8. 37 21.5
DO
NG/L
5.1
4.5
4 .6
5.1
3.6
4.5
4 »2
4.4
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.3
4.7
4.8
5y
• t
5.4
5.8
3.3
3.2
3.7
3.2
4.5
3.2
.0
.1
.2
n
• U
.5
.1
4.4
4.6
6 .4
4 .5
4.4
5.8
3.9
3*8
5 .6
4 .4
3.9
5 .1
3*7
3 • 5
4 .2
7.3
2.9
6 .1
6.1
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
5.00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
2 nn
m UU
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3nn
• uu
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
2.00
2*00
2.00
4 • 00
4.00
4.00
4 • 00
4 * 00
4.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
NG/L
2.59
0.57
0.47
0.44
0.00
1.26
1. 16
1.08
1.63
1.58
1.50
8.28
7.98
7.68
1.26
1.16
0.00
0.00
2.24
2.11
2.01
0.25
0.17
0.10
0.92
Off
• or
0.55
1.52
1.47
1.42
0.00
6.12
5.92
5.72
1.C2
0. 85
0.67
. 27
.12
.95
. 87
. 82
.72
0.00
0.00
2.44
2. J9
FREE
RESIDUAI
Mfi/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ofin
• uu
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
On n
• u u
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
MONTH OAT YEAR SAMPLE H "H TC
NUMBER /10CHL
ilPN rc UNFILT FILT AHMONIA SULFICIE SS VS S T IR B PH TEHP DC APPLIED TOTAL FREE
/IOO-IL coo cnn CLZ RESIDUAL RESIDUAL
CG/L M'i/L MO/L MO/L MG/L MG/L JTU "C" HG/L MG/L HG/L NG/L
IS3
-P-
OO
7
T
7
i
7
7
j
f
T
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
a
6
fl
8
o
8
Q
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
a
8
8
8
3
8
8
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
1 3
1 3
13
13
1 3
13
13
13
1 3
13
13
13
13
1 3
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
7 6
7f,
76
76
76
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
14
1 ^
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
2 2
23
10
12
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
10
1 2
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
2 1
0.
7900.
7900.
4900.
14 CO .
170.
170.
2400.
49.
79000.
5.
0.
0.
2 3 0 •
GO •
80.
79 •
2.
0.
0.
'0.
0.
490CO.
17000.
13CO.
17.
4.
17000.
49CO.
4900.
750.
140.
33.
7 50 •
4 •
2.
23000.
0 •
0.
0.
33030.
4 *
0.
1300.
23.
0.
220 •
0-
790 •
/ OA
490.
170-
T<
35.
•
4-
n0.
•
o.
2000.
0.
0.
0.
2 El -
20 .
20.
.
a.
0.
0.
i.
0.
17000-
3300.
27.
?..
0.
3300.
1100.
940.
490.
IS..
4-
230 •
2 •
0.
3300.
9 •
0.
0.
130.
20 •
0.
490.
I-
o.
240 •
64. 57
60. 02
60.02
34.98
78. 22
**** **
******
62. 67
63.05
** ****
64.57
******
** ** **
41. 81
54.33
39. 18
** ** **
** ****
54.5*
** ****
******
56.62
******
******
41. 98
39.55
54. 13
******
55. 75
******
50. 08
******
******
49.27
37.25
32 • 2 5
37 .70
12.70
34 .45
34 * 2 2
35.36
22 . 1 5
23.52
23.8?
40.17
36.49
38.85
35.74
33*76
35 .74
41.81
35 .66
36.87
38.16
28.33
26.7 6
23.60
34.16
30.1 1
38.49
33.14
36.22
36.30
39.22
38.25
37.93
41.57
35.49
31.85
28 .77
31.77
36.31
33 .63
33.63
37.12
32.25
34 .93
37.93
33.47
37.12
34.52
28 .2 0
1 .57
3.44
2 • 0 8
2.10
2 *0 8
• 8 5
.99
«7 8
• 6 8
.61
.87
.29
.01
.15
.66
• 78
.9 4
Q 7
*y c.
1 .61
1.85
** ** *
**** *
*« *« *
3.18
2.72
2.90
3.01
2.90
3.16
3.28
3.31
2.95
2.97
3. 07
2 .8 0
2 .5 2
2.54
2.86
2.90'
2.69
2.59
2.73
3 *0 7
2.95
2.67
3.07
3.01
2 «5 9
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .00
20.40
21.44
1 9. 84
19.20
19.44
1 8. 16
18. 40
9.36
9. 48
10.00
32.20
20. 04
19.24
19.20
1 9. 32
1 9« 48
18.32
1 8 68
19.20
18.34
10. 24
9. 84
9.76
11.28
6.33
10.00
10. 24
10.36
10.60
10.24
10. 48
9.16
10.00
10.28
5. 76
6. 00
5.92
11.80
9* 88
9.76
9.64
10. 10
9. 44
9.48
9. 44
8.80
9.32
6. 00
17.64
1 8. 36
1 fl . 96
16.80
16.76
1 5. 68
16.08
8. 32
9. CO
a. 76
27.88
14. 12
16.88
16.40
1 7 fA
if. m
1 7. 12
15.30
t ^ 7ft
1 D« f O
16.60
16.20
9.44
9.48
3.48
8. 70
5.00
7.88
7. 72
7.56
8.40
8. CO
3.28
7.40
7.60
7. 76
4. 92
4. 30
4.28
9.12
8* 44
7.44
7.96
8.04
7« 52
7.72
7.16
6. 72
7.76
5. 04
12. 0
1 3. 0
1 2. 0
11.0
11.0
1 0. 0
10. 0
5.8
5. 5
5.7
13.0
1 2. 0
13.0
12. 0
1 2. 0
11*0
12.0
1 9 fl
1 £• U
12. 0
11. 0
6.2
6.4
6.3
13. 0
5. 7
12. 0
13. 0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
6* 8
&• 7
6.6
12.0
1 2. 0
12.0
13. 0
13. 0
1 1* 0
13. 0
11. 0
12.0
12.0
6. 6
8.38
8. 52
8. 52
8.48
8 50
8. 51
8. 10
8. 07
8. 13
8.09
8.52
4.90
7.90
7.91
8* e
. *ID
8. 44
8.38
8. 39
8.40
8.40
7.73
7.62
7.70
8.20
7.91
8. 04
8.18
8. 19
8.28
8.30
8.28
8.21
8.22
8.27
8. 11
8. 10
8.12
8.22
8. 09
8.08
8.07
8.21
8. 19
8.25
8. 19
8.20
8.19
fl. 00
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
y 9 n
£. £.*>j
2 2« 0
22.0
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23*0
2 3. 0
23.0
y •* n
C. 3. U
23.0
23.0
23.5
23.5
23.5
22.2
23.5
22.0
21.9
21.9
22.0
20.0
21.6
Z1.8
21. 8
21.6
2 3. 2
23.1
23.1
23.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23*0
6.2
6 2
57
.'
6.0
5 3
4 »7
'6.1
3.5
4 .0
2.9
7.5
6.0
5.9
6.5
6C
• J
6C
. D
6.5
5 9
6". 6
6.3
3.4
3.7
4.0
4.9
2.2
4.8
4.4
3.9
3.9
3.7
4.8
4.9
5.2
4.2
3.6
3 .9
3.8
4.8
6 .1
6.0
6.3
5.8
5*7
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.3
3 .5
5.00
1 00
Inn
• uu
1 .00
3 00
3.00
3.00
1*00
1 . 00
1.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
2 00
2.00
2.00
4 00
4.00
4.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2 ?00
2.00
0.00
10 .00
10.00
10.00
2.00
2.00 ~
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3 .00
2.34
0. 35
0. 32
0.27
0. 90
0. 80
0.75
0. 65
0. 50
0.40
0.00
9.20
8.76
8.56
077
. I l
07?
m I £.
0.67
1517
• Cf
1.12
1.04
3.31
3.18
2.99
0.00
0.00
1.92
1.85
1.77
0.26
0.24
0.21
1.13
0.98
0.88
1. 13
1. 08
1.08
0.00
5. 19
5.04
4.94
1.03
0. 96
0.91
1.50
1.30
1.20
1.40
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.O'O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
(NINTH DAY YEAR SAMPLE
NJ
•e-
VO
13 76
13 76
15 76
IS 76
IS 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
IS 76
15 76
IS 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15 76
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
2C
20
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
20 76
20 76
20 76
20
20
76
76
20 76
20 76
76
76
20
20
20 76
20 76
20 76
20 76
20 76
tHPLE
IM8ER
Z2
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
1 2
i *
i -i
14
15
16
17
4 C
1 J
1 9
20
2 I
22
23
10
12
13
14
1 S
NPN 1C
/100HL
5.
0.
460.
11000.
94.
49.
2.
4600.
4600.
46CO.
2400.
790.
490.
2200.
1700.
220.
13000.
5.
0.
0.
460.
130.
20.
220.
5 .
4.
0 *
0.
0.
2300.
7900.
/ 9 •
23.
2.
2300.
22 CO.
1100.
7 90 •
130*
79.
2 •
0.
0.
2300.
0.
0.
0.
f,f\ -
NPN FC
/100ML
5.
0.
800.
330.
23.
11.
0.
330.
330.
490.
490.
79.
79.
130.
70.
7.
1700.
0.
).
0.
?30.
20.
2.
35.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
200.
460.
0 •
0.
80-
20-
70-
IT •
•
0-
0 •
0-
0.
136.
6.
0.
0.
?ft.
UNflLI
COD
HG/L
• * ** **
40.03
84.76
28.44
******
******
61.10
******
******
60.23
• * ** *•
******
59.27
******
«* ****
30. 35
68.03
•* ** **
** ****
52.10
** ** *»
** ****
49. 47
******
47.32
******
29. 16
76. 13
28.72
76.67
******
** ****
71.65
57.05
ft* ** **
42.85
48. 89
******
******
64. 43
FILT A
coo
HG/L
26.56
29.82
43.90
25.02
37.12
38.56
41.74
36.25
36.17
46.52
47.24
49.47
41.03
21.59
23.74
18.64
37.76
38.56
36.0 1
36.81
35.69
35.05
35.21
36.96
35 .3 7
37.76
24 .86
27.41
23.50
48.50
21.74
53 .99
39 .79
42.14
38.6 1
34.29
33.75
31.94
31*16
30.76
35 .94
41.91
38.38
33.51
40.73
35. OP
39.40
7t . A L
NMONIA
HG/L
2.52
2.54
3.47
1.98
3.51
3.05
2.10
3.47
3.43
3.47
3.08
3.28
2.99
2.18
2.22
2.04
3.35
3.70
3i05
3.03
3.17
3.39
3.28
3.03
3*14
3.14
2 .0 8
1 .29
1.60
3.43
2.34
3 .2 8
3.10
3.2li
2.95
3.15
3.24
3.23
3 .2 4
2.32
2.14
2.84
2.05
3.43
3.23
3.08
3.02
7 -Q O
SULFIDE
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n - n n
ss
HG/L
5.76
6.16
26.38
4.22
12.84
10.04
8.76
1 2. 32
10.08
10. 12
12.88
11.48
10. 84
4.76
4.16
4. 16
14.64
7.64
6.76
6.60
7.88
7. 32
6.76
7.08
7. 24
7.20
5. 00
1. 28
5.04
33.16
4. 82
2 3. 23
20. 44
19.23
19.60
21. 16
18.75
1 9. 32
1 8. 04
15. 92
5. 00
4.76
4. 88
37.72
14. 88
1 3.60
12.64
?i . ^f.
vss
HG/L
4.36
4.28
22.66
3.74
11.32
8.68
7.52
10.36
7.96
8.98
10.68
10.08
9. 36
4.00
3.84
3.32
12.52
6.72
5.92
5.96
6.16
6. 28
5.60
6.04
6. 28
5.92
4. 40
4.44
4.48
28.14
4.28
1 9. 56
16. 54
17.24
16.28
18.00
16.20
15. 68
11.52
14.56
4.04
4. 32
4.28
31.00
13.00
11.20
11. 40
IT. An
TURB PH TEHP
JIU "C"
6.5 8.01 23.0
6.8 8.09 23.0
11.0 8.00 21.0
3.8 7.85 23.5
8.4 7.91 20.5
8.4 7.98 20.5
9.5 7.98 2C.5
S. 3 8.01 20.5
8.7 8.04 20.5
8. 7 8.00 20.5
9. 6 8.05 21.0
9.3 8.02 21.0
9.7 8.06 21.0
4.6 7.92 23.0
4.5 7.98 23.0
4.4 7.99 23.0
9. 0 8.05 22.0
8. 7 7.88 22.0
8. 3 7. 80 22.0
8.2 7.78 22.0
8.0 8.02 22.0
8. 1 8. 06 22.0
8. 0 8.03 22.0
8. 1 8.02 22.0
8. 2 8. 04 2 2. 0
8. 2 8.03 22.0
4. 6 7. 70 23.0
4.5 7.75 23.0
4. 3 7.72 23.0
17. 0 8.00 22.0
4. 3 8.05 23.0
2 0. 0 7. 92 21.5
18.0 7.92 21.5
18.0 7.84 21.5
18.0 7.98 21. e
17. 0 8.07 21.5
16. 0 8.08 21.4
16.0 8. 09 21.3
1 5. 0 8. 03 21.6
15.0 7.98 21.5
4. 6 7. 98 2 2. 5
4. 5 7.98 22.4
4.7 7.98 22.2
20. 0 7.95 23.0
16. 0 7. 38 23.0
17. 0 7. 51 23.0
17. 0 7.52 23.0
ifc.n 7-7*» 7 *. n
DO
HG/L
3.2
3.0
4.2
3.8
5.2
5.2
6.3
6.1
4.6
4.5
5.4
5.8
5.8
4.6
5.1
6.1
4.4
6.3
6.5
6.8
6.5
6.2
6.8
6.4
5 .9
6.4
5. 1
5 .3
5.4
4.4
5 .7
4 .4
4.8
4.1
4 .3
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
5 .5
4.9
4.4
4 .6
5.0
6.4
6.6
6.8
fc . i
APPLIED
CL2
HG/L
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
2.00
•2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
5 .00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4 .00
4.00
4.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
7 -ftn
TOTAL
RESIDUAL 1
HG/L
1.30
1.20
0.00
0.00
2.11
1.99
1.89
0.41
0.38
0.33
0.79
0.67
0.92
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.00
8.76
8.66
8.47
0.89
0.79
0.74
1.22
1. 05
0.98
9. 90
9.52
9.23
0.00
0.00
1.42
1. 35
1.30
0.29
0.22
0.17
0. 74
0. 69
0.59
1.81
1.74
1.72
0.00
11.52
11.27
11.20
n. 7f.
FREE
RESIDUAL
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n nn
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
N5
Ui
o
NTH
7
7
7
f
7
•j
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
DAY
2 0
zo
20
2 0
20
9 n
£. \1
20
20
22
22
22
22
22
2 2
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
YEAR
7 f>
( o
76
76
7 6
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
? 1
£ 1
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
10
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
13
19
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
12
13
It
15
16
ir
18
19
20
21
22
MPN TC
/100ML
20 •
2.
490.
6 •
2.
Q
0.
'0.
7000.
4900.
23.
2.
0 .
7000 .
4960.
1700 .
790.
49.
49.
350.
13 •
0.
1100.
4 .
2 .
0.
130.
49.
5.
70.
2.
0.
26 •
0.
0.
54000.
16000.
23.
13.
7.
24000 •
13000.
9200.
790.
140.
110.
2200.
240.
MPN FC
/10QXL
0.
7.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
230.
330.
U.
0.
0.
230 .
130.
110.
33.
0.
0.
2.
0 .
0.
500.
0.
0.
1.
33 .
?. •
2.
11 .
0.
5.
0 •
0.
O.
790.
940.
0.
0.
0.
700 •
490.
230.
70.
21.
a.
130.
23.
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
64. 90
**** **
58.23
** ** **
25.35
68.77
32.30
******
******
61.62
** ****
62.39
******
** ** **
59-23
******
31.7*
90-27
** ****
******
7.4. 98
** ****
69.27
******
******
66.41
******
33.45
68.45
29.69
** •* **
** ****
58.92
******
******
** ****
******
64.79
******
** ****""
FILT
COD
HG/L
34 .14
36.10
33.20
36 .49
37.43
18 6 0
20.25
21.97
38.07
20.04
38.07
39.77
42.76
38.22
38.84
35.75
39.6 1
38.07
44.17
26.33
26 .49
24.79
10.39
45.79
47.10
45.79
44.25
45 .6 4
40.23
38.30
37.92
34.31
25 .2 5
26.62
33.60
35.60
26.64
37.45
35.60
34.52
36 .6 fi
35.14
41.24
48.73
47.63
42.55
27.88
33.51
AHMONIA
MG/L
2 .95
3.08
3.04
3.11
3.10
2 03
1 .88
1.84
3.27
2.06
3.45
3.49
3.37
3 .2 8
3.51
3.47
3.28
4.92
3.43
1.80
2 .0 2
1.61
3.26
3.16
3.26
3.30
3.89
3 .37
3.45
3.26
3.61
3.59
1 .89
2.00
2.02
2.92
1.49
2.29
1.90
2.18
2 .1 3
1.92
2.13
2.22
2.48
2.11
1.41
1.76
SULflOE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
18 44
17.96
19.08
18. 60
18.56
4. 72
4.16
4.96
24. 48
6.96
19. 28
18.24
16.70
2 0. 72
19.60
19.00
18.56
13. 08
17.20
5.76
5. 96
5.88
29.68
21.96
21.92
20. 16
22. 84
19. 84
18. 16
17.12
17.76
16. 36
5. 36
5.68
5. 76
23.02
4.80
18.92
19.40
18.28
20. 20
21.08
19.56
18.28
19.28
19.32
4.00
4.76
vss
MG/L
15 08
14.56
15.36
14* 84
15. 04
4.16
3.68
4. C4
19.66
5.70
1 6. C4
14.92
13.60
1 7. C8
15.40
14.92
14.52
10. C4
13.76
4.64
4. 96
4.32
24.52
.17.43
17.64
16. C4
18.36
16 . 00
13.88
13.60
12.84
13.60
4. 16
4.48
4.60
18.48
3.12
15.40
15.56
14.44
1 6. 36
17.24
17.64
15.12
15.40
15.96
2.88
3.16
TURB
JTU
16 0
18.0
17. 0
17*0
16. 0
4. 7
5. 0
4.7
16.0
3.9
16.0
16.0
16.0
1 6. 0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
4. 5
4.3
4.0
18. 0
13.0
18.0
18.0
1.8.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
4. 5
4.2
4.5
15.0
4.5
14.0
14.0
15.0
1 5. 0
15.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
4. 6
4.5
PH TEMP
"C"
7 89 2 3. 0
7.92 23.0
7.90 23.0
7. 92 2 3* 0
7.95 23.0
7. 85 23.0
7.89 23.0
7.85 23.0
7.95 22.0
7.94 23.5
7.98 21.5
8.08 21.5
8.00 21.5
8. 03 2 1. 0
8.08 21.0
8.12 21.0
7.98 21.0
7.96 21.0
7.04 21.0
7.96 23.0
7. 99 2 3. 0
7.98 23.0
8.00 23.0
7.84 23.0
7.86 23.0
7.85 23.0
7.98 21.0
7. 97 23.0
7.99 23.0
7.97 23.0
8.02 23.0
7.98 23.0
7.92 23.0
7.98 23.0
7.92 23.0
8.95 22.0
7.98 25.0
8.18 21.0
8.19 22.0
8.19 22.0
8. 34 2 2.0
8.36 22.0
8.36 22.0
8.25 22.0
8.24 22.0
8.27 22.0
8.12 21.0
8.02 25.0
DC
MG/L
5.9
6.0
6.3
6-w
• J
6.2
6 .8
6.8
6.9
4.2
4.8
4 .1
4.6
4.5
5n
f\J
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.7
*f
» 1
5.5
4.3
4.7
4.4
3.6
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.7
4.0
3.8
3.8
5.7
3.5
0.5
3.8
3.9
3 .9
4.2
3.7
4.1
3.9
3.5
3.2
3.0
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
2 .00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
5 .00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1 00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2 .00
2.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0. 64
0.59
1.13
0. 93
.0.78
2. 60
2.55
2.50
0.00
0.00
1.B1
1.67
1.62
Oyc
• £j
0.15
0. 10
0.83
0.74
0.64
0.93
0. 88
0.83
0.00
4.66
4.61
4.51
0.78
0.59
0.47
1.08
0.96
0.83
1. 32
1.18
1.08
0.00
0.00
2.15
2.03
2.00
0. 33
0.28
0.24
0.85
0.71
0.64
0.57
0.50
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00*
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.op
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
10
Ul
ITH
7
7
r
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
r
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
f
I
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
a
a
8
a
8
a
DAY
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
2 9
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
2 9
Z9
2 9
29
29
•y q
£. y
29
29
3
3
3
3
3
3
YEAR
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 A
f O
76
7 6
76
76
7 ft
f b
76
76
76
76
7 c.
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
23
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
.13
14
IS
16
17
IB
19
20
2 1
22
23
10
12
1 3
14
15
1 A
1 o
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
22
23
10
11
1 ?
I C
13
14
15
16
MPN TC
/100HL
34.
3300.
0.
0.
0.
170.
49.
33.
79.
8.
7.
110.
2.
0.
3300.
74000.
1100.
8.
0.
3300.
3300.
3300.
450.
140.
33.
5 •
0.
0.
7000.
2.
0.
0.
7CO.
230*
170.
1 7 0 •
13.
11.
0 •
0.
0.
14CO.
2700.
0 *
0.
0.
140.
33.
MPN jTC
/100HL
f B
330.
0.
0.
0.
3.
7.
0.
5.
0.
0.
20.
0.
0.
700.
200.
33.
0.
3.
330.
170.
70.
70.
33.
8.
0 .
.1.
0.
230.
I.
0.
0.
49..
1 3 •
5.
3? •
z-
0.
•) .
0.
0.
200.
200.
0 •
1.
0.
20.
Z.
