OXYGEN TRANSFER CAPABILITIES CANADIANPOND.CA PRODUCTS LTD.

Transcription

1 EVALUATION OF THE OXYGEN TRANSFER CAPABILITIES OF CANADIANPOND.CA PRODUCTS LTD. ¾ BUBBLE TUBING AERATION SYSTEM ½ BUBBLE TUBING AERATION SYSTEM OctoAir-10 AERATION SYSTEM BY GSEE, INC. LA VERGNE, TN. SEPTEMBER, 2011

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF THE AERATION TEST BASIN Horsepower TEST PROCEDURES DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Standard ASCE Data Analysis Method DISCUSSION OF RESULTS CONCLUSIONS CERTIFICATION APPENDIX Regression Analysis Printouts...24 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 GSEE Test Facility... 3 Figure 2 - Bubble Tubing Arrangement... 6 Figure 5-1 SCFM/100 of tubing v. K La 20 - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-2 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTR/100 of tubing - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-3 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-4 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-5 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-6 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SAE - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-7 SCFM/100 of tubing v. K La 20 - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-8 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTR/100 of tubing - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-9 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-10 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-11 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-12 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SAE - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-13 SCFM/100 of tubing v. K La 20 - OctoAir Figure 5-14 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTR/100 of tubing - OctoAir Figure 5-15 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir Figure 5-16 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - OctoAir Figure 5-17 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir Figure 5-18 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SAE - OctoAir Figure 5-19 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence All Tubing WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 1

3 LIST OF TABLES Table 5-1 Summary of ½ Bubble Tubing Test Results Table 5-2 Summary of ¾ Bubble Tubing Test Results Table 5-3 Summary of OctoAir-10 Test Results WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 2

4 1. INTRODUCTION During June-August, 2011, CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. retained GSEE, Inc., to perform unsteady state clean water shop oxygen transfer tests on the CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. ½ & ¾ Bubble Tubing and the OctoAir-10 aeration systems. Tests were performed on each system at airflow rates of 2.5, 5 and 10 SCFM at water depths of 5, 10 and 15 feet. Oxygen transfer is determined using the ASCE clean water non-steady state test procedures. The ASCE standard requires a regression analysis on the data from each sample location and then averages the obtained results. Test results are reported at standard conditions of 20 C liquid temperature, one (1) atmosphere barometric pressure, zero (0) dissolved oxygen, and alpha () and beta (ß) equal to 1.0 (clean tap water). All test results are calculated using the ASCE non-linear regression analysis method for the determination of the mass transfer coefficient K La T, the steady-state D.O. saturation value C *, and the D.O. concentration at time zero C 0. The final results are corrected to a standard TDS value of 1,000 mg/l. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AERATION TEST BASIN All testing occurred in the 21' diameter x 31' tall GSEE, Inc. test basin located in LaVergne, TN. as shown in Figure '. MOVEABLE. ELECTRIC HOIST. GUARD. 26' BRIDGE. SUPPORTS. 31'. LADDER. SUPPORTS FOR VARIABLE. HEIGHT BRIDGE STRUCTURE. PLATFORM. 6 Flange Penetration JIB CRANE. 599 Waldron Rd. LaVergne, TN Aeration Test Facility 21' Diameter Tank 30' Max Liquid Depth STEEL GRID FOR ANCHORING AERATION PIPING LADDER. GROUND LEVEL. 4'. 6 Flange Penetration 4" ANR 73 ANNUBAR. ORIFICE PLATE. TEMPERATURE & PRESSURE GAGES. Blower SCFM 40 HP. Blower SCFM 40 HP. Pulsation. Arrestor. Access. Hatch. 4" AIR HEADER. Window. Sulfite. Dissolution. Tank. NOTE: 4" Ø FLEXIBLE HOSE AVAILABLE TO CONNECT AIR HEADER TO AERATION GRID PIPING. SCALE - FEET. DRAIN. Figure 2-1 GSEE Test Facility The air source is a 1 HP blower. A bypass valve is used to obtain airflow rates from 0 to 10 SCFM. Exact measurement of the airflow was determined using a Dwyer 0-10 SCFM rotometer installed in the header pipe. A Dwyer digital manometer is used to monitor the flowing air line pressure. A temperature probe monitors line temperature during each test. A mercury barometer is used to monitor local atmospheric pressure. Airflow rate is defined as follows: SCFM = ELEVATION VIEW Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (14.7 PSIA, 68ºF, 36% RH and a density of Lb/Ft³) 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 3

