-

UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

PUBLIC REALTH BULLETIN No. 146

FEBRUARY, 1925

A STUDY OF THE POLLUTION AND NATURAL PURIFICATION OF THE OHIO RIVER

111. FACTORS CONCERNED IN THE PHENOMENA OF

OXIDATION AND REAERATION

BY

H .W. STREETER,Sanitary Engineer, and EARLE B. PHELPS, Consultant, U. S. Public Health Service

PREPARED BY DIRECTION OF T H E SURGEON GENERAL

Reprinted by

U.S.

Department of Health, Education, & Welfare

PUBLIC AEALTB SERVICE

1958

CONTENTS
Page

1 5
9 15 30 38 4 4 59 66 69

LIST OF TABLES
Table NO.

Paw

1 . Average results, by months, of laboratory determinations of dis solved oxygen at various sampling stations in the Ohio River and 31 tributaries, together with collateral data........................ 2 . Factors in resultant oxygen formula (1) obtained from data in Table N o . 1---------------------_--------_----_---------------- 36 z at 20 C. (from Table No. 2)----_____-------_ 38 3 . Derived values of K 4 . Reduction in oxygen demand between Ohio River stations Nos. 475 and 455, as observed and as corrected to a uniform basis of time equivalent t o 24 hours and temperature 20C ___-_____-___-_____ 42 5 . Average rates of reaeration, i n parts per million of dissolved oxygen, per m i l e of river length, observed i n designated stretches of the Ohio River during specified months of 1 9 1 4 and 1915 45 6 . Relation between the reaeration coefficient ( I C . ) , the mean depth (H) , of the stream above extreme low mater, and the velocity of f l o w (V),in certain stretches of the Ohio River 4 3 7 . Values of *c and n in relation KF= for various stretches H Z of the Ohio River-__-_______-_______________________----------# 8 .Increase in mean velocity of flow, i n certain Ohio River stretches, in relation t o increase in gage height__________________________ 51 9 . Relation betmen mean increase in velocity of flow for given increase of gage height in certain Ohio River stretches and corresponding values of n in reaeration formula (K2H=eVn) 52 10. Values of irregularity factor for given Ohio River stretches-----54 1 1 . Relations between value of c in reaeration formula (&H=cV*) and low-water slope for two general types of stretches of Ohio River--------_----_---_-------------------------_------------55 ( 111 )

____________

________________

________________

Page

1 2 . Calculated values of reaeration coefficient i n specified stretches of the Ohio River under different velocity-of-flowconditions--------1 3 .Mean depths (H) of Ohio River above extreme low water in certain stretches corresponding to given velocities of flow 1 4 .Comparison of the observed dissolved oxygen content of the Ohio River at various sampling stations with correspondingvalues calculated by the use of formulae (l), (7),and (S) 1 5 . Comparison of calculated mith observed dissolved oxygen results at specified points in Thames River basin, Connecticut

57
58
.
J

_______________

....................

63
65

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.

Page

1 A. M a p of Ohio River, showing location of sampling stations---------1 . Relation between oxygen demand and time at 20" C___________----__ 6 2 . Relation of values of deoxygenation coefficient (Kl) at various tem-

peratbres to i t s value at 20" 3 . Plot of Dibdin's curve with oxygen values converted to terms of saturation 4 . Fundamental factors involved i n dissolved oxygen changes in stream5 . Progressive change i n dissolved oxygen below an assumed point of

14 17

pollution___-______---------_--_-____----____-----_--_-__-----18 6-a. Effects of known increments of dilution or pollution i n progessive 22 satisfaction of oxygen demand in a stream....................... 6-b. Method of obtaining hypothetical value of ( L . ) by averaging observations taken at Stations (A) and (B)and bringing them to a common basis for comparison at Station (B) ___-________---_--_- 24 at various tempera7 . Relation of values of reaeration coefficient (Ka) 28 tures t oi t s value at 20" C................................ ----8. Relation between monthly average velocities of flow i n three typical stretches of the Ohio River and corresponding values of the reaeraweighted by the square of the stream depth tion coefficient (KZ) (H)______---____-___________-____----___--_---------_--__-_-_49 9 . Mean velocities of flow i n certain stretches of the Ohio River correspondiug to various values of (H) ___--_______________________ 51 1 0 . Relation between values of (n) i n reaeration formula (KJ3?=cVn) and influence of increasing river stage upon velocity of flow-----_ 53 1 1 . Relation between low-water slope and values of (c) i n reaeration formula ( K2H'=cV") according to roughness of channel---_-__-. 54 1 2 . Values o f - r e a ~ r ~ ~ i i o ~ e e ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ of - i Ohio ~ t ~ e t c h e s River corresponding to various actual mean velocities of flow i n feet per second--_-___-_--_______________________-__---_--__--_ 57 1 3 . Estimated progressive changes i n dissolved oxygen content of Ohio River under average reaeration conditions prevailing below Pittsburgh under low-waterstages and summer temperatures,assuming different initial degrees of oxygen demand (La) and oxygen saturation deficit (D.)-----_-------_---__-_---____________-------__ 60 1 4 . Estimated progressive changes i n dissolved oxygen content of Ohio River under average reaeration conditions prevailing below Cincinnati under low-waterstages and summer temperatures, assuming different initial degrees of oxygen demand (La) and oxygen saturation deficit (D.)--_---__-__--_______________________----_ 61

UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PUBLIC HEALTH BULLETIN No. 146
FEBRUARY,1925

A STUDY OF THE POLLUTION AND NATURAL PURIFICATION OF THE OHIO RIVER

111. FACTORS CONCERNED IN THE PHENOMENA OF

OXIDATION AND REAERATION

BY

E l . W.STREETER,S a n i t a r y Engineer,and EARLE B. PHELPS,C o n s u l t a n t , U. S .P u b l i c Health S e r v i c e

PREPARED BY DIRECTION OF T H E SURGEON GENERAL

Reprinted by

U.S. Department of Health, Education, &Welfare

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
Table

No.

Page

1 . Average results, by mouths, of laboratory determinations of dissolved oxygen at various sampling stations in the Ohio River and 31 tributaries, together with collateral data___---_----_-____--_____ 2 . Factors in resultant osygen formula (1) obtained from data in 36 Table No. l--_--_--_--_------------________________-----------3 . Derived values of Kz at 20" C . (from Table No. 2)_-_-_____________38 4 .Reduction in oxygen demand between Ohio River stations Nos. 475 and 4 8 8 ,as observed and as corrected to a uniform basis of time 42 4 hours and temperature 20" C equivalent to 2 5 . Average rates of reaeration,i n parts per million of dissolved oxygen, n designated stretches of the per mile of river length, observed i Ohio River during specified months of 1914 and 1915 45 6 .Relation between the reaeration coefficient (9,) , the mean depth (H), of the stream above extreme low water, and the velocity of flow (V), in certain stretches of the Ohio River 4 ' 1 7 .Values of 'I c " and ' ' n " in relation K,= for various stretches H a of the Ohio River_--_---_---_-___----__--_-------_-_----~----~- 50 8 . Increase i n me5n velocity of flow, in certain Ohio River Stretches, i n relation t o increase i n gage height 51 9. Relation betwen mean increase i n velocity of flow for given increase of gage height in certain Ohio River stretches and corresponding ________________ 52 values of "n " in reaeration formula (K2H'=eVn) 1 0 . Values of "irregularity " factor for given Ohio River stretches-----54 1 1 . Relations between value of "c " i n reaeration formula ( K2Hg=cVn) and low-water slope for two general types of stretches of Ohio River_--------------____________________---------~----~~-----55 ( 111 )

___________________

____________

________________

.v"

__________________________

Iv
Page

12. Calculated values of reaeration coefficient i n specified stretches of the Ohio River under different velocity-of-flow conditions__------1 3 . Mean depths (H) of Ohio River above extreme low water i n certain stretches corresponding to given velocities of flow 1 4 .Comparison of the observed dissolved oxygen content of the Ohio River at various sampling stations with correspondingvaluescalcu' i ) , and (5) lated by the use of formulae (l), ( 1 5 . Comparison of calculated with observed dissolved oxygen results at n Thames River basin, Connecticut specified points i

57
58

_______________

....................

63

65

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
N O .

Pam?

A . Map of Ohio River, showing location of sampling stations---------_ 1 1 . Relation between oxygen demand and time at 20" C___________-_____ 6 2 . Relation of values of deoxygenation coefficient (Kl) at various tem9 peratures to i t s value at 20" C 3 . Plot of Dibdin's curve with oxygen values converted t o terms of
saturation deficit_---_---_-__-____------__--_____--________---- 14 4 . Fundamental factors involved i n dissolved oxygen changes in stream17 5 . Progressive change i n dissolved oxygen below an assumed point of pollution ________________________________________-_---__-__---18 S a . Effects of known increments of dilution or pollution i n progessive 22 satisfaction of oxygen demand in a stream 6-b. Method of obtaining hypothetical value of (La) by averaging obsert Stations (A) and (B)and bringing them to a vations taken a ___________________- 24 common basis for comparison at Station (B) 7 . Relation of values of reaeration coefficient (Kz) at various temperatures t oi t s value at 20" C______________________-___--___--___2s 8 . Relation between monthly average velocities of flow in three typical stretches Qf the Ohio River and corresponding values of the reaeraweighted by the square of the stream depth tion coefficient (K1) (H)--___------_______________-_-_--__---___-____-__--_------_49 9 . Mean velocities of flow i n certain stretches of the Ohio River coro various values of (H) ____________________________ 51 responding t 1 0 . Relation between values of (n) in reaeration formula (IZ2HZ=cVn) and influenceof increasing river stage upon velocity of flow__-__- 53 1 1 . Relation between low-water slope and values of (c) i n reaeration formula ( KzHz=eV") according to roughness of channel_---_-__. 54 1 2 . Values of reaeration coefficient (Kz) i n certain stretches of Ohio River corresponding to various actual mean velocities of f l o w in feet per second--_--_______-_-__---_--_____-_______------____-57 1 3 . Estimated progressive changes in dissolved oxygen content of Ohio River under average reaeration conditions prevailing below Pittsburgh under low-waterstages and summer temperatures, assuming differentinitial degrees of oxygen demand (La) and oxygen saturation deficit (D.)___-____-_-_-_____-----______---_____-__--___ 60 1 4 . Estimated progressive changes in dissolved oxygen content of Ohio River under average reaeration conditions prevailing below Cincinnati under low-waterstages and summer temperatures, assuming different initial degrees of oxygen demand (La) and oxygen saturation deficit (Da) ___________________________________ 61

______________________-

F A W R S CONCERNED IN THE PHENOMENA OF OXIDA* TION AND REAERATION

INTRODUCTION

T h e studies presented i n this report were made by the United States Public Health Service during the years 1914 and 1915 as part of a comprehensive survey of the pollution and natural purification o f the Ohio River, conducted under the supervision of Surg. W. H . Frost. T h e scope and purposes o f this survey as a whole are outlined i n a previous publication: t o which reference i s made for a detailed description of the Ohio River, summaries of its sources of pollution, and measurements of discharge and velocity, also for presentation and discussion of the results of bacterioloaical exami9 nations and chemical analyses other than those dealing w i t h observations on dissolved oxygen. These latter observations, which are presented i n the previous publication only i n the form of a basic summary a without discussion,are regarded as being sufficiently distinctive i n their significance and i n the character of analysis required t o justify their separate treatment i n this supplementary report. In the case of a stream like the Ohio River,importantnot only for its size and navigability b u t also because it is the sole available source of water supply for a large and growing population, permissible n bacteriological rather than chemilimits of its pollution are given i f bacterial cal terms; that is, they are fixed by the permissible load o pollution which m a y be placed upon the river with reference to water supplies rather than by considerations involving the exhaustion of the oxygen supply and physical nuisance. Nevertheless, the possibilities existing for at least a partial depletion of the re, serve oxygen supply of the river,under conditions of pollution already approachi n g a critical stage from a bacterial standpoint i n certain zones,could n any consideration of the general problem. hardly be neglected i An exceptional opportunity was presented, moreover, for a study of the oxygen status of the river, and especially of i t s puriccation capacity from an oxygen standpoint,i n view of the availability of extensive collateral data relative to river temperature, discharge,
lBIanusmipt submitted June, 1924. '8. Study o f the Pollution and Natural Purification of the Ohio River. 11. Report on SurveYE and Laboratory Studies, Public H e a l t h Bulletin No. 143, Washington, 1924. aOp. dt.,Table No. 51, pp. 124-128.