UNFILT
COO
HG/L
28.65
79.55
** ****
******
6 9. 93-
******
** ***•
70.78
** ****
******
65.07
** **•*
** ** **
32.83
70.67
37.29
** ****
******
59.65
** ****
** ****
57.87
** ****
******
59.57
•* ****
35. 48
98. 16
** ****
******
68. 38
** ****
69. 14
* * * * »•»
70.57
******
45. 13
81.97
27.01
******
65.03
******
** ****
FILT
COO
MG/L
26.49
32.73
33.27
35.97
43.77
34.04
36.36
35.97
33.73
39.98
35. 2t
28.48
26.17
30.26
35.53
26.60
39. 2E
41.58
37.75
31.93
31.70
43.87
38.15
39.05
39.28
23*35
26.22
24.73
46.17
43.87
50.00
42.96
43.72
40 • 0 5
40.05
41*56
38.5 1
41.7 1
33.92
30. as
37.75
46.83
28.95
46 .72
49.7 2
46.72
44.10
37.33
AMMONIA
MG/L
1 .71
2.20
2.29
1.88
1.76
3.22
0.49
2.94
2.25
1.90
2.32
1.09
1.67
2.01
0.72
1.56
0.71
0.73
0.69
0.54
0.42
0.94
1.00
0.83
0.92
0 *6 5
0.85
0.44
0.83
0.02
0.63
0.83
0.77
0.79
0 .75
0.92
0.4 a
0.69
0 .52
0.52
0.48
i.aa
1.25
1 .5 8
1 .76
2.45
2.18
1.51
SULFIOE
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 *0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
4.44
31.80
24.24
22.64
14.20'
14.24
100.90
12.92
13. 48
12. 44
12.96
5.08
4.68
4.64
23.90
9.92
19.56
18. 40
18. 44
19.64
18.60
19. 48
18.64
18. 00
18. 00
8. 62
.8.52
7. 92
32.88
19. 44
18.52
18.00
22. 00
22. 16
19.48
19. 16
18.84
18.56
9. 16
9.76
7.96
22. 72
6.08
20. 52
15.64
15.56
16.24
16. 36
vss
HG/L
2.60
25. M
20.04
19.00
11.72
11.68
8.68
13.48
10.92
10. 20
10.52
3.40
2.84
2.80
19.66
8.44
16.56
15.48
15. C4
16.84
15.60
16.20
15.64
14.92
14.68
7. 24
7. 12
7.16
27.08
16.36
16.12
15.08
17.48
1 8. 20
16.20
1 6. 16
15. 72
14.92
7. 80
9.64
7.48
18.64
5.18
16.80
14. C8
1J.CO
14.34
13. 32
TURB
JTU
v»
15./0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15. 0
15.0
16.0
16. 0
16.0
4.7
4.7
5.2
13.0
3.7
12.0
14.0
12. 0
15.0
11. 0
12. 0
12.0
12. 0
11. 0
5. 1
5. 2
4.7
13.0
14.0
15. 0
13.0
11. 0
12.0
13. 0
13.0
12.0
11. 0
4. 9
4.6
5.2
12.0
5. 3
18.0
17. 0
16.0
15.0
14. 0
PH
8.12
8.37
8.07
8.00
7.«7
8.06
8.13
8.22
8.12
3.10
8.13
7.86
8.12
8.13
9.00
8.03
8.89
8.90
8.90
8.97
8.97
8.99
8.91
8.90
8.89
8* 15
8. 16
8.10
9.03
8.43
8.40
8.40
8.91
8. 94
8.92
8. 90
8.92
8.90
8. 07
a. 09
8.07
8.43
7.94
7. 82
7.91
7.76
8.50
8. 33
TEMP
•C"
25.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
24.5
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
24.5
24.5
24.5
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
21.5
23.1
21.9
21.5
21.7
21.5
21.3
DC
MG/L
3.1
5.2
4.3
4.8
5.0
5.4
5.6
4.8
5.0
5.4
5.4
3.7
3.8
3.9
11.1
3.2
7.1
6.7
8.1
6.3
6.6
8 .8
6.3
5.6
5.0
4*7
4 .1
3.8
10.6
7.2
7.1
7.2
6 .8
6.8
6.8
7 .0
7.4
6.9
4 .1
4.4
4.4
3 .6
2 .9
3.3
3 .5
3.2
3.6
3 .2
APPLIED
CL2
NG/L
1.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4*00
4.00
4.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
2.00
2 .00
2.00
4 .00
4.00
4.00
6 . 00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
20 .00
20.00
20.00
2.00
2.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.45
0.00
5.38
5.14
5.05
0.78
0.6S
0.64
1.32
1.13
1.06
1.42
1.32
1.30
0.00
0.00
2.31
2.17
2.10
0.31
0.21
0.14
0.94
0.78
0.73
1 • 98
1.96
1.91
0.00
2.48
2.26
2.12
0.87
0. 83
0.80
1.34
1.27
1.23
3 . 07
2.97
2.92
0.00
0.00
1 0. 67
10.48
10. 10
0.86
0.76
FREE
RE SI DU AL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.18
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
HONTH DAY YE 4 R SAMPLE
MPN TC HPN rC UNFILT FILT ACHONIA SULFIOE SS VS S T UR fl PH TEMP 00 APPLIED TOTAL FREE
/10CHI /100"L COO CDO CL2 RESIDUAL RESIDUAL
yr,/L MG/L HG/L HG/L MG/L HG/L JT U "C" HG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
NJ
Ui
N)
3
°
a
g
g
8
3
8
d
8
8
a
a
8
8
8
a
8
a
3
a
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
3
7
3
3
T
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.
10
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
7 6
76
76
7 6
7 6
76
7 6
76
76
7 6
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
17
I 5
1 9
20
2 2
23
10
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 1
22
23
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
fl.
230.
5 .
17.
0 •
0.
14CO.
0 .
0 .
0.
1400.
1400.
14CO.
0 *
0 .
0.
0.
0 •
0.
1100.
110CO.
5 .
0.
0.
940.
490.
330.
790.
130.
170.
11.
2.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
160CO.
13.
7.
2.
13 CO.
330.
330.
170.
17 .
5.
33CO.
0 .
•
0.
0 .
201.
•
'J .
0.
2 '.I .
23.
S.
0.
D .
0.
n.
0.
131.
200.
0 •
0.
0.
20.
20 .
5.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
3500.
0.
0.
0.
20.
20.
H.
22.
0 .
0.
330.
55. 03
56. 34
26.60
112.90
75.04
** ** **
64.42
66.57
******
24.01
57.32
34.75
• * ** **
68.80
** ****
55.15
******
** ****
48.09
»* ****
** ****
28.70
** ****
37.07
32.25
•* ****
******
62.56
******
** ****
55.81
******
67.29
******
41.94
36 .56
42.7 1
33.33
26 • 1 7
29 6 4
25.0 1
40.33
37.33
39.56
38.87
39 .25
40.17
40.79
33 . 4 C
40.25
36.02
18.93
17.32
18.32
34.44
21.53
41.03
36.22
35.9 1
36. 3 e
35 .99
35.84
41.1 1
34.91
40.41
21.49
21.56
24.82
23 .97
21.56
23.89
25.70
36.82
36.43
41.24
42.25
41.71
33.49
40.93
41.47
39.92
33.18
1.58
1.56
1 .6 0
2.43
1 .8 5
1 36
1.05
3.51
2.31
2.03
2.11
2 .6 3
2.29
2.13
2 .1 4
2.67
2.1 4
1.30
• 4 1
.23
.75
.76
•5 2
.57
.52
.78
.5 7
.63
.26
.36
.47
0.79
0.84
0.84
1 .0 5
0.94
0.94
1.94
2.19
2.40
2.31
2.84
2.56
2.33
2.44
2.12
2.48
2.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.56
1 7. 28
14. 92
1 3. 76
5 84
5 72
5. 96
34. 20
21. 16
18. 28
7 1 7ft
£ 1 . ( O
21. 00
20. 24
2 0 60
• a ->a
I 0. co
18. 36
5.40
5. 44
5. 72
.19.88
5. 10
14. 08
13.20
1 3. 16
14.88
13. 28
13.72
12.80
13.56
13. 04
4. 76
4.80
4. 16
5* 52
5. 16
5. 40
5.54
11.80
11. 00
10.12
11.32
10.28
9.76
9.44
1 0. 76
18.68
5.00
13.24
14. 44
1 2. 16
11.40
4. 72
4 • 96
5. C4
27.36
1 6. 83
13.88
16 92
16.72
16.08
16. 60
1 5 CO
14.84
5.40
4.83
16.26
4. 30
1 1* 43
11.28
11. CO
12.04
1 0. 92
10.96
10.24
10.96
10.88
4.14
4.16
4.16
4. 76
3.96
4.64
4.52
7.36
9.20
8.52
9.68
9. C8
9.20
8.52
9. C4
8. 76
4.20
15. 0
1 5. 0
1 4. 0
14.0
5 3
5 4
6.2
21.0
1 8. 0
17 0
16 0
16.0
16. 0
17 0
17 0
17. 0
5. 6
5. 8
5.6
15.0
4.2
1 3* 0
13.0
14.0
14. 0
1 2. 0
12.0
13. 0
13.0
12. 0
4.4
4.5
4.4
4. 6
4.4
5.4
4.5
12.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11. 0
11.0
11. 0
11.0
11.0
4.8
8. 37
80C
. C.J
8 • 29
8. 31
7. 93
7.91
8.01
8.29
7 84
7.86
8. 29
8. 33
a. 32
8 20
a. is
7.85
7 no
. 00
7.40
8.33
8.43
8. 10
8.17
8.18
8.29
8. 29
8.28
8.20
8.19
8.23
7.89
7.87
7.92
7. 80
7.78
7.76
7.88
7.98
7.97
8.00
8.10
8.08
8.12
8.03
8. 12
8.03
7.95
21.3
y 1 a
C I * C
21.5
21.5
2 3. 0
22.9
23.0
21.0
91 n
€ 1. U
21*0
21.0
21 0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
22.0
99 n
C. t. U
22.0
20.0
22.0
1 9* 5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
21.0
20.0
19.9
19.9
20.0
19.9
19.9
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.8
3.3
3 6
3 2
3 .0
3 .6
3.0
3 .1
3.5
4 0
4 .1
4.2
\ a
3 .a
4.0
4.0
4 .5
4.4
3.7
4 .1
4.1
3.6
2.7
4 .5
3.7
4.1
3 .4
3.8
4 .2
3.8
3.7
4 .6
4.0
3.3
3 .1
3 .1
3.3
3.6
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1
3 .0
2.7
3.1
3 .1
2.9
3.3
2.00
4.00
4 00
4 .00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
15 0 0
15.00
15.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
5 .00
5.00
5.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
10. 00
10.00
10.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3*00
3.00
1.00
0.67
1. 29
1.19
1. 14
2. 17
2. 14
2. 10
0.00
9 43
9 . 14
8.95
0. 33
0.24
0.19
1. 76
1. 57
1.48
2.67
2L. A
• HO
'2.45
0.00
0.00
2. 62
2.57
2.52
0.26
0. 19
0.16
0.91
0.86
0.84
1.92
1.87
1.85
6. 12
5.98
5.89
0.00
2.17
2.12
2.03
0.28
0.24
0.19
0.94
0. 83
0.75
0.61
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
S3
Ui
00
ITH
6
8
8
B
a
B
a
8
a
B
a
8
8
B
8
a
e
fi
B
8
8
8
a
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
0
B
a
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
a
a
R
OAT
10
10
10
10
LO
10
10
10
10
1C
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
1 2
1 y
1 1
12
1 2
12
12
1 2
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1 7
1 £
1 ?
1 c
12
12
1 2
12
12
1 ?
1
f b
76
76
7 6
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
7ft
SAMPLE
NUMBER
22
23
10
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
1 2
i •»
1 i
14
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
10
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
2 2
23
10
1 1
12
13
14
i •;
MPN TC
/100HL
1100.
110.
940.
0.
0.
0.
33.
0.
0.
240.
5.
2.
7900.
130.
0.
3300 .
79000.
33 •
2 *
0.
3100*
1700.
2200.
4 90 *
79.
49.
7900.
7CO.
110.
79CO.
0.
0.
0.
2 7 •
2 •
2.
Z7.
0 •
5.
440 .
4 «
J.
1700.
2300.
0.
0 .
0.
9 in .
HPN "C
/I 004 L
130.
20.
20.
0.
o.
0.
?.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
170.
5.
0.
50.
200.
0 •
0 •
0.
20 •
20.
2T.
9 .
0.
0.
70.
20.
7.
40.
n.
0.
0.
(1 •
9 .
n.
9.
J .
).
11 .
T.
50.
505.
0.
3 .
0.
sn .
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
******
37.60
68.68
******
******
53.95
•* ****
** ****
52.81
** *•**
******
61.09
*• ****
** •• **
40. 16
58. 11
33.92
51.22
** ****
51.07
** ****
42.05
******
******
29.08
63.18
** ** **
** ** *fc
51. 97
57.69
** ** **
54.75
** ** **
31.82
54.96
32.45
******
ft* ** **
46.49
FILT
COO
N6/L
30.85
28.53
40.00
38.61
42.09
38.84
41.85
50.47
44.81
47.13
41.7 1
42.00
30.85
32.56
33.64
37.84
27.91
36 * 9 3
40*69
36.10
38.81
41.29
38.59
32.42
3S.2 1
41.44
38.29
36.16
23.24
38.44
42.20
39.64
42.20
ft 0 * 5 A
ft 0 » 2 ft
40.69
38.59
38,96
58,90
36.40
?*i «6 3
29.7 1
36.65
26.92
33.12
33.54
30,89
*S -7 7
AMMONIA
MG/L
1.76
1.61
3.13
0.19
0.15
0.19
3.59
2.69
2.82
2.50
2.88
3.34
1.76
1.76
1.77
3.06
2.47
2.92
2 .9 2
2.84
3 «0 8
3.01
6.00
2 .72
2.88
2.32
3.06
2.80
2.52
2.80
2.72
2.94
2.50
2 «8 6
2 »9 ft
2.94
2.96
2.90
2.98
2.48
2.38
2 .54
4.27
2.97
3.65
3.88
3.49
* -A *
SULFIDE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .O'O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n _n n
• ss
MG/L
5.28
4.32
18.28
9.24
10. 16
10-. 48
12.16
12.28
11.60
14. 28
12.32
13. 40
6.40
5.68
6.32
16.90
4. 12
1 !• 32
8« 52
8.92
1 0. 08
8.84
8.60
8* 32
7.84
8. 08
4. 04
4. 16
3.96
10.52
9.08
8. 00
9. 32
9.24
8. 76
9. 16
9.68
8*> 84
8.84
3.76
3« 68
;. 55
12. 82
2.62
9.76
8.56
8. 98
i n_ *fc
VSS
MG/L
4.36
2. C4
15.68
8.44
8.88
9.00
10.00
10.44
10.28
12.16
9.88
10. 36
5.20
4.88
5.08
13.58
3.34
9* 16
6 • 52
7.24
8. 24
6.84
6.84
6. 80
6. 32
6.52
2. 40
3.20
3.28
8.88
6.96
6.56
6.80
6 . 96
6. 60
7.16
7.96
6. 60
6.48
3. 32
3. 32
3. 28
9.30
3.C2
9.28
7.0'4
6.64
q_ s?
TUR8 PH TEMP
JTU "C"
4.8 8.02 20.7
5.0 8.01 20. 6
12.0 7.96 21.0
13.0 7.44 21.0
14.0 7.40 21.0
15. 0 7.62 21.0
12.0 8.02 21.0
11.0 8.02 21.0
11. 0 8.10 21.0
12. 0 8. 03 21.0
11.0 8.03 21.0
12. 0 8. 04 21.0
5.5 7.92 21.0
5. 9 7.90 21.0
5.5 7.93 21.0
10.0 7.88 19.5
3.7 7.92 21.5
11*0 8« 12 19*5
1 0> 0 8* 02 1 9m 0
10. 0 8. 12 19.0
1 0. 0 8. 20 19.5
8. 6 8.20 19.0
8.5 8.25 19.0
8.4 8.23 19.5
8. 5 8.20 19.5
9. 3 8.20 19.5
5. 4 8. 12 21.5
4. 7 8. 13 21.5
4.7 8. 14 21.5
11. 0 8. 00 20.0
10. 0 7.80 20.0
10. 0 7.78 20.0
10. 0 7. 82 20.0
11.0 8*06 2 0« 0
1 0* 0 8* 12 2 0* 0
11. 0 8. 16 20.0
10. 0 8. 08 20.0
1 0. 0 9.07 2 C. 0
11. 0 -8. 06 20.0
4.3 7.91 21.0
4.6 7. 99 21.0
4.2 8. 00 21.0
10.0 8.42 20.0
3. 7 7.92 20.0
8. 6 7.95 20.0
8.9 8.00 20.0
9.4 8.02 20.0
R.O fl_tn ?n _o
00.
MG/L
3.1
3 .1
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.4
3 .4
3.6
2.7
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.2
3 *3
2 «9
3.9
2 .9
3.4
3.7
3 .5
3.3
3 .9
3.3
3.2
2.7
2.6
3.6
3 .6
3.7
2.7
2 .8
2.4
2.9
3.1
3 .1
5.4
5 «3
5.8
4.0
6 .1
4.5
4.6
4.9
& -7
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
1.00
1.00
0.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
2.00
2.00
Z.OO
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
5 *00
5 »00
5.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
3 .00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
2.00
2 . 00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1 - nn
TOTAL
RESIDUAL I
NG/L
0.52
0.47
0.00
2.12
1.82
1.60
0.99
0.85
0.73
1.42
1.18
1.08
1.27
1. 18
1.08
0.00
0.00
2* 03
Ing
• yy
1.94
0. 26
0.19
0.14
0* 96
0.93
0.91
0.61
0.54
0.51
0.00
9.91
9.77
9.58
0» 98
0« 96
0.91
1.26
1.19
1.14
1.29
1. 21
1. 17
0.00
0.00
4.86
4.81
4.77
ft- 15
FREE
RESIDUA!
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.20
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0» 0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.48
0.28
0.00
0.00
o.oq
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n . ft n
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
S3
Ln
•e-
NTH
8
8
a
8
a
8
a
a
8
a
a
8
B
8
8
6
8
8
a
e
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
e
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
DAT
1 7
17
17
] J
17
17
17
17
17
17
1 7
17
17
17
17
1 7
17
17
17
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1 9
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
1 9
19
19
19
19
YEAR
7 6
76
76
7 f.
1 b
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7 6
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
10
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
MPN TC
/100ML
2 30 •
170.
230.
8 •
17.-
330.
8.
0.
1300.
0.
0 •
0.
13.
2 .
5.
11*
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
460.
7900.
2.
2.
0.
460.
460.
460.
180.
130.
23.
0.
0 •
0.
1400.
0.
0 .
0.
350.
5.
9.
240.
14 •
11.
0.
0.
0.
MPN FC
/1001L
5 0 •
20.
n .
0 .
0.
5.
0.
0.
zn.
0.
0 .
fl .
0 . -
•}.
a.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
81.
500.
9.
0.
0.
20.
20.
20.
2.
0.
0.
3.
0 •
0.
110.
0.
0.
1.
? .
0.
0.
2.
0 •
•>.
0.
0.
0.
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
51.53
*fr ****
36. 83
** ****
******
31.63
62.60
** ****
45.7*
** ****
** ** **
51,68
*» ** **
85.77
******
** ****
31.63
59. 43
25.2*
** ****
** ****
44. 64
** ** **-
** ****
66.52
** ****
** ****
45.53
** ****
25.20
76.96
******
******
56.17
******
******
47.30
•* ****
45.68
******
******
26.99
FILI
COD
MG/L
32 .23
35.50
36.09
31.63
31 .04
30.89
26.56
26.26
32.27
32.15
31 .5 6
35.27
35.35
33.86
28.66
33 .64
33.86
37.57
24.88
23.47
21.98
31.26
23.4 1
32.67
37.40
33.26
30. 08
27.94
29.56
32.45
31.41
31.41
22.17
21 • 4 3
21.58
30.60
22.76
27.94
27.42
29.05
31.78
34.15
28.97
29 .27
27.20
19.22
17.00
19.36
AHHON IA
MG/L
3 .9 9
3.83
3.65
3 .6 0
3.62
2.20
2.73
2.87
3.53
2.41
2 .2 3
2.16
3.56
3 .37
3.65
3 .4 2
3.65
3.33
i.ai
1.97
1.77
4.09
3.02
4.10
4.35
3.92
4.28
4.08.
4.41
3.76
4.26
3.94
2.34
2 .3 9
2.12
4.39
3.67
3.65
3.72
3.38
3.96
4.39
4.23
4 »2 8
3.87
1.06
0.99
1.17
SULFIDE
HG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
HG/L
9. 16
9.92
8. 84
8. 40
8.56
2. 72
3. 44
3.28
18.65
9.56
9. 16
8. 96
11.00
9.36
6.96
1 0. 28
9.24
8.12
4. 08
4.84
3.72
15.78
4.14
1 3.64
41.92
11.56
12.52
12.20
12.44
11. 72
9. 80
11.76
3.56
2. 92
3.88
24. 00
18.60
16.44
16. 72
19.08
16.24
14. 80
16.68
1 7. 68
15. 16
4.08
3.92
3. 76
VSS
HG/L
8. 04
7.80
6.92
6« 32
6.36
2.80
3.12
2.84
15.20
7.56
7 Sfi
I . 3D
7.80
9.60
7.60
5. 76
8. 16
6.64
6.60
3.80
3.68
3.72
11.64
2.72
9.96
8.8V
3. 32
9. 76
8.96
9.32
8.28
7.12
8.68
2.28
2. 32
2. 32
18.36
14.20
12.00
12. CO
13.76
12.00
10.64
12.32
1 0. 80
11.36
2.32
2.80
2.60
TURB
JTU
8. 6
9. 1
8. 7
9« 2
8.8
4. 0
3. 7
4. 1
8. 8
9.8
1 0* 0
11. 0
9.2
8.6
9. 3
9* 4
9.2
9.0
3.7
3.6
4. 2
11.0
3.6
13.0
12.0
11.0
11. 0
10. 0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11. 0
4.4
3. 5
4.0
14. 0
13. 0
12. 0
13.0
13.0
12. 0
10.0
13. 0
12. 0
11. 0
4. 2
4.1
4. 1
PH TEH"
"C-
8. 09 20*0
a. 11 20.0
8.03 20.0
8. 01 20 . 0
8.10 20.0
7.93 21.0
7.90 21.0
7.96 21.0
7.87 2C.O
7.43 20.0
7m 49 20.0
7.70 20.0
7.98 20.0
7.92 20.0
7.99 20.0
7. 91 20*0
7.95 20.0
7.93 20.0
7.52 21.0
7.60 21.0
7.49 21.0
8.27 19.0
8.09 21.0
7.95 18.5
7.98 18.5
7. 89 1 8. 0
8.12 18.5
8.18 18.5
8.16 18.5
8.03 19.0
8.06 19.0
8.12 19.0
7.78 21.0
7. 77 20. 5
7.91 20.5
8.10 19.5
7.72 19.5
7.69 19.5
7.70 19.5
8.01 19.5
8.01 19.5
8.02 19.5
8.01 19.5
8. 04 19. 5
8.02 19.5
7.61 20.5
7.72 20.5
7.65 20.5
DC
MG/L
4.8
4.9
5.0
4 8
4.6
6.3
6.5
6.4
4 .0
4.1
*y
• £.
4.3
4.0
3.8
4.2
4.1
4.3
4.0
6.5
6.4
6.5
4.5
5.8
4 .6
4.8
5.3
4 .9
4.9
5.4
4 .8
5.1
5.8
4 .9
5 .0
5.9
4.2
4.4
4.2
4 .5
4.0
4.3
4 .4
3.5
4.4
4 .3
4.6
4.8
4.8
APPLIED
CL2
MG/L
1 . 00
1.00
3.00
3 00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
30.00
30 » 00
30.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4 . 00
4.00
4.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4 .00
4.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0 28
0.23
1.02
0 97
ol93
1.67
1.57
1.53
0.00
17.59
1 7 04
16. 85
1.11
1.02
0.97
1 & A
1 . ** U
1.37
1.30
12.96
12.87
12.78
0.00
0.00
6.40
6.31
6.26
0.30
0.21
0.18
1.00
0.91
0.86
7.20
7. 01
6.82
0.00
13.46
13.18
13.08
0.93
0.89
0.84
1.21
1. 14
1.10
9.58
9.44
9.25
FREE
RESIDUAL
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OjtJO
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE A-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR SAMPLE
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
Z4 76
Z4 76
76
76
Ui
24
24
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24
24
24
24
76
76
76
76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
24 76
iMPLE
IMBER
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
2 2
23
10
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
22
23
MPN TC
/100ML
7900.
