Hypolimnion reaeration of small reservoirs and lakes
No Thumbnail Available
Meeting name
Sponsors
Date
Journal Title
Format
Technical Report
Abstract
The purposes of this research were to study the oxygen transfer rates and the oxygen transfer efficiencies of different types of aerators using different sources of oxygen in different types of water bodies, and to evaluate the number of diffusers required to be installed in a selected lake for hypolimnion aeration. The experiments were conducted using a specially designed column. Four types of aerators, including a cylindrical stone diffuser, a spherical stone diffuser, and 2 ceramic diffusers (types A and B) which differed in pore size, were utilized as the aerators. The water bodies selected for the studies were Rolla tap water, Bray's Lake water, and Frisco Pond water. Air and pure oxygen were the two sources of oxygen studied. The oxygen transfer rates and efficiencies of the ceramic diffusers were found to be greater than those of the stone diffusers. Ceramic diffuser type B was the best aerator tested. For a given type of diffuser, a higher transfer rate was generated when pure oxygen was used instead of air. Hypolimnion aeration of Bray's Lake using the diffusers studied in this research was feasible. The number of diffuser units required for hypolimnion aeration may be minimized if ceramic diffuser type B were employed when air was used, or if ceramic diffuser type A were operated when pure oxygen was utilized for aeration.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Missouri Water Center under the Grant/Cooperative Agreement.
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Missouri Water Center under the Grant/Cooperative Agreement.
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey or Missouri Water Center.