See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233655556

Oxygen-transfer efficiency of fine-pore diffused aeration systems: Energy

intensity as a unifying evaluation parameter

Article  in  Water Environment Research · May 1998

DOI: 10.2175/106143098X124957

CITATIONS READS

10 2,889

1 author:

Brooks Newbry
Aero-Mod
14 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Combined Processes for Biological Wastewater Treatment View project

Advanced Wastewater Treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brooks Newbry on 06 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Oxygen-transfer efficiency of fine-pore
diffused aeration systems: energy intensity
as a unifying evaluation parameter
Brooks W. Newbry
ABSTRACT: Assessing the clean-water oxygen-transfer characteris-
tics of aeration devices is a critical step in the design and operation of
aeration systems for activated-sludge processes. A fundamental model
has been developed for assessing the clean-water oxygen-transfer char-
acteristics of fine-bubble (fine-pore) aeration devices. This model is
based on a proposed fundamental parameter, energy intensity (E 1 ; kW!
m3) , which is the energy required to deliver air to the aerated volume
per unit of aerated volume. The standard oxygen transfer rate (SOTR,
g/m 3 • s) is shown to be related to E, through a second-degree equation:
SOTR = -11.5 Ef + 2.27 E, (r 2 = 0.951 ). The model applies over a
wide range of diffuser types , diffuser densities, tank dimensions, and
specific air flows. The results suggest that opportunities for increasing
oxygen-transfer efficiencies of fine-bubble aeration systems remain , par-
ticularly by reducing mean bubble sizes and reducing E, requirements.
Water Environ. Res., 70, 323 (1998).
KEYWORDS: Aeration, activated sludge, fine-pore diffusers, aerator
testing, oxygen transfer, energy intensity.
Diffused-aeration systems are common in wastewater treat-
ment plants using activated-sludge processes. Aeration repre-
sents the largest single energy requirement and accounts for a
significant part of the operating cost of these treatment systems
(U.S . EPA, 1985). Therefore, understanding the system's per-
formance characteristics sufficiently to optimize its design and
operation can result in significant cost savings.
Numerous competing aeration systems are available in the
marketplace, with more being added on a regular basis. Perfor-
mance comparison information i.s available on many of these
devices, but this information is often difficult to interpret. Sig-
nificant advances have been made in the last 15 years to assist
in performance evaluation, particularly the publication of a stan-
dard for clean-water oxygen-transfer testing (ASCE, 1984) and
a comprehensive design manual (U.S. EPA, 1989). Despite
these advances, performance comparisons remain an art. No
methodology exists to allow direct comparisons of competing
systems or designs.
Among the various types of devices available, the class that is
increasingly used is fine-pore diffusers. These diffusers produce
relatively small bubbles and provide relatively high clean-water
oxygen-transfer efficiencies. Within this class of diffusers, there
are numerous differences among the devices themselves and
among diffuser installations. For example, fine-pore diffusers
differ in materials of construction and in geometry. Aeration
system designs incorporate a large variety of diffuser physical
arrangements, including a wide range of submergences and den-
sities of placement within the aeration basin. Because of these
differences, direct comparison of different devices, and even
May / June 1998
comparison of identical devices under different operating condi-
tions, is difficult with currently available analytical methods;
such comparisons require physical testing to be reliable.
Design of fine-pore aeration systems requires an estimation of
oxygen-transfer efficiencies in actual (process water) operating
conditions. The starting point for this estimation, and the most
common basis for specifying performance of installed systems,
is the system's clean-water oxygen-transfer characteristics.
While clean-water and process-water oxygen-transfer character-
istics can be markedly different, understanding clean-water oxy-
gen-transfer characteristics is a critical part of system design
and operation.
Fine-pore aeration systems are typically specified to achieve
certain clean-water oxygen-transfer performance values . A criti-
cal activity during system acceptance evaluation is shop or field
testing of the devices to confirm that actual clean-water oxygen-
transfer characteristics comply with the specified characteristics.
Designers and owners have limited methods available for esti-
mating oxygen-transfer characteristics beforehand, other than
comparison with similar systems, rule-of-thumb criteria, or -
analyses provided by equipment suppliers.
The purpose of this research was to develop a model for
predicting and evaluating the clean-water oxygen-transfer per-
formance of fine-pore aeration devices that can be applied to a
wide variety of aeration-system configurations without relying
on shop or field testing. The objective was not to eliminate the
need for shop and field testing. Even with a proven aeration
system model, shop and field testing will continue to be essential
for, among other things, confirming that systems comply with
performance specifications and determining changes in oxygen-
transfer performance characteristics that may occur as a result
of operation. In addition, field testing will continue to be essen-
tial for determining performance characteristics in process (that
is, dirty) water. However, a clean-water oxygen-transfer model
that does not require shop or field testing will assist designers,
owners, and operators in making appropriate decisions while
planning, designing, and operating aeration systems.
Development of Fundamental Relationships
State-of-the-Art Oxygen-Transfer Modeling Approach.
The current understanding of the process of oxygen transfer in
diffused-aeration systems has been well documented elsewhere
(U.S . EPA, 1989, and WPCF, 1988). Oxygen transfer is typi-
cally modeled using a first-order rate equation:
R02 = Ki_"at:,.C (1)
Where
323
Newbry
R 02 = rate of oxygen transfer to the bulk liquid (dOi/dt),
g/m 3 • s; ....
K La = overall mass transfer constant, s- 1; and
!::.C = oxygen concentration deficit (deviation from satura-
tion), g/m 3 •
The current state-of-the-art requires experimental determination
of the rate constant (KLa) to accurately describe the system.
Because making such experimental determinations is only rarely
practical, approximations from comparisons with simil ar sys-
tems are typically used. These approximations can differ sig-
nificantly from the true performance characteristics of the sys-
tems.
Previous work with other types of aeration systems, particu-
larly sparged turbine systems, has demonstrated a relationship
between energy input and oxygen transfer (Adams et al., 1981 ).
Such relationships have been descriptive in nature, requiring
experimental determination of empirical coefficients to quantify
oxygen transfer for specific installations. It was hypothesized
that underlying physical principles should make possible the
determination of predictive relationships between oxygen trans-
fer and energy input.
Volumetric Oxygen-Transfer Rate as a Function of Aera-
tion Intensity. A fundamental relationship for the oxygen-trans-
fer process can be developed from physical principles. Consider
a simple physical system consisting of a static control volume
of clean water through which a volume of air rises in the form
of small bubbles (the small-bubble restriction limits the detailed
development to fine-pore diffused-aeration devices; extension
to other types of aeration devices is possible but is beyond the
scope of this work). The following assumptions are made to
further characterize the physical conditions in this system:
1. The air bubbles are approximately spherical (a reasonable
assumption for air bubbles on the order of a few millimetres
in diameter; fine-pore diffusers typically produce bubbles
with diameters in the range of 0.002 to 0.005 m at the point
of release to the water column).
2. The bubbles rise through the water column without coalesc-
ing or rupturing (that is, their mass changes only as a result
of gas transfer to the water column; in real systems, some
bubble coalescence and rupture are likely, depending on both
air volume and turbulence in the system).
3. The population of bubbles can be represented by a character-
istic diameter, D, and a characteristic rise rate, a.
The significance and implications of these simplifications will
be addressed later. Further elaboration of the third assumption
is necessary before development of the fundamental model and
is presented below .
In real systems, the population of bubbles will have a range
of diameters (that is, bubble diameters will have a population-
frequency distribution). Similarly, turbulent flow conditions,
bubble-size variations, and other factors will cause the rise rates
of the bubbles to vary (that is, rise rates will have a population-
frequency distribution). Both D and a may be thought of as
median values for the population (though neither will be mathe-
matically equal to the corresponding median value).
A physical definition of the characteristic diameter, D , can
be developed as follows . Oxygen transfer from the air bubbles to
the bulk liquid can reasonably be described as a mass-transport
process that takes place across a gas-liquid interface. Therefore,
324
the oxygen-transfer rate is a function of the total interfacial area
of the air bubbles in suspension. Theoretically, at any time, the
number of bubbles in suspension, N, could be determined. The
intetfacial area of N bubbles of characteristic diameter D is
equal to the interfacial area of N bubbles with the actual bubble
diameter population-frequency distribution. This definition of
D will be further refined later.
A physical definition for a can be developed as follows. In
real systems, individual air bubbles will rise through the water
column at different rates because of several environmental fac-
tors (particularly differences in bubble diameters and turbulence
effects). Using concepts analogous to those used for defining
D, the mean bubble-holdup time (the average time that an air
bubble remains in suspension) would be given by the height of
the water column divided by a. However, a slightly different
definition is applied in the following development: a is defined
as the theoretical rise rate of an air bubble of diameter D. Thus,
D and a are directly related. This simplification is sufficiently
accurate for the purposes of developing the model.
The observed oxygen transfer to the bulk liquid (that is, mac-
roseate transfer) is the sum of transfers from the individual
bubbles (that is, microscale transfer):
N
R 02 = L ro2.1 (2)
/= I
Where
r02 ,1 = instantaneous rate of oxygen transfer from the Ith bub-
ble, g/m 3 • s; and
N = number of bubbles in suspension.
The rate of oxygen transfer from a single bubble has been
described by Bird et al. (1960) (after Higbie (1935]). The oxy-
gen mass flux (rate of mass transport per unit interfacial area,
in grams per square metre per second) can be described using
Fick's First Law. The following assumptions are made to de-
scribe oxygen transfer from this bubble:
1. A volume of water arrives at the top of the bubble, flows as
a laminar film along the bubble's surface to the bottom of
the bubble, and then moves back into the bulk liquid.
2. The rate of oxygen transfer is limited by the rate of diffusion
through this liquid film on the surface of the air bubble;
diffusion occurs radially from the bubble.
3. The total mass of oxygen transferred to each such volume
of water is small, so the change is small in the oxygen
concentration in that volume of water.
With these assumptions, the mass flux of oxygen at the sur-
face of the air bubble (r = 0) at position Pon the bubble surface
is given by
(3)
Where
NA.P = mass flux of oxygen, g/m 2 • s;
'DAB = diffusivity of oxygen in clean water, m2/s; and
dCAI = change o~ oxygen concentration through the liquid
dr r=O film, g/m .
Water Environment Research, Volume 70, Number, 3
 Newbry

