h1. Experiments 1 and 2 - Replicates of the Previous Fluidized Bed Experiments

h2. Parameters:

For both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, the [general procedure|Evaluation of Previous Experiments] had been followed using specific parameters. The parameters used in each experiment are listed and compared below:
{float:left|border=12px solid white|width="200"}
h5. Table 1: Comparison of Parameters Used.
||Parameters:||Experiment 1||Experiment 2||Control Experiment||
|Sand Grain Type|Sand 40|Sand 30|No Sand|
|Sand Grain Diameter|0.42 mm - 0.59 mm|0.59 mm - 0.84 mm|-|
|Sand Bed Depth|60 cm|60 cm|-|
|Sand Bed Expansion|50%|50%|-|
|Aerator Air Pressure|100 kPaKPa|100 KPa|100 kPaKPa|
|Flow Rate|225 mL/min|485 mL/min|530 mL/min|
{float}
\\
h2. Results and Discussion:

Both experiments were run for a certain amount of time, throughout which they completed several data collection periods. Each data collection period ("run") represents a time period during which the water level in bubble collector gradually falls down from its maximum to the set minimum point. In Figure 1. and Figure 2. this period is represented on the graph when the line slants downward. As soon as the minimum water level is reached, the bubble collector has to refill with water in order to continue the runs. For this reason, the water outflow valve is closed until the water level reaches the set maximum point. This period is represented on the graph by the vertical lines. More detailed information on the bubble collector setup can be found [here|Floating Flocs Summer 2009 Set-up].
Once the change in water level in the bubble collector was recorded, we added a linear fit line to each of the runs to see the rate of change of the water level inside the bubble collector with respect to time. Figure 3. and Figure 4. show the linear fit line for the second data collection period in both experiments, and more detailed graphs can also can be found [here|Gas Removal Preliminary Graphs].
The value of the linear fit is very close to 1, indicating that the data can be modeled accurately using a linear relationship. Once the slope of the fitted line was known, we calculated the content of gas removed per liter of water sent through the sand filter using the formulas:
\\
{latex}

{float:left|border=10px solid white}[!figure 1.02.png|width="440", height="312"!|Gas Removal Preliminary Graphs]
{float}

{float:left|border=15px solid white}[!figure 2.02.png|width="432", height="307"!|Gas Removal Preliminary Graphs]
{float}

{float:left|border=15px solid white}[!figure 3.04.png|width="418", height="252"!|Gas Removal Preliminary Graphs]
{float}

{float:left|border=12px solid white}[!figure 4.02.png|width="404", height="254"!|Gas Removal Preliminary Graphs]
{float}

$$
\frac{\Delta Volume}{\Delta Time} = slope * \pi * r _{collector} ^2
$$
{

\\
\\
The calculations for the amount of gas removed during each data collection periods gave us the results summarized in Table 2 and Table 3 below:
{float:left|border=12px solid white|width="200"}
h5. Table 2: Gas Removal vs. Collection Periods; Experiment 1.
||Run||Slope (cm/min)||R ^2^ value||Dissolved Gas Removed (mL/L)||
|2|0.1013|.9948|5.0909|
|3|0.0986|.9920|4.9397|
|4|0.0861|.9933|4.3348|
|5|0.0739|.9945|3.6795|
|6|0.0659|.9921|3.2763|
|7|0.0616|.9872|3.0747|
{float}

{float:left|border=12px solid white|width="200"}
h5. Table 3: Gas Removal vs. Collection Periods; Experiment 2.
||Run||Slope (cm/min)||R ^2^ value||Dissolved Gas Removed (mL/L)||
|2|0.0854|.9944|1.9970|
|3|0.0856|.9482|2.0017|
|4|0.0847|.9952|1.9806|
{float}
\\
For further reference, please click here to download the experimental data logs from [Experiment 1.|^Data and Calculations, Experiment 1.xls] and [Experiment 2.|^Data Analysis and Graphs1.xls].
\\
\\
The data from Experiment 1. is very similar to the results obtained last semester, when the measured content of gas removed was 5.07 mL/L. Yet the data log revealed a gradual decrease in the gas removal rate for each of the subsequent runs. This tendency might have resulted from a clogging problem in the sand filter. It is possible that the clogging occurs because of the relatively small diameter of the sand column. Large bubbles are formed in the sand bed and push segments of sand up to the top of the filter. While we did not directly observe this problem during the experiment, sensor data collected through Process Controller suggests that clogging might have occurred.
\\
\\
The data from Experiment 2. shows consistent gas removal rate for each run. The uniform results might indicate reliable functioning of the components of the system. Yet the gas removal rate is still a bit lower than the results obtained last semester, when the measured content of gas removed was 3.23 mL/L. The cause of the difference in results might be the [experimental setup|Floating Flocs Summer 2009 Set-up], which has been modified since last semester. For further observation, we measured the dissolved oxygen content at three sampling points in the system. More detailed information can be found [here|FF Dissolved Oxygen Measurements].
\\
\\
Additionally, these experimental results may be modeled as gas removal efficiency when subjected to two different sand grain sizes. Data suggests that the sand with larger media diameter might be less effective at gas removal. Particles with larger diameter have relatively lower surface area to volume ratio and thus provide less extra surface area to which the bubbles can adhere to in the sand column. Although the media size is just one of the factors that affect the gas removal rate, the results indicate that perhaps using particles with higher surface area to volume ratio might further optimize the conditions for dissolved air removal and thus facilitate the process under certain conditions

{float:left|border=12px solid white}[!figure 5.04.png|width="382", height="446"!|Gas Removal Preliminary Graphs]
{float}