4.8 Article

Modification, calibration and verification of the IWA River Water Quality Model to simulate a pilot-scale high rate algal pond

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 46, Issue 9, Pages 2911-2926

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.011

Keywords

Waste-water treatment ponds; Algal mixotrophy; Algal production; Nutrient removal

Funding

  1. New Zealand Foundation for Research in Science Technology [CO1X0809]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We implemented the IWA River Water Quality Model No. 1 (Reichert et al., 2001. River Water Quality Model No. 1, IWA Scientific & Technical Report No. 12) to simulate water-quality characteristics in two pilot-scale High Rate Algal Ponds. Simulation results were compared with two years' of data from the ponds. The first year's data from one pond were used for model calibration; the remaining data were used for validation. As originally formulated and parameterized, the model consistently yielded summer-time algal biomass concentrations which were too low - with consequent failures in its reproduction of dissolved oxygen, pH and nutrient dynamics. We experimented with various structural/parametric changes to improve the model's performance. The most effective strategy was to greatly increase the respiratory losses suffered by the heterotrophic osmotrophs (thereby giving the algae access to a larger fraction of the incoming dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen). This suggests that CO2-bubbling alone cannot entirely preclude resource-limitation of algal production. We doubt that our parameterization of heterotrophic osmotrophs is correct and infer that the algae derive a large fraction of their nutrition by direct osmotrophic uptake of dissolved organic matter. This inference is supported by the literature concerning the physiology of the dominant algal species in our ponds. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available