Integrating this expression over the surface of the air bubble

yields the following expression for the instantaneous oxygen (6)
mass-transfer rate (verified experimentally for air bubbles ap-
proximately 0.003 to 0.005 min diameter [Bird et al., 1960, p.
Where
542]):

QA = volumetric airflow to the water column, m3/s ;

V8 = volume of the characteristic bubble, (1r/6) D3 ,
Where m3; and
A8 = surface area of bubble (1rd2), m2 ; _fb_
[ V wVn
r]
= number of bubbles in suspension per unit vol-
ume of water, m- 3
C sAT = saturation concentration of oxygen, g/m3;
Vw = volume of water into which transfer occurs, m3 ; Second, the overall oxygen mass-transfer rate, R0 2 , is given by
u = instantaneous rise rate of bubble, mis; and
d = instantaneous diameter of bubble, m. R02 = (l/2)(Ro2.o + Ro2.r) (7)
Note that this solution describes the limiting condition in which Where
the oxygen concentration in the bulk liquid is zero (hence, the
R0 2.o = oxygen transfer rate (macroscale) at the point of air
driving force is given by CsAT rather than CsAT - CACTUAL). This
release, g/m 3 • s; and
is consistent with the definition of the standard oxygen transfer
R0 2.r = rate of oxygen transfer (macroscale) at top of water
rate (SOTR) (U.S. EPA, 1989) and with the conditions for
column, g/m 3 • s.
determining the SOTR. Because the time scale for the holdup
of the bubble in the water column is small compared with the Third, R 02 is related to the total mass of oxygen transferred in
time scale for significant oxygen transfer to the bulk liquid, a unit bubble holdup time per unit volume of water (M02 ), as
little error is introduced by this approximation. follows :
Equation 4 describes the instantaneous oxygen-transfer rate
(8)
for a single air bubble. One approach for calculating the overall
mass-transfer rate (R 02 ) would be to express the instantaneous To determine R02 , the instantaneous transfer rates must be deter-
mass-transfer rate for the bubble in differential form , integrate mined at the two limits ,J f the bubble travel. This requires de-
over the water column height, and sum over all bubbles in termining the values of the variables included in Equations 6
suspension (that is, solve a double integral): and 7. With the approximations introduced above, all variables
N T except CsAT are constants. Methods for evaluating these con-
Roz = iII
n=O t=O
ro2,i(t)dtdn (5) stants are developed below.
The rise rate for the bubble, a,
can be estimated from an
extension of Stokes' Law (Bird et al., 1960) as applied to a
Where spherical object (air bubble) moving threugh a stagnant medium
(water column):
T = bubble holdup (travel) time (Hlu), seconds ; and
H = height of water column (distance of bubble rise), m.
a= [4g(pw3fpw- v] PA)
112
(9)
Such an analytical approach would be difficult. As a bubble
rises, it changes in volume because of the decreasing total pres-
sure and loss of oxygen (and, presumably, loss of nitrogen). Where
These factors will cause its diameter and rise rate to change. g = acceleration from gravity, 9.81 m/s2;
In addition, the instantaneous oxygen-saturation concentration,
Pw = density of water, 1 X 106 g/m 3 at 20°C;
C sAT,1 , is a function of the instantaneous partial pressure of
PA = density of air, 1.28 x 103 g/m 3 at 20°C and 100 kPa (1
oxygen in the air bubble. This partial pressure changes as a atm); and
result of oxygen transfer and total pressure change. f = frictionfactor for the air bubble.
To simplify the calculation of R0 2 , several approximations
are made: ' The value of the friction factor (j) varies with Reynolds Num-
ber (Re):
1. A single bubble diameter is used to characterize the bubble
over the entire water column (an extension of the earlier Re= Du/v (10)
definition of D). 6 2
where u = kinematic viscosity of water, 1.01 x 10- m /s at
2. A single bubble rise rate is used to characterize the bubble
20°C. The relationship between f and Re has been developed
over the entire water column (an extension of the earlier
from extensive laboratory measurements. Three regions have
definition of u).
been defined (Bird et al. , 1960). For 5 X 102 < Re < 2 X
3. The average rate of oxygen transfer from the bubble is given
105, f can be treated as a constant (f""' 0.44). When inserting
by the average of its initial (r02 •0) and final (roz.r) transfer
appropriate values for the various parameters and solving for a
rates.
and Re, it can be seen that Re is ..in the range in which f can
With these assumptions, three simplifications can be made. reasonably be assumed to be a constant for air bubbles produced
First, Equation 4 can be written for the macroscale as by fine-pore diffusion devices (for D = 0.002 m, Re = 480; for

May/June 1998 325

Newbry

D = 0.015 m, Re = 9 900). Therefore, with the values given T = temperature of system, K;

above, Equation 9 reduces ,to µ = viscosity of medium in which diffusion occurs, 1.01
cP for water at 20°C (0.001 Pa· s at 20°C); and
u = 5.45D 112 (11) aA= molar volume of diffusing material at boiling point,
The values of CsAT can be determined using the fact that the 28.0 cm 3/gmol for oxygen (Weast, 1974, p. F73).
saturation concentration of a gas in water is proportional to the Substituting the values given into Equation 17, DAB = 2.02 X
partial pressure of the gas at the gas-water interface. Based on 10- 9 m2/s.
a proportionality constant of 43 .3 g/m 3 • atm at 20°C (0.427 g/ Equations 15 and 16 can be simplified by inserting values
m 3 • kPa) and a partial pressure of oxygen at an atmospheric for the constants and simplifying. Doing so yields the following:
pressure of 0.21 atm (21 kPa), and based on the perfect gas
law, which gives the dependence of the gas volume for an ideal Ro2,o = 1.18 X 10- 3D- 7'4(9.62 X 10- 2H2 + H)(QA!Vw) (18)
gas on both the temperature and the pressure, to describe air
over the normal range of pressures for aeration systems, R
oz,r
= 5.15 X 10- 3n-7' 4H(
154 3
D
670D 3
-
-
)(Q IV )
M02
Mo2 A w
(19)

C sAT.r = 43 .3Po2. r (12)

Substituting these expressions into Equation 7 yields
CsATO
.
= (43.3)(0.21) [ Hpw
1.04 X 107
+1 J (13)

To solve Equation 13, a value for P02 ,r must be determined.