2
and times of flow between the various sampling stations, collected i n connection with the investigation. T h e general viewpoint of the studies here described was influenced t o a large extent by the newer conception of stream purification which has resulted from the marked advances that have taken place n the application of bacteriology and of physical during recent years i o sanitary science. First i n importance and biological chemistry t have been discoveries relative to the generality of laws governing the death ratss of bacteria, which have emphasized the progressive chmacter of the complex biochemical reactions concerned i n stream pnrification, and hence the controlling influence exerted by the time n such phenomena. O f almost equal significance has been factor i f sewage and sewage-polthe evolution of a newer biochemistry o luted waters, wherein the older setwagechemistry, dealing with nitrogen i n its various forms, has been largely replaced, i n problems involving the stability of organic matters of sewage origin,by biochemical methods of study permitting a direct measurement o f the oxidation reactions more directly related to organic stabilizafion processes. As examples of these methods m a y be cited the I relative stability and biochemical oxygen demand tests, which are familiar t o everyone w h o has followed the literature of sewage during recent years. Finally, the great value of modern physical n interpreting and applying to stream condichemistry as an aid i $ions the results of biochemical methods of study should be noted. Previous to the foregoing developments, studies of the self-purin the main, empirical;that fication of streams had necessarily been, i is, they had comprised the determination and recording of actual n analytical terms, without any attempt to conditions measured i formulate results i n terms of general principles. Such a procedure is valuable as a matter of historical record relative to B given stream or local condition,but unfortunately it fails to give data having possibilities of more general application. In some cases generalizations such as have been attempted from data of this character have resulted i n serious misconceptions of the relative importance of dilution as a factor i n the oxidation of waste matters i n streams, as compared with that of reaeration, which i s often of far greater significance. A simple example w i l l illustrate this point. Accepted standards for a safe dilution ratio, based on certain n Massachusetts,are from a minimum stream conditions,especially i of 3.5 to a maximum of 6.0second-feet of normal unpolluted stream water per thousand of population contributinw 9 sewage. T h e sewage of the District of Columbia has i n summer a total biochemical oxygen demand equivalent to 112 grams per capita daily, or about 300 parts per million when corrected to a normal sewage . . .
1

3
roughly 0.15 second-feetper thousand of population. These oxygen demand values,which agree very closely with the figure, 100 grams per capita daily, given by Pearse4 as a result of studies of Chicago sewage, may be taken as being fairly representative for normal domestic sewage. During the summer period, June 1 to October 15, 1914, the mean discharge of the Ohio River at a point immediately below Cincinnati represented a 00w of 5 . 1 second-feetper thousand o f urban populan the watershed above this point, at which point the average tion i . 7 parts per million, or 68 dissolved oxygen content observed was 5 Fer c e n t saturation. Assuming the normal summer oxygen content o f a theoretically unpolluted Ohio River to be at the mean summer . 2 parts per million, the draft imposed upon t h e saturation value, 8 normal dissolved oxygen content ob the river to satisfy the oxygen n this demand of the urban sewage alone would be represented, i . 2 and 5.7 parts, or 2 . 5 parts per case, by the difference between 8 n the absence of remillion. On this basis, the required dilution, i aeration, would be 300:2.5,or 120:1,amounting to a stream flow of 18.5 second-feet per thousand of population. Since the flow was actually but 5.1 second-feet per thousand, it would appear that dilution alone was responsible for about one-quarter,and reaeration for nearly three-quarters, of the total purification of the river taking place LIP to the point i n question. With a permissible oxygen content of the Ohio River at this point lower than the approximately 7 0 per cent saturakionfigure observed during the summer of 1914,the stream flow actually required would be reduced by even more than a proportionate amount, as the relative quantities of dissolved oxygen supn plied by reaeration would be greater with lower saturahion values i the river. The foregoing example not only illustrates the great importance of reaeration i n the purification of running streams, but also emphasizes the fallacy of depending solely upon mere dilution as a measure of the oxidation of wastes discharged into,flowing bodies of water. An attempt t o apply dilution ratios,derived from rivers having great reaeration capacities, to sluggish streams like the Chicago drainage canal,would unquestionably lead to serious error, as has been borne out by experience with a number of sluggish canals, which have given rise to offensive conditions,though not excessively polluted from a standpoint of ordinary dilution criteria. The development of a better understanding of the relations between dilution and reaeration as factors i n stream purification, and i n fact our modern conception of the overwhelming importance of dissolved oxygen i n determining the power of natural bodies of water t o digest and oxidize organic polluting matters, owes much to

4
the pioneer work i n sewage bio-chemistrycarried out by the Frankn lands, McGowan, Letts, Dibdin, Adeney and their coworkers i England,and to adaptations and modifications of their methods o f study by various workers i n the United States,notably Black and Phelps,Hoover,Lederer,and Theriault. While no extended bibliogi l l be presented i n connection raphy of the studies above noted w with the present paper, a number of references covering certain s p e c i f i c points w i l l be given i n the later t e x t . With the aid of the newer bio-chemistry of sewage and of the quantitative view of the oxygen relations i n polluted streams which it permits, it has been possible t o formulate and test empirically a general theory of stream purification from an oxygen standpoint, using for this purpose the data obtained i n connection with the Ohio River studies. Before proceeding with a presentation and analysis i l l clarify the subsequent discussion to outline this of these data,it w underlying theory.
THEORETICAL DISCUSSION

The capacity of a stream to receive and oxidize sewage depends upon its oxygen resources. The condition of a polluted stream at any time i s the result of a balance between these resources and the demand made upon them by the organic polluting matter carried by the stream. This demand,being the r e s u l t of a slow bio-chemical reaction,is,i nt h e absence of new pollution,a progressively decreasing one,and a s the resources of the stream are composed i n part of a continuous influx of oxygen from the atmosphere,the state o f balance which determines the momentary condition of the stream i s constantly changing. There are, therefore, two primary phases o f the problem-namely, the actual, momentary condition, and the direction and extent of the existing changes, which indicate the future condition. Fresh sewage,for example,may contain some dissolved oxygen, and, measured upon the oxygen scale o f nuisance, may be i nt h e same momentary condition as a stream which has about completed the work of oxidizing organic pollution and contains the same amount of residual dissolved oxygen. The direction of change, however, i se n t i r e l y different and determines the distinction between the two cases. The oxygen resources are comparable to the a s s e t s of a balance sheet;the oxygen demand to the liabilities. The condition o f a strong sewage containing oxygen is comparable, i n financial terms, t o one of momentary solvency,w i t h available cash,but w i t h excessive obligations maturing on the morrow. A comprehensive theory of self-purification must therefore deal with the oxygen demand as w e l l as with the oxygen resources,and must consider the relation of the various factors of time, temperature and other physi-

5
cal conditions to the rates of change of these two fundamental qdantities.
THE OXYGEN D E M A X D U P O N A STREAM

Changes i n the dissolved oxygen content of a stream are i n t i mately associated with biochemical changes. They are brought about primarily by the oxidation of organic matter discharged into streams as soil wash and as wastes. In the presence of a supply of oxygen, together w i t h certain oxidizing bacteria and oxidizable organic matter, progressive oxidation and stabilizing of the organic i l l take place. matter w I t has been shown that, under experimental conditions approxin a strenm containing reserve dissolved mating those prevailing i s an orderly and consistent one,proceeding at oxygen,this reaction i a measurable rate and according t o the following definite law : The rate of biochemical oxidation of organic matter is proportional to the remaining concentrtu%m of unoxidiaed su6stance,measured in ferms of oxidizability. This law, which happens to be similar t o that which defines the course of a monomolecular reaction: m a y be stated i n its differential form thus :

which may be integrated to the formlog r=Kt

L '

L ' being the initial and L the h a 1 oxidizability, or oxygen demand

of the organic substance, i n terms of oxygen; t being the elapsed time and K a constant coefficient, defining the rate at which the reaction proceeds. The value of IS: depends upon the characher of organic matter and upon the temperature. I tw i l l be assumed for the present that this relation holds also under actual stream conditions. Evidence supporting this assumption w i l l be presented later i n the text (p.4 0 ) . Defining the oxygen demand as the total remaining oxidizability of the substance present at any time, the law states that i n equal
B . , Biochemistry of Sewage, VIII, Int. Cong. Appl. Chem., XXVI,251. 'This statement should be qualified to the extent of noting that little definite knowledge exista as to whether the law stated holds for periods of time longer than about 20 days. Experimental data bearing on this point are, in fact, somewhat meager for periods
1 Phelps, Earle
1

longer than 10 days, though for shorter periods the most reliable evidence has been conflrmatory. 'The similarity of this law to that of monomolecular chemical reactions is probably d the phenomenon. If the reaction were strictly chemical clue to the biochemical nature c f bimolecular reactions, as the i t would thearetically be more likely to follow the law o two reacting substances, oxygen and oxidizable organic matter, are both present in limited amounts.

6
periods of time an equal proportion of the remaining oxygen demand w i l l be satisfied. That is, if 2 0 per cent of the i n i t i a l oxygen demand be s a t i s f i e di n the first 24 hours,20 per cent of the remaining demand w i l l be s a t i s f i e d i n the second 24 hours, and so on. i g . 1 for graphical i l l u s t r a t i o n . ) Since the oxygen demand, ( S e e f as actually determined i n the laboratory, i s given i n terms of

dissolved oxygen, the rate of satisfaction of the demand, which is dL denoted by the term i s equivalent t o the rate of oxygen depletion. I f the dissolved oxygen content be expressed i n terms of

(a )

saturation d e f i c i t (Dl), its rate of depletion i s

( $ $ and ) the follow-

ing relation therefore holds : --=dL dDl=KL dt dt The nature of the substances found i nc i t y sewage and the numo be s u f f i c i e n t l y ber and kinds of bacteria present have been found t

7
constant under various conditions to give a fairly constant value of K for this reaction at a constant temperature. Its value at 20" C . , the time being expressed i n days, was determined by Phelps by the methylene blue reaction for the sewage of Boston,4 and later by direct determination of the oxygen demand of the sewage of Washington; and also computed from results obtained by Lederer5 at n a comparison o f the dilution and saltpeter incubation Chicago i methods, using methylene blue. F r o m all these data, values of K i n the above equation of approximately 0 . 1 were obtained or derived. Later work by Lederer and collaborators6 has indicated some variation of value of K for different sewages, though these differences are not striking. Values of the constant for different organic industrial wastes appear to vary more, doubtless because of the widely varying character of the organic matter present i n such wastes, though the results of recent studies by Theriault? indicate that when tests are carefully controlled values of the constant similar to those for sewage are obtained for a wide class of industrial wastes. Values for polluted river water should not vary greatly from those for average sewage,since a major part of the oxidizable n such water has its origin i n sewage.* organic matter present i For any particular sewage or similar waste the value of the velocity constant K is a function of the temperature. The temperature relation has been found empirically to be defined by the formula :

_-dTf-T)
i n which ( T ' )and (T)are the tlvo temperatures, ( K ' )and (K) the corresponding values of the velocity constant of the reaction, a constant for the reaction,which m a y and 0 the thermal coefficient, be determined experimentally. The value of the thermal coefficient 0 has been determined experimentally at Cincinnati i n connection with the present studies and also by Phelps i n connection with studies at Boston and at the
'Phelps, Earle B., U .S. Geol. Survey, W. S . Paper No. 229, Washington, 1909. sLederer,A . , Jour. Inf. Dis., Yol. XIY, 1914, 482. eLederer, A., Am. Jour. Pub]. Health, Vol. V, 1015, p. 384. ?Public Health Reports, Reprint No 594 (19201,U. S. Public Health Service, Washington, D .C. ZLater studies of the value of K,made on waters of the Chicago drainage canal, tha upper Illinois River, and the Ohio River at Cincinnati, have given results closely CODfirming this statement. The stuaies on Ohio River water, which were in progress at f final revision of this text, have involved probably the most elaborate and the time o rarcfully controlled series of tests thus far made of the form and constants of the 031dation curve, employing three separate temperatures of incubation, So C., 20" C . . and 30" C . For periods of time up to about 30 dags these curves have been found to follow closely the law stated on page 6,and their (K)values at 20" C . to agree within from. 5 to 10 per cent with the ralue, 0.1,employed iu connection with the present test.

Hygienic Laboratory at Washington. These values are given below, as follows:

1 . Cincinnati (Mill Creek water) : Valuo of e Temperature range, 10" C. to 20" C-__-__________-____________ 1.0524 Temperature range, 20" C. to 37.5" C -_____-_____-_1.0504 2. Boston (sewage,methylene blue method) : Temperature range, 20" C. to 37.5" C___________-_ --_-__-_____1.0415 3 . Hygienic Laboratory (nitrate method) : Temperature range, 15" C. to 24.5" C........................ -- 1.0441 Temperature range, 24.5" C. to 37" C ________-_____-_____-_---* 1.01

__________

Average, excluding value marked (*)...............................