49CO.
170.
c ^
13.
3300.
2300.
2300.
2400.
240*
920.
2800.
3 30 *
130.
130CO.
2 •
0.
0.
1 1 00 •
70 •
70.
330*
49.
?3.
7 9 •
5.
0 .
NPN rC
/lOOtL
700.
330.
11 .
0.
490.
253.
tin.
170.
4.
79.
23 •
7.
940.
0.
1.
140 .
0.
75 .
0.
n.
3.
0.
UNFILT
COD
MG/L
73.03
35.05
******
63. 15
** ** **
** ***•
69.40
»* ****
65.23
•* ***•
36. 13
96.35
** ****
70.87
75.50
******
80.90
******
31.50
FILT A
COD
MG/L
34.5 1
28.06
39.99
36.13
32.42
38.68
35.36
35.36
35 • 9 0
34.35
24.55
33 .0 4
24.55
38.60
43.85
39.84
41.15
39 , 8 4
33.60
39.99
37 .67
42.36
38.37
25 • 8 6
26.87
24.55
MMONIA
NG/L
Z.40
0.72
2.78
2 13
2.50
2.24
2.76
2.26
2.ZZ
2 »2 0
Z.ll
1 .71
0*63
0.59
2.03
0.12
0.04
0.02
1 .6 1
1.79
1.93
1*87
2.74
1 .93
0.81
0.59
0 .96
SULFIOE
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0 «0 0
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 .0 0
0.00
0 • 0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ss
MG/L
32.93
6. 40
30.10
2 1 30
20.56
21.00
22. 80
24.50
19.20
2 3. 25
18.60
5.28
4. 60
6. 32
45.10
2 3. 24
23. 10
22.35
2 7. 90
25. 50
21.70
27. 20
23.50
22.70
6. 12
6.98
8.28
VSS
MG/L
28.69
6.20
27.50
1 9 90
18.20
19.12
21. 05
21.90
17.80
2 1. 40
16.80
6.12
6« 04
6. 16
41.30
2 1. 56
21.80
21.50
2 6. 85
22. 10
23.85
25. 80
21.25
21.55
6. 04
6.32
6.44
TURB
JTU
18.0
'6.2
17. 0
15. 0
16. 0
16. 0
16.0
16. 0
16.0
1 5* 0
15.0
6.7
6* 8
6.5
17. 0
1 8. 0
16.0
16. 0
15.0
1 5. 0
16.0
16*0
14. 0
15. 0
6. 7
6. 7
6. 1
PH
8.53
8. 5f
8.40
8. 35
8.34
8.46
8. 56
8.42
8.35
814
• 57
8.40
8.47
8. 50
8.54
8.50
7. 53
7.56
7.52
8* 49
8. 40
8.38
8 • 38
8. 35
8.36
8* 28
8. 28
8. 30
TEMP
"C"
20.0
19.5
'20.0
2 0« 0
20.0
20.0
2C.O
20.0
20.0
2 C* 0
20.0
20.0
20*0
20.0
21.0
21.0
Zl.O
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
Zl.O
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
00
MG/L
4.5
5.0
4.5
4 .5
3.7
4.5
4.7
3.9
4.7
3.6
4.3
5 *0
4.6
6.6
6*9
6.0
6.9
6.8
6 «7
6.9
6 .6
6 .7
6.8
5 .0
5.1
5.0
APPLIED
CL2 I
MG/L
0.00
0.00
5.00
5 .00
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
Jfifi
• uu
3.00
1.00
1*00
1.00
0.00
30 »00
30.00
30.00
2 • 00
2 »00
2.00
4 .00
4.00
4.00
2 .00
Z.OO
2.00
TOTAL
IESIOUAL 1
MG/L
0.00
0.00
2.61
2.48
2.43
0. IS
0.09
0.05
0.83
0.55
0.46
0* 39
0.32
0.00
3.21
2.89
2.39
0. 78
0. 69
0.64
1. 19
1. 10
1.01
1. 19
1.15
1. 10
FREE
(ESIDUAI
MG/L
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
On n
• u u
0.00
0.00
0*00
0.00
0.00
0*55
0.35
O.Z5
0 • 0 0
0.00
0.00
0 • 0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A ZERO FOR MPN TC AND HP N FC INDICATES A COUNT OF LESS THAN TWO PER 100 ML. DATA NOT TAKEN IS REPRESENTED BY ***. .
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF REGRESSION STATISTICS
TABLE B-l. SUMMARY OF REGRESSION STATISTICS
Figure
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
24
25
30
31
32
36
36
36
40
40
40
44
44
44
48
48
48
49
50
54
54
54
58
58
58
66
66
66
66
71
71
71
71
C-18
C-18
C-18
C-24
C-24
C-24
C-24
C-24
fl1
fl2
83
Vl
V2
V3
V4
ys
L
L2
LS
HI
H2
H3
Ji
02
03
01
02
03
01
02
03
01
02
03
01
02
fl3
01
02
03
Tl
T2
T3
T4
Ti
T2
T3
T4
Vi
V2
V3
Vi
V2
V3
V4
vs
=
=
=
Slope
0.222
0.024
0.059
0.141
0.065
0.059
0.172
1.019
0.978
0.649
0.650
4.692
-1.139
-1.807
-2.161
-1.115
-1.764
-1.811
-0.726
-0.992
-1.098
-0.881
-1.237
-1.399
0.509
0.491
0.534
0.505
0.479
0.507
0.481
0.460
0.369
0.468
0.474
0.534
0.616
0.725
0.595
0.501
0.435
0.552
0.239
0.492
0.403
0.570
0.459
0.622
18 min. contact time.
35 min. contact time.
50 min. contact time.
0 - 5 mg/1 VSS.
5 - 10 mg/1 VSS.
10 - 20 mg/1 VSS.
20 - 30 mg/1 VSS.
> 30 mg/1 VSS.
Intercept
1.381
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2.948
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.062
0.007
0.010
0.139
0.098
0.076
-0.918
0.044
0.375
0.458
-0.128
-0.140
-0.036
-0.090
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
TI
T2
T3
T4
Correlation
Coefficient
0.814
0.519
0.980
0.899
0.940
0.835
0.950
0.953
0.974
0.883
0.947
0.547
0.922
0.939
0.908
0.897
0.884
0.813
0.876
0.843
0.823
0.883
0.844
0.804
0.954
0.904
0.933
0.933
0.932
0.847
0.833
0.822
0.813
0.957
0.933
0.851
0.986
0.957
0.977
0.978
0.892
0.982
0.492
0.977
0.894
0.887
0.923
0.918
Mean Squares Degrees of Freedom
Model
322.38
8.167
54,875
364.34
77.069
63.132
537.72
95105.6
701818.
4835.39
208690.
1572.69
66.918
124.614
158.162
41.994
66.106
55.074
552.766
545.390
595.194
314.131
278.975
274.744
1032.70
10186.6
245.001
219.241
196.954
1911.03
1721.54
1557.94
460.512
742.084
1244.27
3460.08
52.435
62.071
34.860
522.585
158.864
887.625
13.342
998.400
1909.94
1049.97
2861.54
3656.13
= 0 -0.5 mg/1 NH3-N. L.
= 0.5 -1.0 mg/1 NH3-N. l\
1.0 -2.0 mg/1 NH3-N. L3
2.0 - 4.0 mg/1 NH3-N. H!
= > 4.0 mg/1 NH3-N. H2
= 0 -5 C. H3
= 5°-10°C.
= 10° - 15° C.
= > \5°C.
Error Model Error
10.951
11.096
0.754
28.615
3.375
9.127
19.386
57.630
64.161
8.219
41.242
92.178
0.302
0.445
0.905
0.363
0.743
1.410
1.042
1.627
2.110
0.721
1.259
1.862
0.610
3.896
0.674
0.605
0.554
3.868
3.940
3.861
2.035
0.788
1.371
4.328
0.046
0.132
0.043
1.D72
0.602
0.401
0.100
0.893
3.958
3.197
2.991
4.489
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
= low initial SCOD at 4.2
= low initial SCOD at
16.
15
2
3
3
3
3
3
167
585
167
585
40
39
38
37
28
25
20
161
137
134
123
89
81
167
585
54
54
54
194
193
193
116
87
134
305
31
43
39
79
68
80
17
53
121
89
166
152
C12 dose.
9 C1-, dose.
= low initial SCOD at 50.8 C12 dose.
= high initial SCOD at 4.2 C12 dose.
= high initial SCOD at 16.9 C12 dose.
= high initial SCOD at 50.8 C12 dose.
als not significant to 5 percent confidence interval
or better.
256
-------
Figure C-2.
APPENDIX C
SOLUBLE COD DATA AND EFFECTS OF VOLATILE
SUSPENDED SOLIDS ON TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL
+ 10-
= +5 _
0>
O
O
< -5.
-20 _
Figure C-l.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 0-5 mg/l volatile suspended solids on observed changes
changes in soluble COD between chlorinated and unclorinated filter-
ed lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated con-
centration.)
= +5J
o>
£
§ °-r
o
-2O _
5678 9 10
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 5-10 mg/l volatile suspended solids on observed changes
in soluble COD between chlorinated and unclorinated filtered lagoon
effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated concentration.)
257
-------
~ -ts_
Q 0_
O
CJ
CO
14 16 18 20 22 24
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
Figure C-3.
Effects of 10-30 mg/1 volatile suspended solids on observed changes
in soluble COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated filtered lagoon
effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated concentration.)
-no _
o»
_§
Q 0.
O
CJ
CO
< -5
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Figure C-4.
Effects of 0-5 mg/1 volatile suspended solids on observed changes
in soluble COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated unfiltered
lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated con-
centration.)
258
-------
+20_
+15-
o>
o o.
o
(J
CO
< -5.
-20 _
Figure C-5.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 5-10 mg/l volatile suspended solids on observed changes
in soluble COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated unfiltered
lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated con-
centration.)
tlO-
-, t5_
0>
O 0
O
(J
to
< -5
-10 _
-20_
T~
18
Figure C-6.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 10-20 mg/l volatile suspended solids on observed changes
in soluble COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated unfiltered
lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated con-
centration.)
259
-------
0
o
o
CO
20
—r~
25
—T~
27
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Figure C-7. Effects of 20-30 mg/l volatile suspended solids on observed changes
in soluble COD between chlorinated an unchlorinated unfiltered
lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated con-
centration.)
O
o
o
Figure C-8.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 30-60 mg/l volatile suspended solids on observed changes
in soluble COD between chlorinated and unchlorinated unfiltered
lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated con-
centration.)
260
-------
+20-
O 0 - _
o
CO
< -5_
• • *
Figure C-9,
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 5-10 mg/l volatile suspended at chlorine dosages of 0-2
mg/l on observed changes in soluble COD between treated and untreated
filtered lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated minus untreated
concentration.)
Q 0.
O
o
in
< -5.
-20 _
Figure C-10.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 5-10 mg/l volatile suspended solids at chlorine dosages
of >2 mg/l on observed changes in soluble COD between treated and
untreated filtered lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated
minus untreated concentration.)
261
-------
„ +5 _
•^
0>
Q 0-
o
—T~
21
—T~
23
—I—
26
—I—
28
Figure C-ll.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 20-30 mg/l volatile suspended solids at chlorine dosages
of 0-2 mg/l on observed changes in soluble COD between treated and
untreated unfiltered lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated
minus untreated concentration.)
Q 0_
O
O
co
< -sj
28
30
Figure C-12.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
Effects of 20-30 mg/l volatile suspended solids at chlorine dosages
of 2-4 mg/l on observed changes in soluble COD between treated and
untreated unfiltered lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated
minus untreated concentration.)
262
-------
0>
O 0
o
(J
tn
< -5-1
-TT
23
—T~
24
—T~
26
25 26 27
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l)
30
Figure 0-13.
Effects of 20-30 mg/l volatile suspended solids at chlorine dosages
of >4 mg/l on observed changes in soluble COD between treated and
untreated unfiltered lagoon effluent samples. (ASCOD = treated
minus untreated concentration.)
o
Q
UJ
tt
to
Q
Q
UJ
Q
UJ
Q. 5-
UJ
-1
I-
§
Figure C-14.
FREE CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Volatile suspended solids reduction from untreated to treated
unfiltered lagoon effluent samples with respect to free chlorine
residual.
263
-------
I-
o
0-5mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
R = 692, Y = u 435X
5 10 15
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/1)
Figure C-15.
Total chlorine residual after application of chlorine dosage using
filtered lagoon effluent at 0-5 mg/1 volatile suspended solids
concentration.
i-
o
K
3- 10 mg/1 VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
R = .982 , Y = 0.552 X
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-16.
Total chlorine residual remaining after application of chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluent at 5-10 mg/1 volatile^
suspended solids concentration.
264
-------
< 10 •
o
UJ
or
o:
o
x
O
> 10 mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
R = 492, Y = 0 239 X
5 10 15
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-17.
Total chlorine residual remaining after application of chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluent at >10 mg/l volatile sus-
pended solids concentration.
in
UJ
a:
0-5 mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS, R=892
5-10 mg/l " " " , R=.982
>IOmg/l " " " , R--.492
I
5 10 15
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-18.
Summary of volatile suspended solids concentration effects on the
relationship between total chlorine residual and applied chlorine
dosage using filtered lagoon effluents.
265
-------
or
o
0-5mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
R = 977, V = 0 492 X
12 18 24
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-19.
Total chlorine residual remaining after application of chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent at 0-5 mg/l volatile
suspended solids concentration.
0> 15 •
o
-------
f >H
o
i-
10-20 mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
R = 887, V = 0 570X
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-21. Total chlorine residual remaining after application of chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent at 10-20 mg/l volatile
suspended solids concentration.
Q
V>
tu
z
_
i
o
i-
o
K
20-30 mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
R = 923, Y = 0 459X
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-22.
Total chlorine residual remaining after application of chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent at 20-30 mg/l volatile
suspended solids concentration.
267
-------
• 0-5 mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
•5-10 mg/l " '' "
• 10-20 mg/l
• 20-30 mg/l
- > 30 mg/l
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-23.
Total chlorine residual remaining after application of chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent at >30 mg/l volatile
suspended solids concentration.
I-
o
> 30 mg/l VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
R = .318, Y = 0.622 X
' 1 1 1-
12 18 24
APPLIED CHLORINE DOSE (mg/l)
Figure C-24.
Summary of volatile suspended solids concentration effects on the
relationship between total chlorine residual and applied chlorine
dosage using unfiltered lagoon effluent.
268
-------
APPENDIX D
COLIFORM REDUCTION DATA
2
CD
O
18 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.804, Y=-.9l8x-.330
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-l. Total coliform removal efficiency, using filtered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 18 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
35 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R = .824, Y=-l574x - ,802
9
O
O
I 2
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-2. Total coliform removal efficiency, using filtered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 35 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
269
-------
50 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
= .667, Y=-I.SIO»- .408
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-3. Total coliform removal efficiency, using filtered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 50 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
o
O
I 2 3
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-4. Summary of total coliform removal efficiency, using filtered*
lagoon effluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at
various chlorine contact times without forced zero intercepts.
270
-------
2
O
O
18 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.75I, Y=-.790x- 471
1 | I
I 2 3
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-5. Fecal coliform removal efficiency, using filtered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 18 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
35 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R = .787, Y=-l.357x - .565
1 1
2 3
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-6. Fecal coliform removal efficiency, using filtered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 35 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
271
-------
50 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.697, Y=-U93x-.93l
2 3
TOTAL CHLORINE RESJDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-7. Fecal coliform removal efficiency, using filtered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 50 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
I
I
18 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R = .75I
35 " " " , R=.787
50 " " " ,R=.697
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-8. Summary of fecal coliform removal efficiency, using filtered"
lagoon effluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at
various chlorine contact times without forced zero intercepts.
272
-------
g
CD
q
18 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.727, Y=-.529x- .701
4 6
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-9. Total coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 18 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
2
&
o
35 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.660, Y=-.652x - 1.284
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-10. Total coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 35 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
273
-------
ID
O
50 MINUTE CONTROL TIME
R=.653, Y = -.654x-.997
4 6
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-ll. Total coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 50 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
18 WIN. CONTACT TIME, R=.727
35 " " " , R = .6BO
50 " " " , R = .653
4 6
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-12. Summary of total coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltersed
lagoon effluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at
various chlorine contact times without forced zero intercepts.
274
-------
z
x.
z
18 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R=.722, Y=-.640« - .589
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-13. Fecal coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 18 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
z
9
35 MINUTE CONTACT TIME
R = .663, Y=-.858x-1.090
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-14. Fecal coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 35 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
275
-------
4 6
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-15. Fecal coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltered lagoon ef-
fluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at 50 minutes
of chlorine contact without a forced zero intercept.
18 MIN. CONTACT TIME, R=.722
35 " " " , R=.662
50 " " " , R=.680
TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUAL (mg/l)
Figure D-16. Summary of fecal coliform removal efficiency, using unfiltered
lagoon effluent, as a function of total chlorine residual at
various chlorine contact times without forced zero intercepts.
276
-------
APPENDIX E
LAGOON EVALUATION DATA
JUNE 1, 1975 - AUGUST 24, 1976
1000-
Grob Sample
" 6:00-8:00 AM"
_Grob Sample
6:00-10:00 AM"
- 24 HR. COMPOSITE SAMPLE -
100-
V*
o
o
0
TJ
o
o
o
CD
10-
1
\
1 .
i A
\ /,
i ,* \
\ 1
r*l
1 rl,
flM/to / S t
" 'l\/ U ** * / A
I! n !i> * / T *\ ' \
^CW^^^k
in ' \/
\l I R * -
• BOD
i A Total COD (Unfiltered)
• Soluble COD (Filtered)
SEPT
OCT NOV
1975
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
l
APR MAY
1976
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure E-l. BOD and COD at sample station No. 1 (influent).
-------
1000 -i
100 -
Q
O
O
00
O
O
m
10 -
hFlow reduced to »U
a trickle
BOD
Total COD (Unfiltered)
Soluble COD (Filtered)
Flow started again
h
V
.,
\
r
SEPT
OCT NOV
1975
DEC
I I
JAN FEB MAR
I I
APR MAY JUNE
JULY
AUG
1976
Figure E-2. BOD and COD at sample station No. 9 (final effluent).
-------
>£>
10.0 -i
9.0 -
8.0 -
7.0-
^ 6.0 H
o>
£
5.0 -
ro
X
4.0 -
3.0 -
2.0 -
1.0 -
• S lotion # I
~-A Stolion * 9
I I I III
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
r r
JAN FEB MAR
1975
T
APR MAY JUNE
1976
JULY AUG
Figure E-3. NH -N, sample stations No. 1 and No. 9.
-------
24 hr. Composite Sample-
OO
O
100 -i
Station # I SS
Station * I VSS
Station # 9 SS
Station # 9 VSS
I I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV
DEC I JAN
i i
FEB MAR APR MAY
JUNE JULY AUG
1975
Figure E-4. SS and VSS sample stations No. 1 and No. 9.
1976
-------
N5
00
O 30-,
o
LJ
Q; 25 -
20 -
UJ
I- 15
•O
O
— 10-
CP
O
O
5 -
10.0 -
X
a.
9.0 -
8.0 -
7.0
DO
Temperature
pH
\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-5. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 1.
-------
00
N3
3O -i
O
£- 25 -
Ul
(T
IX
UJ
0.
UJ
I-
•o
20
15 -
10 -
o
o
10.0
9.0-
8.0-
7.0
pH
i i r i i i i i i i r i \ \
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
» Figure E-6. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 2.
-------
30 -i
N3
OO
o
o
UJ 25 -
ce
20H
UJ
0.
UJ 15
10 -
o>
E
5-\
10.0 -I
8.0 -
7.0
pH
I I I T I I I I I I I I [
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-7. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 3.
-------
30 -i
00
O
o
LL) 25
£T
55
tr
LJ
O.
20 -
QJ 15 -
10
o>
O
Q
5 -
10.0 -
9.0 -
8.0-
7.0
pH
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-8. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 4.
-------
30 -i
C» '
Ui
O
e
UJ 25
tr
oc 20 ~
UJ
Q.
UJ 15
l-
T3
O 10
O
Q
10.0 -
8.0 -
7.0
\ I I I I I I I I I I I I \
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-9. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 5.
-------
ro
oo
O
o
CE
UJ
Q.
30 -
25-
15 -
-Z 10-
•v
o>
Ǥ 5 -
O
Q
10.0 -
9.0 -
8.0 -
7.0
T I I I I I I I I I I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-10. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 6.
-------
NJ
00
-•j
o 3°-«
e
Ul
25-
g] 20H
Q.
UJ
15 -
10-
O
O
10.0 -
9.0 -
8.0 -
7.0
PH
I I 1 I T I \ } I I I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-ll. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 7.
-------
N3
00
00
O
o
30 -i
I 25
tr 20
UJ
Q.
15 -
•o
c
0 10
O
O
10.0 -
9.0 H
8.0-
7.0
pH
i i i' i i i i i i i i i n i
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AU6
1975
1976
Figure E-12. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 8.
-------
CO
co
7.0
I \ I I I 1 I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-13. Seasonal temperature, DO, and pH at sample station No. 9.
-------
VD
O
9 —1
8 H
o
o
3 6
O
O
O
O
cr
o
5 H
4 H
o
O 3
MPN TOTAL
MPN FECAL
" I I I I I 1 I I I I ~~
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY
AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-14. Seasonal MPN collform counts at sample station No. 1.
-------
9 —i
Q
§ 7
in
'c
O
O
O
6 —
5 —
or 4
o
O
O
3 —
I
• MPN TOTAL
A MPN FECAL
I I I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
1975
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1976
Figure E-15. Seasonal MPN coliform counts at sample station No. 2.
-------
(-0
o
o
9 —i
8 —
7 —
in
I 6
O
o
o
O
O
CD
o
5 —
3 —
2 -
I —
MPN TOTAL
MPN FECAL
\ "\\\\\\\\\\\ I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-16. Seasonal MPN coliform counts at sample station No. 3.
-------
K>
VO
9 —1
8 —
E
O 7
O
o
O
6 —
CO
I 5
O
O
4 —
O
<-> 3
Z
Q.
§ 2-
\ —
• MPN TOTAL
A MPN FECAL
I T
JUNE JULY AUG
SEPT OCT
1975
NOV DEC
1 I I I I 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY
1976
AUG
Figure E-17. Seasonal MPN coliform counts at sample station No. 4.
-------
9 —1
8 —
I T
O
o
O
6 —
o
o
o:
s
3
O 2 -
I
• MPN TOTAL
A MPN FECAL
I 1 I I I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
1975
I I
1 I
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1976
Figure E-18. Seasonal MPN coliform counts at sample station No. 5.
