Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
OF DYNAMOX TO OTHER AERATION TECHNOLOGIES
DynamOx delivers more oxygen per kilowatt‐hour than any other known aeration device. It does so with no
loss.
The measured aeration in both tap water AND wastewater is 8.95 lb O2./Hp‐hr.
The literature is filled with studies documenting the oxygen transfer efficiencies of aeration equipment. All
are presented to give the best possible view of a given technology. Because the application of the various
correction factors impact the final results, all must be viewed with a certain amount of skepticism. Still the
studies do allow a pragmatic comparison.
Philadelphia Mixing Solutions prepared a study entitled Surface Aeration Revisited comparing all know existing
aeration devices and concluded that Fine bubble Diffused or Modern Surface Impeller were the most efficient
for delivering oxygen (depending upon the assumed Alpha value). Comparing these calculations to the
measure DynamOx efficiency measurements yield the following comparisons.
AERATOR EFFICIENCY
The basic measure of aeration efficiency is Standard Aeration Efficiency (SAE) in pounds of oxygen per
horsepower‐hour or kilograms of oxygen per kilowatt‐hour.
Table 1: Efficiency of different types of aerators in clean water and wastewater (Alpha factors are taken
from the literature data)
Aerator Type Clean Water SAE [lbO2/Hp‐ ALPHA Factor Waste Water SAE
h]/[kgO2/kWh] [lbO2/Hp‐h]/[kgO2/kWh]
Vertical aspirators 1.3/0.79 1.2 1.56/0.95
Horizontal aspirators 1.2/0.73 1.2 1.44/0.88
Brush rotor aerator 3.7/2.25 0.85 3.145/1.91
Coarse bubble diffuser 3.5/2.13 0.7 2.45/1.49
PBT surface aerator 3.6/2.19 0.85 3.06/1.86
Submerged aerator 4/2.43 0.85 3.4/2.07
Modern surface impeller 4.5/2.74 0.85 3.825/2.33
Fine bubble diffuser 6.4/3.89 0.6 2.84/2.34
DynamOx 8.95/5.44 1.0 8.95/5.44
The Alpha factor is used to characterize (estimate) the treatability of wastewater as a ratio between the
oxygen transfer in wastewater and clean water. Mass transfer of oxygen is dependent on three processes –
convection (physical mixing), air distribution, and suspension of biomass. The physical processes are limited
because bubbles are inefficient for both oxygen transfer and mixing.
1
Table 2: Alpha Factor Range (Reference Mueller, Boyle, Popel: Aeration Principles and Practice
Aerator Type ALPHA Range
Vertical aspirators 0.85‐1.2
Horizontal aspirators 0.85‐1.2
Brush rotor aerator 0.85
Coarse bubble diffuser 0.4‐0.7
PBT surface aerator 0.85
Submerged aerator 0.85
Modern surface impeller 0.85
Fine bubble diffuser 0.3‐0.6
DynamOx 1.0
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has long set the standard for comparing aeration equipment.
The pros and cons of this analysis were summarized in a Water Environmental Federation paper entitled
Theory to Practice: Oxygen Transfer and the New ASCE Standard. In spite of these challenges, the results
allow an easy comparison of the technologies. Using theses standard tests, the following Figure can be
assembled.
Figure 1: Efficiencies of different types of aerators in Clean Water (all results except DynamOx performed at
Philadelphia Mixing Solutions Laboratory)
DynamOx
Submerged Aerator
Horizontal Aspirators
Vertical Aspirators
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
lb O2/Hp-hr
2
These efficiencies must be modified to account for the variation in oxygen transfer efficiencies in wastewater.
The following figure presents the aerator efficiency in wastewater.
Figure 2: Efficiency of different types of aerators in Wastewater including the Alpha factor (all results except
DynamOx performed at Philadelphia Mixing Solutions Laboratory)
DynamOx
Submerged Aerator
Horizontal Aspirators
Vertical Aspirators
0 2 4 6 8 10
lb O2/Hp-hr
3