1-20 of 2338
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Image
Published: 30 October 2020
Figure 1 Range of influent TSS concentrations for various filter types and operational conditions across hydraulic LRs. More
Image
Published: 30 October 2020
Figure 2 (a) Hydraulic LR across TSS LR, targeted (dotted lines) and measured (symbols) hydraulic LRs versus solids LR, and (b) backwash frequency versus solids LR. More
Image
Published: 30 October 2020
Figure 3 (a) TSS removal versus influent TSS concentration, TSS removed (symbols) and theoretical 100% removal (dotted line), and (b) TSS effluent (symbols) and theoretical 100% removal (dotted line), typical effluent TSS concentration limits (horizontal dashed line). More
Image
Published: 30 October 2020
Figure 4 Influent and effluent TP versus influent TSS. More
Image
Published: 30 October 2020
Figure 5 Influent and effluent Chl. α concentration versus influent TSS concentration. More
Journal Articles
Water Quality Research Journal (2020) 55 (4): 382–393.
Date Online: 30 October 2020
FIGURES | View All (5)
Includes: Supplementary data
Image
Published: 22 October 2020
Figure 1 Predicted vs. actual values plot (a) and normal plot distributions of the residuals (b) for the removal of turbidity. More
Image
Published: 22 October 2020
Figure 2 (a) 3D surface and (b) 2D contour plots showing the simultaneous effect of turbidity and settling time on the removal of turbidity: alum dosage (150 mg/L), rapid mixing (200 rpm), slow mixing (40 rpm) and pH = 7. More
Image
Published: 22 October 2020
Figure 3 (a) 3D surface and (b) 2D contour plots showing the simultaneous effect of coagulant dosage and pH on the removal of turbidity at rapid mixing of 200 rpm, slow mixing at 40 rpm and settling time of 30 min. More
Image
Published: 22 October 2020
Figure 4 2D contour plot showing the simultaneous effect of rapid mixing and slow mixing on the removal of turbidity (initial turbidity of 180 NTU, alum dosage of 150 mg/L, pH of 7, and settling time of 30 min). More
Image
Published: 22 October 2020
Figure 5 Optimum overlay conversion contour plot. More
Journal Articles
Water Quality Research Journal (2020) 55 (4): 358–369.
Date Online: 22 October 2020
FIGURES | View All (5)
Image
Published: 21 October 2020
Figure 1 Fraction of Zn in sediment with different additives dosage (mass ratio of additive to sediments is: (a) 1%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%). More
Image
Published: 21 October 2020
Figure 2 Fraction of Mn in sediment with different additives dosage (mass ratio of additive to sediments is: (a) 1%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%). More
Image
Published: 21 October 2020
Figure 3 Fraction of Pb in sediment with different additives dosage (mass ratio of additive to sediments is: (a) 1%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%). More
Image
Published: 21 October 2020
Figure 4 Fraction of Cd in sediment with different additives dosage (mass ratio of additive to sediments is: (a) 1%; (b) 5%; (c) 10%). More
Image
Published: 21 October 2020
Figure 5 Heavy metal leaching amount with different additives dosage (heavy metal species: (a) Zn; (b) Mn; (c) Pb; (d) Cd). More
Image
Published: 21 October 2020
Figure 6 Fraction and leaching amount of heavy metals with different additives dosage (heavy metal species: (a) and (b) Zn; (c) and (d) Mn; (e) and (f) Pb; (g) and (h) Cd). More
Journal Articles
Water Quality Research Journal (2020) 55 (4): 370–381.
Date Online: 21 October 2020
FIGURES | View All (6)
Image
Published: 28 July 2020
Figure 1 Variation of pH and Ni 2+ concentration in the industrial effluent (a) and (b) and the synthetic solution (c) and (d) during chemical precipitation. More