-------
N>
-------
N>
VO
MPN TOTAL
MPH FECAL
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
1976
JUNE
JULY
\
AUG
Figure E-20. Seasonal MPN coliform counts at sample station No. 7.
-------
NJ
VO
E
O
o
^
to
T:
3
o
O
o
o
(T
O
O
O
8 —
7 —
6 —
• MPN TOTAL
A MPN FECAL
I I
JUNE JULY
APR MAY
1976
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure E-21. Seasonal MPN coliform counts at sample station No, 8.
-------
OO
E
O
o
o
o
CO
H
Z
O
O
5
o:
o
o
o
9 —
8 —
7 —
5 —
4 —
3 —
2 —
_FLOW REDUCED_
~TO A TRICKLE ~
FLOW STARTED
"AGAIN
• MPN TOTAL
A MPN FECAL
1 T
JUNE JULY
AUG
1975
APR MAY
1976
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure E-22. Seasonal MPN coliform counts at sample station No. 9.
-------
to
^D
VO
9 -i
8 -
7 —
E
O
O
c
3
O
O
OT 5
z
O
O
4
O 3
O
LL.
§ 2
I —
• MF TOTAL
A MF FECAL
JUNE JULY
AUG SEPT OCT
1975
NOV
DEC
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE
1976
JULY AUG
Figure E-23. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 1.
-------
LO
O
O
Q
8 —
o
o
, c
o
O
CO 5 —
4 —
O
O
IT
O
O
O 2
o
I —
• MF TOTAL
A MF FECAL
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
1975
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1976
Figure E-24. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 2.
-------
9 —i
g
7 —
o
o
v.
in
§ 6
o
O
£ 5
O
o
4 —
o:
o
o
o
2 —
I —
• MF TOTAL
A MF FECAL
I I
I
I I
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT HOV DEC
1975
T
I I
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1976
Figure E-25. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 3.
-------
9 —1
£
O
O
o
O
(rt
I-
H
O
O
a:
o
o
o
• UF TOTAL
A MF FECAL
JUNE
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1976
Figure E-26. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 4.
-------
OJ
o
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC I JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1975
1976
Figure E-27. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 5.
-------
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT OCT
1975
NOV
DEC
JAN FEB
MAR
APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
1976
Figure E-28. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 6.
-------
U)
o
Ln
JUNE
AUG
Figure E-29. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 7.
-------
OJ
o
• MF TOTAL
A MF FECAL
AUG
JUNE JULY
AUG SEPT OCT
1975
Flgure E_30.
a,
8.
-------
CO
o
FLOW STARTED
AGAIN
FLOW REDUCED
TO A TRICKLE
JUNE
AUG
Figure E-31. Seasonal membrane filter coliform counts at sample station No. 9.
-------
TABLE E-l
MONTH DAY YEAR
00
o
00
6
6
is
fc
»,
IS
6
m
^
fc
6
A
iS
fc
>>
A
f.
A
6
%
*,
iS
h
iS
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
*,
«i
«,
6
6
6
IS
«,
6
S
6
,
910.
940.
"3.
230.
MPN FC MF TC
/100ML /100ML
1100000.2200000.
2300. 8600.
93. 340.
?3. 38.
3. 2.
23000.1000000.
39000. 16000.
300. 3500.
150, 3000.
43. 64.
230.. 7.
43, 45.
4. 7.
3. 3.
430000. 570000.
4300. 13000.
230. 2300.
90. 64.
30, 4«.
23. 1.
230, 6.
3. 2.
3. 0.
2400000.1300000.
23000. 9600.
150. 0.
40. 6.
4. 0.
4. 0.
23. 1.
3. 0.
7. 0.
910000,1400000.
100. 3600,
90. 17.
30. 1.
3. 1.
4. 2.
9. 1.
3. 0.
4. 0.
910000.1800000.
1500. 22000.
24000. 1.
90. 27.
43. 11.
15! i!
MF FC BODS LJNFILT FILT
/100ML COO COO.
MG/L Mc/t MG/L
2700.
170.
31.
3400.
4000.
140.
14.
90.
39.
3.
100000, ****** ****** 17.18
2200.
200.
48.
1.
7.
130.
1.
1700.
80.
15.
7.
1.
12.
o.
530000. 13.68 ****** 13.99
50.
44.
16.
0.
5.
1.
0.
2. ****** 39.43 *****
8800.
0.
120.
29.
27^
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
****
42.
45.
49.
22.
4.
12.
28.
***** 34,
2,28 16.
38.
45!
44.
7.
12.
8.
3.16 7.
***** 15,
26.
14.
13.
6.
7.
l!
***** 7,
2,04 14.
12!
17.
14.
9,
7«
78
22
68
12
60
80
20
40
80
55
00
70
60
85
77
20
23
09
63
23
23
83
46
54
31
49
97
60
29
vss
MG/L
16.98
32.41
29.61
11.90
2.94
3.75
24.20
21.60
11.20
12.30
13.90
33.90
32,75
4.60
5.40
4.75
3.00
14.49
25.04
11.49
8.17
5.89
5.71
4.97
3.29
4.20
11.17
30,70
11.57
14.00
6.57
4.9fl
TURB
JTU
**
**
****
4
15
8
7
9
9
6
7
5
19
8
17
15
12
.*>
.0
.9
.9
.1
.2
.7
|4
.4
.5
.3
.0
.0
.0
PH
* * * *
7.12
7.50
7, 15
7,20
7.13
7.29
7.28
7.26
7.20
7.50
7.90
7.70
6.10
7.90
fl , 1.0
TEMP
H Q n
****
****
****
12.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
DO
MG/L
*** *
****
****
5.5
0.9
0.8
1.0
1 .2
2.3
2.5
-------
TABLE F-l. CONTINUED
MOMH DAY
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NIJMBF.R /100ML /100ML
MF TC MF FC
/100ML /10n«L
3005 UNFILT FILT
COD COO
AMMONIA SS VSS TUR8 PH TfKP DC
MG/L MG/L JTU "C" MG/L
LO
O
6
*
A
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
25
25
3?
30
30
30
3P
30
30
30
30
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
q
q
Q
1"
14
1"
ta
ia
ia
ia
16
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7?
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
8
9
1
2
3
u
5
6
7
8
0
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
1
a
5
6
7
8
5
!
3
a
7
Q
2
R
0
a
230.
4600noo|
43000.
300.
70.
90.
23.
430.
75.
1500000.
23000.
"90!
JO.
3.
230.
9.
aaoooooi
4300.
9300,
40.
200.
39,
90.
93!
1500000.
900.
a300.
70.
24000.
jan]
930.
750.
11000000.
4300.
0.
4300.
9400.
150.
150.
4600.
230.
600000.
23
750000
4300
300
30
30
a
30
3
1500000
9300
300
30
30
3
30
9
9
930000
1500
400
30
30
23
30
3
9
930000
300
300
30
30
3
30
3
11000000
4300
40
30
30
5
450000
7.
. 1800000.
19000.
12.
3.
. 12.
0.
0.
0.
2.
. 1300000.
, 1 1000.
• 2 .
12.
12.
1.
16.
0.
4.
.2300000.
2400.
. o.
9.
o.
10.
1".
o.
o.
,1600000.
900.
15.
. r 3 .
12.
3.
1.
7.
4.
.2400000.
. 1800.
0.
• 6 .
15.
11.
1.
0.
15.
.1900000.
8.
570000. 11.70 ****** *****
3900.
150.
a]
2.
10.
0.
1300,
91.
10.
2.
1.
6.
0.
76000. 10.80 74,50 14,80
?50.
280.
33.
1.
13!
1.
0. ****** 36.20 34.80
760000. 10,70 ****** q.qo
260.
170.
24.
1.
4.
3!
1200000. 24.00 55.10 20.1"
440.
0.
12.
3.
o!
i.
460000.
9.91
3.22 12. 9U
4.66 1 t ,00
33.04
3.77
5J80
4.74
8,83
3.79 n.*83
******
1,74 22.11
21 .55
4.57
10.54
4.17
3.74
8.*80
2.55 8.86
***** 10.37
1.79 16.70
******
8.54
4.37
5.34
11.40
32.88
4.86
8.31
4.77
4.89
5.66
5.09
20.43
21 .44
5.37
10,54
4, 34
3i91
7.26
7.46
9,40
13,69
9,46
14.5
15.0
3.2
15.0
7J9
6.8
7.5
n!o
13|o
6.8
4.8
6,6
5.7
5.0
7,1
6.2
3.4
6.8
****
8.10 17.0
8.10 17.0
8,18 ****
7.50 14,0
8,38 23,0
7.70 25.0
7.93 24. fl
7.83 25.0
8.00 25.0
3.25 25.0
8.20 25.0
8.10 25.0
7.^0 m.o
2.9
2.5
****
****
7.4
i!<-
1.3
3!?
10.4
9.?
5.4
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
*
8
g
ft
8
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
2ft
28
28
28
28
2*
28
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
4
4
U
U
4
75 2
75 3
75 4
75 5
75 6
75 7
75 8
75 9
75 t
75 2
75 3
75 4
75 5
75 6
75 7
75 8
75 9
75 1
75 2
75 3
75 4
75 5
75 6
75 7
75 8
75 9
75 1
75 2
75 3
75 4
75 5
75 6
75 7
75 «
75 1
75 2
75 3
75 4
75 5
75 6
75 7
75 8
75 9
75 1
75 Z
75 3
75 a
75 5
: MPN TC
! /lOOMt
15000.
460000.
280.
2UOOO.
930.
130.
150.
2aoo.
1500000.
900.
13000.
210.
110000.
750.
210.
4600.
4600.
430000.
2300.
9300.
2300.
46000,
1500,
4300.
750.
1500,
2400000.
2300.
300.
40.
2100.
1500.
7500.
11000.
230000.
2300.
2300.
90.
2300.
430.
24000.
11000,
11000,
930000.
000.
400.
4300.
43000.
MPN FC
/100ML
1500.
300.
30.
JO,
"3.
30.
3.
5,
750000,
400.
400.
40.
30.
9.
30.
3.
7.
430000.
300.
2300,
JO,
30.
9.
38.
3.
3.
2400000.
400,
300,
30.
30.
23.
30.
3.
93000.
400.
300,
40.
30.
430.
40.
4.
4.
430000.
300.
300.
760.
30.
MF TC
/100ML
4300.
2,
9.
34.
19.
16.
0.
0.
1700000.
1500.
0.
20.
0.
49.
29.
10.
16.
1400000.
600.
5.
32.
17.
St.
IT.
5.
35.
1700000.
2700.
21.
20.
2.
59.
45.
4.
800000.
2000.
0.
20.
25.
50.
22.
4.
0.
1400000,
1200.
46.
2.
91.
MF FC BODS UNFILT FILT
/100ML COO COO
MG/L MG/L 1G/L
500.
220.
t».
2.
24.
2.
0.
1. ****** ****** *****
200.
1100.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
120.
1600.
40.
6,
45.
3.
1.
160.
0.
10.
7.
34.
13.
480000. 12.30 33.50 *****
200.
67.
8,
0.
30,
37.
2.
2. ****** ****** *****
440000. ****** ****** *****
96.
100.
360.
18.
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
******
•
******
******
******
-
******
***** 6,06
******
******
******
******
******
******
***** ******
***** ******
vss
MG/L
*****
*****
*****
5,06
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
TUHB
JTU
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
PH
A, 64
8.70
8.15
8.16
8.23
8.23
8.22
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
TEMP
"C"
22.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** **
****
****
00
MG/L
19.?
7.4
8.1
2.8
2."
4.5
3.8
3.3
****
****
*** *
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
***»
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMBER /100ML /100ML
MF TC MF FC
/100ML /100ML
BOD5 UNFILT FILT
COD COO
MG/L MG/L
AMMONIA SS VSS TURB PN TEMP DO
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "C" MG/L
U>
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
8
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
«
A
8
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
U
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
11
11
11
11
11
U
11
11
11
15
15
(3
13
13
13
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
10
10
21
21
21
21
21
21
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7S
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7S
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
6
7
8
a
1
2
5
a
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
o
1
3
4
5
7
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t
2
3
5
6
7
8
24000.
46000.
24000.
1500000.
2300.
500.
430,
43000.
750.
1500.
15000.
46000.
030000.
15000.
000.
030.
03000.
750.
0400.
4300.
7500.
750000,
2500,
1100,
2500.
9400,
0500,
2300.
24000,
4300,
430000.
400,
1500.
40.
200.
7500.
00.
0300.
0300,
030000.
2300.
400.
150.
1200.
4300.
030,
150,
03.
50.
5.
25.
2400000.
400.
300.
30.
«o,
43.
50.
5.
23.
430000.
2300.
400,
70.
00.
45.
00.
50.
4.
05000.
500,
500.
230,
450,
50.
110.
5.
0.
250000.
500.
500.
30.
30.
430.
30.
3.
3.
050000.
2500.
500.
30.
30.
03.
30.
23.
15.
0.
10.
37.
1200000.
1200.
12o!
4,
1.
o.
o.
o.
710000.
1100.
2.
o.
o.
0.
8.
0.
10.
850000.
1600.
3,
0.
51.
2l
«i !
320000.
200.
o!
0.
0.
1.
o.
«9000o|
2200.
1.
0.
o,
o,
0.
13.
32.
11.
0.
0. 7,ao 12.20 2.16
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
• *
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
220000. 7.58 45.06 78.34
550.
300.
240.
81.
168.
45.
3.
130000. 6.35 51,03 7.56
75,
102.
52.
50.
128.
260.
6.
200000. 7.55 20. Jl 12.65
540.
81.
28.
IBo!
1 ^ 0 •
2ti
1.05 6.57
******
******
******
0.77 6.51
1.16 5.03
40.00
6.31
57.67
46.60
32.50
52.47
30.14
***** 15.51
6,37 **** 7. BO
***** **** ft .69
***** **** fl t 52
***** **** 6,99
6.17 **** 7.54
d,fe9 **** 7,65
***** **** 9 , ii?
14,17 **** 7,50
****
15.0
21.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
21 .0
22.0
22.0
15.5
21.0
22.0
22,0
22.5
22,0
21.0
2U5
15.5
20.5
21.5
21.0
22.0
21 .0
2l!s
21.0
16.0
20.5
20.5
20.5
21.0
20.5
20.0
20,0
20.0
16.5
10.5
10.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
10.5
****
5.3
****
2.0
12.7
4.6
fe.fl
6.2
14.2
13.1
4.7
20.0
20.0
15.6
8.1
11.0
20.0
20.0
13.7
4.b
3.8
2.6
13.?
A. 5
7.4
9^4
11.6
4.0
5.4
4.2
6.0
12.4
10.0
1.0
8.0
8.6
4.6
4.0
7.6
7.3
15.4
n.o
1.0
7.2
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH 0»Y YEAH
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUM8E" /100MU /100ML
MF TC MF FC
/100ML /100ML
BOD5 UNFILT FILT AMMONIA
COD COO
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
ss
VSS TURB PH TEMP DO
MG/U MG/L JTU
00
8
9
9
8
8
9
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
A
8
8
Q
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
*9
9
21
26
26
2*
26
26
26
26
?6
26
29
29
29
28
29
29
?9
29
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
u
a
u
a
a
a
u
a
16
16
16
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
9
1
2
3
u
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
9
1
2
?
4
5
6
7
B
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A
9
1
3
3
4300.
430000,
4300,
9300,
210.
15000,
280.
430.
11000,
1500.
930000.
2300.
930,
210.
110.
2300,
75.
4300,
930000.
640,
9300,
40.
750.
930.
93.
2400.
7500.
230000.
930.
3900,
40,
280.
390,
28.
2400.
2300.
750000.
230.
2300.
150.
930.
930.
43.
4600,
640.
93000.
1500.
24000r
«.
75000.
750.
230.
9.
«o.
3.
23.
9,
30.
93000.
230.
40.
30.
30,
40.
20.
"0.
430000.
90.
750.
30.
90.
30.
15.
23.
90.
230000.
70.
930.
40.
30.
40.
15.
15.
30.
75000.
230.
40.
23.
230.
30.
4.
4.
30.
23000.
430.
230.
0.
520000.
550,
37.
34.
61.
27.
21.
17.
31.
62.
430,
91.
2.
46.
46.
24.
9.
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
460000.
220.
570.
53.
73.
33.
0.
40.
50.
540000.
280.
390,
20.
33.
67.
20.
0.
0.
640000.
340.
590.
5.
12.
150.
99.
11.
21.
0.
15.
26,
16.
9.
67.
45.
50.
46.
59.
150.
10.
150000.
100.
740.
37,
11.
0.
10.
34.
21.
80000.
93.
180.
15.
15.
7.
4.
U.
10.
150000.
60.
96.
41.
93.
B.
5.
6.
1.
87000.
124.
100.
****** ****** *****
9.49 19.63 5.00
,52 42,08 8, 90
6.11 71,52 5.88
****** ****** *****,
4.82 20.49 8.58
****** ****** *****
8 06 24 52 9 05
***** ******
0.94 7.00
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
0.52 6.28
******
******
******
***** ******
0.44 6.24
******
******
******
******
******
******
***** ******
OCA 1. Ci.
******
******
*****
8.31
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
7.72
*****
*****
*****
*****
7.06
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
7/1 n
*****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
**•'*
****
****
8
7
8
9
9
9
8
8
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
9
9
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A
g
Q
i
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
t
t
t
•
•
t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
^u
87
57
42
31
00
22
89
3S
29
00
30
05
83
15
24
16
73
60
17
•50
ao
28
26
43
as
OR
59
0
5
5
0
s
5
5
0
0
0
n
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
/
a
7
13
11
9
a
9
6
11
0
j?
••,
15
1
11
9
5
6
1
2
10
10
1
7
8
**
.S
.7
,u
.
."
.3
.4
.7
.8
."
.?
.*
.5
.''
.5
.
.8
.2
.6
. '
• n
.1
.4
.4
.6
.4
. o
.9
,7
.0
.0
.5
.9
.2
.9
.9
.0
. 7
.3
**
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
U>
Q
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
16
16
1*
16
18
18
16
18
18
18
18
IS
18
25
33
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
?5
?5
30
50
30
30
30
30
30
3P
JO
a
2
2
2
2
2
75
T5
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
7?
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
SAMPLE
NUMBER
a
5
7
ft
1
z
3
a
5
6
7
g
1
3
a
«;
6
7
8
e.
1
3
4
5
6
7
a
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q
j
2
5
11
5
ft
MPN TC
/100ML
930.
210.
i 3 ft n
1 eU n .
U30.
/I T A
130 ,
Q I A
950 ,
930000.
4300.
13000.
93.
1500.
1200.
2400.
3 1 ft
ClO«
QIC
** J\i •
saoonoo.
flxo
*• -3U •
39000.
230.
90.
1500.
23.
21.
3Tft
C JU »
430000,
i 3ft ft rt
1 C V V v f
210000.
p-tfl
e ju .
210.
210.
43.
750.
150
150000o|
21000 ,
U3000.
1600.
930,
930.
2100.
130.
930,
1500000.
24000,
?YOfl
C J v V .
2100.
90.
750.
MPN FC
/100ML
75.
30.
11 ft
10,
".
4.
1 ft
30,
930000.
2300.
230.
43.
30,
10.
15.
p T
*•*«
in
id .
130000,
ATA
** JU .
1300,
93.
(10,
30.
4.
<».
T A
3U,
93000.
7BA
?3U ,
9300,
ql
^J.
."0.
30.
«.
9.
30
U3000o|
21000
90,
230.
30.
30.
90.
23.
30
JV ,
150000,
130 ,
2300
23o!
30.
30.
MF TC
/100ML
55.
35.
T A
7O.
8.
v 5
32.
4 i
16.
680000,
780,
250.
8.
80,
60.
10.
•
•
1200000.
xt
j j t
820.
8.
18,
13.
0.
0.
£
59000o!
a 1 ft
~ 1 u •
710.
1 A ft
1 U v |
81.
0.
«,
3.
j
63000o!
610 ,
770,
8.
«o.
».
10.
2",
»
730000 »
3900
70 0
17fl!
18.
18.
MF FC B005 UNFILT FILT
/100ML COD COO
MG/L MS/L MG/L
20.
6.
11
1 .
8.
.
2_ AAAAAA * 4 A A * ^ * <( * # fc
150000. 13.28 26.97 7.45
110.
31.
IT,
10.
10.
9.
•
530000, 13.28 32.98 7.62
OA
" •
0.
49.
14.
1.
1.
6.
13000o! 12.52 38,96 7.87
7 ft ft
f V « H
0.
1 t ft
1 I v t
12.
1.
0.
0.
210000. 11.04 13.96 3.82
3300 .
740.
260.
0.
5,
13.
4.
130000 ^ * * * ^ * *AAAAA itihftfti
870,
QA
*e,
130,
3.
3.
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
*****
*****
*****
*****
0.56 11.26
******
******
******
******
******
******
0.79 10.60
****
****
****
****
****
****
0,69 8,85
******
******
******
******
******
0.94 7.12
******
******
******
******
******
******
***** ******
******
******
******
vss
MG/L
*****
*****
*****
* ^ it t *
9.80
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
9,00
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
8,16
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
6,12
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
TURB
JTU
****
****
***«
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
* * * *
****
****
****
PH
8.40
9.10
91 ft
• 1 U
9.32
A. 97
8.09
8.79
8.35
9.18
9,00
9.13
93 ft
• CM
9D T
.27
7.91
8ft 1
• U -5
9.15
8.22
9.22
9. on
8.92
9.08
91 ft
,10
8,00
8 A T
,0-5
9.10
9* C
. 15
9.28
8.90
8.82
9.0)
803
. *£
7.92
7 AD
1 f O U
8.85
7.86
9.10
8,61
8.64
8,80
87 C
,75
****
****
****
TEMP
• C«
****
****
****
lfr.0
17.5
17.5
18.0
18.0
18,0
17.0
17 ft
17.0
10 ft
I1*. 0
15.0
4 i fl
1 O • U
15.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
* i ft
1 o » 0
15.0
H <• ft
4 P » 0
16.0
4 i A
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
16.0
1 & A
ln.0
16.0
4 t ft
i " f W
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
16.0
* y ft
16,0
****
****
** * *
00
MG/L
****
****
****
* * * *
5.3
4.1
14.2
2.4
10.8
16.3
17.4
13 w
12.7
t it ••
11.3
5.5
2T
. i
2.0
l.o
10.2
8.8
1.*
3.9
UQ
.8
4.7
1.6
15.7
0.4
12.8
8."
o.e
3.1
«•»
.3
4.9
2 A
. °
8.7
1.3
8.2
3.?
1.2
5.1
2,9
****
****
****
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMBER /100ML /100ML
MF TC MF FC BOOS UNFILT F1LT
/100ML /100ML COD COD
MG/L MG/L MG/L
AMMONIA S8 VSS TURB PH TEMP DO
MG/U
MG/L
JTU
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
in
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
to
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
« 10
10
9
9
q
14
lit
14
14
10
14
Id
14
1
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMPER /100ML /100ML
OJ
I—'
Ln
MF TC MF FC BPR5 UNF1LT FILT
/100ML /lOOMt COD COO
HG/L *IG/L 1G/L
AMMONIA SS VSS TURB PH TEMP 00
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "c» MG/L
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1"
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
U
n
n
11
11
11
11
n
n
u
u
11
1!