4
Again, using the perfect gas law, the partial pressure of a gas at X [H + 10.4 + 45.21(lS D: - Moz)J (20)
constant temperature is proportional to its molar concentration. 670D - Mo2
Assuming that all of the change in the mass of the air bubble
is from loss of oxygen (that is, no nitrogen transfer occurs, Substituting this expression into Equation 8 yields
meaning that the water is saturated with nitrogen at all times),
then M02 = 1.088 X 10- 4 D- 914 QA H2
Vw

t-
3
_ [(0.23)(1r/6)(D )pA - Mo2 J 0.21 154
Po2.r - (14)
(1r/6)(D3)(pA) - M 0 2
--
0.23 X (1 + 0.096 2H + Moz ) (21)
154D - 0.23M02

The oxygen-transfer rates (macroscale) at the bottom and top Equation 21 can be rearranged as a quadratic equation for M02 :
of the water column are given by appropriate substitutions into
Equation 6: Afb2 - (670D 3 + 5.819 X 10- 4 D- 914

R = (6)(0.21)(43.3) [ Hpw + 1]~4r,oABa QA H + 1.046 X 10- 5HD- 914 ) QA H2Mo2

oz.a uD 1.04 X 107 1rD Vw Vw

26 7
+ (0.145 8 + 7.011 X 10- 3HD 314) QA H2 = 0 (22)
= ~~4 (0.096 15H2 + H) Ji)J QA H (15) Vw
D Vw
Equation 22 has the form
3
R _ (6)(0.21)(43 .3) [(0.23)(1r/6)(D )pA - M02 ]
OZ. T - (0.23)uD (1r/6)(D 3)(pA) - Mo2 Afb2 - aM02 + (3 = 0 (23)
and the corresponding solution

X ~QAH a ± ~a 2 - 4(3
1y 1rD Vw Moz = - - - - -
2
(24)
3
- 114.6 154.1D - M02 ·D l/2 QA H Comparing terms, and noting that 1 X 10- 3 :S D :S 10 X 10- 3
(16)
- D 714 670.2D 3 - Mo2 AB Vw m for fine-bubble diffusers, it can be seen that 1.046 x 10- sD- 914
;;> 7.011 X 10- 3D 714 and 5.819 X 10- 4D- 914 ;;> 0.145 8D 314 •
The value for 'DAB can be obtained from tabulated values or can
Therefore, a 2 ;;> 4(3 (and this holds for all reasonable values of
be estimated from the Wilke Equation (Bird et al., 1960, and
D). Solving this equation, and retaining only significant terms,
Wilke, 1949):
yields

(17) Mo2 = (5.819 X 10- 4H2 + 1.046 X 10- 5H 3) QA D- 914 (25)

Viv
Where Again making use of Equation 8, R 02 becomes
wB = association parameter for medium through which diffu-
sion occurs, 2.6 for water; Ro2 = 3.171 X 10- 3(H + 3.298 X 10- 3H2) QA D- 714 (26)
Vw
3/fB = molecular weight of medium in which diffusion occurs,
g/gmol, 18 for water; This expression has the form

326 Water Environment Research, Volume 70, Number 3 ·

 Newbry

Equation 30 is more conveniently expressed in terms of energy

(27)
delivered per unit volume of water aerated:

Where

k1 = 3.171 X 10- 3 D- 114 , and

k2 = 3.298 X 10- 3.
In Equation 27, k1 is a function of D, while k2 is independent
of D. For 1 x 10- 3 m s; D s; 10 x 10- 3 m, 10 s; k, s; 600.
Equation 27 is a fundamental relationship for the volumetric
oxygen-transfer rate for a fine-bubble aeration device. This rate
is a function of the depth of submergence of the aeration device
(H) and the "aeration intensity" (QA!Vw, s- 1) .
Previous researchers (Rich, 1961), following lines of reason-
ing that were generally parallel to those presented in this paper,
developed relationships between the overall mass-transfer coef-
ficient, kLa, and physical parameters. The relationship developed
has the following form:
112
kLa = k' QAHJ - m (pw9)AB)
DVw µ
where E, = energy intensity, kWh/m. Equations 30 and 31 hold
for both isentropic (frictionless) and nonisentropic compression.
Air compression is typically described as adiabatic, isentropic;
if nonisentropic compression occurs, this can be taken into ac-
count by reducing the value of k (as indicated above) .
The outlet pressure at the point of air release into the water
is given by
P2 = P1 + 0.097 IH (32)
For SOTR determination, inlet air flows are adjusted to standard
pressure and temperature (that is, a blower inlet pressure of 1
atm [ 100 kPa] and a blower inlet temperature of 20°C [293 Kl).
Assuming adiabatic compression, inserting Equation 32 into
Equation 31 along with the values for the constants as specified
(28) above, and simplifying yields

E, = 379[(1 + 0.097 1H)0283 - 1] QA (33)

Where Vw
k' and m = empirical constants, and It is convenient to express the term in square brackets as a

[_µ_] =
Taylor series (Spiegel, 1968):
Schmidt number.
PwGfJAB f( x ) = f(a) + f'(a)(x - a) + f"(a)(;!- a)2
Substituting Equation 28 into Equation 1 and collecting terms
yields an equation of the following form: j<"- 1\a)(x - aY,- 1
+ ··· + +R (34)
(n - 1)! "
Roz = k!'H' - m QA (29)
Vw Setting a at O and n at 3, the Taylor series for the term in square
brackets becomes
Equations 29 and 27 are similar in form. The key difference is
the exponents: in Equation 29, the exponents are empirical. (1 + 9.71 X 10-2H)o 2s3 - 1
Volumetric Energy Input (Energy Intensity) as a Function
of Aeration Intensity. The volumetric oxygen-transfer rate is = 2.75 X 10- 2H - 9.57 X 10- 4H2 + R,, (35)
a function of the aeration intensity and the height of the water The remainder term, R,, , can be expressed in Lagrange' s form
column. The energy required to deliver air to the water column (for n = 3) as
is also a function of these two parameters.
For air pressures up to at least 7 atm (700 kPa) and for typical j<·\~)(x - a)"
R = ·- - - ' - = - ' - - - - -
air compression equipment, compression can be treated as adia- " n!
batic (occurring without heat exchange with the surroundings)
and air can be treated as an ideal gas. With these approxima- = 5.32 X 10- 5(1 + 9.71 X 10- 20 -212H3 (36)
tions, the energy input required for air compression is given by In Equation 36, a < ~ < x (or O < ~ < H) . Inspection of this
the following (after Rollins [Ed.], 1989): equation shows that R,, is maximized at ~ = 0. Therefore,
Wad = QAPA. JT1R(l/m)[k/(k - l)][(Pz/P,ik- l)lk - l] (30) R,, s; 5.32 X 10- 5H 3 (37)
Where For H s; 10, dropping R,, from Equation 36 results in a maxi-
mum 25% error (underestimation) in the estimate. Accepting,
Wad= energy input for adiabatic compression, kW;
for now, this potential error, Equation 33 can be written as
PA.1 = density of air at blower inlet, g/rn 3 ;
T1 = temperature of air at blower inlet, K;
R = gas constant, 8.32 x 10- 3 kWs/gmol · K; E, = 10.4(H - 3.48'~ 10- 2H2) QA (38)
Vw
m = molecular weight of air, 28.8 g/gmol;
k = specific heat ratio (or compressibility factor) for Equation 38 is a fundamental relationship for the volumetric
air, 1.4 for isentropic compression and ""1.30 energy input (energy intensity) for a fine-bubble aeration device;
for nonisentropic compression; and E, is a function of the depth of submergence of the aeration
P 1 and P 2 = blower inlet and outlet pressure, respectively, device (H) and the aeration intensity (QA!Vw, s- 1). Equation 38
atm. has the form
Newbry

Table 1-0xygen-transfer device data summary.

