Laserfiche WebLink
Table 4. Predicted vs actual removal efficiencies on overland flow systems receiving primary or raw Wastewater. <br /> BOD TSS NH,-N <br /> Calculated Predicted Predicted Predicted <br /> detention Applied Predicted Actual -actual Applied Predicted Actual -actual Applied Predicted Actual -actual <br /> time Runoff cont. removal removal removal cont. removal removal removal cone. removal removal removal <br /> System (min) fraction (mg/L) (%) (%) N) (mg1L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L) (M) (M) (M) <br /> Ada,Oklahoma 222 0.50 150 99+ 96 3 160 95+ 97 -2 17.0 99+ 98 1 <br /> (Thomas et al. 195 0.50 150 99+ 97 2 160 95+ 98 -3 17.0 99+ 96 3 <br /> 1976) 171 0.50 150 99+ 97 2 160 95+ 98 -3 17.0 99+ 97 2 <br /> Pauls Valley,Okla- <br /> homa(Hall et al. - <br /> 1977) 294 0.50 117 99+ 96 3 105 95+ 97 -2 17.0 98 91 7 <br /> N <br /> Werrltxe Farm,Aus- <br /> tralia(Scott and <br /> Fulton 1979) 626 0.80 507 99+ 98 3 233 95+ 93 2 31.0 99+ 20« _ <br /> Easley,South <br /> Carolina(Pollock, <br /> 1979) 59 0.70 200 91 91 0 186 92 97 -5 19.4 86 85 1 <br /> Paris,Texas <br /> (C.W.Thornthwaite, <br /> 1979) 138 0.60 480 99 99 0 181 95+ 96 -1 — — — — <br /> Mean 1.9 -2.0 2.8 <br /> Std.dev. 1.3 2.2 2.5 <br /> *Wastewater was applied during the winter when crops were not actively growing. <br />