Comparing a small gravel-less perforated pipe leach fields (GPPLF) to a medium one in treating domestic sewage  

作　　者：Yiheng Yang Chengduan Wang Zhenhua Dang 

机构地区：[1]School of Environment and Resources, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang, China [2]Sichuan University of Science and Engineering, Zigong, China

出　　处：《Natural Science》2012年第3期192-197,共6页自然科学期刊（英文）

摘　　要：There were obvious differences between a medium gravel-less perforated pipe leach fields and a small system in the treatment of demestic sewage with the change of influent quality. In small system, COD removal rate was 91%, ammonia nitrogen removal rate was 90%, total nitrogen was 58%. In medium system, COD removal rate was 86.07%, ammonia nitrogen removal rate was 45.3%, and total nitrogen was 48.2%. This paper studied on the differences. Its main reasons were as follows: differences in opening rate (perforated area account of the total area in infiltration pipe), air flow conditions, exterior environment, and wastewater distribution. Considering those problems, Solutions and applications for the development of GPPLF are given.There were obvious differences between a medium gravel-less perforated pipe leach fields and a small system in the treatment of demestic sewage with the change of influent quality. In small system, COD removal rate was 91%, ammonia nitrogen removal rate was 90%, total nitrogen was 58%. In medium system, COD removal rate was 86.07%, ammonia nitrogen removal rate was 45.3%, and total nitrogen was 48.2%. This paper studied on the differences. Its main reasons were as follows: differences in opening rate (perforated area account of the total area in infiltration pipe), air flow conditions, exterior environment, and wastewater distribution. Considering those problems, Solutions and applications for the development of GPPLF are given.

关 键 词：Gravel-Less Perforated PIPE LEACH FIELDS Pollutants Removal Rate Comparing Component Formatting Style STYLING Insert 

分 类 号：R73[医药卫生—肿瘤]