Diffuser Data
. .. Operation Data System Data
Size Submergence Airflow/Diffuser T1
. ·······•·····
Tank Area/ Clean Water
No. Type ft2 m2 ft m std ft 3/s Nm 3/s oc Type Diffuser Area SOTI:, % Reference
1 Perforated Membrane Sheet 40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 6.66E-02 1.89E-03 Floor Cover
35 ...... 2.00 45.50 This Study
40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 1.33E-01 3.77E-03 35 2.00 43.00 (¢ir1iidar1i@ ~1ieni)_·_·_····
40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 2.00E-01 5.66E-03 35 2.00 40.00

---·
40.0
40.0
3.71
3.71
15.5
15.5
4.72
4.72
2.66E-01
3.33E-01
7.55E-03
9.43E-03
35
35
.... _..._ ..... _ .... 2.00
2.00
38.20
36.00
···-~~-----·---~~~-~ .....----~·

- ~ -....... _.,.,._,,_.,~~~ ....- - - - , . . _,,M...._.,.,

40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 4.00E-01 1.13E-02 35
·"----,....,.
2.00 35.00
,_.,.._.,~V•'""'·'·-"'h''•...._.,....,,W,''h'M...-,...,

"

40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 4.66E-01 1.32E-02 35 2.00 33.30

'"

40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 5.33E-01 1.51E-02 35 2.00 32.10

40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 6.00E-01 1.70E-02 35 2.00 31.50
40.0 3.71 14.3 4.36 4.96E-01 1.40E-02 35 1.84 35.18 w.~=v==w,.._-,,,.._.,.._~=,...,,.._,,_,
-· w.w .. ,v.,v. .•.. ,- . .-•,y.~w,~-'""""""'-.,....,_.,.._,w .--
40.0 3.71 14.3 4.36 4.40E-01 1.25E-02 35
w.,,.w.•.w.w.w.•-··

,-....,_---· 1.84 36.35 · - - - - - --,,.._-,,,.._.=,·~. . .,,,.-,

·-- ·-·-----------~---.-- 40.0 3.71 14.3 4.36 3.68E-01 1.04E-02 35 .... 2.09 35.85
"

40.0 3.71 14.3 4.36 3.23E-01 9. 15E-03 35 .... 3.91 29.43

40.0 3.71 29.3 8.93 5.21E-01 1.48E-02 35 1.58 54.95
40.0 3.71 29.3 8.93 4.67E-01 1.32E-02 35 1.58 56.27
40.0 3.71 29.3 8.93 3.20E-01 9.05E-03 35 1.58 59.74
.. ._ ...... _.
,_ __ --------.....
..,
·····-·--··

~~-~-~-~- ..... - 40.0 3.71 29.3 8.93 2.97E-01 8.42E-03 35

--~~~- 3.15 49.39 .-.,,,_.,.,...,,,_........................,_.....,_.,.-,,,..,,,..,,.._.-.-,.......,..,..,.._.-,
40.0 3.71 17.0 5.18 3.30E-01 9.36E-03 35 2.20 43.40
...... ,,-,,.,,.,. .,,. -. " "
40.0 3.71 17.0 5.18 2.51E-01 7.11E-03 35 2.20 45.90
40.0 3.71 17.0 5.18 1.73E-01 4.90E-03 35 2.20 35.60 ...
"
40.0 3.71 17.0 5.18 1.73E-01 4.90E-03 35 2.20 35.40
40.0 3.71 16.0 4.88 1.87E-01 5.28E-03 35 2.20 35 .00
. ·· · ···-···
40 .0 3.71 16.0 4.88 1.87E-01 5.28E-03 35 . 2.20 35.00 ,...,,...,,......,.~=---.,,,~~..,,,..,,...,,...,,,~~-
- ~~-----~-~~-
40.0 3.71 16.0 4.88 2.00E-01 5.66E-03 35 .,,,., ....,,,......
2.20 34.40 ..,............................,,.........,.,.............,,,,..........,,,................... , ...........
,,..,..,,,,w '•W""""·==·~--•·••·•''"'""v-.v.-,w,.,.._.,_.,,~._.-,.,.........
40.0 3.71 16.0 4.88 2.46E-01 6.98E-03 35 2.20 33.00
--······
40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 2.26E-01 6.41 E-03 35 2.20 35.90
"

40 .0 3.71 15.5 4.72 1.93E-01 5.47E-03 35 2.20 34.70

40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 1.80E-01 5.09E-03 35 2.20 34.90
...........
40.0 3.71 15.5 4.72 1.13E-01 3.21E-03 35 2.20 40.40

Diffuser Data Operation Data System Data ...,....,.._.........,...,----···----.·.-,.......__.._.,...,~._._,...,,...,

Size Submergence Airilow/Diffuser T1
Tank Area/ Clean Water
No. Type ft2 m2 ft m std ft3ts Nm 3/s oc Type Diffuser Area SOTI:, % Reference
2 Membrane Disc 0.267 0.0248 21.0 6.40 5.62E-02 1.59E-03 20 Grid 8.00 29.71 This Study
0.267 0.0248 21.0 6.40 5.62E-02 1.59E-03 20 8.00 30.03 J~iiri~~~tfa1_. ¢ii~~t.i.·.·.·.····
0.267 0.0248 21.0 6.40 4. 18E-02 1. 18E-03 20 8.00 34.84
0.267 0.0248 21.0 6.40 3.35E-02 9.49E-04 20 8.00 36.82
, ................ -.w.w.-.w.-,, ..,. .. _. ....... , ... ,..,, ........... --. .. •.,•.•.•,-,,,.,.-.w.,w.
0.267 0.0248 21.0 6.40 3.33E-02 9.44E-04 20 8.00 37.31 ..... w.·.w.•.-s,•M·Mw.-.•.•.·.•.w .... ,

, .............. "w·=·-"''"·'""''"·....--.-···-·••-......, •. .,,. •.• , ...........

w.•.•,..,,•.-.v.w
0.267 0.0248
0.0248
21.0
21.0
6.40
6.40
2.50E-02
2.48E-02
7.08E-04
7.03E-04
20
20
8.00
8.00
40.26 ...._..,.,......... ..............- .,.··-·····-·
39.08 ...
~-
... ...........
0.267
"

........................ 0.267 0.0248 19.6 5.97 1.68E-02 4.77E-04 20 7.58 39.90

"
0.267 0.0248 19.6 5.97 1.68E-02 4.77E-04 20 7.58 39.87
0.267 0.0248 19.6 5.97 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 7.58 41.60
.w.•.,., ..... w . ,-.w .w.•.•,,., •.• ,._.,,.,W .w.w.·.-
0.267 0.0248 19.6 5.97 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 7.58 39.20 .•.• • .•.• .., ..w.•,., .... , ...,.,.,.v.•.•.•
0.267 0.0248 19.6 5.97 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 7.58 41.65 ,.v~•.•-·.w.•.w;,.w.w. , ...•,.-.·.·-,.-.w--,.~.-.·.ss
.,., ..... ,.Y.-.•.----,.·.·-···--·.w.•,.....-.. ,.., ........ ~.·,.w, ................, ......, ........·--··
....................
0.267 0.0248 19.6 5.97 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 7.58 39.22
" "

0.267 0.0248 21.0 6.40 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 8.00 41.08

0.267 0.0248 21.0 6.40 8.50E-03 2.41 E-04 20 8.00 41.70
, .... ..
0.267 0.0248 14.2 4.33 1.65E-02 4.69E-04 20 6.38 31.30
0.267 0.0248 14.2 4.33 1.65E-02 4.69E-04 20 6.87 31.30
0.267 0.0248 14.2 4.33 1.65E-02 4.69E-04 20 ............ ........~.,..........., .. 11.16 29.90 ...,.....__.............., .........-..-.
.................. ....., ...~-.·~·.· . w ~ · .w n = ......... -,.,. ....... ,_.,._, ~ w;.•;.w ... -·.· w.-.•.-. w ...., .. ,,.--.-.. ,.., ..