1.047

For the purpose of the present discussion w e w i l l adopt the mean d u e of 1 . 0 4 7 ,obtained from the data given i nt h i s table, after s obviously out o f harmony eliminating the vdue of 1.01,vhich i with the others. The variation i n the value of (K) at different temperatures, as defined by a value OP 0 equal t o1 . 0 4 7is illnstrated i n Figure No. 2, by the l i n e showing the relation o f IC values at various temperatures t o its value at 20" C. Conversion of the K Talues from one temperature to another may be readily made by =leans of a similar chart. a s stated on page 7 (footnote S ) , further studies of the temperature relations of (R)for Ohio River water at Cincinnati, Qhio, were i n progress at the Cincinnati laboratory of the Public Health Service at the time of final revision of the present text. From the results o f these studies available up to that t i m e ,it appeared Chat values of the thermal correction factor 0 would be obtained i t h the mean Tvalne, 1.047, as above derived,assumagreeing closely w ing the experimcntal values of (IC) at the different incubation temn t.he same manner as i n the present case. perattires to be computed i f calcuT h e method of computation thus followed has consisted o lating,for the oxidation curve obtained at each respective incubation temperature, the percentage of the 20-day oxygen demand at that temperature remaining at successive intervals of time up to 2 0 days. These values, when plotted as ordinates against incubation times, using semilogarithmic paper, define a straight line having a slope equal to ( I C ) . This procedure carries an assumption that, for all practical purposes,the oxygen demand satisfied i n 20 days is equivalent to the total available oxygen demand (with a value of K at 20" C. equal t o0 . 1 ,i t is actually 99 per cent o f the t o t a l ) . This assumption i s substantially correct for temperatures of 20" C .and upwards,but becomes less so as the temperature i s diminished below 20 C., since at the lower temperatures the t i m e r9quired for the satisfaction of a large proportion of the total oxygen demand is longer than at 20 degrees. When the studies described i n the present text meTe made, no basis existed for extrapolating oxidot ' i o n curves

9
beyond a time o f2 0 days a t any temperature;hence, the c o e f f i c i e n t (K) ,whether uncorrected at 20" C .or corrected to its equivalents at other temperatures, can hardly be regarded as being well defined 0 days. This limiting time,howfor any period of time exceeding 2 ever,usually i s long enough for ordinary purposes o f calculation.

THE OXYGEN RESOURCES OF A STREAM

Unpolluted mater tends to hold i n solution the maximdm amount: of oxygen which it i s capable of containing a t the existing temperas the ture and partial oxygen pressure of the atmosphere. This i so-calledsaturation value and ranges a t normal sea l e v e l baromet>ric pressure from approximately 1 4 mg. per l i t e ra tj u s t above freezing t o about 7 . 6mg. per liter at 30 C. In polluted streams the draft imposed upon the dissolved oxygeem supply by the progressive satisfaction of the oxygen demand reduces
*The actual saturation value dependa upon the partial solution pressure o f oxygea im the owrlyiag atmosphere, and is directly proportional to the percentage of oxygm in the ovezlylng gas. Far normal atmoepherie air, the solution prmsure, and therefore the
an-

sa+n,.atinn

valna

ip o , , . , , . n r i m m t n l n

-.xn4iNh

a+-

-mi--

-a+%

--

----I-*--

-L-

12
i n whichD=the required average concentration of dissolved oxygen expressed i n per cent of saturation,after time, t . B=the uniformly distributed initial concentration expressed i n the same units. e=2.718.

t=the elapsed time since concentration (R)existed. L z t h e linear depth of the column. a=the diffusion coefficient, a constant for pure water, and a given gas (oxygen) at constant temperature. This equation applies primarily t o quiescent mater, but it has already been indicated that the effect of mixing i s virtually to decrease the effective depth through which diffusion acts,so that the apFl' ication to turbulent waters is permissible, the depth term being then indeterminate. For the purposes of the present discussion it is desired t o determine the rate o f solution of oxygen under any stated conditions. This rate is derivable from the equation of condition by differentiation wiLh respect t o a variable time. The actual operation need not be pers obvious that the result w i l l be a complex expression formed, for it i
I

containing the factor ( 1

& ) the ,

initial saturation deficit,together

w i t h a complex time function. T h e rate of solution, therefore, i s proportional, among other things,to the initial saturation deficit,and the proportionality factor is itself a time function-i. e., it varies with the time. A t zero t i m e i . e . , at the start- the rate i s strictly proportional to the deficit. In any stream having sufficient turbulence t o make reaeration a n self-purification,there i s sufficient mixing tu brkg real factor i about a fairly uniform condition throughout the 1-ertical crosssection, so that at no time i s there material vertical stratificat' ion. Such a condition may be regarded as being made up of short periods of quiescence followed by complete mixing,so that the final dissolved oxygen value at the end o f any short period of quiescmce becomes the initial, uniformly distributed vdue at the beginning of the next f solution at the beginning of any period i s pcriod. Since the rate o stri-ctlyproportional to the deficit at that time, it follovs that under the assumed conditions-and these are approximately the conditions m e t with-the rate of solution is proportional t o the existing saturaf solids i n tion deficit. This is the law of the velocity of solution o water, derived experimentally by Noyes and Whitney.14
A

. = A

Wh3f-m~ W

R . . Zeit f. ohvsik. Chem.. 23, 1897, p. 689.

13
The physics of reaeration phenomena have been. studied extensively by Adeney l5 and his coworkers,who have developed the following formula expressing the rate of reaeration of quiescent columns of water: w = (100 -m , ) (1 - e-p(8/v)t) wherew=amount of gas dissolved,expressed as percentage of saturation. w,=initial concentration. n i t of mea f=coefficient ofescapeof gas from the liquid per u and volume. v=volume of liquid. a=area of surface. t=time of exposure. I f this formula be differentiated with respect to time (t) , it becomes-

whence the rate of reaeration

(g)

i s shown to be directly pro-

portional to the saturation deficit (100-w,). It is thus apparent that whether reaeration be viewed as a phenomenon of diffusion or one of streaming, both theories lead to the same conclusion as n deteriegards the fundamental importance of the law of solution i mining the rate of progression of the reaction. An experimental confirmation o f this lam a s applied to the solufrom tion of atmospheric oxygen by water was obtained by Dibdin*6 a series of about 150 tests made i n connection with experiments on the condition of the water i n the River Tliames, i n England. H e n open vessels for periods of time rangexposed deaerated water i ing from 1 to 96 hours, determining the dissolved oxygen at intermediate intervals. T h e results obtained were plotted i n the form of a curve, which has been reproduced i n LZ different form i n Figure No. 3, the ordinates being saturation deficit values plotted on a logarithmic scale and the abscissae, corresponding t i m e s from the starting point. It is noted that the plotted observations lie almost exactly along a straight line. Denoting the t i m e as (t) and the saturation deficit as (D) m e have, then, thatlog D == -(c t + d)
=Adeney, W. E. S e i . Proc. Royal Dublin SOC., 1914. Adeney, W. E . ,and Becker, H. G. Philosophical Magazine, vol. 38, 1919, pp. 317-338. Philosophical Magazine, YO]. 42, 1921, pp. 87-96. Adeney, W .E . ,Leonard, A . S. C.,and Richardson, A. Sci. Proc. Dub. Roy. Sac., vol. 17, 1922, pp. 19-28. leMbdin, W. J . . The Purification of Sewage and Water, 8d. ed., 1903, pp. 283-284

(Diaeram 9 1 .

14

0 . 5

Itl

F ~ GNo. . 3
PLOT OF VIBDIN'S C U R V E WITH OXYGEN VALUES CONVERTEP TO TERM5 OF SATURATION DEFICIT Notc;Curve taken from Dibdin's "Purification of Water and %wage': Viaqram 5,pp 204-285.

a6

OA
0 . 3

Formula:

G-

TKP

0.2

0 . I

I O

20

30

4 0

50

60

70

80

SO

VALUE OF t - 7 - 1 ~ IN ~ HOURS FROM INITIAL

POINT'

15
the constant (c) being the slope.o ft h e line and (d) being the i n tercept on the (D)axis. Differentiating this equation with re-

Since

d D defines the rate of solution of oxygen i (x) nh

~ ofs

saturation deficit, it is apparent that this rake is directly proportional t o the saturation deficit (D) , which is i n accordance with t.hegeneral law of solution above stated. F r o m what has been previously stated regarding the relation of mechanical mixing to diffusion and streaming as agencies i n the reaeration of flowing bodies of water, i t naturally follows that reaeration of streams,while conditioned primarily by the rate of solution of oxygen at the water surface, is modified by those factors which affect the rapidity and thoroughness with which the oxygen, once dissolved, i s distributed throughout its depth. Thus it was found by Fair1? that at a given saturation deficit value, the rate of reaeration of a quiescent body of water is greatly accelerated merely by the mixing resulting from induced wave action. In Sheffield, England, an activated sludge plant for sewage treatment has recently been developed i n which the high rate of aeration required for oxidation of the sewage is obtained entirely by a mechanical mixing device. Examples of this kind,which are numerous, show conclusively the great influence exerted upon the rate of reaeration of flowing bodies of water by those forces of mixing and convection which m a y be summed up under the term turbulence. In running streams the turbulence factor is highly variable and produces correspondingly varied effects upon reaeration rates. In a given stream stretch and under a given condition of flow,where tke turbulence remains fairly constant, the rate of reaeration is a direct function of, and should be closely proportional to, tho prevailing n streams,thereoxygen saturation deficit. Under conditions found i fore, the operation of the law of solution i s fundamental,and variations i nt h e rate of solution are governed largely by those physical characteristics of a given stream which cause different degrees of turbulence.
THE OXYGEN BALANCE I N A STRI$AM

The two opposing reactions, deoxygenation and reaeration, tend o come t o a condition of temporary equilibrium. I f the always t water be nearly oxygen-saturated,and highly polluted, there is a
IDiseussion of paper by R. H . Gould, The area of water surface as a controlling factor i n the condition of polluted harbor waters, Trans. Am. SOC. C. E . ,vol. 85, 1922, pp. 728-731.

rapid rate of withdrawal of oxygen and a slow rate of replacement, resulting i n a decrease i n the available dissolved oxygen. A s this value decreases, the rate of reoxygenation is correspondingly increased u n t i l it equals the rate of depletion, at which point the two reactions are for the moment i n equilibrium and there i s no change i n the actual oxygen content. This equilibrium, however, i s ony momentary, for the decreasing oxygen demand o f the organic matter, resulting from its o w n oxidation, makes the rate of depletion correspondingly less and permits the gradual recovery of the dissolved oxygen up to its f u l l saturation value. Under conditions of continuous or repeated pollution, however, an equilibs rium point m a y be reached at which the rate of reoxygenation i exactly equal t o that of deoxygenation, and is so maintained. The importance of the reoxygenation factor itself and of jts accurate. experimental determination is therefore obvious. Upon this value, under any given conditions, depends the resultant oxygen condition of the stream for a stated degree of pollution, or, conversely, the maximum amount of pollution compatible with any stated degree of oxygen depletion. P r o m the primary laws of oxidation of organic matter and of reoxygenation of a stream, the resultant general equation of stream n terms of dissolved oxycondition m a y n o w be derived, expressed i gen. T h e application of the experimental data to this equation w i l l then permit the derivation of the various constants which charactern regard to its capacity to receive and dispose of ize the stream i sewage pollution. According to the argument which has been presented, the rate n the oxygen deficit is governed by two independent reof change i actions. First,the deficit increases at a rate which m a y be assumed IR to be proportional t o the oxygen demand of the organic matter. Secondly, it decreases by reaeration, at a rate directly proportional t o its own value. T h e two rates m a y be expressed i n differential form thus:

and i n whicht = time of reaction,i n days. L= oxygen demand of the organic matter. espressed i n terms of parts per million of oxygen. D= oxygen saturation deficit of the water, i n parts per million.
For evidenGe supporting this assumption see later text, pp. 40 to 44.
t

17

-_ dt
*I-

rate of deoxygenation,in terms of oxygen saturation deficit.

dD

3rate of reaeration,i n terms of oxygen saturation deficit.

Kl = coefficient defining the rate of deoxygenation. E2 = coefficient defining the rate of reaeration. T h e net rate of change i n the oxygen deficit ( D ) at any time i s
equal to the difference betwecn (or algebraic sum of) the two par-

o .4 ) and m a y be tis1 and opposing rates as defined above (see fig. N expressed matheinatically as follows: d D dD. dD, dt dt +dt
= I

whence-

_a E,L-E2D dt -

which is a linear differential equation of the first order (sometimes called Leibnitz's equation) having the general form-

T h e integrated equation derived from this differenkial equation defines the actual dissolved oxygen content of the water, expressed

__

1 1 . .

. l . I C . Z L

l . . l . . -

-.1-----L...

1 -

..

,I

18
factors. The full mathematical derivation of the integrated equan Appendix A,the resulting formula beingtion i s given i

i n whichD,=initial dissolved oxygen saturation deficit of the water, i n parts per million. Dzsaturation deficit,i n parts per million, after time (t) . L,=initial oxygen demand of the organic matter of the water, i n parts per million. K,=coefficient defining the rate of deoxygenation. K,=coefficient defining the rate of reaeration. tzelapsed time, in days. e=base of Naperian or natural logarithms=2.'71828.

n obtaining values of ( K , ) C o m m o n logarithms may be used i and (I&), i n which case t h e quantity (10) i s substituted for ( e ) . The quantities (Da), (D), (La), and (L) may be expressed i n terms of either parts per million or per cent of oxygen saturation; but n the same terms. should be stated invariably i The type of curve defined by this formula i s illustrated by curve Ai n Figure N o .5,which i s based on an assumed simple case wherein t h e water is saturated w i t h oxygen initially and all of t h e polluting matter enters a given stretch of the stream at or above its upper

..