11
11
11
11
11
11
U
11
11
11
11
28
28
28
28
26
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
U
a
a
a
u
u
u
a
u
b
t>
b
6
6
b
6
IS
6
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
g
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
<>
1
2
3
a,
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
U
5
ft
7
8
a
1
2
3
a
5
ft
7
8
o
1
2
3
a
92000.
33000,
SaOO,
220.
0900.
U6.
180.
1300.
2UOOOOO.
saooo.
U9000.
5000.
330.
(190,
1".
23.
20.
1300000.
saooo.
2600.
3500.
80.
210.
330.
280.
330.
1300000.
35000,
210.
1700.
20.
80.
5.
15.
50.
1700000,
58000.
220000.
790.
3300.
900,
3
**** 8,00
**** 8,90
**** 8,10
**** 8,a2
**** 8,07
**** 8,05
**** 7,99
a, 5 s.oo
**** 8,08
**** 8,58
**** 8,02
**** 8,06
**** 8,10
**** 8,30
**** 8,90
**** 8,00
**** 9.15
**** 8,17
**** 8,65
**** 8.12
5.5 8,09
**** 8,00
**** 8,22
**** 8.16
**** 8,06
**** 7,81
**** 8,68
**** 8,02
**** 9,22
**** ****
**** ****
**** ****
**** ****
**** ****
**** ****
**** ****
ia.5 5.6
7.0 13.8
T.o a, 3
7.0 13.3
7.0 6.6
7.0 10.0
7.0 3.8
7.5 3,8
7.5 3.7
13.0 6.1
8,0 20.0
8.0 5.9
8.0 19. fl
8.0 6.P
8.0 10.6
8.0 a. 6
8.0 2.6
8.0 3.1
8.0 ****
8, 0 ****
9,0 ****
8,0 ****
8. 0 ****
ft t 0 ****
7.5 ****
7,5 ****
13.0 5, a
6.0 9.9
6.0 5. a
5.0 15.0
6.0 6.5
6.0 10. u
6.0 5.3
6.0 5.1
6.0 5.3
ia.0 6.0
5.0 12, a
5.0 a.i
a. 5 16.8
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMPER /100ML /100ML
MF TC MF FC BODS UNFILT FILT
/100ML /100ML COD COD
MG/L MG/L MG/L
AMMONIA SS VSS TUR6 PH TEMP DO
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "C"
u>
li
11
11
11
11
u
11
11
11
1!
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
1?
1?
12
1?
12
12
1?
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1?
1*
13
13
13
13
13
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
II
U
u
It
a
o
L
U
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
5
6
7
e
g
1
2
3
0
5
6
T
8
9
1
2
3
U
5
7
8
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
Q
1
2
3
u
5
6
7
8
2200.
1300.
»«.
11,
22.
1300000.
11000.
4900,
27.
1100.
430.
220.
79.
090.
790000,
35000,
1100,
1100.
"0.
11.
13.
17.
22000000.
210000,
17000.
2000.
20.
90.
3500.
790.
350.
50000000.
160000,
79000,
0900.
1000.
230.
790,
230.
790,
17000000,
22000.
1700.
1300.
330.
no.
17.
7.
090.
230.
B,
0.
8.
090000,
7000.
330.
17.
oo.
20.
13.
2.
5.
230000.
20000.
70.
230.
26.
5.
8.
0,
11000000.
160000,
2300.
090,
20.
20,
79.
5,
13.
1700000.
92000.
11000.
2300.
T9.
23.
0,
0,
0.
2200000.
3300.
1100.
220.
23.
13.
o.
o.
540.
100.
12.
0.
0.
920000.
20000.
3500.
130.
68.
28.
20.
3.
7.
1400000,
21000,
690.
870.
3.
10.
3,
3.
2900000.
100000.
8000.
900.
12.
20,
52.
15.
30.
2700000.
73000.
9000.
2200.
100.
12.
0.
0.
10.
7200000.
15000.
530.
360.
12.
36.
«.
2.
120.
80.
9.
2,
0, ****** ****** *****
88000, 7,28 20.17 20.79
2300.
200.
0.
20.
0.
9,
2.
2900.
6.
010.
0.
2.
3.
0. 61.20 108.79 00.70
0.
0.
420.
0.
2,
36,
10.
780000. 57.10 71,00 08.21
0.
1800.
0.
20.
0.
2.
1.
0. ****** ****** *****
720000. 72.30 163.12 67.61
270.
33.
07.
2.
6.
0.
0.
******
******
******
8.70 20.00
******
******
******
******
******
******
***** ******
10.79 68.15
******
******
******
******
6.90 71.10
******
***** ******
9.22 67.06
******
******
******
*****
*****
*****
6.78
*****
*****
*****
*****
52.25
*****
*****
*****
52.35
*****
*****
06.60
*****
****
** **
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
29.3
****
****
10.0
8.18
8.82
8. OP
8,12
8.10
7.82
8.80
8.03
9.27
8.20
8,79
8,51
8,2.3
7,91
8,82
8.20
9,20
8,30
3.51
8.33
8,25
7.70
8.52
8.12
9.18
8.23
8.70
8.0(>
6,51
7.65
8.35
7.97
9.03
8.30
8.89
8.90
8,78
8.78
7.60
****
5.0 6.6
5.0 11.5
5.5 5.1
5.5 0,9
6.0 0,«
11.0 i>,3
6.0 15,8
6.0 6.0
5,0 1*.?
5.0 7.?
5.0 11.8
5.0 S.fl
5.0 5.9
13.5 7.7
o.S 9. "5
0.5 5,5
o.O 17. u
0,0 8,9
0,0 6,8
0,0 8.8
0.5 9.3
13.0 5.3
6.0 10.0
0.0 9.7
3,0 17,0
5.0 8.2
o.O 10.2
3.0 11.8
3.0 11. »
3.0 12.2
13.0 0.9
0.0 12,0
0.0 9.5
0.0 15.2
5.0 8.2
5,0 10,2
5,0 13.0
0,0 10.6
0.0 10.5
10,0 3.0
0.5 11.5
5.5 7.8
0.5 15.3
5.0 7.6
0.5 13.3
5.0 S.2
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMBER /100ML /100ML
MF TC
/100ML
MF FC
/100ML
B005
MG/L
UNFILT FILT
COD COD
MG/L MG/L
AMMONI4 S3 VSS TURB PH TEMP DO
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "C"
u>
it
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1?
1?
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1?
12
12
12
1?
12
12
12
)2
1?
12
1?
1?
12
12
1
1
"4
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
2
2
73
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
76
76
>»
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
R
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1
2
8.
7900000,
35000.
35000.
79.
230,
23.
2.
IT.
9.
9400000,
24000.
1400,
490,
33.
23.
79.
220.
14000000,
18000.
3500,
700.
16000.
790.
46.
26.
790.
24000000,
17000.
940.
350.
460.
TO,
13.
"3.
34.
3300000.
240000.
35000.
16000,
9.
110.
2.
o!
700000.
1600000.
0.
7900000,
4900,
2200,
5.
8.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2200000.
13000.
270.
17.
17.
5.
9.
6.
9.
3500000.
1800.
1400.
26.
IT.
IT.
2.
6.
270.
240000..
13000.
94.
94.
34.
63.
17.
8.
17.
800000.
240000.
11000.
3500.
4.
110.
0.
5.
0.
700000.
540000.
i.
3800000.
10000.
8000.
20.
12.
4.
4.
0.
1.
2100000.
6300.
400.
5.
28.
2!
0.
2.
1900000.
670.
2200.
20.
51.
4.
3.
0,
0.
0.
4800,
200.
35.
8.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
88.
o.
0.
79.
1.
1.
1.
0.
o.
900000. 68.00 174.27 51.30
270.
730.
0.
2.
3.
0.
0.
0. 3.62 23.16 19.24
740000. 199.00 63.04 30.24
1100.
o!
5.
0.
°f
0.
60,
270.
5.
1.
0.
0.
0.
o. ****** ****** *****
0, ****** ****** *****
b\
90.
* •
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
1.
0. ****** ****** *****
290000. 25.00 ****** *****
0.
***** ******
9.76 66.68
******
******
******
******
2.07 4,84
5.61 36.12
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
5.18 221,00
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
***** ******
***** ******
******
49.52
*****
*****
*****
*****
6.48
32.20
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
91.18
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
23.0 8.05
**** 8,52
**** 8,27
**** 8,90
**** 8,63
4,6 a. 64
**** 8,55
**** ****
**** ****
**** ****
**** ****
**** a, 90
**** a, 68
**** a, 63
**** e.37
**** 7,95
**** 8,32
**** 8.35
**** 8,32
10.0 8.00
**** 7,90
**** 8,70
**** 8.90
**** 8.50
**** a.uo
**** 8.30
**** 8.30
**** 7.B1
».3 0,3
13,0 3.3
6.0 13.2
6,0 9.3
5.0 16.7
5.5 11.6
5.0 11.2
5.0 7.0
5.0 7.9
6.0 7.1
13.5 3.1
6.0 11.0
6.0 18,5
6.0 15.6
5.5 15.5
5.5 12.8
5.5 3,3
5.5 3,8
5.5 4.1
12,0 ****
1?,0 ****
12,0 ****
12,0 ****
12,0 ****
ia,o ****
i?,o ****
1P.O ****
l?.o ****
12.0 ****
4,0 ****
4,0 ****
3,0 ****
3,0 ****
3,0 ****
3,0 ****
11.5 7,3
4.5 3.9
4.0 11.2
u.o 2, a
4.0 6,1
4.0 3.0
0.0 2.7
5.0 3.0
5.0 3.1
11.0 8.0
a.o 3.5
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN ft
NUMBER /100ML /100ML
MF TC MF ft BODS UNFILT FILT
/100ML /IOOML COD COO
MG/L MG/L
AMMONIA SS VSS TURB PH TEMP 00
MG/L MG/L MG/L. JTU "C"
U)
I—'
00
1
1
«
J,
1
1
1
1
}
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
}.
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
76
76
•f A
f O
76
76
76
76
7fc
( O
7fc
f O
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
Tfc
f 3
76
76
76
W A
J P
7fc
t o
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
3
4
6
7
8
9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1
2
3
5
6
7
9
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
4600.
24000,
1 m
17,
310.
5.
2.
11.
T T A A A A A
J JQ U Q U O (,
1 \ ft ft ft A ft
1 -70UOOU |
350000,
240000,
490,
1300,
as,
13,
e.
790000,
22000000.
940000,
220000,
3 11 ft A ri i ft
cu o n u o v
350,
16000,
0.
•
5 1
I700000o|
490000.
130000.
920000.
46.
94.
63.
17.
92000000,
9200000,
1600000,
0.
24000,
0.
0.
0.
0.
3100. 0. 420,
24000. 0. 0.
99 A A
22, 0, 0.
110. 0. ISO.
2. 0. 0.
0, 0. 4.
0, 0, 2, ****** ****** *****
1700000,1800000, 620000, ****** ****** *****
i x ft ft ft A ft f\ i 3 ft ft n A
iJUvUUU, 0. ICvUUO.
11000. 610. 0.
160000. 0, 0.
70, 80. 0,
280. 140, 0.
8. 0. 3.
0. 0. 3.
5, 0. 0. ****** ****** *****
330000, 0. 0. 25.40 56.95 41.09
22000000,3800000.2200000. 42.10 152.24 46.08
490000, 500000. 160000.
79000. 4200. 2400.
3 /i ft rt A A A n
c Ml' Q V 0 f 0« U «
110. 100. 10.
16000, 0. 0.
0. 12. 2.
Of t
, 1 . 1 ,
1 7 f 3 1 It ****** ****** *****
4600000.5400000,2200000. 68.60 150,44 30.50
490000, 590000. 220000.
33000, 0, 0,
130000. 0. 0.
13. 27. 3.
140. 130. 12.
13. 3. 4.
8. 0. 4. 4.58 33.25 25.36
0,5500000,1900000. 73.16 143.04 46.21
0, 670000. 210000.
0. 0, 0.
0, 0. 0.
0. 370. 110.
0. 10. 16.
0. 5. 1.
0. 17, 23.
0. 3. 0. 3.04 34.13 30.48
22000000.24000000.6300000.2300000. 74.81 155.58 73.13
1700000,
1600000,
2400000.
17000.
1100000, 510000, 180000.
920000. 410000. 58000.
2400000. 290000. 93000.
17000. 0. 0.
******
******
******
******
******
******
***** ******
***** t ft m
"»•«* jU.J**
******
******
******
******
******
19.45 8.36
11.50 99.00
******
******
******
*
11,14 73.87
******
******
******
******
******
******
2.90 5.15
9.96 105.00
9.57
28.23
9.10
35.71
13,58
6.72
«,75
2,88 1,40
11.47 65.03
10.62
51.54
7.50
22.44
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
30 1 A
cO , 1 H
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
8.56
76.20
*****
*****
*****
*****
58.93
*****
*****
*****
*****
,*****
*****
3.50
97.25
9.28
26.37
8.83
32.46
14.33
10.25
9.92
5.20
61.31
*****
*****
*****
*****
****
****
****
****
****
****
* * * *
* * * *
****
****
****
****
****
****
6.9
45,0
****
****
****
* * * *
28,0
7.7
7.7
5,8
8.0
4.1
3.7
4.0
30.0
7.4
7.1
6.0
*.3
6.7
".0
«.l
3.5
36.0
8.3
10.0
6.5
5.6
8.91
8.00
8O 1
t f 1
8,30
8.30
8.27
8.36
77 c
• '*
74. A
t o u
8.JO
7.7U
8.70
8.27
8,22
8.20-
8.19
7.75
8.20
7.84
8.22
7QC
,'5
8,75
8.42
8,29
85 «
,ri
630
• = w
8.01
7.75
8.18
7,82
8,44
8,31
8.26
8.28
8,05
7,38
7.90
7.79
8,36
8,25
8,25
8.26
8.21
7.99
5.68
7.90
7.73
8.21
4.0
4.0
Uft
. °
3.5
3.5
4.0
3.5
Uc
«'
/I fl
4,0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
5.0
5.0
UJS
.0
«.o
4.0
3.0
3 A
.0
T ft
S, 0
12.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1?.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
3.5
2.0
3.0
2.0
6.0
12.0
5.5
".5
3.5
3,5
11.1
i.l
BE
• '
2.8
3.1
3.3
3.J
C r,
J • ','
0/1
• U
3.4
0.3
12.3
1.3
0.9
o.u
0.6
5,7
3.4
1.5
2.?
25
.2
10.0
2.7
2.6
2*.
."
2 *.
. 0
5.2
3.9
4.5
3.6
5.?
2,B
1.8
1.1
4,0
0,9
.7
,6
6.1
.4
.6
,5
2.9
3.9
1.2
0.*-
****
0.9
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMBER /tOOML /100ML
MF TC MF FC BODS UNFILT FILT
/100ML /100ML COO COO
HG/L MG/L MG/L
AMMONIA SS VSS TURB PH TEMP 00
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "c» MG/L
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
2
2
?
2
?
?
?
?
?.
?
p
2
2
?
?
2
?
20
20
20
3ft
r U
22
?2
22
22
2?
22
22
22
22
27
?7
27
27
27
27
27
?7
27
2"
21
29
29
20
29
29
29
29
n
3
5
3
3
3
j
3
3
5
^
5
5
5
5
5
5
76
7*
76
7 1
f e
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
6
7
e
Q
1
a
3
a
5
6
7
fl
9
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
B
9
1
2
3
i
5
6
7
fl
9
1
2
3
i
5
6
7
e
9
1
3
a
5
6
7
8
180.
180,
350,
» \
92000000!
5100POO.
2800000.
3500000,
55000.
350.
180,
350.
1*0.
3300000.
0600000,
790000.
1100000.
51000,
23.
HO.
2300.
1«.
11000000.
1900000.
1300000.
1700000.
35000,
5.
33.
30.
17.
17000000,
7900000,
1300000.
700000,
35000,
8.
17.
* r •
U6,
17.
1600000,
?3no ft ft ft
CJVvV'UV.
700000.
U90000.
33000.
8.
17.
23.
33. 0
2J. 5
79. 8
T I t\
i5 . 0
92000000.5900000
5100000. 530000
1800000. 130000
3500000. 210000
0. 1100
350. 7
180. 16
350, 16
180. 1
1300000,2100000
790000. 670000
190000. 280000
230000. 210000
51000. 0
7. 3
2. 0
17. 11
2. 2
1600000,1800000
1100000. 610000
230000. 130000
1100000. 160000
21000. 0
2. 67
2. 0
«. 5
2. 0
11000000.2100000
700000, 660000
330000. 290000
700000, 270000
13000, 7700
0, 2'0
0. 1
V t ^
2. 6
0. 1
1600000.6800000
190000 670000
330000! 230000
190000. 190000
13000. 11000
2. 10
0. 12
2. 1
8.
2.
5.
.1200000. 111.00 211.30 85. in
. 150000.
. 30000.
. 10000.
710.
1.
1.
15.
1. 3.12 25.11 25.10
.1100000. 61.00 81,78 50,93
. 280000.
. 66000.
. 72000,
0.
0.
3.
12.
3. 3.98 31.61 26.35
.2000000. 122.00 351.93 55.37
. 220000,
. 51000.
. 93000,
0.
0.
0.
3.
3. 6.27 111.50 99.99
. 810000. 320.00 321.95 *****
. 280000.
. 86000.
. 53000.
3000.
0.
0
• u .
1.
0. 8.82 26.89 23.96
.19QOOOO. 126.00 131.13 62.11
? 1 fl 0 ft ft
B ClUvvUj
. 58000.
. 58000.
. 3000.
0,
1.
o.
23.21
6.92
7.28
19.21 607.00
12,00
31.68
7,16
17.18
32.50
6.61
12.21
13.12 9.60
8,28 SI. 80
12.20
39.50
11.02
13.27
31.22
8.7?
7,71
3.03 21.20
9.91 72.60
11.11
28.75
8,91
11.19
18.92
6.81
10.09
2.97 1.72
9.58 97,10
20.16
28,26
1,50
9,90
28.59
7,60
8.06
3.12 2,56
11.52 109,00
26,72
7,11
14.06
32.20
******
******
*****
*****
*****
*****
12.00
31.68
7.16
17.18
32.50
6.61
12.21
9.60
13,37
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
67,20
14,11
28.75
8.91
11.19
18.92
6.81
10.09
1.72
****
****
***
***
**
*
*
*
***
****
****
*****
*****
*****
*****
5.6 8.28
1.3 6.12
1.5 8.22
JA ft ?7
.0 ci , c i
36,0 7.88
11.0 7,68
8,5 8.01
7.0 7.20
5.5 8,12
6,3 8,12
5,0 8.21
1.6 8.29
3.5 8.28
20.0 7,95
20,0 7.60
10.0 7.85
10.0 7.72
5,5 7.98
6.1 8,18
5.8 8.12
5,2 8.12
1.5 8.20
36.0 7,91
29,0 7,18
8.1 7.89
11 .0 7.66
6,1 7.92
7,3 8,59
4.7 8.18
3.2 8.15
i.5 8.1U
80.0 7.82
22.0 7.56
6.8 7,80
15,0 7.63
6.5 7.92
1.7 8.15
1.6 8.09
3,1 8.15
17,0 8.08
5 fl n 7 7 rt
CUfU f ( 1 V
12.0 7.88
15.0 7.81
5.7 8.06
7.3 8.76
5.1 8.30
5.0 8.28
3.0
3.0
3.0
3n
. u
11.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
?.o
3.0
3.0
11 .0
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
2,0
1.5
3.5
3.5
11.0
1.0
3,0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
9.5
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
3.5
12.0
3 A
, o
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
3.5
1.6
1.1
0.8
2t
t 1
5.2
2.0
1.4
1.0
1.3
2.1
1.8
1.3
2.6
3.9
0.0
0.5
0,5
0.5
0,6
0.9
0.3
0.3
3.6
0.5
0."
0.8
0.6
1.9
1.1
0.7
1.1
I."
1.1
0.2
0.5
O.U
6.5
O.u
0.7
2.1
Of
. '
0.5
0.9
1."
7.P
1,6
1.1
-------
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMBER /100HI /100ML
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MF TC MF FC BODS UNFILT F1LT
/100ML /100ML COO COO
MG/L MG/L MG/L
AMMONIA SS VSS TURB PH TF.MP DO
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "C" MG/L
00
N>
O
2
?
2
2
?'
?
2
2
?
2
2
2
?
?
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
5
10
10
to
f A
1 0
10
10
10
1 0
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
1"
1'
10
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
26
26
76
76
76
76
» *
76
76
76
76
•• t
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
9
1
2
3
fi
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
1
2
S
4
•i
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
1
2
33.
3300000.
1JOOOOO.
490000.
330000 ,
79000.
7.
0.
11 i
a.
1900000.
1300000.
790000,
790000.
350000.
11.
5.
23.
33.
700000.
1300000.
330000.
490000,
110000,
23.
8.
5.
5.
3000000.
1700000.
1400000.
1300000,
110000.
130.
12.
79.
46.
35000000.
1300000.
1300000.
1700000,
330000,
24000,
70.
110.
1100.
3300000,
790000.
0. 2. 5. 3.74 24.30 24.07
2300000.4300000. 870000. 105.00 216. UO 84.26
790000, 630000, 170000.
230000. 200000. 40000,
330000. 280000, 55000,
49000. 12000. 3100,
2. 0. 3.
0. 8, 0.
5, 0, 1 .
2. 1. 2. 5.41 28.16 25.36
3300000,3300000. 910000. 76.60 176.35 43,91
1300000. 620000. 170000.
330000. 250000. 69000.
790000. 280000. 60000.
350000. 39000. 9000.
2. 0. 0.
0, 4. 0.
17. 2. 0.
17, 2. 0. 4.52 28.29 22.40
1700000.2500000, 450000, 30.30 71,46 22.87
790000. 670000. 200000.
130000, 150000. 41000.
490000. 240000. 58000,
70000, 55000. 8500,
0. 0. 0.
0. 2, 1.
0. 0. 1.
0, 2. 1. 5.18 29.85 24.38
2800000,3600000.1300000. 70.00 166.13 47.04
1100000.1000000, 170000.
490000, 370000. 110000.
790000. 340000. 50000.
46000. 73000. 6400.
33. 67. 18.
49. 0. 0.
7. 0. 0.
8. 1. 0. 4.67 30.70 21.96
3300000. 0.5100000. 81.70 124.81 56.81
790000.1000000. 160000.
790000. 510000. 100000.
460000. 450000, 110000.
170000. 150000, 10000.
24000. 0. 0.
49. 26. 20.
46. 0. 39.
700. 0. 0. 7.50 39.70 27.66
2300000.6700000.1500000, 91,00 200.58 58.30
790000. 860000. 240000.
