Council archive · source document
Jellyfish Compliance with SQIDEP · MCU15/0122
Attached to the e-mail MCU15/0122 - Response to Information Request -Stormwater (Jellyfish compliance) Email 3 of 3.
Australian Journal of Water Research
ISSN: 2203-9482 (Print) ISSN: 2203-9490 (Online)
3.2 Treatment Performance
Measured concentrations representing inflows to the treatment device and outflows from the device
was used for determining the treatment performance. Treatment performance was evaluated for TSS,
TN and TP as these are the most common stormwater quality parameters. The estimated treatment
performance is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Concentration Reduction Efficiency and Efficiency Ratio
Date TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)
sampled
Inflow Outflow CRE Inflow Outflow CRE Inflow Outflow CRE
28/06/2014 180 13 92.8 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.24 0.24 0.0
16/08/2014 170 2 98.8 2.8 0.5 82.1 0.41 0.03 92.7
27/08/2014 19 2 89.5 1.1 0.5 54.5 0.093 0.05 46.2
25/09/2014 26 4 84.6 3.1 1.1 64.5 0.17 0.06 64.7
13/10/2014 25 4 84.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.17 0.12 29.4
27/10/2014 51 10 80.4 6 2.3 61.7 0.53 0.17 67.9
06/11/2014 74 8 89.2 3.2 1.6 50.0 0.31 0.08 74.2
Average 78 6 2.8 1.3 0.27 0.11
Average CRE 88.5 44.7 53.6
Median CRE 89.2 54.5 64.7
Note:
1. CRE – Concentration reduction efficiency. CRE is the percentage reduction in concentration
with respect to inflow concentration for individual events.
2. Concentrations less than Practical Quantification Limit (PQL) was replaced by 50% of
detection limit for performance calculations.
It is commonly known that the average of a small sample set can be far from the true mean of a
population. In this respect, median values could be a true representative of performance indicators. This
is particularly true when a data set is log-normally distributed rather than normally distributed. As
evident in Table 5, median of the percentage concentration reduction efficiencies for TSS, TN and TP
are 89.2%, 54.5% and 64.7%, respectively. Average values (mean) for the same parameters are less
than 10% difference from the median except for TP. This indicates consistency in treatment
performance of the Jellyfish® Filter for all the events investigated.
4. Comparison of Treatment Performance with Previous Studies
Demonstrating the validity of the data obtained and estimated performance is critical in field
monitoring. Accordingly, the data obtained and estimated performance was compared with treatment
performance reported in previous studies.
4.1 Comparison of Rainfall Data
It was considered important to demonstrate that the range of rainfall events monitored is within the
range of rainfall typical to local conditions. At the same time, it was also important to compare the
events monitored with the events monitored by the UoF (2011) study. Accordingly, the events
monitored in this study are plotted with typical Brisbane events from 2004 (selected as a representative
year) and events monitored in UoF (2011) study as shown in Figure 4. Phase 1 of the study undertaken
confirmed that 2004 represents a rainfall year with average annual rainfall depth and hence can be
considered as a representative year (Egodawatta et al. 2014). As evident in Figure 4, events monitored
in this study are well within the envelope created by the other two sets of rainfall data, thus confirming
the representativeness of the monitored events in this study.
Australian Society for Commerce Industry & Engineering
www.scie.org.au
7
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Jellyfish Compliance with SQIDEP.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 2.7 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.