7.

19
i n terms o f the oxygen saturation value,which i s equal to 100 per cent minus the deficit (D) as given by formula ( 1 ) . The curve, which i s typical o f oxygen conditions frequently observed i n streams below major points of pollution, has a d i s t i n c t minimum point, mhere the rates of deoxygenation and of reaeration are momentarily i t h respect to time, and equal. By differentiating equation (1) w o zero,the point of minimum placing the resulting expression equal t oxygen content,i n terms of time (t) , i s thus defined :

I tw i l l be noted that i n equation (2) the variable oxygen deficit, represented by (D) i n equation ( I ) ,i s absent. In order to obtain its value, equations (1) and ( 2 ) may be combined, giving the following expression :
This equation can be cleared of all terms i n (t) and t h e maximum deficit expressed in terms only of the fqur constants,but the express unwieldy,and it i s more convenient to solve f i r s t for sion obtained i (t) i n equation ( 2 ) and then for (D) i n equation ( 3 ) . Similarly,the temperature function of this point may be obtained i n a single equation,giving the time and maximum deficit a sa f f e c t e d by variation i n temperature,but this a l s oi s inconvenient for practical u s e ,and tha result i s obtained more d i r e c t l y by using ( K , ) and (K,) values independently determined for the temperahre i n quesf l ' e c t upon the constant (K,) has already t i o n . The temperature e o e f f i c i e n t (K,) ,which remains to been given;that for the reaeration c b e determined experimentally,w i l l be discussed later i n connection with the application o f the experimental data to the determination of that constant. The significance of t h e various terms i n equation (1) i sf a i r l y obvious,excepting that of the reaeration c o e f f i c i e n t( IC,), the meaning of the deoxygenation constant (K,) having been previously discussed (p. 6). The reaeration c o e f f i c i e n t( K , )i s analogous to (K,) i n that it defines a geometric rate o f progression on a time basis; for example,if the value of (K,) be such that 20 per cent of the existing saturation d e f i c i ti ss a t i s f i e d by reaeration i n the first unit of time, then 20 per cent of the remaining d e f i c i tw i l l be satisn the second unit o f time, and so on. I t differs from (Kl), f i e di however,i n not being a constant for a given temperature,as i s true (or approximately so) of (KJ . I t has already been noted that the rate of reaeration of a body of water i s modified to a large extent by i t s degree of turbulence,other things being equal. In flowing

20
streams, where turbulence undergoes wide variations according to velocity of flow,character,and slope of the channel,and other physical factors, correspondingly marked differences are to be expected i n rates o f reaeration and hence i n values of (K,) ,observed i n different stretches of the same river, or evea i n the same stream stretch l o w conditions. On the other hand, the reaeration under varying f rate should be closely related to and governed by those conditions f flow; hence values of ( K , ) , as actuwhich influence turbulence o n a given river stretch,should bear a closec relation ally determined i to the several measurable factors of physical condition which cause varying degrees of turbulence. With a given type of channel or f l o w condition, values of the coefficient (K,) should be w e l l defhed and characteristic for that type or condition. The practical significance of the reaeration coefficient i n problems of stream pollution i s therefore tKofold. First,there is the local application,i n which a set of (K,) values, once determined for a particular stream, m a y be utilized to calculate its capacity for reaeration under any assumed conditions of future pollution, using for this purpose the three formulas that have been developed above. (See pp. 1 8 1 9 . ) Secondly,there i s the more general application,wherein correlations of values of (K,)w i t h certain measurable factors of physical stream condition m a y be employed to estimate the reaeration capacities of other streams for which these factors are known but i n which no direct measurements have been made of the coefficient. .6 4 . ) Obviously the point of departure for a study of this (See p kind is the direct measurement of the value of (K,) i n the stream. n the derivation of reaeraThe methods which have been employed i t i o n coefficients for a number of stretches of the Ohio River w i l l therefore be described i n some detail. Referring n o w t o equation (l), if the problem were that of solving for an unlmo~vvnoxygen content ( D ) , with all of the other factors lmown,the matter would be one of simple substitution. This would be the procedure i n practice, the constants being given and it being required to determine the residual dissolved oxygen after any time and under aiven or assumed conditions of pollution. In experi9 mentally measuring the reaeration coefficient (K,) , however, all of the other terms, including ( D ) , must first be determined. For conn reference,these terms w i l l be listed again,as follows: venience i K,=the deoxygenation constant. n parts L,=the initial total oxygen demand of the stream water i per million of oxygen. D,=the initial dissolved oxygen content of the stream water i n parts per million,expressed as saturation deficit. D=the dissolved oxygen content of the stream, i n parts per m i l -.
I .

.*

~ 37 ,

LL-

: : * : I

: . +

21
k t h e time of flow, i n days, h o m an oxygen content of (Da) to one of ( D ) . The determination of ( K , ) and the temperature relations involved already have been discussed. In the present case values have been assigned to (HI) by correcting its value, 0 . 1 0 0 ,at 2 0 ' C. to its various equivalents at different observed stream temperatures, n Figure No.2 or the corusing for this purpose the curve shown i i t h the thermal coefficient ( @ ) rection formula given on page 7,w taken as equal to 1 . 0 4 7 . The determinations of (Da) and ( D ) , and of the time (t) i n a given stream stretch,require the selection of two sampling stations, A and B,one located at the upstream and the other at the downstream end of the stretch, and direct observation of the dissolved oxygen content and the water temperatme at these two stations, together with measurements or computations of the mean time of flow between them at the various river stages at which the dissolved oxygen content i s observed. The assignment of a proper value to the initial oxygen demand (La) ,however,presents an extremely difficult problem,owing largely to the uncertainties involved i n determining,under conditions found i n natural streams, a quantity which m a y be taken as being a rept resentative one for a particular river sixetch under observation. I i s proposed, therefore,to discuss this question i n considerable detail. I f the river stretch i n question were entirely free from inflowing pollution or dilution at points intermediate between two given sampling stations, or if the amounts and points of entry of such n the inflow were definitely known, the various factors concerned i problem would be determinate and its solution would be comparah e first case, the only change i n the initially tively simple. In t observed oxygen demand, occurring between the upper Station A and the lower Station B,would be a progressive and orderly decrease clue to oxidation, following a course which,'for all practical purposes, could safely be assumed to be similar to the logarithmic time n Figure No. 6a. The initially function curve deflned by line A i observed oxygen demand, denoted as (LA) i n the chart, therefore would become the value of ( L , )i n formula ( 1 ) . In the second case, where known increments of pollution or dilution entered the river stretch at recognized points beLween Stations A and B,the position of the l i n e of residual oxygen demand would be altered at each one of khese points, as shown i n Figure No. 6a, but its slope, dething the rate of oxidation,would remain constant for the particular river temperature condition prevailing. In this latter instance, a new value of (La) would be computed at each point of entry of known inflow,the new ordinate of the curve lying above or below line A according to whether the effect of the added increment of

24
t i t y (LIB)i n the chart, representing the maximum amount o f disturbance which could possibly account for the divergence observed or (LB) as a basis for (L) i n a given case. The use of either (LA) represents,therefore,the two most extreme assumptions possible regarding the amount of intermediate disturbance. In the one case, the derived value of (La) evidently mould be too low and i nt h e other too high. Method (3) represents a compromise between the two alternative procedures described under method (2),the primary assumption here involved being that the t o t a l amount of disturbance between St.+tions A and B i s equal to an amount which, if concentrated at a

3 . %
m
C I .

rs.No.6b
CHhRT 5WWING METHOD OFC9lAINING HYPOTHCTICAL VALUE OF (14)BY A Y E W I N G OB5ERVATION5 TAKCN AT 5TATIONS @)ANV (B)AND BROUCKT TO A COMMON m 5 1 5 FOR COMPARIWN AT STATION(0>

point immediately below Station A,would account for exactly onehalf the observed divergence between ( L B ) and ( L ' * ) at Station B. The effect of t h i s assumption is illustrated i n Figure No.6b by l i n c C, the value ( L , ) being an arithmetical mean of ( L B ) and (L'*), or I

' , +L , e % L , = L 2
I t will be noted that the total amount of oxygen demand satisfied between Stations A and B along l i n e C is. equal to the arithmetical mean of the t o t a l amounts s a t i s f i e d ,respectively, along l i n e s and B;that is:

25
Method (3) thus involves a further assumption that the total amount of oxygen demand s a t i s f i e d between Stations A and B is equal to the mean of the amounts which would be s a t i s f i e d under t h e maximum and minimum possible conditions of disturbance,respecf any s p e c i f i c data as to t h e actual amount t i v e l y . In the absence o or distribution of such disturbance, an assumption of this nature would appear t o be a far more reasonable one than those which are involved i n methods ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) . The calculation af (La) by t h i s method i s simple, its value being given, i n terms of the observed and (LB), by the relation: quantities (LA)

The methods above described have reference solely to the derivafor substitution into formula (1) which, it tion of a value of (La) w i l l be recalled,i s based on a primary assumption of an i n i t i a l oxygen demand,subsequently undisturbed i ni t s orderly rate of decrease t may be argued that proceduresb a d on such through oxidation. I an assumption can hardly be applied,logically,to conditions o f natural stseams i n that they fail t o take direct account of the manner i n which the disturbing influences causing a deviation of (L) from (L*) are distributed along the stream Imh-een two given observation stations. A contention of this kind unquestionably i s sound theoretically,but when an attempt is made to develop a procedure based on some d e f i n i t e primary assumption as to the distribution of disturbing i n f l u e n c e s along a stream, two d i f f i c u l t i e s present thems e l v e s . First i s a question as to the kind of distribution which shall be assumed i n a given case, with little or no information available on which t o base a particular assumption. Second i s the obvious fact that for each different assuinption made a new and characteristic equation of the type of formula (1) must be developed,starting with a new differential equation of condition, and undergoing the various steps of integration similar t o those outlined i n Appendix A with respect to formula ( 1 ) . The matheinntical complexities which such a procedure involves are v e l 1 illustrated by the example, given i n Appendix B,of the derivation of a new resultant oxygen formula based on the most elementary assumption possible regarding distributed disturbance, namely, a uniform distribution of inflow along the stream between Stations A and E. The equation thus derived is as follows:
D= E,[Xz(l
e I F l t )

(~-L,e-Kat)-~l(Lb-Lae-=lt) 1ICz(Kz -K,)( 1- F x F -

Dae-K2t

the symbols employed being the same as in formula (1),except that (LA) and (LB) represent the obserred oxygen demand a t Stations -i and respectively.

26
Efforts t o develop other formulae o f the same type,based on other o the distribution of inflow, have led t o integrated assumptions as t equations even more complex than the one above stated. For purposes of practical application such formulae are so complicated as to be virtually unworkable i n most cases. In the absence of specific information as t o the manner i n which disturbing influence m a y be distributed i n a given instance, the use of a particular formula, based on a single arbitrarily assumed distribution,mould be hazardous,moreover, i n view of the extreme variability and high degree of i t h which such distributions occur i n natural streams. uncertainty w With the admitted theoretical advantages of these procedures over n formula (1) their practical disadthe more simple one embodied i vantages are of such a nature as to render their use inadvisable for purposes of working calculations. For use i n connection with the analyses of the Ohio River data, t o be discussed i n the text which follows, the procedure f i n a l l y adopted as being the most suitable for the purpose at hand was the by averaging employment of formula (I), deriving values of (La) those of (LB) and (L,e-K,t), as described under method ( 3 ) on pages 23-24. By this comparatively simple procedure values of ( L , ) were calculated from the base data given i n TabIe N o . 1 for each stretch of the river for which observations were available. An inspection of formula (1) indicates that a direct solution of it for the value of the reaeration coefficient ( K , ) involves mathematical difficulties, since this term appears both as a coefficient and as an exponent. While it is possible that a convenient solution of this equation by means of a nomographic chart might be devised, a fairly n practice has consisted of the indirect procedure simple method i of assuming values of (I&), solving for the corresponding (D) values; plotting these on cross-section paper with (K,) values as values as abscissae, and from a smooth curve ordinates and (D) corresponddrawn through the points, selecting the value of (K2) ing t o the known (D) value. The substitution of the value of (K,), thus obtained, into formula (1) w i l l insure that the proper figure has been chosen from the plot,thus checking the work. This method of procedure is comparatively simple i n routine work if the so-called "log-log" slide rule is used, permitting the convenient solution of power functions. I ti s rarely necessary to obtain more than three points on the smooth curve to obtain the interpolated value of (K,) sought. Employing the foregoing method, values of the reaeration coefficient m a y be readily computed for any river stretch or any condition of flow or season for which the necessary laboratory and hydrometric data are available. F r o m calculations of this kind a sa+ n-F (K valiitw w i l l be obtained for each Darticular river stretch