5 The air flow rate observed using the Dwyer flowmeter must be corrected to standard conditions using the following equations 1 : To correct for temperature and pressure: ACFM 14.7 BP LP 460 LT 528 LT = Line Temperature, F LP = Line Pressure, PSIG BP = Site Barometric Pressure, PSIA Flowmeter Reading Eq. 2-1 The air flow rate in ACFM is then corrected for relative humidity using Eq. A-1 from the ASCE Standard: Q S Rh Pva BP LP1 BP 36.2 ACFM Eq LT where: Rh = Relative Humidity, % Pva = Vapor Pressure of Water at ambient temperature Q S = Humidity corrected air flow rate, SCFM SCFM = Standard Cubic Feet per Minute ( PSIA, 68ºF, 36% RH and a density of Lb/Ft³) The observed airflow rate may be converted to SI units as follows: Nm 3 SCFM hr Eq Nm³/h = Normal Cubic Meters per Hour (1013 hpa, 0ºC, 0% Rh) 2.1. Horsepower The blower HP motor can be determined as follows: HP motor GHP MHP Eq. 2-3 GHP = Gas Horsepower (From adiabatic compression, shown below) MHP = Mechanical Horsepower (Loss in gear reducers, etc.) The basic equation for determining the gas horsepower is: 1 Spink, L.K. "Principles and Practice of FLOW METER ENGINEERING" Ninth Edition, 1975 The FOXBORO COMPANY, Foxboro, Mass. 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 4

6 W a H GHP a 33,000 W a = Weight flow of gas, Lbs./Min H a = Adiabatic Head, Ft-Lb f/lb m o = Blower Overall Efficiency, % 33,000 = Units Conversion Factor, Ft-Lb f/min/hp The Weight Flow of gas (W a) can be determined as follows: o Eq. 2-4 W a ACFM Eq. 2-5 ACFM = Actual flow of gas at discharge conditions = Density of flowing gas at discharge conditions = MW m BP LP LT 460 MW m = Molecular Weight of Moist flowing gas = MW d G MW d = Molecular Weight of dry gas G = Specific Gravity of moist gas The Adiabatic Head (H a) is calculated as follows: H a = Rh Pv BP BP LP R Ta BP k 1 k R = Gas Constant, Ft-Lb f/lb m ºR = 1,545 MW m k = Ratio of specific heats, C p/c v a k 1 k 1 Eq. 2-6 Four (4) Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) D.O. probes are installed in the test basin to monitor the dissolved oxygen concentrations during each test. A YSI Model 556 MPS multi parameter meter and probe are used to monitor water quality (Temp, TDS, D.O., and Barometric Pressure) during each test. The following sketch shows the arrangement used for the ½ & ¾ Bubble Tubing in the GSEE, Inc. test basin. For both sizes of Bubble Tubing 100-feet of tubing was installed in the GSEE test basin. The OctoAir-10 was installed centered in the GSEE test basin. The OctoAir-10 consists of 100-feet of ½ tubing installed in a compact spiral configuration on an easily retrievable stainless steel frame. 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 5

7 Blank Diffuser 100 of Tubing Installed Window 49.1 in Access Hatch Bridge Bar Spacing 1 starting 1 above floor 16.7 in in Figure 2 - Bubble Tubing Arrangement 12.8 in 3. TEST PROCEDURES Before testing, the aeration basin is cleaned and filled to the required test depth with potable water. Four (4) YSI dissolved oxygen meters and probes are placed in the test basin and later used to monitor the dissolved oxygen concentration during each test. The probes are located as follows: Overall test procedures include: Probe Probe Depth 1 2 Above Floor 2 2 Below Surface 3 Mid-Depth 4 Mid-Depth YSI MPS 556 Mid-Depth After installing the diffusers in the test basin, add water to a depth even with the top surface of the diffusers. Check diffusers to insure that the level of all is within ±¼". 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 6