... ........
0.267 0.0248 14.2 4.33 2.77E-02 7.83E-04 20 49.60 22.90
......... .... .. ..... ..
0.267 0.0248 29.2 8.90 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 5.51 48.70
"

0.267 0.0248 29 .2 8.90 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 5.51 48.70

0.267 0.0248 29.2 8.90 1.67E-02 4.72E-04 20 9.45 48.30
0.267 0.0248 29.2 8.90 2.25E-02 6.37E-04 20 40.18 43.80
3 Membrane Disc 0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40 6.78E-02 1.92E-03 20 -···-····....-,
Grid ......., .....,............,. 7.39 32.40 This Study
......,,...-- =·.-·,-... ,..,,,.,.w.w.w,.-.·= ··,..,.,,,..,...,..,_.....,..,.....,.......,,.
w ..

.......... .......
0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40 6.78E-02 1.92E-03 20 7.39 31.81 (q<J11ficfen(i~I_Cli_en_tl ...
......................... 0.442 0.0410 22.8 6.96 6.40E-02 1.81E-03 20 7.96 31.44
0.442 0.0410 22.8 6.96 6.38E-02 1.81E-03 20 7.96 30.14
0.442 0.0410 22.8 6.96 6.37E-02 1.80E-03 20 7.96 32.10
0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40 4.22E-02 1.19E-03 20 7.39 37.08
 Newbry

Table 1-(Continued)

Diffuser Data Operation Data System Data

l - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - + - - - - - ' - - - - ~ - - - 1 - - - ~ - - - " - - - ~ - - - - - - l·-"·- · · - - · - - · · - · - ··
Size Submergence Airflow/Diffuser

Tank Area/ Clean Water

No. Type 112 m2 It m std 113 /s Nm 3/s oc Type Diffuser Area SOlE, % Reference
0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40 4.22E-02 1.19E-03 20 7.39 35.70
0.442 0.0410 22.8 6.96 4.00E-02 1.13E-03 20 .. 7.96 36 .52
0.442 0.0410 22.8 6.96 4.00E-02 1.13E-03 20 7.96 33.82
0.442 0.0410 22.8 6.96 3.97E-02 1.12E-03 20 7.96 34.94
0.442 0.0410 29.3 8.93 3.27E-02 9.25E-04 20 8.36 49.58
-w~ ==-~----·· , . - ~ , . w , ~ u = - - -..- • - ,

.... w .,w.-.-.... ,-•,,n•-•·•-w-•,,w.-..,_,.-.... ,,-,,,._..,,._,.-....-.,,-,-'

0.442 0.0410 29.3 8.93 3.18E-02 9.01E-04 20 ,.,.,.,,._,,,_.,,,,,,.-=....
,w.w
8.36 47.75 ,,.-.-.-......,~~·.,v.,.,.,,,-.,,.,•=,w,·,-·.-.-,~· = w -
=·"""'"

...
0.442 0.0410 19.8 6.04 3.48E-02 9.86E-04 20 7.18 32.85
0.442 0.0410 19.8 6.04 3.48E-02 9.86E-04 20 7.18 34.68
0.442 0.0410 19.8 6.04 3.47E-02 9.82E-04 20 7.18 32.45
0.442 0.0410 20.0 6.10 3.97E-02 1.12E-03 20 9. 13 36.47
, ...w.•.w.•.•,.•,.w.•,,.._,.-.,,..,...._ •.. , ...
v.v.•Mw.•.•.w.•-.sw,.•.-.-. ...
0.442 0.0410 20.0 6.10 3.93E-02 1.11E-03 20 9.13 35.31
,•,w,•,.-w-.,,,,w.,.~.-.-._,.___ _.,..,~ - -~,.-,,.,,,,.,.,_,.-.._.,,_,
0.442 0.0410 19.1 5.82 2.43E-02 6.89E-04 20 7.61 37.73
........ ..... ............................................................ 0.442
-
0.0410 19.1 5.82 2.40E-02 6.80E-04 20 7.61 38.07 .,.
0.442 0.0410 19.1 5.82 2.40E-02 6.80E-04 20 7.61 37.22
0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40 2.13E-02 6.04E-04 20 7.39 35.85
0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40 2.12E-02 5.99E-04 20 7.39 36.15
0.442 0.0410 29.3 8.93 1.70E-02 4.81E-04 20 8.36 56.95
0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40
- ·----------- ........................... ...
-
0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40
8.33E-03
8.33E-03
2.36E-04
2.36E-04
20
20 ..
7.39
7.39
39.45
39.25 ....
•.w.-.-.w~·-... ~ - - - ,.-,,.-.-.,_.,...,_._.....,

0.442 0.0410 21.0 6.40 3.50E-03 9.91E-05 20 7.39 31.69

0.442 0.0410 21 .0 6.40 3.50E-03 9.91E-05 20 7.39 35.44
4 Membrane Disc 0.785 0.0730 2.7 0.81 4.41 E-03 1.25E-04 20 ? .in~I~ lJni.t 4.80 13.00 Turn()() <1n9 ?tSV!l~S (1~96)
0.785 0.0730 2.7 0.81 8.83E-03 2.50E-04 20 4.80 11.10
.......~ , ,;,w=.-v-wn•,,w,=~.w.~~·...-...•,....-.•,·~,.,,,.-,
0.785 0.0730 2.7 0.81 1.32E-02 3.75E-04 20 4.80 9.30 ,SV,....•Av.,-.-~,,_.,,,_~~--~.•.•=~ - ~y.~w
.w, .... ,,.,, y.•.v0•..,,.w,.•,,w,w...-,.w.-....,-•.•=··, ., ., .,w,.,.,, .. •,•,.•.wMw.w.
0.785 0.0730 2.7 0.81 1.77E-02 5.00E-04 20 4.80 7.40 w·,·,·w,w,·,·w,•,·,w

0.785 0.0730 2.7 0.81 2.15E-02 6.08E-04 20 4.80 5.90

5 Membrane Disc
.............................................................. 0.442 0.0410 2.7 0.81 8.83E-03 2.50E-04 20 ?i11~I~ lJ11.it .. 8.54 9.30 Tu111()0 .a.11.~..?.t.EJ.VE1n.~.. (~~~6) .
0.442 0.0410 2.7 0.81 1.32E-02 3.75E-04 20 8.54 6.80 ...
0.442 0.0410 2.7 0.81 1.77E-02 5.00E-04 20 8.54 5.60
0.442 0.0410 2.7 0.81 2.15E-02 6.08E-04 20 8.54 5.50