27
studied, the values varying accord*mgto the different conditions of temperature and flowencountered during the period of observations. n each case the coThe coefficients thus obtitined, representing i incident stream conditions, are modified by three major factors, namely, temperature, stream depth, and turbulence. The temperature influence is, strictly speaking,a compound one,depending upon the resultant effect of temperature variations upon the rats of solut i o n of oxygen at the water surface and upon its velocity of diffusion i n the lower strata. These two influences are opposed to each other i n the sense that the rate of solution diminishes w i t h rising temperature, while the rate of diffusion increases. The effect of temperature variations upon the rate of oxygen solution at the surface i s governed by the relative amounts of saturation deficit represented by a particular dissolved oxygen content when referred t o saturation values at different temperatures. If, for example,the oxygen content be 5 parts per million, its satura. 2 parts and at 30" C.i s2 . 6 parts, the relation deficit at 20" C.is 4 tive rates of solution at the two temperatures.being dehed by the proportion 4 . 2 : 2 . 6 . Where the oxygen content is expressed, however, i n terms of saturation deficit, as is the case i n formulas (1) and (3), this temperature relation i s taken account of automatically, and the diffusion relationship is the governing influence. In their K e w York Harbor studies, Black and PhelpsZ1 derived f temperature variaexperimentally a curve showing the effects o tions upon rates of diffusion of atmospheric oxygen i n water. In Figure No. 7 this curve, slightly modified for temperatures b e l o w 10" C., is reproduced i n such a way as to show relative rates of diffusion at various temperatures with reference t o the rate t appears that the rate of diffusion of 20" C. F r o m this curve i at 2 0 ' C . is doubled at a temperature of about 27.2" C . , trebled at 31.4" C., and halved at 10.6" C . I ti s evident that the.temn perature of the water, even within ranges ordinarily observed i streams,exerts a great influenceupon the rate of diffusion of oxygen i n water and hence upon the rate of reaeration of streams. By means of a curve similar t o that of Figure No. 7,values of the reaeration coefficients as determined at various prevailing stream temperatures m a y be reduced to equivalent values at a standard . before comparing them with reference to temperature of 20" C other stream conditions. The influence of stream depth upon the rate of reaeration is conn part by the relation of depth to volume of f l o w (which, trolled i j n turn, governs the concentration,i n the stream, of oxygen derived
=Black, Col. W. bf., and Phelpha, E .B . , The Discharge of Scnvage into N e n v Tork Harbor. Report made to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, N c r r Tork C'itp,
1911.

28
from reaeration) and probably also in part by the relation of depth t o the,rateof diffusion.I t happens that both the rate of diffusion and volume of flow are power functions of the depth, approximating i t s square. A glance at the equivalent of (IC) i n the diffusion ahZ w i l l formula on page 11, which is given by the quantity

(m)

show, for example, that the-rate of diffusioni s inversely proportional t o the square of the depth ( L ) . As regards the volume of flow, it is equal t o the velocity times the area of flow,the relation

TCMPEWNZC or WATCRIN ' C .

being expressed by the simple hydraulic formula: (Q=AV), i n denotes the volume o f flow, (A)the area, and (V)the which velocity. In most streams having a fairly large ratio of width to depth,the area of flow (A)and the velocity (V)are each of them very nearly proportional to the depth ( H ) , so thak the relation to volume of flow may be written as being roughly: (Q=cH2). The amount of reaeration per unit of t h e , or its rate, when measured i n terms o f oxygen concentration,should be inversely proportional to the quantity of mater throughout which the oxygen is distributed ;

(a)

that is,to the stream discharge (Q). From the relation just shown, this rate should therefore be roughly proportional directly to the . square of the depth (H) As t o the relation between reaeration and turbulence, no welldefined theoretical basis exists for judging its nature, the reason being that the turbuleiice o a stream i s an abstract function dependent upon and capabb of expression only i n terms of some other more concrete stream characteristic. For a given stream type, some definite relationship might reasonably be expected to exist between l o w , but it is evident the turbulence of a stream and its velocity of f that different types of streams should reveal quite different velocityn a stream possessing an even, turbulence relations. For example, i smooth, deep channel, with flat slopes and either straight or gradually changina direction of flow, the effect of velocity upon turbub . n a-watercourse having a shallence i s conceivably much less than i low, rough channel, w i t h steep slopes and sharp changes i n direction. Between the two extremes lie numerous well-defined stream types; and a large river such a3 t h e Ohio i sl i k e l y to exhibit throughout its course several of these types. No very definite theoretical relation exists between turbulence and velocity, even assuming other physical conditions constant. In a general way, turbulence is the result of frictional resistance to flow, and under uniform physical Conditions might be expected to be a power function of the velocity of the form: T=cVn the constants c and n defining the stream type as regards the fixed physical conditions,such as slope, character of bottom,depth, shape, and direction of channel, etc. This subject can therefore be dealt T-ith only empirically.
EXPERIMENTAL

The quantitative working theory of the process of oxygen stream n the form of purification which has been developed and expressed i certain algebraic equations is capable of two distinct uses. With all the constants known, it makes possible the computation of actual stream conditions and m a y even be employed for the determiriation of future conditions, w i t h an assumed increase i n contributini population or an assumed degree of sewage purification. Information i s lacking, however, concerning the reaeration or reoxygenation coefficient (IC,) i n the formulas, excepting from a purely theoretical standpoint. I ti s possible, however, to u t i l i z e these formulas for the experimental determinations of this term, by actually measuring the

more readily determinable present stream conditions. T o this end analytical data have been obtained i n the form of dissolved oxygen i l l be employed for the and oxygen demand values, and these data w determination of the reaeration coefficient. I tw i l l then be possible n connection with the physical stream conto study this coefficient i ditions which affect it and to search for any general relationships which would make the determinations of reaeration a matter of computation for known physical conditions. I t should be noted that the other data necessary for the solution GI the condition equation are either known or capable of ready detern any particular case. mination i
PRESENTATION OF RASE DBT-4

The scope af t l i e observations constituting the basis of the study embraced daily or thrice-weekly determinations of dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand of the Ohio River at selected stations throughout its entire length, from Pittsburgh to below Paducali, over a period extending from M a y 1 to October 15, 1914, supplen a stretch of tlie river extencling mented by similar observations i from above Cincinnati to below Louisville,over a period from October 16,1914,to April 30,1915. The data for the latter naiiied stretch thus embraced a full yearscycle of stream conditions. The base data derived from these observations were first reduced n to terms of monthly average figures and sunimarized as shown i Table No. 1, which also includes certain suppleinentary clata employed in the analysis of the laboratory results,such as mean river water temperatures and times of flow between the various sampling stations (columns 2, 3, and 4 ) . The sampling station notations as n column 1 require explanation. The location of all stations given i was referred t o a point at the junction of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh,and each station on the Ohio River was given a number corresponding to its location i n miles below the reference point. (See M a p A,showing the location o f the various stations;also Public Health Bulletin No. 143,pp. 98-104, for a description of the stations.) Thus the station designated as Ohio No. 23 was located 23 miles downstream from the reference point. The tributary stations, designated by nanie, were located i n all except two cases practically at the tributary mouth. The two exceptions were the Allegheny ttnd Monongahela stations, which were located at distances of 7 and 12 miles, respectively, above their junction at Pittsburgh. In the analysis of the data which follows,11 stretches of the river have been selected for reaeration study,the various factors involved i n the calculations having been transcribed from Table No. 1 and

31
arranged as shown i n Tahle N o .2. The last two columns i n these tables contain values of the reaeration coefficient ( K , ) as determined for the actual stream condition by the method outlined on pages 26-27 and as converted t o a standard temperature basis of 20" C., using the curve of Figure 7 for the purpose. In Table No. 3 i s given a summary of the values of (K,) thus standardized and brought together from Table No. 2 for reference and comparison.
TABLE No. l.-Awage
results, b y months, o f laboratory determinations of digsolved oxf/pen and biochern4cal oxygen demand a t various sampling &e tiotis i n the Ohio River and at the mouths of designated tributa,ries,together with collateral data concernzing m e a n river water temperatures and tinaes of JIOZV between successive stations
M O N T I I OF M A Y , 1914 Mean time of flow,days, fromMeon water ternperaStature Pitts- tion OC.' burgh next above Total oxygen demand L ~ ~ S during
24

n i t i a l dissolved oxygeI
. -

-~

Sampling station

Parts er m i lion

hours' Quenincut i t y Satu- bation units Per -ation (parts Parts cent deficii 20$c"c. i l e rm PFr p Satu- (parts X million lion e rm L ration l thoul i o n ) l i o n ) sand secondf e e t )
(6)
__

I__ I

Allegheny, N o .7 - - . . . .___. . 1 9 . 9 9.o(1 Monongahela,No. 12._._ . _ _ . 23.5 7 .21 Ohio,No. 3__...________ _ . 15. 8... 9.IO Ohio, No. 11___...___ _ _ _ _ . . . _ 16.0 9.32 Ohio,No. 19___.___._____.__. 15.8 .48 .I8 9.27 Ohio,No. 23________.._______ 16.0 .56 .08 9 .10 Beaver- - ____. _ .. _ 17.7 .60 9.29 .04 Ohio, No. 2 9___..._.__ _ _ _ _ . . . 14.3 .66 .Gi3 9.53 Ohio, No. 65._.._____._______ 16.6 1.18 .52 8 .60 Ohio, No.77. _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . 16.8 1.38 .% 8.80 Ohio,No. 88____...___ _ _ _ . . . . .18 1 6 .8 1.58 8.89 Ohio,No.97__..____.. . . _ _ _ _ . 16.3 1.71 .15 8.71 Ohio,No. 104____._____.___._ 16.4 1.86 .15 8.37 Ohio,No.349_.________._.___ 17.0 5.89 4.03 8.43 scioto___._.____.._______.___ 18.6 6.00 .ll 8 .26 Ohio,No. 461____.._.______._ 17.6 7.65 1.65 8. 20 Little Miami ______..._______ 18.8 7.67 .02 8.41 Licking. . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ - _19.4 7.77 .10 8.60 Ohio,No. 475______._______._ 17.1 7.87 .10 8 . 18 Ohio,No.482______._.______. 17.S 8.00 .13 8 . 17 Ohio,No.488...______.______ 8.11 17.0 .10 8 . 14 Miami ___ _..______._ ___. 1 7 . 5 8.12 .02 8 .63 Ohio,No. 492..______. . . . _ _ _ _ .04 16.9 8.16 8.09 Ohio,No. 598____._.________. 17.6 10.14 1.98 8.01 Ohio,No. 611_.______.._.____ 18.0 10.42 7.90 .28

-1-

(3)

(4)
~

(5)

(7)
0 .19

- ___ __ __ __

__ ___ __

____

98.0 83.0 91. 1 93.8 92.8 91.5 96.8 92.5 87.6 9 0 .0 90.9 88.1 84.9 86.6 87.0 85.8 89.7 92.6 84.2 8 4 .2 83.5 89.5 82.9 83.3 82.8

1.39 .89 .63 .72 .85 .31 .77 1.22 .98 .89 1. 18 1.50 1. 31 1 . 17 1 .42 .98
.68

1.54 1.55 1.60 1 .01 1. 67 1 .61 1.64

.89 1 . 14 1.41 .97 1 . 07 1. 47 1.36 1 . 01 .25 .60 .46 .79 1.10 .79 .85 .64 98

4.32 5 .53 6.84 4.70 5 .20 7 . 13

6.60 5. 05

1.21 2.92 2.24 3.84 5.34 3.84 4.13 3.11 4.76

215.0 192.3 182. 5 65. 3 340.0 261.6 289. 5 397.0 367. 0 281. 0 122.2 20.3 269.0 70 21.4 483.0 520.0 392.0 21.0 494.0 499.0 521.0

an.5

7 1 .5 16.5

MONTH OB JUNE,1914 Allegheny,N o .7 . . - -. _ . . . 23.0 . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ 7.53 _ Monongahela,No.12.__._. _ . . 24.0 _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . 6.41 Ohio,No.3. _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . 24. 0 0.38 0 . 38 5 . 40 Ohio,No. 11_ . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . 25.0 1.45 1 .07 7 .29 Ohio,No.13_ . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . _ . . 24. 0 2.22 .77 7.39 Ohio,No. 23. _ . . .~ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . 23. 4 2 . 54 .32 7.29 Beaver.-. . . _ . _ . .__.__. . _ ._ . _23. 4 2 . 70 .I6 7.70 Ohio, No.29___.____..__._.__ . _ . _ . . . 2.96 .26 8.01 Ohio,No. 65. . _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . 4 22. 7 .44 1.48 7 . 79 Ohio,No.77_ . _ . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . 23.7 5.46 1.02 8 . 11 Ohio,No. 88. _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ . . 23.7 6 .11 .65 8.18 Ohio, No.97_ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ 22. 6. c\LI^ hT^ I"" 0 . 7 " . 1.
I

87.5 7 5 .2 63.3
87.0

2.i2

; ?

z;

88.?

