Laserfiche WebLink
Table i Performance of Recirculating Sand Filters in Oregon and California. <br /> (Data from Wert) <br /> Actual <br /> System Size Year Load ES Depth BOD** SS** TN** TN** <br /> No.* fe Instlld gPdI . Media mm Cu in. m L m L m L % Red. <br /> 1 144 1976 1.5 Mine slag 1.2 2 36 2.7 3.8 31,5 51 <br /> 2 144 1980 1.3 Pea stone 3-6 -- 36 18 8.6 31.3 52 <br /> 3 874 1987 1.8 Pea stone 2-4 -- 36 15 17 -- — <br /> 4 120 1985 1.0 Ash 2A 3.4 32 "11.9 11 8.6 79 <br /> 5 --- 1982 --- --- 0.6 -- -- 2 3 — — <br /> 6 12,800 1984 2,8 Sand 1-1.5 2.5 34 3.7 3 <br /> 7 2485 1984 3.0 4.6 1.6 -- 15 12 — <br /> 8 .3000 1984 2.0 --- 4.6 1.6 -- 12 12 — — <br /> *System 1D <br /> 1 Oregon, Douglas County, Recirculating Sand Filters 5 Miranda, California, Marilyn Campos East Bay Mud. <br /> (average of three systems), 6 Contra Costa County - Port Costa, California. <br /> 2 Oregon, Rearculating Pea Gravel Filter (average of 7 Oregon, Clackamas County, Church Camp of Salvation <br /> two systems). Army. Used Year round. <br /> 3 Paradise, California, Recirculating Pea Gravel Filter. 8 Oregon, Clackamas County, subdivision of 26 homes. <br /> 4 West Virginia, Recirculating F=ine Gravel Filter. <br /> (Swanson et al., 1985). <br /> "All values are averages of several samples, no. of samples vary. <br />