2,75 7.16
11.70 85.00
******
******
******
******
******
j.30 ******
7.69 76,67
10.83
19.69
18.8ft
76.11
10.32
6.89
1.63
3.03 2.80
4.59 1.72
2.25
4,4$
0.62
26,26
6,49
4,21
0,51
3.17 0.36
9.86 103,00
16.07
14,77
11.60
17,05
42,56
4,88
14,68
3.40 4.60
9.70 80.40
16.18
13.05
11.67
11,16
12.27
".23
22.66
3.54 4.72
7.44 73.00
15.65
*****
74.00
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
13.50
** *
** *
** *
** *
** *
****
****
****
****
1,04
1.35
2.81
0.35
*****
5.«2
0.37
*****
0,08
86.60
15,16
12.77
11 .60
17.05
38.43
4.66
13.60
4.28
62.50
14,27
13.05
11.49
10.89
12.27
4.23
22.55
4.56
61 .67
1«,76
4.4
47.0
27.0
10.0
33 n
c e • U
6.2
6.4
3.7
51
< 1
3.6
25.0
26.0
15.0
22.0
6.9
8.1
5.5
4.9
u.l
10,0
20,0
8.2
?2.0
8,5
6.6
«,Q
4,2
«. 2
35.0
20.0
11.0
17.0
7,5
7.2
5.6
3.5
4.0
31.0
30,0
20.0
25.0
9,0
12.0
8.5
".2
5.2
30.0
22.0
8.28
8,10
7.59
7.82
7.L ••
• " •*
7.85
8.7J
8.23
A 1 J
" t 1 £•
a. 10
8.00
7.48
7.70
7.60
7.80
8,68
8.12
8.15
8,11
8.03
7.61
7.92
7.67
7.85
8,22
8.17
8.17
8.13
7.80
7.39
7.60
7.50
7.90
8.40
8,20
8,50
8.10
7.56
7.20
7.28
7.20
7.48
7.4fl
7.77
8,07
7.30
8.13
7.65
2.0
10.0
3.5
3.0
3n
• "
?,5
?.n
?.o
2 A
. °
2.0
11.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
?.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
10.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
11 .0
3.0
0.8
4.2
0.5
0.6
0/1
• U
0.5
0.?
0.4
On
t u
0.1
3.?
0.9
o.«
0.7
0.9
7.6
1.1
1.0
1.0
4.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.5
<*.?
0.6
0.9
0.6
1.0
2.5
0.9
1.1
1.2
6.0
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
2.9
0.6
-------
OJ
ho
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH
2
?
?
2
2
2
2
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
DAY
26
24
26
26
26
26
26
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
4
u
a
a
a
a
u
a
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
16
1*
1*
1*
1*
Y£AR
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
3
U
5
6
7
B
9
1
2
3
4
<3
6
7
8
9
MPN TC
/100ML
790000,
2200000,
330000.
240000.
24000.
790.
16000.
U90000.
3300000.
(190000.
2300000.
090000.
350000.
(19000,
21000.
54000.
1 22000000.
2
3
u
5
6
7
8
0
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
e
9
1
2
1300000,
1190000.
1300000.
3300000.
230000.
110000.
17000.
23000.
3300(100,
330000.
2300000.
160000,
280000.
190000.
350000,
1 10000.
23000,
8000000,
2300000.
3 35000000.
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
a
5
940000.
310000.
330000.
170000.
49000.
110000.
790000.
1300000,
490000.
700000.
170000.
MPN FC MF TC
/100ML /100ML
220000. 620000.
1300000. 100000.
170000. 100000.
IbOOOO. 0.
2UOOO. 0.
790. 0.
9200. 0.
190000.2100000.
(190000,1100000.
190000. 560000.
330000. 260000,
130000, 170000.
130000. 0.
13000, 0.
21000. 0.
7900. 6700.
3500000.3300000.
330000. 810000.
160000, 170000,
230000, 380000.
330000. 210000.
230000. 0.
U6000. 0.
17000. 0.
7900. 7500.
3300000.1300000.
170000. 960000.
1300000. 180000.
170000. 350000.
220000. 260000.
220000. 160000.
170000. 88000.
79000. 33000.
23000. 15000.
7000000,6100000.
190000.1100000.
3500000, 710000,
910000, 170000.
310000. 210000.
230000. 210000.
170000. 78000.
19000. 52000.
110000. 50000.
330000.1700000.
190000. 750000.
230000, 180000.
170000. 310000.
170000. 260000.
MF FC 8005 UNFILT FIUT
/100ML COP COD
MG/L M5/L MG/L
110000.
120000.
25000.
0.
0.
0.
0. 8.35 3.53 26.56
870000. 16.90 96.30 25.30
210000.
110000.
150000.
67000.
0.
0.
0.
0. 10.63 12.10 21.80
1300000. 68,10 126.12 35.71
230000.
170000.
110000.
65000.
0.
0.
0.
0. 9.79 28.28 18.62
170000. 36.51 l?8.11 21.23
210000.
210000.
100000.
81000.
63000,
0.
21000.
21000. 13.15 15.75 30.09
2100000. 80.00 ****** 19,7?
260000.
250000.
99000.
80000.
65000.
36000.
21000.
22000. 15.23 13.50 29.05
U30000. 67.60 12.20 33.71
170000.
120000.
79000.
76000.
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
12.50
12.22
11.60
18.92
5,00
8.66
1,66 1.18
2.65 11.61
22.93
12.35
13,56
8.07
10.57
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
DNTH
1 DAY
YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC
NUMBER /100ML
3
1
3
3
5
J
3
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
a
a
a
u
a
a
16
1*
16
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
1*
18
18
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
JO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
6
7
6
0
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
e
9
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
a
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
t
2
3
a
5
6
7
e
9
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
330000,
170000.
itoooo.
130000.
4900000,
460000,
1300000.
330000.
220000.
330000.
79000,
130000,
70000.
7«0000,
aooooo.
790000,
7*0000.
790000.
140000.
330000.
33000,
110000.
700000.
700000.
490000,
170000,
280000.
230000.
170000,
33000,
330000,
1700000.
110000,
230000,
490000.
70000,
140000,
130000,
410000,
140000,
1700000,
17000.
20000.
20000.
130000.
230000.
170000.
79000,
MPN FC
/100ML
330000.
79000.
70000.
0900,
4900000,
230000.
330000,
330000.
220000.
280000,
79000,
33000.
46000.
490000.
230000.
790000.
790000.
490000.
140000.
79000,
33000,
46000.
170000.
110000.
170000.
50000.
170000,
130000,
49000.
23000.
49000,
490000,
20000.
20000,
80000.
33000,
94000.
33000.
110000.
94000.
1700000.
§000.
2000.
20000.
130000.
130000.
70000.
49000.
MF TC
X100ML
190000.
84000.
46000.
60000,
3100000,
710000.
500000.
320000.
210000.
170000.
80000.
47000.
67000.
740000,
520000.
390000.
230000.
210000.
200000.
71000.
32000.
53000.
800000.
280000.
200000.
110000.
180000,
90000,
42000.
30000.
38000.
700000.
100000.
77000.
150000.
93000,
140000.
76000.
38000.
49000.
1500000.
33000.
22000,
34000,
45000,
92000.
50000.
34000.
MF FC BODS UNFILT FILT
/100ML COO COO
MG/L MG/L MG/L
67000.
28000.
23000.
27000. 14,85 51,02 33.15
870000. 55.00 63.51 27.28
180000,
160000.
140000.
75000.
59000.
30000.
25000.
17000. 18.50 50.51 27.89
220000. 46.30 138.99 25.25
65000.
120000.
49000.
53000.
31000.
22000.
6300,
13000. 16,45 42.59 22.60
510000. 26.30 94.81 26.03
13000.
20000.
17000.
U5000.
25000.
15000.
6000.
9000. 18.00 53,78 16.88
140000. 64.70 223.12 38.56
4000.
2700.
17000.
30000.
32000.
27000.
14000.
17000. 16.75 57.57 26.69
740000. 43.53 13.48 32.96
2000.
1300.
2000,
2600.
15000.
10000.
4900.
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
15.47
17.61
15.52
7.05 13.41
4.01 43.00
29.67
18,49
22.36
13.05
15.29
16,61
19.73
7.11 13.60
4.47 34.75
31 .50
16,16
27.22
11.86
19.62
15.12
31,20
6.54 19,80
4.61 97.65
25,80
35,89
23,4]
31.25
22,64
20,40
26,65
7.91 22,80
S.38 56,30
26,54
19,20
33.62
44.68
22,7?
19.04
20.64
8.29 19.57
5.78 65.71
19.46
54,53
26,75
44.93
23.93
75.00
37.73
vss
MG/L
13.50
14,56
13.51
8.62
32.92
25.49
14.13
18.76
9.92
13.17
13.23
16,43
11,48
26.45
28.75
15.52
26. UP
11.40
19,19
14.64
29.44
18.64
39.65
23,14
33.02
20.67
29.13
21.17
18.55
17,20
12,72
44.10
23.85
17.20
29.08
40.92
20.44
17,92
18,60
18,28
50,65
19,46
52.07
26.00
43.47
23.93
70.90
35.23
TURB
JTU
32.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
20.0
23.0
43.0
53,0
37.0
41 .0
28.0
32.0
22.0
25.0
15.0
29.0
22.0
33.0
36.0
25.0
1 1.0
15.0
43.0
12.0
10.0
11.0
15,0
33.0
16.0
11.0
12.0
18,0
8.0
6.0
11.0
7.8
18.0
16.0
13.0
10.0
28.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
2.4
PH
7.65
7.65
7.70
7.70
7.90
7.70
7.63
7.75
7.75
7.71
7.72
7.82
7.70
7.90
7.77
7.61
7.68
7.69
7.68
7.67
S.03
7.65
7.66
7.52
7.94
7.60
7.73
7.62
7.56
7,75
7.63
7.80
7.87
7.95
7.80
8.61
7.62
7.69
7.79
7,70
7.8?
8.62
8,60
8.02
8.91
7.98
8.72
7.92
TEMP DO
"C" MG/L
3.0 O.fc
2.0 O.a
2.0 O.a
2.0 0,3
10.0 6.?
5.0 0.9
3.0 O.S
a.o O.a
3.0 O.a
2.0 0.3
2.5 O.a
?.0 0.5
2.0 O.a
10.0 6,?
5.0 1,4
4.0 1.4
".0 1.5
3.0 1.5
3.0 5.8
3.0 1,0
2.0 0.9
3.0 0.9
9.5 6.9
4.0 1.2
a.o 1.6
3.5 1.4
3.5 4.7
2.5 3.6
3.0 0.6
2.5 0.7
2.5 1.0
9.0 6,7
5.0 6.7
5.0 4.5
a,5 3,2
3,0 0,9
3.0 2.5
3.0 1.1
2,0 1.2
3,0 0,4
10,0 7.0
9.0 14.4
5.5 10.0
4,0 6.7
4.0 7.4
4.5 6.5
3.5 1.6
3.0 1.5
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
/100ML /100"L
MF TCT MF FC
X100ML /100ML
BODS UNFILT FILT
coo coo
MG/L MG/L MG/L
AMMONIA SS VSS TURH PH TEMP DO
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU "C" MG/L
a
a
0
a
a
a
o
a
a
a
(i
a
a
a
o
a
a
a
o
o
a
o
u
a
a
a
u
a
u
n
u
u
u
u
a
u
a
a
a
u
a
a
a
o
u
a
o
o
1
6
6
6
t>
6
6
4
h
6
A
e
8
A
A
A
A
A
8
n
15
13
IS
1?
13
IS
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
?fi
20
20
20
20
22
??.
7k
76
76
76
76
7*
7*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7o
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
9
1
2
3
a
•i
6
7
e
q
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
fl
0
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
e
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
a
?
6
7
e
9
1
2
79000.
790000.
33000.
53000.
7000,
6000,
1700.
1300.
5000.
2100,
700000,
17000,
200000.
0900.
800.
0900.
2700.
2700,
2300.
9
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH D»V YEAH
It
it
u
it
a
it
u
it
u
a
u
u
u
It
tt
u
u
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
*,
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
•5
5
5
5
5
5
5
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
29
29
29
29
2'
29
29
29
29
It
U
It
U
U
It
It
U
tt
6
k
6
*
6
t>
6
*
6
11
11
11
11
11
76
7*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE MPN TC MPN FC
NUMBER /100ML /100ML
3
It
5
6
7
e
0
l
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
e
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
B
9
t
2
3
a
5
6
7
e
0
1
2
3
a
5
21000.
790.
330.
50.
170.
140.
180.
1300000.
110000.
26000.
790,
100,
220,
33.
33.
110.
490000.
11000.
23000.
1100.
130,
110.
22,
49.
130.
790000.
a900.
70000,
0900,
220,
49.
63.
79.
79.
24000000,
4900,
3300.
130.
170.
33.
n.
?.
It.
3300000,
130000,
7900.
1700.
140.
3300.
330.
20.
20.
5.
0.
2.
1300000.
9400.
4600.
330.
20.
50.
2.
7.
21.
330000.
3300.
13000.
80.
17.
13.
f>.
2.
«.
230000.
500.
33000.
80.
21.
49.
5.
4.
8.
24000000.
800,
3300.
20.
5.
35.
0.
0.
2.
700000,
9400.
1700.
40.
0.
MF TC
/100ML
14000.
1300.
200.
60.
88.
20.
25.
1100000.
17000.
11000.
830.
170.
45.
25.
18.
25.
770000,
11000.
14000.
130.
150.
13.
T.
96.
11.
1300000.
8900.
30000.
2500.
230.
45.
28.
11.
9.
1300001.
9600.
10000.
130.
170.
20.
10.
9.
4.
1200000.
34000.
8600.
500.
150.
MF FC 8005 UNFILT FIUT
/100ML COP COD
MG/L MG/L MG/L
5700.
272.
12.
8.
6.
4.
0. 7.97 48.34 29.69
490000. 1.48 35.28 16.67
6600.
950.
420.
12.
8.
2.
6.
4. 7.88 39.78 19.54
170000. 66.60 67.55 32.42
1600.
2300.
24.
8.
8.
2.
3.
2. 10.06 41.12 15.01
490000. 70.50 188.24 53.38
380,
9400.
170.
20.
65.
7.
5.
3. 13.80 41,92 18.86
210000. 35.60 164.06 15.88
640.
630.
28.
0.
9.
0.
2.
0. 8.34 42.29 12.63
270000. 56.90 ****** 35.01
3700.
810.
16.
1.
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
41
26
21
32
20
21
1.85 19
2.J6 13
24
J8
18
5
19
14
15
2.28 15
4.78 76
27
40
24
56
21
20
18
0.92 18
5,04 160
40
36
51
27
29
34
24
0.34 22
6.02 93
50
20
32
12
21
19
21
0,10 20
7.28 62
39
24
15
s
.00
.68
.34
.31
.60
.00
.48
.80
.92
.29
.40
.04
.24
.52
.92
.56
.64
.24
.20
.84
.00
.12
.24
,72
.16
,00
,60
.80
.40
.20
.76
.48
.72
.40
.87
.28
.24
.52
.80
.80
.96
.88
.16
.75
.02
.36
.20
.92
VSS
MG/L
37.60
18.32
17.84
26.21
16.85
17.40
17.96
12.64
23,40
37.43
5.08
4,60
17,20
13.92
14.84
14,76
65,36
25.2«
38,90
21.72
43,70
19.96
18.00
17.24
16,72
81.30
33.53
30,35
38.25
23.10
21.96
24,00
19.52
18.53
71.47
42,44
19.96
27.04
9.24
21.80
15.88
17.88
17.04
47.20
32.68
25.20
12,04
6,34
TURB
JTU
9.4
8.1
9.8
7.3
7.7
7.0
7.3
4.6
5.8
8-. 4
4.5
8.5
5.2
3.2
4.2
3.0
36.0
8.1
9.3
8.7
15.0
7.4
6.3
6.7
5.3
43.0
13.0
11,0
18,0
10.0
14.0
15.0
12.0
7.4
40.0
16.0
9.5
11.0
4.3
8.2
7.8
fl.. 6
8.1
35.0
15.0
19.0
8.7
3.3
PH
9.05
9.21
8.99
8.92
8.62
8.59
8.66
7.76
8.50
9.11
9.15
9.25
9.07
8.75
8.71
8.73
8.05
8.90
9.48
9.47
9.70
9.39
9.22
9.20
9.17
7.8(1
8.27
8.17
8.32
8.40
8.35
8.30
****
8,15
7.50
8,39
8.04
8.58
8.62
8.07
8.32
8.46
8.50
8.43
9.52
9.62
9.78
9.90
TEMP
"C"
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10,0
10.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
11.5
12.0
12.5
12.5
13.0
11.0
18.0
14.0
lu.5
14.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
15.0
12.0
16.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
16.0
1-5.5
15.5
15.5
12.0
17.5
17.0
17.5
17.0
00
HG/L
16.7
17.0
17.7
14.3
9.S
9.1
9.?
6.4
5.U
15.8
15.?
15.6
13.6
10.?
11.9
11.6
7.5
10.7
20.9
20. fc
21.2
18. 9
16,2
18.2
17. fc
6.3
23.0
12. t
18.7
18.9
17.7
15.5
18.?
17.5
5.6
22.7
20.5
21 .8
16.4
19.5
15,0
18.0
17.5
5.8
17.4
14.9
14.5
10.9
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
OJ
K3
Ln
NTH
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
f,
5
5
5
5
«;
5
5
5
«>
5
S
5
5
«,
5
5
5
5
s
5
S
5
*
5
"-,
5
5
5
S
5
«i
5
s
5
s
*,
s
5
5
"5
OAY
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
IS
1*
18
1*
1«
IP
ie
18
18
20
20
?0
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
?S
25
25
25
25
25
25
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
YEAR
76
7*
76
7*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
6
7
8
9
1
2
T,
a
5
6
7
e
0
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
e
Q
1
2
3
fl
5
6
7
6
9
1
2
5
u
5
6
7
8
Q
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
e
MPN TC
/100ML
33.
220.
130.
220.
U90000.
170000.
200.
790.
170.
63.
26.
170.
180.
atooooo.
330000,
700.
1100.
33.
130.
"6.
23.
7".
170000ft.
23000.
92000.
7000.
33.
110,
220.
3500.
790.
1300000.
1 10000,
3300.
3100.
U9.
280.
170.
tao,
30.
290000.
U9000,
1300.
2100.
030.
280.
70,
110.
MPN FC
/lOOMt
«.
0.
0.
0.
«90000.
79000.
200.
"0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
3100000.
laoOO.
lao.
90.
0.
27.
5.
0.
2.
1300000.
2000.
0600.
170.
2.
22.
70.
8.
13.
1300000,
79000.
1,
11.
o.
MF TC
/100ML
36.
0.
3.
11.
1300000.
51000.
270.
880.
20.
12.
3.
15.
3.
1100000.
110000.
530,
680,
"0.
37.
8.
0.
a.
1000000.
aaoOO.
5300,
aiO.
20.
a3.
3.
a.
28.
800000.
95000.
1800.
aoo.
uu.
a9.
6.
20.
36.
790000.
19000.
200.
860.
36.
«9.
26.
2.
MF FC BOD5 UNKILT FILT
/100MU COD COD
MG/L MQ/L HG/L
7.
0.
0.
0. 3.1 a 28. a 1 2?. 56
110000. 57.10 183. ia i5.98
10000.
ia.
75.
?.
1.
1.
1.
0. 5.01 25.06 2«. 2a
150000. 21, <>3 aa.65 25.73
3«000.
130.
30.
1.
9.
".
3.
3. 9.60 50.35 16.88
220000. at .73 88. U* 21 .as
2300.
0.
120.
1.
17.
53.
5.
5. 3.73 75.20 25.36
170000. a2.ao 63.96 20.65
16000.
88.
87.
1.
3.
6.
3.
12. 3.87 0.06 *****
110000. 22.67 79.21 15.48
2600,
25.
110.
1.
«.
7.
0.
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
9.20
5.80
8.20
0,23 7,aO
6.11 7a.U
35.07
3a,55
16,32
8,32
7.72
5.76
a. 92
0.56 7, as
2.86 20.80
23.36
59. J2
25, 2a
6,92
13.20
31,32
38.36
l.ao a. 76
3.00 58. aa
as. 33
33.25
38. OJ
12,12
13. aa
7.72
5.00
1.51 9.16
2.27 32. OU
U6.93
28.80
85.20
12.08
16. ?a
7,20
6,2a
1.80 6.80
3.25 27,12
28.56
30.33
7,6a
16,52
9,oa
5. as
6.96
VSS
MG/L
6,36
",1?
6,20
s.ea
59.80
2?.53
2a.70
9.16
5,sa
3,88
3.52
3,6a
6,?a
*****
*****
*****
*****
****
****
****
****
*** *
39.76
ai.53
26.30
22.35
8.16
5.9?
3.56
3.32
5.88
12.60
a6,80
17.27
77.00
9.32
9.2a
a. 60
3.52
a. 76
22.16
22.60
20. ao
5.32
11.72
5,7ft
3.80
a. 76
TURB PH
JTU
5.9 9.77
a. 2 9.6a
3.7 9.65
3.8 9.a7
23.0 8.00
22.0 9.ja
29.0 9.58
17.0 9.60
a. 3 9.81
8.6 9.57
a.i 9,ao
3.8 9.U2
3.6 9,ao
6,0 8.81
ia.o e.ao
22.0 9.81
13.0 8.80
3.7 8.58
8,0 8.20
5.2 8.12
3.0 8.10
3.5 8.15
20.0 7.85
18,0 8.15
17.0 9. US
29.0 8.82
5, a 9. ia
11.0 s.ia
5.7 9.10
a. 6 9.10
a. 5 9.12
19.0 7.90
19.0 8. a?
9. a 9.59
50.0 8.65
5. a 9.86
ia.0 9. 16
5.5 8.97
5.6 8. 68
5. a 8.87
13.0 7.8a
20.0 9.00
15.0 9,75
2.7 8.85
6.0 9.71
12.0 9.10
8.0 8.90
7.0 8.80
TEMP DO
•C" MG/L
17.5 9.7
17.5 7.0
17.5 9.7
17.5 9.1
12.0 5.6
16.5 11.2
16.0 13. a
16.5 8.8
17.0 10.2
17.0 5. a
17.0 2.8
16.5 5.0
16.5 a, 5
11.5 5.7
17.0 1.1
19.0 18.2
19.5 1.1
19.0 10.1
18.5 0.5
18.5 0.9
19.0 0.9
19.0 0.9
11 .5 6,5
19.0 1.?
17.0 9.0
19.o i..a
19.0 10.6
19.5 1.9
13.5 1.5
18.5 1.8
19.0 1.3
12.0 6.1
17.5 6.7
17.0 11.1
18.5 0.9
18.5 7.8
19.o a. a
19.5 2.*
18.5 1 . i
18.5 l.a
12,0 7.1
19.0 l°.fr
19.0 2U.O
19.0 7, a
19.0 11.6
19,0 7.1
18.5 a.o
19.0 ,?.fe
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH
DAY
YEAR
SAMPLE MPN TC
NUMBER /100ML.
5
6
6
6
*
6
6
6
6
A
6
*
*i
6
ft
IS
6
A
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
IS
t
A
IS
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
iS
6
A
6
IS
6
6
IS
6
* *
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
a
e
ft
«
8
8
A
8
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
IT
17
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
1
Z
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
79.
2300000,
11000.
4900.
2300.
13.
17.
1100.
5.
17.
1300000.
33000.
940,
20.
460.
17.
490,
130.
7.
3500000.
500.
330.
260.
27.
350.
17,
33.
23.
24000000.
3300.
1300.
no.