86.6 84.7 89.3 9% 0 89.4 94.8 95.6

1 .(is 2.09 3.13 1.09 1.14 1.33 .92 .66 .93

.46

0 . 31

.27 .34 .43 .38

.32

1 .51 1.31
1.65

.39
1.03

.49 .I8 .52 .57 .75

2.08 1.85 1.55 2.38 .87 2.52 2.77 3.64

.?ti

,2. ? ' !

9.9 3 .7 15. 5 19.5 1 7 .4 14.5 2.0 8.8 26.0 28.5 37. 5

28.5

32
TABLE No. l.-Auerage
results, by ,ntonths,etc.4ontillued M O N T H OF JUNE,19144ontinued
Mean time of flow, days, f r o m Mean water temperature, OC

o i t i a l dissolved oxygen
__

Station next tbove

Loss uring
24

rota1 oxygen demand

Quant i t , y
units

Samplingstation

Pittswgh

SatuP e r ration Parts cent deficit ?rm i l 5atu- (parts lion i l ation per m lion) lion)

' a r t s

__
(2)

(parts i l i e rm per lion X i l l i o n thousand seconrlfeet)

(9)

(3)

(4)
__

(5) 89.4

_Y d .6
96.3 86.2 77.5 82.3 77.9 95.4 77.3 90.2 89.6 89.6 88.3 92.1 85.3 90.9
I

7.42 5 . 5 17.32 10.09 Ohio,No. 349_.____.__._ . . - 2 7 . 76 .20 2 4 . 5 17.52 Scioto. - -~.._______-----.-.7.88 2.72 26. 2 _20.24 Ohio,No. 461_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ __ 6.88 .30 2 7 . 6 20.54 Licking. _.___ 6 .35 20.91 .37 Ohio,No. 475_ _ _ _ _ _ _26. .2 __ ____ _ 6.79 .48 25. 8 21.39 Ohio,No. 482_______...___.. 6.45 .25 25.6 21.64 Ohio,No.488_____.._._.___. 7 .90 21.69 .05 25.6 Miami.. . - .___ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ 6.48 .08 21.77 25.0 Ohio,No. 492.__._. _ _ . . . . . _ _ 6.06 7 .51 27.83 25.3 Ohio,No.508._.__.__._ _ _ . . _ 23.78 7.38 .95 25. 9 Ohio,No. 611....__._.__ _ . _ . 7 . 24 26.9 41.62 13.79 Ohio,No.904.__.____.___.__ 5.56 .34 9 . 4 41.96 Cumberland.-. . - - -.- - - - 2 7.44 42.34 .38 6 . 9._ Ohio,No.920_-_._._._2 _ _ . . 6 . 56 42.40 .06 6 Tennessee-. . . . . . - - - -. 29. i . 20 42.95 .55 28.0 Ohio,No.933__.___..._. _ . _ .

.sa
.69

__

.21 1.10 1.84

1 . e
1 . 83 .38 1.96 .8E .8E .84 2.11
.64

.42 1.03 .50 .98 .90 .91 .74 1.50 .90 .95 .82
.40

__

.oo

2.04 5 .00 2.43 4.76 4.37 4.42 3.60 7.28 4.37 4.61 3.98 1.94
.M)

36.5 5.0 48.1 4.9 91.6 92.8 75.5 9.0 98.0 132.8 114.5 ?I). 4

.o

1.13 . . 7 E

.35 .26 .77

1.70 1.26 3 .74

__ __

86.8 21.5 255.0

__-__

MONTH OF JULY, 1914

7.36 . . _ _ _ Allegheny,No.7_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.58 _ . _ _ . _ Monongahela,No. 12_.____ -4.36 0.68 0.68 Ohio,No. 3__.___.___..___._. .8 1 .! 21 2 . 49 Ohio,No. 11_ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . 1 1.36 1.46 3.85 Ohio,No. 19___._.___.____.__ 4 ._ 45_ .60 7.21 Ohio,No. 23____..._._._.._ 87. 1 78.6 52. 1 84.5 87.8 85.3 86.7 88.9 93.5 93.8 921 89.0 84.2 89.6 95.6 85.7 74.9 83.5 82.3 7 7 . . 8 95.5 92.6 87.8 95.5 80.8 94.4 84.3 88.8 1 .02 1.78 4.00 1.32 1.04 1.24 1 . 14 .94 .54 .52
.6i
0 .33

.43 .44 .41 I44

.48 .64 .2J
~~

4.74 7 .42 .29 7 . 50 7.45 2 . 71 7.84 9.09 1.73 Ohio;No.77_._.___._.___.___ 1.01 7.86 1 0 . 20 Ohio,No.8 8 _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ 7.74 1 1 . 20 1.00 Ohio,No. 97_______._._._._._ 7.49 .91 Ohio,No. 104. . . _ . _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ 12 11 6.83 24. 90 Ohio,No.329___..._.___._ _ . _ 12.79 .20 7 . 57 25.10 Scioto. --. ___.______..____-. 7 . 70 2.76 27.86 Ohio,No. 461__.___.___._ . _ _ . .35 28.21 6 .63 Licking_____________.-_ .43 6 .00 28.64 Ohio,No. 475 6.76 .56 29.20 Ohio,No. 482 .26 29.46 6 Ohio. No. 488___.______._____ . 62 29.60 .14 .43 Ohio,No. 492_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. __ 6 7._ 26 _ 7.70 Ohio,No. 598_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _36.86 ____ 7.45 1 . zo 38.06 Ohio,No. 611____________.__. 7 . 08 .32 Ohio,No. 619_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _38.38 ____ _. _ 7.51 14.81 53.19 Ohio,No. 904 .45 6.28 53.64 Cumberland 54.05 .41 7.34 Ohio,No. 920 54.11 6 .47 .06 Tennessee. 6 .90 54.69 .58 Ohio;No.933

- --- ________________

________________

~~

-________________ - --- __ - --

___ __ ________________ ________________ ________I

.92 1.28 .71 .35 1 .10 2.02 1.34 1.42 1.71 .37 .59 .98 .36 1.50 .44 1 .20 .87

.39 .49 .33 .31 .38 .90 .4a .83 .81 .81 .6E .6f 1.01 . ! 3 4 .9E . 3 : .2 f .21 .1E .2 1

1 .GO 2 . 09 2 . 14 1.99 2.14 2.33 3. 11 1 . 16 1.90 2.38 1 . 60 1 .51 1.85 4.37 1. M 4.03 3.94 3.93 3.30 3.20 4.90 4.08 4.76 1.55 1.26 1.04 .87 1.36

5.5 4.0 11.5 10.7 11.5 1 2 .6 1.4 7.7 12.6 15.8 11.6 1 0 .0 30.3 3.2 36. 3 .4 74.8 74.6 62.7 64.0 113.0 94.4 109.8 47.7 10.1 40.3 16.7 78.8
__

TABLE No. 1.-Auemge

results, by months, eti:.-Contlnued

MONTH OF AUGUST. 1014

M e a n time of f l o w days,

t r d m -

n i t i a l dissolved oxygen

T o t a l oxygen
denland

lamplingstation

Mean water tempera-

ata-

parts
lion

ture

0 0.

tion next
ibove

er m i l

Per cent satuation

3atuation Leflcit PWt? Y md, lion)

(4)

(5) 82.4 76.0 34.0 76.9 81.1 77.9 85.2 91.2 94.2 91.7 93.0 88.9 85.8 87.3 89.1 81.8 60.8 77.5 75.8 74.3 9 6 . 6 95.0 91. 1 89.9 79.3 98.2 88.4 89.4
__

(7) 1.52 2 . 0 1 5.53 1.95 1.60 1.88 1.28 .75 .49 .71 .50 .95 1.18 1.04 .89 1.46 3.20 1.86 2.00 2 15 .41 .28 .72 .81 1.64 .15 .91 .84
. _ _

Allegheny No. 7 . _ _ _ _ _2 _ _____ 7.16 3 . 0 _____. Monongahela No. 12 __. . . 6.40 , , 24.8 Ohio No. 3_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ 1.00 ____ _ 2 5 . 0 1.00 2.85 3.73 Ohio No. 11_ _ _ _ _ _ _24.6 .__ ___ ___ 6.50 2.73 5.71 Ohio No.19 2 4 4 6.87 1.98 6.59 Ohio No.23 NO .88 6.65 7.01 .42 Beaver4.0 7.40 11.49 Ohio No. 85 24.2 7.75 4.48 Ohio No. 77______._____..__. 13.81 2 4 . 6 2.47 7.95 Ohio No.88 24.4 15.47 1.51 7.76 Ohio No. 97- _ _ . _ _ _ _ ___ _ 16.92 24.2 1.45 7.90 Ohio No. 104 -L .____ ___ 18.28 23.9 1.34 7 . 58 Ohio No.34925.7 34.88 16.62 7.09 suoto-__._ 24.8 35.12 .24 7.37 Ohio NO. 461__.__ 26.4 3 8 34 3.n 7 . 2 7 Licking. . . _________ ___ ___ 27.2 3s._ IM. ..30 6.58 Ohio No. 475 26.3 39.33 .a 4.97 Ohio No. 482 2 5 .. 8 40.01 .69 6.39 Ohio No. 488 ___.___._______ 2 5 .Q PO. 30 .29 6.24 Ohio No. 492_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ 40.45 ____ _ _ 6.23 25.0 .15 Ohio No. 598 26.0 48.98 8.07 7.81 Ohio No. 611. ___________..__ 1.44 2 7 . 0 50.42 7.79 ~. 1 619 Ohio No. 27.1 50.80 .38 7.33 Ohio ? No. 904______._____.__ 27.5 67.54 16.74 7.18 Cumberland--. . . -. . . . . 28.0 67.88 6 . 28 .34 Ohio So. 920.______...___._. n. 9 6 8 . 3 7 7.78 .49 Tennessee.__. -. . 28.4 88.43 6.95 .06 Ohio No. 933.-. .._____. n. 0 69.00 .57 7.08
~ ~

________ ________________ _____ ___________ -________ ______ ___________ __ ________

~ ~

--------

_________________ __ ______ ____ _________ ___________ __ - _______ __ ___ ________________ _______________ _______________ ________________
~

- - - ___

___ ____

__

0.39 .71 .61 .51 .52 .38 .52 .28 .12 .50 .55 .35 .37 .83 .49 1.01 .79 .74 .65 .66 .33 .38 .60 .16 .18 .40 .24 .30
__

--

1.89 3.45 2.96 2.48 2.52 1.85 2 . 52 1.36 .58 2.43 2.67 1.70 1.80 403 2.38 4 . 9 0 3.84 3.59 3 . 15 3.20 1.60 1.85 2.91 .78 .87 1.94 1 .1 7 1.46

3.1 7.1 1 1 . 0 9.2 9.4 6.9 .9 6.3 2.7 11.3 12.4 7.9 21.2 3.9 33.0 3.6 58.4 53.0 47.9 52.8 29.3 3 3 . 8 53. a 20.6 6 . 0 64.5 19.5 7 3 . 0

MONTH OF BEPTEMBER, 1914

~~

Allegheny No. 7_ _ _ . _ _ _ ______ 19.0 8.25 Monongahela No.12 21.0 _____.__ 6.54 Ohio No.3. _ _ _ _ _ _ _21.0 _ _ _1.05 ___ ___ __ 2.71 1.05 Ohio No. 11._______..________ 20.5 4.11 6.59 3 . 06 Ohio No. 1 9 . ________ .__ ___ _ _ 7.09 20.5 6.41 2 30 Ohio No. 2 3 ____._...__._____ 20.3 7.35 .94 5.35 Beaver.. ____.__ 19.0 7.82 7.73 .47 Ohio NO. 65__.__.___.____.__ 19.8 13.49 5.67 a& Ohio No. 77_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _._ _ __ _ 20.3 15.88 2 . 54 8.68 Ohio No. 88.___________..___. 20.4 17.54 1 . 51 8.77 Ohio No.97_ _ . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ 20.4 19.02 1 . 4 8 8 . 72 Ohio No. 1 M ..______._____._ 20.3 20.36 1.34 8.32 Ohio No. 349--.. . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . 2 2 . 3 36.12 15.76 7.74 Sciato ._. _ . __. _ . _ _ . _ . 21.1 36.34 .22 8.29 Ohio No. _.._______.___ 22.1 39.27 2.93 7.64 Licking. . _ _ . . _ . .___ _ . _ . _ 22.5 39.65 .38 7.43 Ohio No.475. . .____ ___ __ 22.6 40.11 .46 5.87 OhioNo 482__.______.__.____ 22.5 40.72 6.91 .61 Ohio No.488_ - _ _ _ _ _ 22.3 __. ____ _ _ 6.76 40.99 .a Ohio No.492_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _41.14 _.__ ___ 22.0 .15 6.82 Ohio No.598_ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ 2 2 . 9 48.86 8.43 7.72 Ohio No. 611_ _ _ _ _ _ . 22.9 ___ ____ _ _ 8.42 50.14 1.28 Ohio No. 619__.___.__.______ 22.6 50.48 8.21 .34 Ohio No.904.___.____._____._ 23.3 65.73 15.25 7.31 Cumberland.__. . . 24.5 66.11 .38 6.77 Ohio No. 920.________._._____ 23.7 66.48 .37 7.46 Tennessee. . . 25.0 66.53 .05 7.53 Ohio No.933 . _ _ _ _ _ _24.1 ___ ____ __ 67.11 .58 7.18