8 After filling the test basin with tap water, add enough cobalt chloride catalyst to obtain a concentration of cobaltous ion less than 0.1 mg/l. Dissolve the catalyst into the basin contents by running the aeration system a minimum of thirty minutes before testing. Add enough ( % of stoichiometric) sodium sulfite to deoxygenate the tap water in the basin to start each test. Monitor the dissolved oxygen concentration as it depletes then starts to rise, using the in-situ dissolved oxygen probes. Record the water temperature using the YSI MPS 556 thermister. With the aeration system operating at the specified liquid depth and air flow rate, start monitoring as the oxygen concentration increases. Collect data to cover a range of dissolved oxygen concentrations from 1.0 mg/l to 98% of saturation, obtaining a minimum of 300 data points for each probe. I. The general test procedures are: II. 1. Thoroughly clean the aeration basin before testing and fill with tap water to the desired liquid depth. 2. Operate the aeration system in potable water at the test airflow rate and operating liquid depth for 30 minutes before testing to obtain temperature and mixing equilibrium. Record the liquid temperature a minimum of three times during each test run. Maintain the required airflow rate during testing by monitoring manometers connected across the airflow devices. Monitor operating air pressure and headloss via a mercury manometer. Measure the operating line temperature. 3. Install 4 dissolved oxygen probes with integral stirrers at locations in the test tank as required. 4. Use Cobalt Chloride (CoCl 2 * 6H 2O) as a catalyst at a concentration of 0.1 mg/l. 5. Use anhydrous sodium sulfite technical grade (Na 2SO 3) to deoxygenate the test liquid. Add sulfite solution before each test run to decrease the oxygen concentration to zero (0.50 mg/l or less D.O.) and maintained zero for 1 minute. 6. Use the azide modification of the Winkler method to calibrate the D.O. probes. Collect a minimum of three-hundred (300) D.O. observations for each D.O. probe between 10 and 98% of saturation. Detailed test procedures: A. Initial setup 1. Inspect aeration basin for adequate cleanliness, level of diffusers and correct water depth. 2. Check installation of airflow monitoring device. 3. Check D.O. probe thermisters for liquid temperature monitoring. 4. Prepare YSI (Yellow Springs Instruments) Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) probes for installation. a) Replace electrolyte solution and membranes on each D.O. probe b) Connect probes to YSI D.O. meters c) Check each probe for functioning stirrer mechanism d) Connect all D.O. meters to computer for data logging 5. Check the placement of each D.O. probe in the test basin. 6. Start the blowers and begin aerating the test tank. 7. Check all air flow meters, gages, valves, and fittings on the air supply system for air leakage. 8. Collect at least two samples from the oxygen saturated aeration basin for analysis using the Winkler titration method to determine the D.O. concentration. 9. Calibrate all D.O. probes and meters to the saturation value determined by the Winkler method. 10. Check installation of the temperature gage in the aeration header piping system for the accurate determination of flowing air temperature. 11. Dissolve Cobalt Chloride into a container of water. 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 7

9 12. Pour Cobalt solution into the aeration basin. 13. Allow a minimum of thirty minutes mixing of the cobalt into the aeration basin before the start of testing. B. Procedure for clean water aeration testing. 1. Adjust the airflow rate to the test basin to the required test airflow. 2. Read and record the following data: a) Site barometric pressure (PSIA) b) Operating line pressure from the mercury manometer connected to the header system (PSIG) c) Operating line temperature ( F) d) h from the Annubar and Orifice, (Inches of H 2O) e) Liquid Temperature ( C) f) Aeration basin oxygen saturation value C so (mg/l) [Winkler Analysis] g) Ambient temperature h) Relative Humidity, % 3. Pump sodium sulfite slurry into the aeration test basin. 4. Begin observing D.O. meters. 5. Monitor D.O. on each of the YSI meters as it drops to 1.0 mg/l. 6. Continue recording D.O. values versus time for each of the D.O. probes, obtaining a minimum of 300 D.O. values for each probe. 7. Stop all recording of D.O. values when the aeration basin has reached 6/K La. 8. Collect a basin water sample and analyze for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS mg/l) 9. Perform linear regression analysis on the collected data. a) Determine K La 20 values for each probe b) Calculate SOTR and SOTE. 10. Repeat steps 1-9 for each test run. 4. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 4.1. Standard ASCE Data Analysis Method The basic mass-transfer model used to determine oxygen transfer is as follows: dc dt K a C L * C Eq. 4-1 Which, upon integration, with initial condition C = C o at t =0, becomes: (logarithmic form) C ln C * * C K C o L a t Eq. 4-2 or (exponential form) * kla t C C e * C C Eq. 4-3 O C = D.O. Concentration, mg/l C * = Equilibrium D.O. concentration, the concentration obtained as time approaches infinity, mg/l 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 8