170.
«9.
33.
17.
17.
9200000.
13000.
2200,
13.
17.
11.
4.
11.
2.
16000000.
92000.
MPN FC
/100ML
0.
1300000.
3300.
70.
70.
2.
0.
17.
0.
2.
490000.
4600.
330.
28.
7.
0.
8.
o.
0.
1800000.
200.
70.
20.
0.
240.
2.
2.
11.
1800000.
460.
490.
20.
«.
2.
2.
0.
7.
460000,
2800.
130.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9200000,
13000.
MF TC
/lOOMi.
1.
1200000.
16000.
1300,
320.
4.
43.
170.
2.
10.
670000.
23000.
1400.
60.
190.
80.
J2.
6.
0.
1300000.
588.
150.
43.
0.
0.
20.
0.
13.
840000.
400.
1100.
35.
16.
36.
1*.
0.
4.
530000,
6900.
1200.
60.
16.
9.
6.
0.
0.
1700000.
. 49000.
MF FC BOD5 UNFILT FII.T
/100ML COD COD
M6/L MS/L M6/L
2. 6.05 27.30 23.89
370000. 23.90 60.20 17.36
1500.
«7.
«2.
0.
3.
5.
0.
5. 4.18 32.31 31.06
40000. 25. I" B8.79 19.61
670.
65.
0.
2.
0.
7.
1.
0. 4.83 35.64 32.30
210000. 24.97 87,26 18.58
67.
12.
6.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1. 2.75 32.13 31.75
230000. ****** 52.97 15.68
0.
88.
".
2.
1.
2.
1.
6. ****** 39.27 30.29
120000. ****** 53.87 13.17
1400.
130.
2.
?.
0.
1.
o.
1. ****** 41.30 29.18
430000. 16.80 59^13 12.68
8400.
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MS/L
2.59 8.28
2.20 35.88
36.08
52.20
20.92
18.36
13. 8
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
U)
t-O
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
22
22
2?
2?
22
??
2?
2?
2?
24
24
24
2.
1300000.
250.
7.
1.
2.
3.
60000.
170.
46.
10.
37.
120000.
570.
72.
8.
15.
5.
95000.
60.
18.
9.
0.
2.
BOD5 UNFTLT FILT
COD COD
MG/L MG/L M6/L
2.35 31.12 28.08
24.64 77.98 9.59
3.14 37.11 30.53
19,28 87.32 17.88
2.83 35.67 33.52
****** 47.21 18.20
24.20 39.16 11.93
9.98 50.45 16.12
31.20 134.60 15.71
AMMONIA S3 VSS TU«B PH TEMP DO
MG/L MG/L MG/L JTU »C" MG/U
24.56
12.44
9.96
9.36
3
.68
5.16
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
.77
.81
.39
.25
.11
.78
.62
.68
,80
6,16
48
30
23
11
10
13
4
3
10
30
26
11
24
9
14
12
10
7
15
48
a
52
9
6
37
12
4
42
21
60
99
23
45
11
33
54
20
8
14
22
6
.92
.56
.24
.60
.24
.48
.60
.60
.84
.92
.32
.12
,08
,8u
.04
.32
.88
.36
.00
.84
.16
.24
.36
,64
.20
.24
.48
.60
.72
.48
.99
.44
.84
.84
.24
.52
.48
.64
.72
.92
.16
21
8
6
7
2
3
U
37
28
21
7
9
9
J
2
8
23
23
10
15
1
10
8
9
7,
12,
40,
4,
44,
7,
5,
32,
10,
5,
35,
17,
42,
92,
17,
40,
6,
22,
37,
17,
.48
.24
.48
.24
.24
.16
.56
.76
.08
.16
.40
.32
.20
.36
.72
.04
.36
.00
.04
.56
.04
.44
.12
.08
,36
,88
,88
,76
,84
,88
,76
,72
,88
,00
,36
,84
,12
,33
,00
,16
,72
,44
,16
,64
7.24
12.
18,
3,
,00
,47
,72
7.4
9.1
5.8
5.3
4.7
5.3
5.5
12.0
lt.0
7.4
10.0
4.6
5.8
5.2
3.8
4.4
12.0
13.0
3.8
16.0
5.6
7.7
7.6
6.1
5.5
12.0
10.0
3.8
13.0
5,2
5,4
10.0
9,4
3.2
10.0
10.0
4.3
23.0
8,5
14,0
7.8
9.5
14,0
11.0
3.9
12.0
8.9
6.9
9.10
7.08
7.33
7.29
7.78
8.20
7.72
7,78
8,76
9.22
8.16
9.11
8.38
8.32
8.28
8.18
0.78
8.76
9.02
8.23
9.52
8.38
8.28
8.28
8.20
7,80
7.98
8.46
9.16
9.45
8.42
7.72
8.00
8,40
8,1 1
9.25
7.82
8.33
9.08
8.30
8.37
8.36
****
8.56
8.98
8.U1
9.4J
8.58
18.0
17.5
18.0
19.5
21.5
14.0
18.0
14.0
19.0
21.0
21.5
21.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
12.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
20,0
19.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
22.0
22.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
15.0
21.0
21.5
21.0
22.0
15.0
23.0
22.0
23.0
23.0
23.5
15.0
23.0
22.0
24.0
23.0
24.0
12.2
0.1
4.9
0.1
1.3
1.5
4.1
6.0
9.8
14.6
1.7
6.2
1.1
1.4
1.3
0.9
6.3
7.0
4.0
1.0
7.2
1.0
0.8
0,8
1.9
5,6
0.9
1.4
1.5
16.4
2.9
6.2
6,0
4.6
1.2
8.9
6.5
6.6
2.5
2.8
".?
1 .6
4.9
12.?
12.6
6.7
15.6
4.5
-------
CO
M
00
TABLE E-l.
MONTH
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
* 7
DAY
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
27
27
27
27
27
?7
27
27
27
20
29
?9
YEAR
76
7*
76
7*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
1
2
3
u
5
6
7
B
Q
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
B
0
I
2
3
a
5
6
7
B
9
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
B
9
t
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
MPN TC
X100ML
2400000.
13000,
22000.
16.
5000,
1100.
1100.
2*0.
3500.
9200000.
22000,
1900.
330,
1300,
5100.
5100.
21000,
9200,
330000.
1700.
700.
70.
1100.
50.
920,
«90.
2200.
1300000.
700.
5*1000.
?20,
QUO.
330.
190,
190.
1700,
160000,
1700,
170.
170.
910.
700.
19.
1190.
170.
1300000.
790.
HO.
MPN FC
/100ML
2100000.
13000.
7000.
7.
330.
170.
19.
19.
790.
3500000,
7000.
170.
33.
210.
330.
70.
1100.
700.
170000,
200.
70.
0.
80.
2.
«.
20.
20.
230000,
100.
1700.
1*.
70.
79.
17.
33.
230.
170000.
20.
20.
27.
17.
130.
5.
33.
23.
790000.
330.
20.
MF TC
/100ML
810000.
11000.
0.
o.
910,
160.
860.
100.
0.
590000.
13000,
230.
33.
300,
113.
520.
0,
2.
360000.
1600.
0.
0,
0.
25.
100.
0.
0.
1100000.
3800.
0.
0.
67.
100.
0,
50.
0.
610000.
200.
0.
100,
5200.
2300.
800.
780,
0.
830000.
1000,
100,
MF FC
/100ML
300000.
0.
0.
11.
0.
0.
0.
20.
0.
220000.
1700.
80.
17.
180,
85.
98.
0.
21.
10000,
130,
0,
6.
28.
3.
8.
8.
«.
130000.
200.
210,
21.
39.
32.
12.
18.
0.
160000,
60.
8.
33.
11.
31.
0.
10.
10.
230000.
120.
8.
CONTINUED
8005 UNFILT FILT AMMONIA SS
COD COD
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
22.10 53.32 10.05 1.95 35,16
13.11
19.20
6, 12
23.88
5.80
15.36
16,00
1.36 12.95 38.33 2.10 3.31
18.93 68.83 9.afl 1.31 11,20
17.12
11.68
13.52
15.16
7.28
1.28
3,10
2.92 72.18 38.56 3.01 5.00
20.85 30.06 27.62 1.62 21.36
18.10
9.72
17.16
11.21
11.56
6.68
15.08
3.92 51.80 36.73 2.15 5.12
11,20 36,37 13.11 0,70 18,32
20.76
15.61
16,76
11.52
11.72
11.11
5.92
6.11 50.12 10.39 1.12 11.32
16.10 51.13 8.57 2.31 41.12
23.21
1.10
21 .10
10.11
10.92
10.28
9.52
5.69 as. 78 33.28 0.09 9.52
20.57 a7.70 17. U6 1,17 16.18
23.36
25.32
vss
MG/L
21.16
10.60
18.08
1.01
20.10
5.01
11.61
10.80
3.31
32.01
13,52
9.92
10.81
10.80
1.32
3.00
3.08
1.32
22.18
*****
8.81
11.11
8.72
9.a8
5.28
10.72
1.76
15.01
15.80
11.52
12.01
9.56
1,08
11 .11
5,10
10,32
29.72
21,18
1.16
13.88
5.92
6.18
7.56
7.81
8.20
11.16
19.52
25.68
TURB PH TEMP
JTU "C"
10.0 7.99 15.3
13.0 8.28 23.1
1.0 8.70 23.8
7.6 8.39 21.0
7.8 9.U1 21.8
10.0 8.71 23.2
6.2 8.50 25.0
1.2 8.52 21.9
1.6 8.50 21.8
12.0 8.01 16.0
8.0 8,05 22.0
1.9 8.78 23.5
7.8 8.0? 23,5
7.3 9.31 23.5
6.5 8.81 23,5
1,9 8.53 21.0
1.0 8. (12 23.5
3.8 8.10 21.5
10.0 7.83 16.0
15,0 8,06 23.0
1,2 8.87 21.0
10.0 8.29 21.0
7.8 9,36 21.5
10.0 8.73 21.0
5.2 8.99 25.0
6.0 8,05 21.0
3,1 8.62 25.0
5,0 7.80 15.0
15,0 8.18 21.0
5.5 8. 81 21.0
12.0 8.18 21.0
7.5 9,28 21.5
6,2 8.87 23.0
5,7 8.75 21.0
1.5 8.67 21.0
1,5 8,51 21,0
11.0 7.78 16.3
16,0 8.72 23.0
3.6 8.96 21.6
11.0 8.22 21.6
S.6 9.36 21.0
8.3 9.J6 21.0
5.6 9.10 23.0
3.7 9.02 21.0
1.0 8.9B ?a.O
10.0 8.12 17.0
11.0 8.88 21.5
2.7 8.aj 21.5
DO
HG/L
6.2
0.9
15.9
1.0
16.0
3.7
2.0
0.7
0.9
5.9
0.1
19.3
0.1
15.9
u.u
3.1
2.1
!.7
6.1
1.2
12.8
1.2
16.0
3.8
9.5
2.1
2.3
6.5
5.3
11.6
1.5
10.9
1.9
6.fe
3.7
2.6
1.9
H.6
7.7
3.2
8.1
9.5
8.1
5.8
a. a
1.7
15.6
7.6
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
MONTH DAY YEAR
NJ
29
29
29
29
29
29
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
in
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
1?
12
12
12
12
12
17
17
17
17
17
17
76
76
76
7*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
7*>
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
SAMPLE
NUMBER
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ft
9
1
i
3
0
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
0
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
0
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
0
5
6
MPN TC
/100ML
100.
1700.
900.
130.
060.
060.
790000.
1000.
1100.
330,
220.
3500,
170,
130.
220.
1700000.
0900.
16000.
280.
no.
3500.
33.
060.
5000.
1300000.
1300,
3500.
ISO.
280,
3500.
31.
280.
27.
900000,
3300,
13000.
130.
1SOO.
1700,
100.
630.
790,
330000,
230,
170,
130,
170,
1700.
MPN FC
/100ML
130.
13.
70.
10.
5.
13.
790000.
110,.
33.
33.
09.
33.
33.
8.
11.
260000.
110.
170.
110.
31.
70.
5.
0.
13.
330000.
80.
700.
79.
a .
22.
13.
?,
5.
230000.
130.
50.
23.
13.
53.
5.
0.
0.
230000.
50.
20.
27.
"9.
79.
MF TC
/100ML
67.
67.
0.
100.
250.
110.
0.
730.
600.
100.
1.
200.
1.
1.
33.
720000.
000.
070.
170.
100.
67.
1.
1.
100.
700000.
200.
1300.
100.
50.
200,
50.
50,
50.
910000.
1100.
070.
100.
50.
50.
50.
50.
50.
2000000.
286.
20.
20.
27.
20.
MF FC 8005 UNFTLT FILT
/100ML COD COD
MG/L MG/L MG/L
09.
7.
13.
7.
0.
6. 3.12 39.03 20.29
0. 8.87 53.09 26.01
26.
30.
14.
12.
21.
15.
2.
6. 2.71 45.02 01.33
80000. 13. BO 23.30 8.53
20.
79.
30.
11.
26.
t.
2.
10. 3.75 06.39 36.07
150000. 23.75 65.70 9.53
31.
130.
29,
3.
33.
2.
1 .
1. 4.99 54.88 03.33
160000. 13. »8 54,91 14,07
208.
69.
19.
8.
26.
5.
2.
3. 0.17 51.97 05.96
3300. 10.75 68.69 6.78
23.
32.
18.
43.
25.
1MMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
20.08
8,64
6,80
5.60
6.60
0.50 5.32
3.31 25.20
18.36
0.76
23.68
4.04
31.60
22.12
7.16
1.05 5.96
1.15 39.20
15.32
4.76
20.68
8.28
11.60
8.60
10.00
1.31 5.40
1.98 35.52
20.20
17.84
31.00
11.00
20.28
25.88
38,08
4.18 12.20
1,57 60.20
53,40
15.80
32.60
10.76
19,40
16.20
13.96
1.73 8.60
2.48 22.52
14,76
11,68
36.96
12,80
25.92
VSS
MG/L
15.20
6.64
0.04
0.12
5.28
0.28
20.08
10.80
0.76
18.60
3.60
27.20
14.92
6.00
5.oe
22.28
12.20
0.76
14.84
6.92
9,32
7.12
10.60
8.12
26.28
16.72
15.08
25.48
10.40
19,04
21 .84
29,20
11.00
54.88
00,00
13.08
25.16
9.0ft
15.08
11.16
9.92
7.00
17.64
1) .56
10.20
29.72
9.52
2^.80
TURB
JTU
10.0
5.5
5.7
3.8
3.2
3.3
12.0
14.0
3.0
12.0
3.8
12.0
10.0
0.8
3.8
15.0
14.0
3.1
16.0
4.6
6.4
5.6
8.3
0.8
12.0
15.0
6.0
22.0
5.4
12.0
12.0
22.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.7
19.0
4.9
17.0
14.0
9.5
7.6
13.0
10.0
7,1
22.0
8.4
21.0
PH
8.75
9.12
9.30
9.29
7.23
9.24
7.76
8.50
7.98
9.02
8,52
9.12
9.15
9.13
9.10
7.31
8.12
8.00
8.12
8.53
9.00
9.07
9.02
9.00
7.68
7.93
7.97
9.13
9.09
9.08
9.05
8.99
8.95
7,82
7.90
9il8
9.18
9.00
8,97
8.93
8.91
7.75
8.23
8.60
9.21
9.00
9.20
TEMP
"C"
25.0
24.5
25.0
24.5
20.5
25.0
15.8
23.0
23.2
23.6
24.1
24.0
24.2
26.0
24.5
16.5
21.5
21.0
22.0
22.5
23.0
23.0
23.0
23,0
16.8
21.8
21.4
22.0
22.9
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.8
15.5
21.0
21.0
21.0
22.0
21 .0
22.0
22.0
22.0
16.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
DO
MG/L
13.5
0.0
13.9
10,0
9.1
9.8
4.5
4.5
1.1
10.6
1.8
6.5
7.2
5.5
3.9
3.8
4.3
2.2
5.0
0.0
7.1
5.0
0.7
3.9
3.9
0.8
10.2
11.1
10.0
7.9
3.7
2.7
2.S
3.3
0.7
7.5
7.6
3|o
2.7
2.0
2.0
5.5
1.3
0.3
lo.o
5.9
6.3
-------
TABLE E-l. CONTINUED
8
A
8
A
A
A
A
A
A
8
A
8
A
A
CO
OO
O
ir
17
17
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
24
24
24
24
?4
?4
24
76
7*i
7*
7*
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
MPL
MBE
7
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
i
2
3
a
5
6
7
R
9
E MPN TC
R /100ML
140.
9(1.
94.
(190000.
2(1000.
1700.
(190.
530.
2800.
2*00,
1800.
2800.
790000.
7900.
17000,
2800.
1800.
7900.
1700.
9(10.
9?00.
MPN fC
/100ML
46.
5.
5.
80000.
16000.
80.
79,
13.
110.
«9.
0.
22.
110000.
2200.
1300.
(19.
22.
11.
33.
33.
17.
MF TC
/100ML
20.
4.
300.
500000.
6700.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
790000.
0600.
76.
64.
70.
10.
10.
12.
«o.
MF FC
/100ML
21.
1.
7.
33000.
230.
26.
15.
1.
42.
12.
9.
3.
86000.
530.
160.
13.
12.
7.
35.
9.
7.
BODS UNFIUT
COD
MG/L MS/I.
6.36 89.33
28.77 102.66
7.40 83.37
lfl.07 63.92
8.17 77. 7«
FIUT
COD
MG/L
04,41
16.19
46.95
14.67
38.45
AMMONIA SS
MG/L MG/L
34.72
46.52
1.19 24.72
1.96 48.28
9.24
13.24
34.24
29.60
39.00
45.84
39.20
0.77 32.20
1.73 23.48
22.08
25.55
67.33
20.00
2.10
21.44
35.24
***** 34,70
vss
MG/L
17.80
40.12
19.26
31.80
8.12
10,84
25.00
22.68
29,60
34,72
36.04
25.72
18.48
19.08
22.60
56.80
17.90
18.96
28.12
29,85
30.04
TURB
JTU
24.0
26.0
18.0
10,0
9.0
7,7
23,0
12.0
26.0
31.0
29,0
21.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
43.0
11.0
20,0
30.0
28.0
28.0
PH TEMP
"C»
9.11 20.0
9,00 20.0
9.06 20.0
7,92 16.5
8.10 20.0
8,50 20.0
9.32 20.0
8.98 20.5
9.40 20.0
9.39 20.5
9.31 21,0
9.30 21.0
7.57 16.0
8.75 20.0
8.73 20.0
,31 21.0
.03 21.0
.52 21.0
,48 21,0
.60 21.0
.59 21,0
00
MG/L
5.5
6.0
5.0
4.6
3.3
3.5
11.0
3.6
6.4
10.2
10.4
10.4
5.0
16.3
5.7
15.2
5.5
15.7
6.2
9.2
9.9
* ZERO FOR MPN TC AND MPN FC INDICATES A COUNT OF LESS THAN TWO PER 100 ML. DAT* NOT TAKEN IS REPRESENTED BY *****.
-------
APPENDIX F
CHLOR-I
DIMENSION R(4,4),S<4,4),Sl)MC4),SSUM<4),ASUM(4>, SE(4),RS3<4) ,C V<4),
*GET(4 )
DATA GET/17 . 5,35. C»49.5,999./
C COEFFICIENTS ARE READ IN.
READ<5»54)SRATIO,TADJ,CORNH3, TADJ2
54 FORMAT* 4F10.5)
WRITE<6,55)SRATIO,TAQJ,CORNH3
55 FQRMATt 14X,'SRATIO = ',F5 .2 »14X »• TEMP ADJUSTMENT = ', F6 .2»14X,•ORG
• ANIC NITROGEN CORRECTION = '»F5.2/>
REAO(5,100)F,NN
100 FORMAT
REAOC5, 200>CHOCLT,CTCOD,CNH2CL,CTOTAL,CFECAL,BNH2CL,BHOCLT
200 FORMATC8F10.5)
WRITE<6»300)F,CHOCLT» CTCO 0, CN *2CI_ ,C TOTAL, CFEC A'_ » 8 NH2CL, BHOC LT
300 FORMAT(53X»'SETTLING FRACTION = • ,F 5. 2//5 4X ,• ST 01 CI OMETRI C CONSTAN
•TS'/15X,'CHOCLT = • ,F5. 2, 15 X»'CTCOD - • »F5 , 2, 15X, 'CNH2CL = ', F5.2,
*15X,'CTOTAL = «,F5.2/15X,'CFECAL = • f F5 .2 ,1 5X ,'8NH2 CL = «,F5.2»15X
*»'BHOCLT = '»F5.2»15X»« ALPHA - »,F5.2/>
READ<5.500)CC1»CC2» CC3»CC4» CC 5» CC6» CC 7» CC 8. CC9
500 FORMATC3F20.5)
WRITE(6»600)CC1.CC2»CC3»CC4»CC5»CC6»CC7»CC8»CC9
600 FORHAT(57X»'RATE COEFFICIENTS •/19X»«CCl = •,£12.5»19X.•CC2 - «»E12
•-5»19X»'CC3 = •»E12.5/19X»«CC4 = •» E12. 5» 19X» «CC5 = • » E 12.5 » 1 9X »• C
*C6 = '»E12.5/19X»'CC7 = ' »E 12 .5 »1 9X , • CC fl = ', El 2. 5, 19 X. 'CC9 = «»E1
*2.5/)
READ(5»4000)DT» TFIN»PRI
4000 FORMATS3F5.2)
DO 160 JJJ=1*NN
ANH2CL=0.
ATPRNT=0.
C THE INITIAL CONDITIONS OF FIELD DATA ARE READ IN.
READ<5>1000)IM»ID AY»IVR»TOTALC,FECALC»TCCD.SC00»ANH3T»SULF»SS»PH»T
*EHP
1000 FORMAT(4X,I2.12,11,2X»2F8 . 0 -2F5.2,F4.2,F3-2,F5.2»8X,F4. 2, F3 . 1 )
REAOC5»1100)CL2
1100 FQRMAT(F5.2)
C CHLORINE AND COLIFORM DATA ARE STORED FOR FUTURE USE IN MAKING A
C COMPARISON 8ETHEEN ACTUAL AND PFECICTED VALUES.
R(1»1)=CL2
R<2,1)=CL2
R(3»1)=FECALC
R(4»1)=TOTALC
S
-------
3500 FORMAT< 1X»F6.3» 3X»8E12.5)
RHOCL=0.
TPRNT=0.
SLIHIT=0.1
C COEFFICIENTS ARE ADJUSTED FOR TEMPERATURE.
FACT1=TADJ**)
IFCARATIO.GT.BBP)GO TO 30
ANH2CL=(((ARATIO-PEAK)»SLOPE)»PEAK)*ANH3T
ANH3T=ANH3T-( ( ARAT I 0-PEAK ) * ANH3T)
HOCLT=0.