_________

________ --__-______
~~

1.10 2.45 6.28 2 . 49 1.99 3.77 1.38 .76 .44 .33

.38

0.46 .55 .59 .44 .54 .08 .27 .32 .58 .56 .53 .30 .79 .44 .73 .89 .74 .62 .64 .52 .56 .69 .25 .32 .43 .16 .30

- _____ ____

__

88.2 7L3 30.2 726 78.0 58.7 82.7 91.8 95.2

96.3

.23

--

___ ___
~

_-__

--

-- - - - -- - - -

__ __

95. 9 91.3 88.0 92.3 86.8 84.9 67.1 79.0 77.0 77.2 97.1 97.0 93.9 847 80. 1 87.0 89.8 84.3

.80 1.04 .68 1.17 1.32 2.87 1.84 2.02

1 . 0 1 .26

.27
.53

1.32 1.68 1 . 11 .85 1.33

2.24 2 67 2.86 2 . 14 2 .62 .39 1 .31 1 . 12 1.55 2.82 2.72 2 .58 1.46 3.84 2.14 3.55 4.32 3.59 3.01 3 . 11 2.52 2 . 72 3.35 1.21 1 . 55 2.09 .78 1.46

5.0 3.0 9.6 7.2 8.8 1.3 .5 5.0 7.0 12.7 12.2 11.6 20.0
3.1

36.6 .8 75.5 62.8 52.7 56.9 52.6 56.8 70.0 45.1

10.6

92.5 12.4 87.6

34
TABLE No. 1.-Acerage
results, by months, etc.-Continued
OCTOBER 1-15, 1914
Mean time of flow,days, from~

i i t i a l dissolved oxygen
__ __ __

LWS

Total oxygen demand

__

luring

Sampling station

Mean water temperatye,

Pittsmrgh

Station next tbove

?arts am i l . lion

Per cent ratuation

24 iours' incuSatu- ,ation a t ation l e f i c i t IO0 c. .parts :par+ er m i l er m i l lion) lion)

Parts

Zuantity units ,parts

$8,

er m i l ion X thousand econdfeet)

-__
(3) (4)
__
~

(5) 88.7 64.8 7.2 67.Z 72.3 70.4 79.8 93.8 91.6 89.5 89.2 82 3 89.5 93.5 97.2 86. 5 52 5 7 22 76.0 76.7 101.5 103.9 99.8 93.0 80.4 93.0 94.0 89.8

(7) 1.11 3.25 0.23 .35

.29

8 .63 . 17.0 Allegheny No. 7 . . 5.97 19.7 Monongahela No. 12 .72 2 . 11 19.0 2 11 Ohio No. 3 __________._-.__18.3 a 34 6.23 6.37 Ohio No.ll-----.--..-.---6.79 4.37 12.71 18.8 Ohio No. 19____....________ 6.73 1.89 14.60 17.9 Ohio No.B . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . 7.94 .94 16.0 15.54 Beaver. _.____ ___.___.______ 9.00 10.41 25.95 1 7 .7 Ohio No.65_ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _______ 5.02 a 70 18.2 30.69 Ohio No. 77 8.45 2.73 33.70 18.6 Ohio No. 88 8.48 36.36 2.66 18.2 Ohio No. 97--7.83 2.38 38.74 1 8 .1 Ohio No. 104___________.... 8. 17 68.38 29.64 20.2 Ohio No. 349.____.__--.---8.68 68. .45 83 19.4 Scioto- ______.---_----.---4 . 4 2 -8 .88 73.25 25. I __ Ohio No. 461_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ .87 ao4 74.12 19.3 Licking-.. _ . . . _ ______-.._ _ 4.75 75.07 2 0 . E _. Ohio h ' o . 475__.______ . . . .95 6.82 76.27 18.E 1.20 Ohio No.482_._______._-... 6.82 .42 76.69 25.1 Ohio KO. 488. _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . 7.03 76. 88 . 19 20. ( Ohio No. 492___..._..___.__ 9 .38 94.68 17.80 1 9 . Ohio No. 598___..________._ 9.38 98.01 3.33 20. z Ohio No. 611__.._________.. 9.01 98.71 2 0 . E .. Ohio No. 619_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .70 8.31 29.00 2 1 . : 127.7 Ohio hTo. 904_._____..-----_ 7 .17 .48 2 1 . : 128.2 Cumberland 8.33 .42 128.6 2 1 . : Ohio No.920_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8.35 .06 128.7 1 . Tennessee __.____ 2 8.03 .71 2 1 . 4 129.4 Ohio No. 933

____________ ________

-----------

a 63
3 . 11 2.60 2.83 1 . 62 .50 .80 .98 1.02 1.69
.96 .60

________________ ________________ _____________

-

.n

1.26 4.31 2.62 2.33 2 . 14 . 14 . 35

.02

.27 .I9 .11 .42 .44 .33 .34 .38 .29 .38 .7e .37 .79 1.31 .84

.a>

____ __ __ -__ --___ - -- - --- ___

.63 .74 .63 .54 .90

.8c .51 .78 .7E . 4 : . 4 : .44 .3i .31

1 . 12 1 . 70 1.41 1.31 .92 .53 2.04 2 . 14 1 .60 1.65 1.85 1.41 1.85 3.79 1.80 3.84 6.41 4.08 3.98 3.88 2.48 3 .55 3.55 2 . 04 2.28 2 . 14 1.80 1.51

0.9 1.4 2 .2 2 .2 1 .5 .9 .5 5.3 4.0 4 . 1 4.6 3 .5 8 .2 1.9 13.0 3.7 54.0 34.4 33.5 35.2 25.8 37.0 37.0 48.3 7.6 57.8 22.1 59.4

MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1914

18.0 56.72 OhioNo.461.______________ 16.6 57.19 0.47 Licking_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ ____ ______ 17.8 57.65 .46 6.67 69.6 OhioNo.475 _.__.___________ 17.9 -58.35 .70 7.88 82.5 OhioNo.482 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ 17.4 58.64 .29 80.6 Ohio hTo. 488...____._. _ _ . _ . _ 17.1 58.79 .15 0hio No. 492. ___._._______ 18.0 67.40 OhioNo.598 ___._.._. _ _ _ _ . _ _ 8.61 18.1 68.73 1.33 8.92 ObioNo.611_.___..____.____ 18.0 .35 Ohio No.619_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _69.08 ____ ___
~

________

2 :

0.54 .94 2.91 1.68 1.67 1.36 .81 .60 .90

0.66

1.05 1.57 1.06 1. 0 4 1.21 .44 .54 .57

3.21 5.10 7.62 5.15 5.05 5.87 214 2.62 2.77

40.7 18.4 128.8 87.0 85.3 106.3 47.9 58.6 62.0

MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 1914

I
_ . . . _ 37.20 7.7 . _ _ . .. Ohio No. 461.- _____.__. 12.72 0 .54 37.74 7.6 Licking _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ ____ __ _ _ _106.1 90.7 . 5 4 8.3 3s. 28 Ohio No. 475______-._.____._ 10.69 96.8 39.11 8.3 .83 11.41 Ohio No. 482._..__..__ . _ _ _ _ . 94.3 39.43 .32 11.03 8.6 Ohio No. 4 8 8 . . . _ . _ . . . . . . _ . _ 89.5 .17 10.50 8.5 39.60 Ohio No.492._.___.________. 11.46 101.1 04 50. 10.0 Ohio NO. 598____.._.._ . . _ _ . _ 10.44 11.75 103.4 9.9 52.08 Ohio No. 611_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _2.04 __. 99.6 .52 11.16 52.60 10.2 Ohio No.619_ _ _ . _ . . . . . . _ . _ _ _

0 .02

. 73 1 . 10
.38

.67 1.23 . 13 -. 39 .12

1.90 2.20 2.44 2.09 1.98 2.10 1.47 1.63 1.46

9.23 10.69 11.85 10.15 9.62 la40 7 .14 7 .09

105.2 25 139.8 119.8 113.5 131.0 90.6

. . . .

87. 1

- -

35
TABLE No, I-Average
reklclts, b y wnth.9, etc.<ontinued
MONTH OF D E C E M B E R , 1914
f M e a n time o OW, days, Total oxygen
demand

f r o m -

Sampling station

Mean water temperatye

Quan-

c. '

StaPitts- tion burnh I next above

-1

tity units (parts Parts i i l e rm X mlllion ? ? lion thousand secondfeet)

(10) 623.0 72. 2 1070.0 1 : 063.0 950.0 25.8 1,103.0 796.0 965.0 1,008.0

8.69 ..___ 11.07 . _ 4.7 OhiqNo. 4618.82 . . . . 0 . 13 10.28 Licking... . _ _ 9.96 11.38 .14 4.7 Ohio No. 475 9.13 .17 11.50 4 .E . . Ohio No. 482_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ 9.25 .12 11.39 4.9 Ohio No.488-----------.--9.27 .02 12.92 4 . 1 Miami.. _ . 9.33 4 . E .ffi 11.49 Ohio No.492 11.78 4._ c _11.93 2.60 Ohio No. 598_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ____ _ 1 2 . 2 a 11.84 .36 3.7 Ohio No. 611_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .15 12.20 12.44 3.6 Ohio No. 619

- ___________ - _________________ -__ ____ ____ __

79.7 $1.9 $2.6 2.83 2.52 2.43 2.44 .14 244 1.35 1.40 1 .07
. . . . . . . ___ _ _ .

(2)

- - --_______________ ____ _____ __ __

_______________ __

1 .56 2.44 250 2.48 2.22 2.46 2.51 1.70 2 .OE 2 .I t :

MONTH OF J A N U A R Y , 1915
1 .2
1 .5 1 .5 1 . 4 1 . 0 1.3 1 .6 1 .5 1 . 6

6.42 6.59 6.71 6.79 6.81 6 .83 a 46 8.66 8 . 75

.----. 6.52

_______
0 . 10 .07 .12 .09 .02 .02 1.59 .22 .11

Ohio No. Ohio No. Ohio No.

12.78 12.60 13.30 13.26 13.18 13.33 13.11 12.80 12.74 12.67

90.3 . _ . . . _ 94.8 94.5 93.8 93.8 93.0 91.4 90. 8 90. 5

__

1.37 I _____-__ .73 .77 .89 1 .00 1.20 1. 29 1. 33

--__
7.09 6 .02 10.30 9 .56 8.92 10.02 9. 27 9.18 9.65 9.80
__

7 . 58 11.85 12.14 12.05 10.78 11.95 12.20 8.25 10.CQ 10.45

.sa

1.46 1.24 2.12 1.97 1.84 2.08 1.91 1.89 1. 99 2 .02

1 , 181.0 61.4 33. 1 1,900.0 1,760.0 1,735.0 136.1 2,004.0 2,412.0 2,220.0 2 , 158.0

1,219.0 55.8 1,893.0 1,756.0 1,640.0 39.0 1,740.0 2 , 036.0 2 , 140. 0 2,076.0

- - - ______ __ -

MONTH OF F E B R U A R Y , 1915
I
I

Ohio No. 461._______._._____ 2.7 3.4 Little Miami ..._____________ 12.16 . 11.64 Licking. . . . . _ . . _ 12.78 3.3 Ohio No. 475__._.._.________ 3.2 Ohio No,482_____..... _ . _ 6.51 _ _ _ .10 12.76 6.59 3.2 Ohio No. 488______._._.._.__ .08 12.73 6.61 4.1 Miami-. . _ ___.___. . _ _ . _ .02 12.38 3.2 6.64 12.65 Ohio No. 492__...___________ .13 3 . 0__8.07 1.43 12.41 Ohio No. 598__._._._. . _ _ _ _ 8.27 Ohio No.611__________-__... 3.3 .u) 12.51 8.37 Ohio No.619 .10 12.47 3 .3

__

91.0 91.0 95.5 95.1 95.0 94.5 94.3 92.2 93.7 93.3

123 1:1s

. . . . . _ _ . . _ _

__

- --

________________
__ --- ____ -~

.60 .65 .68 .72 .76 1 .07 .87 .91

1 . 09 1 . 10 .64 1.60 1.45 1.46 1 .58 1 .57 1 .61 1.48 1 . 44

5.30 5 . 34 3.11 7 .76 7 . 19 7.08 7.67 7.62 7.81 7.19 6 .99

MONTH O F M A R C H , 1915
Ohio No. 461_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ 9 .26 ___.. 3.9 11.99 Little Miami________..______ 9.28 4 .2 0.02 12.11 Licking.. ___._ ___. .-____9.39 .11 12.00 9.53 Ohio No. 475_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ 4 ._ 5 __ ___ _ _ 12.33 .14 9.69 Ohio No.482__.________.____ .16 12.33 4 .5 9 .81 Ohio No. 488._____.___. .12 12.29 4 .5 Miami ______. . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ .02 9.83 5.2 11.71 9.89 Ohio No. 492.._____._ _ _ _ . _ . . .06 4.4 12.19 12.21 Ohio No. 598_ _ _ _ _ _ _4.7 ___ 1 2_ 45 _ _ 2 .56 _. . Ohio No. 611_._.___.__.___ 1 . 4 . 9 12.80 .35 12.26 Ohio No. 619._____..._______ 4.9 12.95 .15 12.22