10 C 0 = D.O. concentration at time zero, mg/l K La = Apparent volumetric mass transfer coefficient, t -1 The overall mass transfer coefficient (K La T) is obtained experimentally by aerating deoxygenated water and observing the rate of change of dissolved oxygen (D.O.) concentration about time. A non-linear regression of D.O. about time is used to determine K La T, C *, and C 0. The logarithmic form of the mass transfer model can be rearranged to determine K La T using a logdeficit linear regression as follows: K L a T 60 t t 2 1 C ln C * * 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 9 C C 1 2 Eq. 4-4 K La T = Apparent volumetric mass transfer coefficient at test liquid temperature T, hr -1 C * = The observed saturation concentration of oxygen in the test basin at test temperature and barometric pressure at equilibrium, mg/l after an aeration period equal to 6/K La T C 1 and C 2= Dissolved oxygen concentration at time t 1 and t 2 respectively, mg/l For purposes of comparison, K La T must be corrected to standard temperature, 20 C. The appropriate correction has been found empirically to be: T = test liquid temperature ( C) = for all T 20T K La 20 K L a T Eq. 4-5 With the value of K La 20 known, it is possible to calculate the pounds of oxygen transferred to the test liquid at standard conditions of 20 C, maximum oxygen deficit (dissolved oxygen equal to zero), one atmosphere barometric pressure, and alpha and beta equal to 1.0 (clean tap water) for each sample point. SOTR i * K a C V Eq. 4-6 L 20i 20i SOTR i = pounds of oxygen transferred to the test liquid, lb. O 2 /hr., for Probe i V = Liquid volume of water in the test tank with aerators turned off C * 20i = * 1 C = Temperature correction factor, C * st/c * s20 C * s20 = mg/l, standard D.O. concentration at 20 C and one atmosphere C * st = oxygen saturation concentration from Standard Methods, mg/l, at test liquid temperature T = Pressure correction factor, P b/p s P b = Site barometric pressure, PSIA P s = Standard barometric pressure, PSIA The overall average value of SOTR is then calculated as the average of the individual SOTR i values determined for each sample point. Calculate the standard percent oxygen transfer (SOTE - %) once the oxygen transfer rate is known using the following equation:

11 SOTR 100 SOTE SCFM Eq. 4-7 The blower wire HP is determined using the adiabatic compression formula as described in Section 2 of this report. Calculate the standard aerator efficiency (SAE) using the following equation: SOTR SAE NO Eq. 4-8 HP No = aerator efficiency, lb. O 2/hr-Hp SOTR = Qo, standard oxygen transfer rate, lb. O 2/hr. HP wire = Blower HP determined by the adiabatic compression formula Finally, the reported values are corrected to a standard TDS concentration of 1,000 mg/l using the following: K L a T TDS Corrected K L a T observed e TDS TDS = Observed Total Dissolved Solids concentration for each run, mg/l All values are then recalculated based on the corrected K La T. Eq WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 10

