Public works . tive changes had run their course. To bury sludge as it leaves the sedimentation tanks isto take the most efficient method of retaining the foulodor which characterized it when it left the tank. Sludgewas unearthed at Saltley recently after thirty years, whichproved that burial per se, even if the sludge is depositednear the surface of the ground, where nitrifyingorganisms are most active, is not sufficient to free it fromobjectionable smell. With the idea of carrying on the functions of oxidizingthe liquid of sewage and the septicization of kludge simul-taneously, Dr. Imhoff pa
Public works . tive changes had run their course. To bury sludge as it leaves the sedimentation tanks isto take the most efficient method of retaining the foulodor which characterized it when it left the tank. Sludgewas unearthed at Saltley recently after thirty years, whichproved that burial per se, even if the sludge is depositednear the surface of the ground, where nitrifyingorganisms are most active, is not sufficient to free it fromobjectionable smell. With the idea of carrying on the functions of oxidizingthe liquid of sewage and the septicization of kludge simul-taneously, Dr. Imhoff patented a two-story tank, whichhad the Travis hydrolytic tank for its prototype. Thelower chamber of this tank is for fermentation, and theupper one for sedimentation. The Birmingham plan pro-vides two separate shallow tanks, one placed alongsidethe other, to do the same work. *A paper before the forty-sixth annualInstitute of Municipal and County Engineers,densed. general meeting of theJune, 1919, slightly con-. Sludgeto Lagoon UIAGRAU ILLUSTRATING METHOD OF PURIFYINGBIRMINGHAM SEWAGE).The Minworth plant is five miles from the Saltley, the sewage flow-ing and the sludge being pumped from the latter to the former. In comparing the two, it is claimed for the Birminghammethod that the cost of construction is less; it is betterunder control; the results obtained under normal con-ditions equally good, and under abnormal conditions—such as obtain in time of rainfall—much better. Oper-ating costs of the Birmingham method are greater thanby the Imhofif method, but the latter is distinctly inferiorwhen large quantities of antiseptic substances like gastar, arrive unheralded at the outfall works. It is de-sirable to isolate highly antiseptic matter instead of auto-matically distributing it over the whole surface of thefermentation chamber, or lower story of the Imhofiftank, where it tends to inhibit the action of the anaerobicorganisms upon which the success of the process depends. T
Size: 1163px × 2150px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, booksubjectmunicip, bookyear1896
