4.3 Analytical Validation of the Developed Model
79
as demonstrated in available literatures to judge the efficacy of the present model.
The model analysis by [3], Fouad and Bhargava (2004) and [4] is denoted as Case 2,
Case 3 and Case 4, respectively. Table 4b of Annexure Ia illustrates the comparison of
output parameters between Case 1 and Cases 2, 3 and 4 separately. In the comparison
analysis, all necessary kinetic coefficients and input parameters like initial substrate
concentration (S 0 ), hydraulic retention time (θ ), sludge retention time (θ c ), specific
surface area (a) and attached biomass density (X f ) are chosen as per the standard
literatures of the respective cases. The results of analysis as shown in Table-5b of
Annexure II-a depict the outcomes from computer programming of the present model
which are compared with the existing models.
The kinetic coefficients and physical data for comparison between Case 1 and
Case 2, and Case 1 and Case 3 are considered as: k = 10 day-1, Y = 0.45, K =
0.01 mg/cm
3 , b t = 0.41 day
−1 , b s = 0.21 day
−1 and b d = 0.2 day
−1 D = 1.25
cm
2 /day, D f = 0.75 cm
2 /day, L = 0.0078 cm. The kinetic coefficients and physical
data for comparison between Case 1 and Case 4 is considered as: k = 2.08 day
−1 , Y
= 0.72, K = 0.087 mg/cm
3 , b t = 0.08 day
−1 , b s = 0.04 day
−1 , b d = 0.04 day
−1 , D
= 1.25 cm
2 /day and D f = 0.393 cm
2 /day, L = 0.0078 cm.
References
1. Williamson K, McCarty PL (1976) A model of substrate utilization by bacterial films. 48(1):9–23
2. Sarkar S, Mazumder D (2015) Process design and application of aerobic hybrid bioreactor in
the treatment of municipal wastewater. Int J Chem Nucl Mater Metall Eng World Acad Sci Eng
Technol 9(3):466–470
3. Lee C-Y (1992) Model for biological reactors having suspended and attached growths. J Environ
Eng 118(6):982–987
4. Gebara F (1999) Activated sludge biofilm waste water treatment system. Water Res 33(1):230–
238
79
as demonstrated in available literatures to judge the efficacy of the present model.
The model analysis by [3], Fouad and Bhargava (2004) and [4] is denoted as Case 2,
Case 3 and Case 4, respectively. Table 4b of Annexure Ia illustrates the comparison of
output parameters between Case 1 and Cases 2, 3 and 4 separately. In the comparison
analysis, all necessary kinetic coefficients and input parameters like initial substrate
concentration (S 0 ), hydraulic retention time (θ ), sludge retention time (θ c ), specific
surface area (a) and attached biomass density (X f ) are chosen as per the standard
literatures of the respective cases. The results of analysis as shown in Table-5b of
Annexure II-a depict the outcomes from computer programming of the present model
which are compared with the existing models.
The kinetic coefficients and physical data for comparison between Case 1 and
Case 2, and Case 1 and Case 3 are considered as: k = 10 day-1, Y = 0.45, K =
0.01 mg/cm
3 , b t = 0.41 day
−1 , b s = 0.21 day
−1 and b d = 0.2 day
−1 D = 1.25
cm
2 /day, D f = 0.75 cm
2 /day, L = 0.0078 cm. The kinetic coefficients and physical
data for comparison between Case 1 and Case 4 is considered as: k = 2.08 day
−1 , Y
= 0.72, K = 0.087 mg/cm
3 , b t = 0.08 day
−1 , b s = 0.04 day
−1 , b d = 0.04 day
−1 , D
= 1.25 cm
2 /day and D f = 0.393 cm
2 /day, L = 0.0078 cm.
References
1. Williamson K, McCarty PL (1976) A model of substrate utilization by bacterial films. 48(1):9–23
2. Sarkar S, Mazumder D (2015) Process design and application of aerobic hybrid bioreactor in
the treatment of municipal wastewater. Int J Chem Nucl Mater Metall Eng World Acad Sci Eng
Technol 9(3):466–470
3. Lee C-Y (1992) Model for biological reactors having suspended and attached growths. J Environ
Eng 118(6):982–987
4. Gebara F (1999) Activated sludge biofilm waste water treatment system. Water Res 33(1):230–
238