12 5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The following table and graphs summarize the results obtained for the various CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. tests. Individual computer printouts of the data analysis including time versus D.O. plots for each test run using the specified data analysis method are contained in Appendix. Table 5-1 Summary of ½ Bubble Tubing Test Results DATE: 20-Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun Jun-11 RUN: Barometric Pres. (PSIA) Ambient Temperature ( F) Relative Humidity (%) Line Pressure (PSIG) Line Temperature ( F) Water Temp. ( C) Number Of Aeration Devices Air Release Depth (ft) Blower HPwire Average Air Flow (SCFM) Average Air Flow (SCFM/ft) C*20 Standard Conditions Tank Volume (Ft³) 5,195 5,195 5,195 3,464 3,464 3,464 1,905 1,905 1,905 TDS (mg/l) KLa20 (hr -1 ) TDS Corrected Results KLa20 (hr -1 ) SOTR (Lb O 2 /Hr) SOTE OBSERVED (%) 30.3% 33.5% 35.7% 27.1% 21.6% 24.6% 18.8% 14.0% 15.7% SOTE (%/Ft) 2.02% 2.24% 2.38% 2.71% 2.16% 2.46% 3.76% 2.79% 3.14% SAE (Lb O 2 /Hr/HP) Metric Results (TDS Corrected) Air Flow (Nm³/h) SOTR (g/hr) SOTE - %/m 6.63% 7.34% 7.80% 8.90% 7.08% 8.07% 12.32% 9.16% 10.31% 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 11

13 Figure 5-1 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus the Mass Transfer Coefficient (K La 20 hr -1 ) K L a 20 - Hr Figure 5-1 SCFM/100 of tubing v. K La 20 - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-2 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate (SOTR Lb. O2/Hr./100 of tubing) SOTR - Lb O 2/Hr Figure 5-2 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTR/100 of tubing - ½ Bubble Tubing 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 12

14 SOTE - %/Ft SOTE - % Figure 5-3 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %). 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 1 5% 0% Figure 5-3 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-4 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %/Ft. of Submergence). 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1 0.0% Figure 5-4 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ½ Bubble Tubing 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 13

15 SAE - Lb O2/Hr/HPwire SOTE - %/m Figure 5-5 is a plot of air flow rate (Nm³/h/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %/m of Submergence). 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 1 2.0% 0.0% Total Airflow - Nm³/h Figure 5-5 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ½ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-6 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Aerator Efficiency (SAE Lb. O 2/Hr./HP wire) Figure 5-6 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SAE - ½ Bubble Tubing 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 14

16 Table 5-2 Summary of ¾ Bubble Tubing Test Results DATE: 30-Jun Jun-11 1-Jul-11 5-Jul-11 5-Jul-11 6-Jul-11 7-Jul-11 8-Jul-11 8-Jul-11 RUN: Barometric Pres. (PSIA) Ambient Temperature ( F) Relative Humidity (%) Line Pressure (PSIG) Line Temperature ( F) Water Temp. ( C) Number Of Aeration Devices Air Release Depth (ft) Blower HPwire Average Air Flow (SCFM) Average Air Flow (SCFM/ft) C*20 Standard Conditions Tank Volume (Ft³) 5,310 5,310 5,310 3,464 3,464 3,464 1,963 1,963 1,963 TDS (mg/l) KLa20 (hr -1 ) TDS Corrected Results KLa20 (hr -1 ) SOTR (Lb O 2 /Hr) SOTE OBSERVED (%) 31.8% 37.3% 42.1% 22.7% 26.5% 34.6% 16.8% 14.4% 21.3% SOTE (%/Ft) 2.12% 2.49% 2.81% 2.27% 2.65% 3.46% 3.26% 2.78% 4.11% SAE (Lb O 2 /Hr/HP) Metric Results (TDS Corrected) Air Flow (Nm³/h) SOTR (g/hr) SOTE - %/m 6.95% 8.15% 9.21% 7.46% 8.69% 11.36% 10.69% 9.13% 13.50% Figure 5-7 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus the Mass Transfer Coefficient (K La 20 hr -1 ) K L a 20 - Hr Figure 5-7 SCFM/100 of tubing v. K La 20 - ¾ Bubble Tubing 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 15

17 Figure 5-8 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate (SOTR Lb. O2/Hr./100 of tubing) SOTR - Lb O 2/Hr SOTE - % Figure 5-8 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTR/100 of tubing - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-9 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %). 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 1 5% 0% Figure 5-9 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ¾ Bubble Tubing 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 16

18 SOTE - %/m SOTE - %/Ft Figure 5-10 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %/Ft. of Submergence). 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1 0.5% 0.0% Figure 5-10 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ¾ Bubble Tubing Figure 5-17 is a plot of air flow rate (Nm³/h/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %/m of Submergence). 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 1 2.0% 0.0% Total Airflow - Nm³/h Figure 5-11 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - ¾ Bubble Tubing 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 17