Diffuser Data Operation Data System Data

Size Submergence Airflow/Diffuser T1 ....... ........ ...... ···· · ..
Tank Areal Clean Water
No. Type 112 m2 It m std 113/s Nm 3/s oc Type Diffuser Area S01E , % Reference
6 Ceramic Dome 0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 8.83E-03 2.SOE-04 20 ?in9I~ lJ11it 10.81 9.30 Turneo.an~.s1.eve,ns .. (1~~l
....
0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 1.32E-02 3.75E-04 20 10.81 9.90
......
0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 1.77E-02 5.00E-04 20 10.81 6.50
0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 2.15E-02 6.08E-04 20 10.81 8.00
7 l111p;:ict 0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 8.83E-03 2.50E-04 20 ?inQI~ lJ~it 10.81 4.60 Tu.rnEJo.an9.~le\4311.s ..(1~~)
0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 1.32E-02 3.75E-04 20 10.81 5.60 ,,_,_,M,-.•-.w.,•CM"M'"'•"~.•.•,v,.,wM-.....w.,•,=M"C
···-···""·"· .,w.w...-,.w.•.•...._•,...-."w.w.·=M·.=w··=-=·w~·=•"'"
0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 1.77E-02 5.00E-04 20 .-.,,,.-.,,...~.-.........·.=···= 10.81 6.00
...........-, ._.,__.,..,... _._.,..,,,,.,v."··=···'"'"•-"•" ·'·-·~·="'·'~"'"'"'""'-'" .... , .... ,, .. ,.w.w.•.w,-.,"''''"'w'"YMw.• .
0.349 0.0324 2.7 0.81 2.15E-02 6.0BE-04 20 10.81 5.90
8 Membrane Disc 0.267 0.0248 15.8 4.82 1.43E-02 4.06E-04 20 Grid 20.1 28.5 Gro1es, et al. {1992)
9 Ceramic Disc ... ... ..
0.267 0.0248 15.8 4.82 1.42E-02 4.01E-04 20 Grid 19.9 Gro1es, et al (199?)
32.20 ............................
0.267 0.0248 15.8 4.82 1.43E-02 4.06E-04 20 20.1 32.57
10 Membrane Tube 0.243 0.0226 17.5 5.33 3.33E-02 9.44E-04 20 Grid 30.5 30.00 .0 ro.\Els, et al (199?)
0.243 0.0226 17.5 5.33 5.0BE-02 1.44E-03 20 36 .9 29.06 w=,=•-·-, -,.,.....-,-,.,-,,....._.,.,.,"""--·'"'"•"•"-"'"·"'w=•··
·-- ·------------ 0.243 0.0226 17.5 5.33 4.78E-02 1.35E-03 20 36.9 28.73 .,w,w.w,.•;,•.•,w.,•.,•,,v,•.v,•,....,_.,,...,......
.,....... ~.- ,=,• ·-.·.v,v....,W,'<W....._W,·,v,-.w,,•,•,_y,.w.•,w,,w.,=·= w

0.243 0.0226 17.5 5.33 5.18E-02 1.47E-03 20 36.6 28.44

11 Membrane Tube .....
0.243 0.0226 13.5 4.11 2.20E-02 6.23E-04 20 Grid 60.3 23.70 <3.r<J'.'.8.~!. ~t.. 8:,.:. (~~92) ..
0.243 0.0226 13.5 4.11 5.47E-02 1.55E-03 20 58 .7 11.92
12 Ceramic Dome 0.267 0.0248 11 .5 3.51 2.67E-02 7.55E-04 20 Grid 16.6 23.10 Gro1es, et al. (1992)
13 Ceramic
....,_.,,.-,,. Dome
.,..__ •...-...-.._._..,,..,,..-, ...._.,....__.,_._._._,_..,_,.,,,.,..,.,.._,,.,,.,_,.-.,,_.,,,_.==·
0.267 0.0248 14.0 4.27 2.78E-02 7.BBE-04 20 17.4 25.00 Gf?16S,.01. ~1 .._(1 ~9?L -•"•'""'
__.,,...,..,. ..~,._.,,.,,, n•...-,•=•...-., ., .... _. -,...-,.v, •=·w.w~~·.
0.267 0.0248 14.0 4.27 2.23E-02 6.32E-04 20 17.3 ·~·-
24.39 _........................., ...........,.,,,...............,....,...........................
23.17
0.267 0.0248 14.0 4.27 2.60E-02 7.36E-04 20 .. 17.2
..
14.U u1;::c-u;:: ,:.v _..,._.,... ... ..
....
0.267 0.0248 4.,U !:>.'fvl:"-U't
..... ..
0.267 0.0248 14.0 4.27 4.15E-02 1. 18E-03 20 17.3 22 .73
....
0.267 0.0248 14.0 4.27 2.45E-02 6.94E-04 20 17.2 25.22
0.267 0.0248 18.7 5.70 2.75E-02 7.79E-04 20 Grid 13.7 35.83 Gro1es, et al. (1992}
14 Ceramic Disc
0.267 0.0248 15.0 4.57 3.23E-02 9.16E-04 20 Grid 15.4 29.49 Gm1es,.et._ al .J1 992)_____
15 ~-...-.-.www~,,.,...,..,...,,
Ceramic Dome
,- 0.267 0.0248 15.0 4.57 2.70E-02 7.65E-04 20 14.8 27.61
----~----=~-
0.267 0.0248 15.0 4.57 3.98E-02 1.13E-03 20 .... 14.7 ..,;4.64 .....
.....
4.57 3.00E-02 1.10E-03 20 14.6 25.38
........ 0.267 0.0248 15.0
15.0 4.57 3.58E-02 1.01E-03 20 14.6 25.77 ..
........ 0.267 0.0248
0.267 0.0248 15.0 4.57 3.03E-02 8.59E-04 20 14.5 26.43
Newbry

Table 1-(Continued)

Dilfusel"Data Operation Data System Data

Size Submergence Airflow/Diffuser T,
......... .......•....•...-.
- ...-. .... ....... ... w,., .... ,, , ,·,, .. wn , ·,·,

Tank Area/ Clean Water

No. Type 112 m2 ft m std 11 3/s Nm 3/s oc Type Diffuser Area SOTE, % Reference
0.267 0.0248 15.0 4.57 4.32E-02 1.22E-03 20 .. .....................
-
14.7 24.52 ...
- ~

······
0.267 0.0248 15.0 4.57 2.02E-02 5.71E-04 20 14.6 29.17
16 Membrane Tube 0.243 0.0226 13.0 3.96 5.37E-02 1.52E-03 20 Grid 23.2 23.21 Grows, et al. (1992)
17 Plastic Disc 0.267 0.0248 13.0 3.96 6.93E-02 1.96E-03 20 Grid 21.3 25.45 Grows, et al. (1992)
18 Membrane Disc 0.267 0.0248 13.7 4.18 4.22E-02 1.19E-03 20 Grid 28.7 26.45 Grows, et al. (1992)
~ 19 Membrane Tube 0.243 0.0226 12.8 3.90 2.27E-02 6.42E-04 20 Grid 19.3 24.55 Grows, et al. (1992)
- 0.243 0.0226 12.8 3.90 2.93E-02 8.31E-04 20 17.2 22.29
20 Membrane Tube 0.243 0.0226 19.0 5.79 2.07E-02 5.85E-04 20 Grid 18.2 32.79 ~r.o.\1,1~: 9.t_~IJ19.9.:?L ..
0.243 0.0226 19.0 5.79 2.80E-02 7.93E-04 20 18.2 32.44
21 Ceramic Disc
... , ., ............. .,_..,,., ..... .,..... . .
0.267 0.0248 14.4 4.39 4.80E-02 1.36E-03 20 Grid 16.1 25.29 ~rt)~~, -~.1..~.1.:. J1.9.9.:?) ...
0.267 0.0248 14.4 4.39 3.52E-02 9.96E-04 20 16.1 27.08
22 Ceramic Disc 0.267 0.0248 14.8 4.51 1.27E-02 3.59E-04 20 Grid 15.0 30.86 Grows, et al._(1992) .•_ ..__
==·= ~~-- ---·-~··-··· ·---..
........... . .. ............... 0.267
-
0.0248 14..8 4.51 1.32E-02 3.73E-04 20 .. 14.8 30.36 ..
. . ·· ······ •· ·
0.267 0.0248 14.8 4.51 1.20E-02 3.40E-04 20 .•........ 15.0 30.98 ..
0.267 0.0248 14.8 4.51 1.52E-02 4.29E-04 20 14.8 30.20
23 Ceramic Disc 0.267 0.0248 17.0 5.18 1.52E-02 4.29E-04 20 Grid 14.8 36.35 Grows, et al. (1992)