50 TO 40
30 ANH2CL=U
-------
50 IF
DTOTAL=BC6*(TOTALC**CTOTAL) «C ANH2CL **BNH2 CL)*BC 7* (T CT AL O*C TO TAD *
*(HOCLT**8HOCLT)
DFECAL=BC8*CFEC ALC**CFECAL) *( ANH2CL «*BNH2 CL ) + 3C 9*
IF(T.LE.GETdTIC) )GO TO 101
K=ITIC»1
CALCULATED VALUES OF CHLORINE AND COLIFORM ARE STORED FOR FUTURE USE
R(1»R )=HOCLT
R t2»K) = ANH2CL
R<3,K)=FECALC
ITIC=ITIC*1
101 CONTINUE
IF
-------
HRITEC6.7000)TT,HOCLT»ANH2CL»SULF»ANH3T»FEC ALC* TO TALC »SS» SC 00
7000 FORMAM 1X»F6.3»3X»8E1 Z.5)
90 CONTINUE
C VALUES OF R SQUARED* STANDARD ERROR* AND COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
C ARE CALCULATED FOR FREE AND COMBINED AND TOTAL AND FECAL COLIFORM
DO 103 1=1*4
00 102 L=l» 4
SUM(I) = SUM( I)»«R=1.
ASUM(K)=ASUMCK)*ALOG=SSUM(I)»«S(I»L>-ASUM(I))»*2.>
120 CONTINUE
121 CONTINUE
00 104 1=1* 4
SE(I)=SORTC SUMCD/AN)
IF(SSUM(I).EO.O.)GO TO 110
RSOU)=l.-GO TO 108
COV=COV*CV( I)
N2=N2*1
108 CONTINUE
IFCN1.EO.O. )N1=1
IF(H.Ea.O)M=l
IF(N2.EQ.O)N2=1
RRSO=RRSO/N1
STOE=STDE/H
COV=COV/N2
HRITEC6»6000)
8000 FORMATC '0 •* 14X* 'FREE CHLOR' »1 4X *• COMB CHLOR' * 14 X* *F EC AL COLIf»14X»
••TOTAL COLI»*14X»«AVERAGE«/X)
URITE(6*9000)(RSO(I1*I = 1* 4)*RRSO
9000 FORMATUX.'R SQUARED* »5X» F9 .4 ,15X »F 9. 4» 15X» F9.4 » 15X *F9. 4* 13X»F9.4)
HRITEC6»9100HSE(I>»I=1*4)»STCE
334
-------
9100 FORMAT*IX,'STD ERROR1 • 3X, E 1 2. 4. 12 X, El 2.4, 12X, El 2. 4, 12 X, El 2. 4. 10X, E
•12.4)
WRITE(6.9200)CCV(I)»I = 1»4>»CO V
9200 FORMATC1X,'COEF OF VA R1 , 3X»F9 .4,15X,F9.k,15X»F9.*»15X,F9.4, 15X» F9 .
*<»)
DO 150 I=l»4
SUM(I) = 0.
SSUM(I)=0.
ASUM( I)=0.
SE(I)=0.
RSO(I) = 0.
150 CV(I)=0.
Ni=0
N2=0
M=0
RRSQ=0.
STOE=0.
COV=0.
160 CONTINUE
STOP
END
SUBROUTINE INTI(T0»OTD»I00»JP )
C THIS IS AN INITIALIZATION SUBROUTINE WHICH IS USED IN CONJUNCTION
C WITH THE SUBROUTINE INT. IT KEEPS TRACK OF THE TOTAL TIME.
COMMON/CINT/T»DT.JS,JN»DXA(500)»XA( 500),10.JS4
IF(JP.EQ.l) GO TO 10
JS = 0
JS4=0
JP=1
10 CONTINUE
IO=IOD
JN=0
GO TO (6»5r l*l)rIO
6 JS = 2
GO TO 7
5 JS=JS*1
IFCJS.EO. 3)JS = 1
IF(JS.E0.2)RETURN
7 DT=OTO
3 TD=TD»OT
T=TD
RETURN
1 JS*=JS4»1
IF(JS«.E0.5)JS4 = 1
IFCJS4.E0.1) GO TO 2
IF(JS4.E0.3) GO TO 4
RETURN
2 DT=OTD/2.
GO TO 3
4 TD=TO»DT
DT=2.*DT
T = TO
RETURN
END
335
-------
SUBROUTINE INT
-------
LIST OF VARIABLES USED IN CHLOR-I
ANH2CL = Combined chlorine, mg/1
ARA.TIO = Ratio of chlorine to NH3 at T = 0
BHOCLT = Empirical constant—define effect of free chlorine on bacti destruction
BNH2CL = Empirical constant—defines effect of combined chlorine on bacti
destruction
CC1-CC9 = Empirical rate constants
CFECAL = Empirical constant used to describe rate of fecal coliform destruction
CHOCLT = Empirical constant used in defining rate of exertion of chlorine demand
CLX = The initial amount of free chlorine
CLY = The initial amount of combined chlorine
CNH2CL = Empirical constant used in defining rate of exertion of combined
chlorine demand
CORNH3 = An empirical correction factor to change the shape of the breakpoint
curve to compensate for the reaction of chlorine with organic nitrogen
CTCOD = Empirical constant used in defining rate of exertion of chlorine
demand
CTOTAL = Empirical constant used to describe rate of total coliform destruction
CV = Coefficient of variation
DT = The time step used in calculating the dependent variable (min.)
F = An empirical constant which specifies the settling fraction of SS
which will settle out in a plug flow reactor
HOCLT = Free chlorine, mg/1
NH3T = Total ammonia, mg/1
NN = The number of times the program is to be run
PRI = A print command which specifies at what time interval an answer is
to be printed out
RSQ = R squared
SRATIO = The ratio of moles chlorine consumed per mole of sulfide consumed
337
-------
SIDE = Standard error
T = Time, the independent variable, minutes
TADJ = The temperature adjustment factor to account for the changes in bacterial
kill with changing temperature
TADJ2 = The temperature adjustment factor to compensate for changes in the
rate at which chlorine demand is exerted with changing temperature
TFIN = A control command specifying the length of time for which the simulation
is to be made
338
-------
APPENDIX G
CHLOR-II
14 ^ THIS PROGPAM <', OL Vf S A SYSTEM OF N FIPST OPDEP ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL
2* r EQUATIONS. ir,c TS MADE OF A GENERAL RUNGE KUTTA METHOD OF ORDFR TWO
3* r WITH A SUSROi-'TlN1: IMPLEMENTING A VARIABLE STEP SIZE rPDCEOURC.
4* DIMFNSICN Yf If] ), DY(10) . YMA X (ID ) • E RR OR < 10 )
5* REAH(5 ,1UO )PH. TFMPC
e» in u roRMAT(?F5 .2 )
V* READ (5 .200 )C T. n MIN.DTOUT .TMAX .EPS.N
3* 2GU FORMAT(5F5 .2 .1 r,l
5* RFA9I5 .3 00 >< Y( I) .Trl ,N)
10* 30U FORM AT(8P!0.0)
11* r Y(1)~HOCLT. Y(2)-NH3Tt Y(31=NH2CL. Y(4)=NHCL2. Y(5) = NOH, Y(6)=TOTAL
12* C COLIFORM . Y(7)rFK."AL COLTFORMt
13* REM5I5 »1 00 )( YMAX I I )t! = l«N)
14* tlJO FORM ATI 8 F5 .0 I
15* Y(l)r( Y( 1)
16* Y( ?)r( Y( 21
17* TEMPK^TfMPC+273.
18* HPLUS-DJ .* *< -P!J)
IT* T=0.
2U* CKW=lO ,t"-l',
21* CKNH3=1.7ir-l)5+l ( TE MPC-20. ) * ( . 016F-H5 ) )
22* CK^OCL-2.5F-U8+» (TTMPC-20. )*(.05E-08 ) )
23* CD-( Cl *CKW )/ ( CKNH3*C< HOCL)
21* Cl = ( 3.7^08 ]*F.Xrf -3000./11.38 72* TEMPK) )
25* C2=( (7.6EO 7) *E >P (-7300./I 1.9372*TEMTK l)» *( 1. +HPLUS )
26 » FACT1= 1.07 1°. ** ( r EMFT-2n. )
27* C3-.05*FACTl
28* C4-1.0FO 5*TA CT :
2<3* C5-2.QF07*F4 CT1
3II » CS-4 ,26rU5*FACTl
31* C7=2.1EU4
72* C3rE.2Cl)2
33* 09^25.
34* OMMTN-CKU/hr LU l
7.5* WRITECf.. 50DDT .^TMIfi iDTOUTrTMAX
56* Snt) FO"?MATUX» '3T ' » FP . 3/1X . *OT UN = ' iF6 . 3/IX . • DT OU T - 'tF6.3AX.'T
37* *MAX - '. F10. 31
39* WRTTEJ r,60r:>) ( Y C ) »lr 1,N t iPMfTFMPC
39* C,ntl FO ?M AT(1X. 'INI T* AL CONDITIONS: ' . 5X . 8E1 2. 5/ IX .' PH = • t F5. ?,t 5X • • TE
411 * *MPC - *• F5 .2 )
41* WRITEIC. 70 I')
H2* 70 Ci FORM ATI* CJ' .' Tim •• ?X • -DT* ,?Xi'HCCL'i8X.'OCL' 18X1 'HOCLT'.ax .'NH3T'f
43* *8X.'NH2CL' ^Xt'N1HCL2't8X.'NOH>.8X,'TOTC'i8XftFFCALC1)
44*
45*
4E* K=l
47* 1
43* IF(K.Ea.5)'C IC5
49* THt FUNCTION1" ARC DEFINED.
51). CALL DIFFim TtY,DY.CO.Cl.C2rC3rC«frC5iCG,C7 ,C 8 t C9 .HOCL. 0 CLi ANH3 r ANH
51* * 4 )
339
-------
£2* r THE -}UNCr KUTTA SUBROUTINE IS CALLED WITHOUT USING THE STEP
f.t C OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE.
5 A* CALL RK2YtDT.Ca»CliC2.C3.C4,C5»C6.C7iC8iC9rHOCLtOCLr AMH3lA
^5* *NH4)
T-T+DT
TOUT=TOUT+~T
rR* COTOS
53* r EVERY FIFTH TIME "TEP. THE MAIf; PROGRAM CALLS' THE STEP OPTIHI7ATION
F,f.l* C SUBROUTINE.
SI* 5 CALL OirSU*-t N. T, Y.OY iDT.DTMIN .ETPSiYMAX lERRCR iKFLAG tJSTARTr CO .Clr C2
f,2* * .C3i C<» »C5i CG »C7,C8 iC3 tHOCL »OCLiANH3t ANH/
-------
l* SUBROUTINE DIFSUB (N.T•Y.DY.DT>DTMIN,EPS.YMAX.ERR OP,KFLAGiJST«RT,C
2* *0»Cl.C?.C3iC4iC5rC6»C7iC8.C9.HOCLiCCL . ANH3 r4NH4, TOUT )
3* r THIS SUBROUTINE SELECTS THE LARGEST STEP SIZF WHICH WILL KEEP THE
*»* C ERROR BELCW THAT WHICH IS SPECIFIED.
5* DIMENSION Y( 10 ). D Y (1 D ) , YM AX (10 ) , YSA VF (10) , Yl (ID) . Y 2 (111) r Y 3 (1 U) . ERR
6* *ORUO) .DYN (1 b) .YMAXSVdO I
7* IFUSTART. LT .0 )GO TO 2
8* r SAVE THE VALUES OF Y AND YMAX IN CASE A RESTART IS NCCLSSARY. YMAX
9* C SHOULD BE INITIALIZED TO +1.0 PEFORE THE FIRST FNTPY.
10» CO 1 1=1 ,N
11* YSAVEII)-Ytl)
12* 1 YMAXSVd >=YMAX(T)
13* C CALCULATf THF INITIAL DERIVATIVES.
I1** CALL DIFFUN ( T i Y . D YN . COi Cl rC 2, C3 iC^ , C 5 iC 6. C7 rC 8t C9 , HO CL f 0 CL. ANH3 r ft
15* *NH4I
16* CO TO 4
17* C RESTORE THE INITIAL VALUES OF Y AND YMAX FOR A RESTART.
18* 2 DO 3 1=1 .N
19* Y(I)=YSAVE(T )
20* 3 YMAXCI )= YM AXSV C )
21* H KFLAG=1
22* C SAVE THE FIN/^L VALUE OF T AND CALCULATE THE HALF STEP.
23* 5 A-DT+T
2t* AA=OT+TOUT
25* HHALFrDT*0.r;
26* C PERFORM ONE FULL RUNCE KUTTA STEP.
27* CALL RK1 (N .T »Y TA VE fDYNtDTi VI »CO»C1 tC2»C3 rCI. C5 »C6t C7 .C8, C9 .HOCL. OC
28* *L«ANH3 .ANHt)
29* C PERFORM TWO HALF INTERVAL RUNGF KUTTA STEPS.
30* CALL RKKNtTiYS4VEiDYNrHHALFiY2fCa.ClfC2tC3iC1rC5tCGiC7.C8fC 2. HOCL
31* * tOCL »ANH3. ANH<4 )
32* THALF=T + HHALF
33* CALL OIFFUNtTHiLF»Y2iDY»COiCliC2»C3»CtfC5tC6.C7»C8»C9rHOCLiCCL»ANH
34* *3rANH4)
35* CALL RKHN .T HALF > Y ?., 0 Y . HHALF • Y 3i C 0 »C11 C2 iC 3, Ct iC5i CS i C7 . C3 . C 9, HOCL
36* * fOCLiANH3» ANHt )
37* ERRMAX=0. '
38* C CALCULATE THF NEW MAX Y'S. THE ERRORS. AND THf MAX RFLATIVE ERRORS.
39* DO 6 1=1 .N
HO* YMAX(I)=AMAXl(AeS(YHI)).ABS
-------
1 * SUBROUTINE r.Kl(N«TrYrDYfDTiYltCO.Cl.C2.C3fC4iC5iC6tC7iC8tC9i HOCL»0
2* *CL f ANH3» AN* )
3, r. THIS SUBROUTINE PERFORMS ONE RUNGE KUTTA STEP OF ORDER TWO.
m c IT is USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STEP OPIMIZATION SUBROUTINE.
5, DIMENSION Y( llMiDYIlO) »Y1<10).Y2«10» rDYl(lG) .nY2(10>
6* DO 1 1=1 »N
7* DYHI)=DY
8» 1 YY (I)=Y(I»+OY(I) *DT
9* CALL DTFFUMT. YY , DY .CO .Cl , C2 ,C3 .CH ,C5 . C6 ,C7 . C8 ,C9 , HOCL , OCL , ANH3i AN
10* *Hi»J
11* DO 2 Irl ,N
12* 2 Y(TI=YY
-------
1* SUBROUTINE r>IFFUN(TiYiDYiCO,CltC2.C3.C4.C5rC6,C7.C«,C9rHOCL,OCL,AN
2* *H3iANH4)
3» c THIS SUBROUTINE EVALUATES THE DERIVATIVES AT THE SPECIFIED PCINTS
4* C (TrY(I)) .
5* DIMENSION Y< 10 ]. 0Y 11 0 )
6* TCOD=9e.35
7* CCtr.003
8* CC5=.0016
9* CC6=.0009
10* CC73.U03
n» ccs^.auit
12* CC9-.006
13* CCL2r30.
14* R1-C1*HOCL tfl NH ^
15* R2-C2*HOCL*Y<3 )
16* R3-C3*YC»)
17* R4-C
38* 4 IF(Y(7 ).LE.O.O )R13-0.0
39* IFCR13.LE. U. 0)60 TO 5
40* R13=CC9* ( Y(7 )**! .08) * ( Y( 1) **1.3)
tl* . 60 TO 5
"2* 3 Rll=0.0
t3* R13=0.0
'If* 5 R8=R8/7lOOO.
"15* R9-R9/71000.
46* DY(1 )=-Rl-R2+R 4-R6-R8
47* DY<2)--R1
48* DY (3 )r Rl-R2-R5-R9
49* DY(4)=R2-R3-Rf-R9
50* PYf 5 ) = R3-R4-R5-R6
51* DYI6 )r-R10-Rll
52* DY(7)r-R12-R13
53* DY(8)=R6
54* Y(U=Y(1 1/71 000.
55* Y(3)=Y(3 )/7100D.
56* Y«4)ry(if )/7lOOO.
57* RETURN
58* END
343
-------
LIST OF VARIABLES USED IN CHLOR-II
C1-C9 = Rate constants, breakpoint reactions
CC4-CC9 = Rate constants developed in CHLOR-I
DT = The initial step size
DTMIN = The minimum step size that should be allowed
DTOUT = The interval for printing out the values of dependent variables
DY = The values of the derivatives at the start of the interval
EPS = The error test constant
ERROR = The estimated single step error in each component
JSTART = An initialization indicator, JSTART = -1 means to repeat the
last step, JSTART = +1 means take a new step
KFLAG = A completion code, KFLAG = +1 means the step was successful,
KFLAG = -1 means the requested error was not achieved
N = The number of first order differential equations
T = The independent variable, time (seconds)
TMAX = The end of the interval being considered
Y = The dependent variables
YMAX = The maximum values of the dependent variables
344
-------
APPENDIX H
COMPARISON OF MOST PROBABLE NUMBER (MPN) AND MEMBRANE FILTER (MF) TECHNIQUE FOR
ENUMERATING TOTAL AND FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA
OJ
8 i—
O I 23456
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS /lOOml)
" 7
o
o
z
o
o
V)
o
u
i
o
IL
O
1
3
_L
_L
_L
J_
I
I
O I 2345 6
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-l. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the" total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for June, 1975.
Figure H-2. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for July, 1975.
-------
E
O
o
I
i
8
cc
o
LL
O
O
Q.
O
I -
J_
O I 23456
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure H-3. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for August, 1975.
1 7
o
o
\
o
y
\
o
u
OL
O
U-
o
p
Q.
CD
3
j_
_L
_L
01 2345 6
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure H-4. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for September, 1975.
-------
e r-
GJ
-P-
O I 23456
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-5.
The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for October, 1975.
o
g
X
o
y
I
O
u
o:
o
u.
o
o
0.
V
3
_L
_L
_L
_L
J_
_L
O I 2345 67
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-6. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for November, 1975.
-------
OJ
-p-
00
8 i—
O I 23456
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM-COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-7. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for December, 1975.
o
o
I 6
o
u
8
o:
O
u.
o
u
I
Q.
I
I
I
O I 2345 67
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure H-8. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for January, 1976.
-------
VO
01 234567
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-9. The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for February, 1976.
O I 2345 6
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-10.
The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for March, 1976.
-------
L/i
o
I 7
o
o
Z
O
o
o
o
i
s
o
I
I
3
8 i—
_L
I
_L
J_
O I 23456
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-ll.
The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for April, 1976.
O I 2345 6
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM-COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure H-12.
The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for May, 1976.
-------
U)
O
O
o
I
o
u
2
or
o
u_
O
o
Q.
8 ,—
_L
I 23456
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
01 2345 6
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-13.
The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for June, 1976.
Figure H-14.
The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for July, 1976.
-------
U)
Ul
NJ
O
O
z
O
O
O
O
o
3
8 I—
I
I
I
J_
_L
O I 2345 6
LOG MF TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
O I 2 3 4 5 6
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-15.
The relationship between the log of
the total coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the total coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for August, 1976.
Figure H-16.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for June, 1975.
-------
e r-
UJ
8 i-
O I 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
O I 2 3 4 5 6
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure H-17.
The relationship betweefi the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for July, 1975.
Figure H-18.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for August, 1975.
-------
8 I—
E
O
o
I
o
o
o
o
(E
O
u.
J
Z 2
CL
O
O
8 I—
_L
_L
O I 2 3 '4 5 6
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
8
1
o
o
\
o
u
o
u_
o
Z 2
Q_
C3
3
_L
_L
_L
_L
_L
01 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-19.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for September, 1975.
Figure H-20.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for October, 1975.
-------
Ui
Ui
8
I 6
o
y
\ 5
o
o
I
8
O
UJ
u.
2 2
0.
O
O
8 I—
I
1
I
_L
O I 33456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
I- 6
O
O
\ 5
o
o
r
o
U 3
-------
8
X
(fl
h- 6
O
o
o
O
O
O
LJ
Z 2
Q_
O
3
_L
_L
O I 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
£ 7
O
O
(ft
\-
O
u
\
o
o
ir
o
u.
o
U 3
<
U
U
b.
Z 2
o
O
_L
_L
_L
_L
J_
_L
O I 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure H-23.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform
centration determined by the MF
technique for January, 1976.
Figure H-24.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for February, 1976.
-------
a i-
LO
Ul
8
\- 6
O
y
I 5
o
u
s
o
LU
li.
Z 2
Q.
O
3
_L
_L
_L
O I 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/IOOml)
O
g
X
V)
I- 6
O
y
\ 5
o
o
o
U
u
u.
Z
0.
3
_L
_L
_L
_L
_L
O I 2 3 4 5 6
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/IOOml)
Figure H-25.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for March, 1976.
Figure H-26.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for April, 1976.
-------
U>
m
oo
e i-
O I 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
O I 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
Figure H-27.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for May, 1976.
Figure H-28.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for June, 1976.
-------
O I 2345 6
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS/lOOml)
1 7
o
g
X
If)
I- 6
O
o
o
I4
u.
83
u
UJ
u.
2 2
Q.
(3
3
_L
_L
_L
_L
O I 23456
LOG MF FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS (COUNTS / lOOml)
Figure H-29.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for July, 1976.
Figure H-30.
The relationship between the log of
the fecal coliform concentration
determined by the MPN technique and
the log of the fecal coliform con-
centration determined by the MF
technique for August, 1976.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-018
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
WASTE STABILIZATION LAGOON MICROORGANISM REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY AND EFFLUENT DISINFECTION WITH CHLORINE
5. REPORT DATE
July 1979 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Bruce A. Johnson, Jeffrey L. Wight, David S. Bowles,
James H. Reynolds and E. Joe Middlebrooks
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC822, SOS #3, Task A/07
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2151
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 8/75-8/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Albert D. Venosa 513/684-7668
16. ABSTRACT
This project had two major objectives: (1) to evaluate the amenability of
algae-laden lagoon effluent to chlorine disinfection; and (2) to evaluate the per-
formance of a multi-cell lagoon system in removing coliform bacteria by natural
means without the need for disinfection.
Results indicate that adequate disinfection was obtained with combined chlorine
residual within a contact period of 60 minutes. Filtered effluent was found to exert
less chlorine demand than unfiltered. Temperature, sulfide, and total chemical
oxygen demand were the most important factors affecting/the chlorine dose necessary
to achieve a specified bacteriological quality. A mathematical model was developed
and a series of design curves were constructed for use in selecting the optimal
chlorine dosages needed for achieving prescribed levels of disinfection.
Total and fecal coliform removal in the lagoon system was related to hydraulic
residence time. Coliform die-away rate was 16^-times greater in summer months than
in winter months.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Lagoons (ponds), Microorganism control
(sewage), Disinfection, Chlorine,
Chlorination, Sewage treatment, Coliform
bacteria, Filtration, Sand filtration,
Mathematical models, Design criteria,
Computer programs
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
Detention time, Residence
time, Most probable
number (MPN), Membrane
filter (MF), Lagoon
performance, Algae-
laden effluent
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report]
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
360
COS AT I F'ield/Group
13B
6F
21. NO. OF PAGES
384
22. PRICE
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 — 657-060/5346
------- |