19 SAE - Lb O2/Hr/HPwire Figure 5-18 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Aerator Efficiency (SAE Lb. O 2/Hr./HP wire) Figure 5-12 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SAE - ¾ Bubble Tubing Table 5-3 Summary of OctoAir-10 Test Results DATE: 1-Aug-11 1-Aug-11 2-Aug-11 8/84/ Aug-11 3-Aug Jul Jul Jul-11 RUN: Barometric Pres. (PSIA) Ambient Temperature ( F) Relative Humidity (%) Line Pressure (PSIG) Line Temperature ( F) Water Temp. ( C) Number Of Aeration Devices Air Release Depth (ft) Blower HPwire Average Air Flow (SCFM) Average Air Flow (SCFM/ft) C*20 Standard Conditions Tank Volume (Ft³) 5,195 5,195 5,195 3,464 3,464 3,464 1,934 1,934 1,934 TDS (mg/l) KLa20 (hr -1 ) TDS Corrected Results KLa20 (hr -1 ) SOTR (Lb O 2 /Hr) SOTE OBSERVED (%) 18.6% 21.6% 32.7% 15.0% 19.6% 26.3% 14.9% 19.4% 11.1% SOTE (%/Ft) 1.24% 1.44% 2.18% 1.50% 1.96% 2.63% 2.97% 3.88% 2.23% SAE (Lb O 2 /Hr/HP) Metric Results (TDS Corrected) Air Flow (Nm³/h) SOTR (g/hr) SOTE - %/m 4.07% 4.72% 7.14% 4.91% 6.45% 8.62% 9.75% 12.72% 7.32% 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 18

20 Figure 5-13 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus the Mass Transfer Coefficient (K La 20 hr -1 ) K L a 20 - Hr Figure 5-13 SCFM/100 of tubing v. K La 20 - OctoAir-10 Figure 5-14 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate (SOTR Lb. O2/Hr./100 of tubing) SOTR - Lb O 2/Hr Figure 5-14 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTR/100 of tubing - OctoAir WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 19

21 SOTE - %/Ft SOTE - % Figure 5-15 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %). 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 1 0% Figure 5-15 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir-10 Figure 5-16 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %/Ft. of Submergence). 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1 0.5% 0.0% Figure 5-16 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - OctoAir WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 20

22 SAE - Lb O2/Hr/HPwire SOTE - %/m Figure 5-17 is a plot of air flow rate (Nm³/h/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %/m of Submergence). 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 1 2.0% 0.0% Total Airflow - Nm³/h Figure 5-17 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir-10 Figure 5-18 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Aerator Efficiency (SAE Lb. O 2/Hr./HP wire) Figure 5-18 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SAE - OctoAir WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 21

23 Figure 5-19 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100 of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE %/Ft. of Submergence) for all tubing tested. 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% SOTE - %/Ft 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% ½'' - ½'' - 1 ½'' - ¾'' - 1 ¾'' - ¾'' - Octo-10-1 Octo-10 - Octo % Figure 5-19 SCFM/100 of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence All Tubing 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results obtained testing the CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. aeration systems, the following conclusions are offered: 1. Over the airflow range tested, SOTR increases with increasing airflow rate and increasing air release depth. 2. SOTE and SAE decrease with increasing airflow rate. 3. SOTE increases with increasing air release depth. 4. SAE only marginally changes as the air release depth increases. 5. SOTE per Ft. of diffuser submergence decrease with increasing airflow rate over the range of airflows tested. 6. SOTE per Ft. of diffuser submergence decreases with increasing air release depth over the range of depths tested. 7. The ¾ Bubble Tubing results indicate a performance advantage compared to the other systems tested. 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 22

24 8. The OctoAir-10 produced lower results than the other systems tested. Note that this is expected due to the concentration of the aeration system in a small area of the tank as opposed to the Bubble Tubing which has more complete floor coverage of the basin. Overall, the results obtained for the CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. aeration systems were uniformly excellent and produced some of the highest SOTE values GSEE, Inc. has observed. 7. CERTIFICATION GSEE, Inc., certifies that the results presented in this report are accurate and were obtained using the test procedures described above. Gerald L. Shell, PE 599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN (615) FAX (615) PAGE 23