-·
24, ....
....... Ceramic
,___ ________
Dome
.... . .... .,_.....•. ................. .... ., ....•.... 0.267
0.267
0.267
0.0248
0.0248
0.0248
14.0
14.0
14.0
4.27
4.27
4.27
2.05E-02
1.95E-02
1.90E-02
5.80E-04
5.52E-04
5.38E-04
20 Grid
20
20
.. .. ................ 32.9
33.7
32.8
26.73 Grows, et al. (1992)
26.41
26.85
-
··--····

were conducted in accordance with the American Society of

Volumetric Oxygen-Transfer Rate as a Function of En-
ergy Intensity. The two fundamental relationships developed
above, Equations 27 and 39, are identical in form. This similar-
ity suggests that a relationship should exist between the volu-
metric oxygen-transfer rate and the energy intensity and that
this relationship should be linear:
Setting Equations 27 and 39 equal and rearranging yields
3 171 X 10- 3D- 714 (1 + 3 298 X 10- 3H)
Roz = . 10.4(1 - 3.480 X · 10- 2H)
The term in parentheses in the denominator is from Taylor's
series in Equation 38. As indicated earlier, this term may be
underestimated by as much as 25% (for H ,s; 10 m) . Dropping
the second term in parentheses in both the numerator and de-
nominator is likely to result in an error (underestimation) in the
ratio in the range of 20 to 40% for H = 10 m and 5 to 10%
for H = 1 m. Dropping the terms in brackets and applying an
adjustment factor of 15% to account for the underestimation,
Equation 41 reduces to
Roz =
Equation 42 indicates that deviations from linearity in the rela-
tionship between R oz and E 1 will occur as a function of D. For
1 X 10- 3 m :S D :S 10 X 10- 3 m, 60 2e: ks 2e: 1. This large
range in ks will cause the suggested relationship to break down
if large variations in D occur; otherwise, the relationship will
hold.
Database for Developing E,IR 02 Correlation
Diffuser-performance information was collected from oxy-
gen-transfer tests conducted for various agencies. These tests
(39)
Civil Engineers standard procedure (ASCE, 1984). Additional
data were assembled from the literature. The database used is
presented in Table 1. In all cases, all physical dimensions of
the systems tested, air flows, and standard oxygen-transfer effi-
ciencies (SOTEs) were reported in the original reference.
The primary purpose of this research was to examine the
performance of fine-pore aeration systems operating in predomi-
nantly floor-coverage modes. Therefore, data for coarse-bubble
(40) devices, for combined mechanical/diffused systems, and for sys-
tems described as spiral roll were omitted from the analysis. In
these systems, there is either a significant gradient in energy_
intensity within the tank or the air bubbles formed have physical
E, (41) properties that are substantially different from those of bubbles
produced by fine-pore aerators. It is hypothesized that the con-
cepts developed in this research can be extended to such sys-
tems; however, this was beyond the scope of the current work.
The database analyzed includes 138 sets of measurements
and represents wide ranges of diffuser materials of construction,
diffuser geometries, densities of diffuser placement, depths of
diffuser submergence, and operating conditions. Figure 1 shows
the ranges in values for some of these parameters. Diffuser
submergences ranged from approximately 1 to 9 m. Air flows
were adjusted to standard conditions and are reported in terms
3.506 X 10- 4 of normal cubic metres (Nm3, which is equivalent to standard
D 714 E1 (42) air). Air flows per unit surface area of diffuser ranged from 8
x 10-4 to 8 x 10- 2 Nm 3/m2 • s. Air flows per unit of tank floor
area ranged from approximately 2 X 10- 4 to 8 x 10- 3 Nm3/
m2 • s. Diffuser densities (surface area of tank/surface area of
diffuser [AT/A 0 ]) ranged from approximately 2 to 60.
Results and Analysis
The E, and SOTR were calculated for the systems described
in Table 1. A summary of the results is presented in Table 2.
This table shows the ranges of values of the parameters for
each diffuser type. The largest data set is for membrane-disc

330 Water Environment Research, Volume 70, Number 3

 Newbry

1.20E-01 ~ - - ~ - -,--- - , - -- ----,- - - - , - -- - , -- - - - ,

Tank Area/Diffuser Area Specific Airflow (Rate/Tank Area)

j~I U ID itmlH1 I
Cumulative Samples s Stated Value
0 20 ..0 60 80 100 120

Cumulative Samples .:. ,Stated Value

:"' 1.00E-01
'E
Cl
y= -1.15E+o 1x2 +2.27E+o0x
Ff = 9.51 E-01

ru 11±1 ~mmn
Submergence SOTE

1
W 100 IW O W ..0 W 80 100 1ro
Cumulatlve Samples s stated Value Cumulative Samples s Stated Value

Figure 1 - Ranges of physical and operation values for O.OOE+oO -l--- -l--- -1--- - - l -- -J.- --+- --+- ---l
data set. 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Energy Intensity (E,), kW m·'

Figure 2-0xygen transfer as a function of E, (0 = ce-

diffusers; however, the data sets for most of the other diffuser ramic disk; + = ceramic dome; /'::.. = impact; x = mem-
types represent a wide range of operating conditions. brane disc; D = membrane tube; • = membrane sheet;
The results of the E, and SOTR calculations are plotted in and + = plastic disc).
Figure 2. Inspection of this figure shows that all data points for
E, values greater than 0.03 kW/m 3 are for one diffuser type
(membrane disc) . This point was considered in the data analysis,
as discussed below. kW/m3 has little effect on the correlation, suggesting that the
A relationship between E, and SOTR is apparent from Figure entire data set can be used. Second, the second-degree correla-
2. However, the relationship does not appear to be linear, as tion is better in all cases (for which sufficient data are available
was hypothesized according to Equation 42. to develop the correlation). Third, all of the second-degree re-
Linear and nonlinear regression analyses were performed on gression equations are approximately equal (that is, regression
the data. The results of these analyses, for the full data set, lines would plot essentially on top of one another). The one
are summarized in Table 3. Both zero and nonzero intercept exception is for the membrane tubes, largely because of a single
conditions were tested; however, a zero intercept would be low value (which appears to be an outlier). These last two
expected. All regression equations fit the data well (r 2 ~ 0.9, conclusions provide further support to the appropriateness of
p < 0.05). The best fit is provided by the second-degree equa- using a second-degree equation to describe this relationship.
tions, suggesting that the fundamental relationship between the The differences between the measured oxygen-transfer rate
parameters is of this type. (using the second-degree equation with zero intercept) and the
Regression analyses were conducted on subsets of the data. reported values were calculated. These differences are plotted
The subsets included all data for each type of diffuser and all as a frequency diagram in Figure 3. This figure shows that 85%
data with E1 less than 0.030 kW/m 3 • The latter analysis was of the estimated values differ from the measured values by less
performed to determine whether the membrane disc data for than 20%. Approximately 5% of the estimated values differ
higher E1 values skewed the results. The results of these analyses from the measured values by more than 30%. Given the wide
are given in Table 4. range of aeration devices and operating conditions covered,
Several conclusions can be drawn from the information pre- this is excellent agreement between the predicted and measured
sented in Table 4. First, deleting E, values greater than 0.030 values.
An analysis of the data was conducted to attempt to identify
a relationship between the error in estimation of oxygen-transfer
rate and the parameters affecting oxygen transfer (E1, depth of
Table 2-0xygen-transfer testing summary.
submergence, specific air-flow rate, and so forth). No relation-
Range of E,, Range of SOTR, ship was identified between the error of the estimate and any
Number kW/m 3 g/m 3 ·s of these parameters. In nearly all cases, the predicted transfer
Aeration device of tests (X10 3 ) (x106 ) rate was less than the measured value when the error exceeded
30%. It seemed that errors of more than 30% were most com-
Perforated mon at low values of air flux (air flow per unit tank surface
membrane sheet 29 2.28 - 20.5 6.77 - 45.9 area), but a statistically significant relationship was not found.
Membrane disc 61 2.68-65.6 4.48 - 104 Although the overall relationship is nonlinear, linear relation-
Ceramic dome 22 5.71 - 28.7 11 .3-49.8
ships can be used to approximate regions of the data. The linear
Ceramic disc 10 6.92-29.3 15.0-54.3
Membrane tube 11 3.97-25.2 7.29-47.0
regression analysis performed on the initial part of the curve
Impact 4 6.82-16.6 11.2-35.0 (E1 < 0.030 kW/m3) yields the folio-wing relationship:
Plastic disc 32.3 66.0
(43)

May/ June 1998 331

Newbry

Table 3-Regression equations for E1:S0TR correlation (all data).

Number Typ'e ' Zero intercept Equation (y = SOTA; x = E1) r2

1 Linear No y = 1.62x + 0.006 47 0.940

2 Linear Yes y = 1.87x 0.907
3 Power Yes y = 1.28Jl 886 0.925
4 2nd Degree No y = -9.31x2 + 2.1 2x + 0.001 87 0.952
5 2nd Degree Yes y = -11.5x2 + 2.27x 0:951

The value of the coefficient is in the range given earlier for ks.
Setting this value equal to ks and solving for D yields a value
of 7.08 x 10- 3 m. This is the theoretical mean bubble diameter
that describes the full range of systems tested. It is a relatively
high number, compared with reported values for fine-bubble
aeration systems . Theoretically, oxygen transfer per unit of en-
ergy is maximized when the bubble diameter is minimized,
reaching a limit at a bubble diameter of approximately 5 X
10- 4 m (Bischof et al. , 1996). The theoretical bubble diameter
calculated from the data set suggests that currently available
aeration systems, even those that reportedly produce very small
bubbles, may not maintain populations of very small bubbles
in the water column.
Reasons for deviations from linearity in the relationship be-
tween R 0 2 and E 1 were examined. As discussed earlier, varia-
tions in D will cause deviations from linearity in the relation-
ship. If variations in D were independent of E 1 , the expected
result would be considerable scatter in the data plotted in Figure
2. Such scatter is not apparent. Increasing values of D with
increasing E 1 would result in the deviation from linearity ob-
served in Figure 2. The relative lack of scatter in the data
and curvilinear relationship between E1 and SOTR suggest that
variations in D for fine-bubble aeration devices may be primar-
ily a function of E1 • One explanation is that increasing energy
intensity results in increasing bubble coalescence and corre-
sponding increases in D . Such an effect would explain the devia-
tion from linearity.
The relationship shown in Figure 2 applies only to fine-pore
aeration devices with relatively uniform placement within an
aeration tank. It is likely that similar relationships could be
developed for other aeration devices, including coarse-bubble
diffused aerators ; for other physical arrangements, such as spi-
ral-roll systems; and perhaps for mechanical aeration systems.
These are appropriate topics for future research.
Conclusions
The model developed for this study allows accurate estimates
of the clean-water oxygen-transfer rate of fine-pore aeration
devices, based on the energy intensity for aeration, E 1 • A theo-
retical relationship between the rate of oxygen transfer (R02 or
SOTR) and E1 was developed and demonstrated using data from
a wide range of fine-bubble aeration systems.
The model developed in this paper applies to fine-bubble
aeration devices placed reasonably uniformly across the bottom
of an aeration basin. It applies to a wide range of fine-bubble
aeration devices and aeration tank geometries.
The model developed will allow designers and operators of
fine-pore aeration systems to estimate the oxygen-transfer rates
for their systems without the need for shop or field testing of
the devices. However, the model will not eliminate the need
for shop and field testing of such systems, particularly when
very accurate and precise values are needed. Further, the model
does not apply to oxygen-transfer rates under actual (dirty wa-
ter) operating conditions.
The results suggest that further improvements in aeration
system design and operation are possible. In particular, min-

Table 4-Regression equations for E1:S0TR correlation

(individual diffuser types). 120

Data set Data points Equation r 100

All data, E, < 30 125 y = - 19.9x + 2.45x

2
0.915 ....

Ceramic disc 10
y = 2.03x
y = - 17.4x2 + 2.37x
0.895
0.998
!
~
80

w
y = 2.00x 0.974 0
60
~
Ceramic dome 22 y = -33.2x2 + 2.63x
y = 1.93x
0.825
0.740
w
E
t:

.
f 40
(
Impact 4 y = 2.07x 0.968
y = - 12.2x2 + 2.32x <
Q.
Q.
)
-
Membrane disc 61 0.954
y = 1.82x 0.896 20

Membrane tube

Membrane sheet
11

29
y = + 11.0x2 + 1.61x
y = 1.80x
y = -16.9x2 + 2.53x
y = 2.27x
0.929
0.922
0.970
0.964
0
0.2 0.4 0.6
Fraction <= Stated Value
------
0.8

Plastic disc na na
Figure 3-Errors in estimates of oxygen-transfer rate.

332 Water Environment Research, Volume 70, Number 3


imizing E, and maintaining small bubble diameters in the aera-
tion systems can lead to potentially significant energy reduc-
tions.
Acknowledgments
Author. Brooks W. Newbry is Director of Operations Ser-
vices for Greeley and Hansen. Correspondence should be sent to
B.W. Newbry, 7504 S. Trenton Court, Englewood, CO 80112.
References
Adams, C.E.; Ford, D.L.; and Eckenfelder, ·w.w. (1981) Development
of Design and Operational Criteria for Wastewater Treatment,
Enviro Press, Nashville, Tenn.
American Society of Civil Engineering (1984) A Standard for the Mea -
surement of Oxygen Transfer in Clean Water. New York, N.Y.
Bird, R.B.; Stewart, W.E.; and Lightfoot, E.N. (1960) Transport Phe-
nomena. Wiley Interscience, New York, N.Y., 182,193,515, 541 ,
542.
Bischof, F.; Hofken, M.; and Durst, F. (1996) Design and Construction
of Aeration Systems for Optimum Operation of Large Wastewater
Treatment Plants. Water Sci. Technol., 33, 12, 189.
Groves, K.P.; Daigger, G.T.; Simpkin, T.J.; Redmon , D.T.; and Ewing,
L. (1992) Evaluation of Oxygen Transfer Efficiency and Alpha-
May/ June 1998
View publication stats
Newbry
Factor on a Variety of Diffused Aeration Systems . Water Environ.
Res., 64, 691. .
Higbie, R. (1935) The Rate of Absorption of Pure Gas Into a Still Liquid
During Short Periods of Exposure. Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng.,
31, 365.
Rich, L.G. (1961) Unit Operations of Sanitary Engineering. Wiley Inter-
science, New York, N.Y.
Rollins, J.P. (Ed.) (1989) Compressed Air and Gas Handbook. 5th Ed.,
Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, N.J., 790.
Spiegel, M.R. (1968) Mathematical Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, N.Y., 110.
Tumeo, M.A., and Stephens, T.J. (1996) Oxygen Transfer Efficiency in
Small Diffusers. J. Environ. Eng., 122, I, 55.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1985) Summary Report: Fine
Pore (Fine Bubble) Aeration Systems. EPA-625/8-85-010, Wash-
ington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989) EPAIASCE Design Man-
ual of Fine Pore Aeration. EPA-625/1 -89-023, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Weast, R.C. (Ed.) (1974) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
Wilke, C.R. ( 1949) Estimation of Liquid Diffusion Co-efficients. Chemi-
cal Engineering Progress, 45, 218.
Water Pollution Control Federation (1988) Aeration. Manual of Practice
FD-13, Alexandria, Va. ; Manuals and Reports on Engi neering Prac-
tice No. 68, Am. Soc. Civil Eng., New York, N.Y.
333