__

91.1 92.8 92.2 91.9 94.7 920 93.8 947 95.5 95.2

1 . 17 .95

._.___ _.___

____

.64 .64 .68 1.03 .81 1.69 1.57 .61

0.98 1.02 .80 1.48 1.29 1.29 1.22 1.38 1.41 1.27 1. 15

4 . 76 4.95 3.88 7 . 18 6.26 6.26 5.92 6. 70 6.85 6 . 17 5.58

378.0 3.1 16.3 604.0 527.0 527.0 17.9 584.0 676.0 609. 0 551.0

36
' 1 ' m r . E

No. 1.-Aoemge

results, 'by months, etC.-Continued

MONTH OF APRIL, 1916

Mean time of flow,days, I n i t i a l dissolved oxygen Loss fromu r i n g __ __ l Sampling station Mean water temSatuperaStaPer ration cure, Pitts- tion Parts cent deficit e r m i l ' C . bursh next satu- (parts above lion ration i i l e rm l i o n ) Total oxygen demand

I-

24 Quan!ours' t i t y incuunits ,ation (parts a t Parts p i l e rm !O" c. lion x parts thouer m i l sand lion) secondfeet)

__

. % L

__

(5)

( 6 )
~

Ohio No. 461. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ______ 12.46 12.3 10.00 Little Miami_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __._ _ 14.4 12.49 0.03 9.92 Licking 12 65 .16 9.82 Ohio N o .475 12.4 12.84 .19 10.19 Ohio No.482__._.______..__ 12.3 13.10 .26 10.20 Ohio No. 488 12.0 13.27 .17 10.14 M i a m i . . _ . __. 14.4 13.30 .03 10.60 Ohio No. 492_________...___ 11.9 13.37 .07 10.05 Ohio No. 598 12.8 17.53 4.16 10.41 Ohio No. 611 12.8 18.25 .72 10.83 Ohio No. 619 12.8 18.46 .21 10.68

_____ ______ ______ __ _______________ -__ __

93.0 96.5 -_____

94.8 94.8

0.76

-- -.36 -- -.
.55 .56 .69 32 .81 .24 -. 18 . 03

--

93.7 103.1 92.6 97.8 101.7 loo. 3

0.58 .68 .60 1 . 18 .98 .98 1 .4 0 1 . 18 .79 1 .03 1.09

2 . 82 3.30 2.92 5 . 7 2 4 .76 4 .76 6.80 5.73 3.84

5.0

5.29

112,9 .9 4.0 238.0 198.0 1 9 8 . 0 1 29 249.0 185.3 241.5 255.5

TABLE KO.2.-Fwtors

remltant oxygen formula (1)obtained front data in Table No. 1 (fig! months)

Notation: n terms of parts per million DA=Observed dissolved oxygen content of the river at the upper station,i o fdeficitbelow the oxygensaturation value a t the mean riverwater temperaturebetween thetwo stations n the same terms as (DA). D~=Observeddissolved oxygen content ofthe river at the lower station,i L.=Corrected i n i t i a l oxygen demand a t the upper station,i n terms o f parts per million of oxygen. n days. t=Meau time of flowfromthe upper to the lower station,i T= Observed mean temperature ofthe river water,i n degrees Centigrade. Kl=Coefficientof deoxygenation at the observed mean river water temperature. (Calculated from a value, 0 . 1 at To C.) &=Coefficient of reaeration,calculatedfrom the other terms.

Month (parts per m i l l i o n

A t temperature ofriver water

__

DA

__
- (3)
(4)

t T (days) ( " C . )
( 5 ) 15.9 24.5
246

K a

Mean elocity Bf 0 0 w MO C.) (feet per econd)

K :( a t

__

( 7 !
24.8 m.8 18.7
.:1 9

(10) 1 .38 .35 .25 .17

.I8

Station 3 to station 11: M a y 1914__.._._._______ 0.89 0.63 2 .54 0.21 June___. _ . . . _ . 3.13 1.09 1.91 1.07 Jdy _ _ . . . _ _ 4 . 0 1.32 1 .81 2.73 August _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ __. _ 5 . 53_ _ 4.22 1.95 2.73 September . _ . .___ _ _ . . . . _ 6 .28 2.49 3 .59 3.06 Oct. 1-16___...__________ 8.63 3 .11 3.30 6 .2 3 Station.11 to s t a t i o n 19: May, 1914 .63 .72 4.89 .I8 June.______. 1.09 1. 14 2 .m .77 July_.-._-_-----_-_-----1.32 1.04 2.54 1.36 August______._._______._ 1.95 1.60 3.44 1.98 September _.___ 2.49 1.09 3 .14 2 . 30 UCt. 1-15 _______...____._ 3 . 11 2.60 1.74 4.37 5 t alion 23 to station 66: May, 1914_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __. .85 1 . 22_ _ 5.16 .62 June__.______ ._____ 1.33 2 .94 .93 I . 90 July .__ . _ _ _ _ _ _.____ _ _ ___ _ 1.24 2 .65 .94 3 . M) August__._ ______._ _ . _ . 1.88 3.69 .75 4.90 September _ _ _ .____ . . _ . 3.77 2.56 .76 6 . 14 OCt. 1-15_ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ 15.74 2 ._ 83. .50 11.35 Station 65 to atalion 7 7 : May, 1914_____.____.____ 1 . 22 .72 4.89 .18 June .93 .45 3.08 1.02 JUIy_.____.._________.___ .94 .54 2 . 14 1.73 august .75 .49 1.28 2 . 47 September .76 1.92 .44 254

______--

__ __ _______
-

_______________ _____ ________ _______ - __ ______ __ ___ ..................... __________________ _____ __ ________

0.083 .123 .124 .125 .lo4 .oa4 .ox3 .123 .121 ,122 .lo2 .092 .084 ,115 .124 .121 .loo .091

0 . 990 .544 .380 .276 .197 .I05

2 4 8

.M

.29 .19

.18
.09

.12 .34 .12 .20 .14 .I4 .08 .30 .25 .15 .17 .19 .43 1.11 .59 .28 .I7 .33

24.5 24.I 24.4 20.5 18.6 16.3 22.9

24.8

,245 ,192 .289 .217 .144 .052

2 50 .59 .32 .22 -19

.IO
4.20 1.36
.86

,200 ,330
,230

24.4 2 0 .0 18.0 15.9 23.2 24.8 24.4 20.0

,260 .190 ,353 .245 .so1 .436 .263 .334

.53 .43 . ! 2 3
3 . E4 .71 .44 .31 .31

,083 .116 .125 ,122

.1m

37
TABLE No. 2.-Factoi-s

in resultant o m y g m f w W l a etc.-Continued ,
At temperature ofriver water

Mean elocity df l o w (feet per econd)

Month

parts

DB

1I
t
days)

(1)

i K n )
(3) (4)
__

K s

(5) 0.18 .65 1.01 1.51 1 . 51 2.73 4 .a 3 1 0 .09 12.79 16.62 15.76 29.64 16.8 23.7 25.0 24.5 20.4 18.4 16.7 24.4 2 5 .8 2 4 . 8 21.3 19.2 1 7 .3 25.8 26.9 26.0 22.2 20.2 17.1 26.0 27.0 26.0
22.6

Slotion 77 to station 8 8 : May, 1914 0 . 9 8 0.89 6.30 3.55 .39 June .____. . . .46 .52 2.55 July: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ..54 .49 .71 August _.____ _ . 2 15 .33 September__________.__. .44 2.87 Oct.1-15_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ .__ .98 2.29 .80 Station 104 to s t a t i o n$ 4 9 : 1.31 May, 1914. __________._. 1.50 3.80

_____ -______________ __ __ - - ________ _________

0 . 0 8 6 .118 .126 .123 .lo2 .093

.086 .124 .131 ,125 .I05 ,097
.090

0.802 1.005 ,529 ,245 .716 .144 .180

.268

1 . 07 .71 .33 .16 .70

.16

3.68 1.01 .62 .40 .40 3.72 1.48 1 . 18 .91 .96 .51 3.90 2.36 2.32 1.98 2.18 1.41 3.35 .93 .79 .65 .73 .63 .54 2.69 3.83 4.29 2 . 74 1.73 3.61 1.47 1.40 1 . 23 1.34 1.23 1 . 12 3.00 4.11 4.57 3.00 2 12

.n

June - . - - --. .w .88 19.1 July . . .92 1.28 41.6 August __. .a5 1 . 18 115.8 September .___ .80 1.04 33.3 O c t .1-15 1.69 .96 i18.2 Station 849 to atation 461: 1.31 May, 1914_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__ . 1 .76 2.66 1 . 42 June ___. .88 .21 3.90 2 .92 .35 July--1.28 2.44 2 . 96 August ___. 1 .89 .1 3.11 8 3.46 September -- - - -. 1.04 3.15 1 . 17 2.84 OCt. 1-15_ _ _ _ . _ _.96 ___ ___ _ _4.87 .54 4 . os
~ ~

Station 476 to station 489:

1914_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 . . 5 4 _. .13 4.02 1.55 1.84 _ , . 1.46 4.77 .48 2.02 1.34 4.21 .56 3.20 ____._____ ______. 4.20 1.86 .s9 ________ . 2.87 1 .a 4 4.28 .61 _ . _ 2.91 1 . fB .70 6.75 1 .1 0 .38 1 1 . 60 .83 2 . 5 2 12.24 .17 2.43 1915 __.__ .73 .77 1 0 . 00 .12 . . . .60 7.50 .10 .65 _____________.___. .64 .64 6 . 76 .16 _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ .55 .56 5.35 .26 Station 48.2to station 488: _ _1.60 ___ __ 1.55 3.71 . . 1914_ _ _ _ _ . _ .10 _____.___ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . I. 46 1.83 .25 4.08 .__________..__.____ 1.34 1.42 3.76 .26 August ...__.____ _ . 1.86 3.47 .29 2 .00 September____._ . 1.84 2.02 3.37 .27 October. 1.68 1.67 5.20 .29 November .38 .67 10.10 .32 December. 2 43 2.44 .12 11.63 January,1915 .77 .89 9.35 .09 Februazy____.____ __. .65 .68 7 .13 .08 . M a r c h __..______..______ . t i 4 .68 6.29 .12 April ...___ _ _ __ _ _ _ . .56 .69 4.87 .17 Station 492 lo station 598: May, 1914 1.67 1.61 4.74 1.98 June_____. . -. 1.90 .82 15.38 6 .06 July .71 .37 24.80 7 .26 August 2 . 15 .41 27.30 8.67 September__._ _. 1.01 .26 11.06 7.72 October1.36 .81 9.18 8.61

_______ _____ __ ____ __ -___ ______-___ __________ _____ __ ___ _______________ __________ _____ _______ __________ ____________ ____ ___ May, June____ - __ -- ___ __ - ___ July________ ___ ___ August September ____ October--___ __ November_____ -__ _____ December_____ January, February_____-_____ March April May. June __ July
-- _____ ______ ___

.202 .212 .172

.m
.128 1 . 140 ,530 .258 ,162 .340 .225 .570 .650 .460 .514 .601 1.750 .345 .365 .202 .515 .612

.24 .18 .12 .14 .15

.n
.16 .65 .28 .15 .13 .33

.130 .142 .137 . 111 .lo2

.088 .132 .139 .132 .113 ,090 ,058 ,049 ,043 .M 6 .049

.29 .32 .33 .26

,40

17.8 8.3 4.6 1.5 3.2 4.5 12.4 1 7 .0 2 5 .7 2 7 . 0 25.1 22.4 17.6 8.4 4.8 1.4 3.2 4.5 12.2 1 7 .2 25.2 26.8 25.5 2 2 . 4 17.6 4.3 1 . 4 3 .1 4.6 12.4

.w 1

.73 3.98 .96 1 . 14 .61 1.43 1.09 .05 _--___ .13

.087 .130 .138 .126 .112

.ow)

. 040
.258 .118 .060 .285 .358 .217 .033 .265 .265 .075

,059
,

_____ - __ - ____ _____________ ______ ___________ __ ___ ______ ___ November ___________ DecemberJanuary, February- __ __ March_____ __ ____ __ ____ April __ _____ - - ____ __ fitation s t a t i o n May, June ____ -__ July
1-

___

,043
.046

om

.070

,049

.05 .35 .81 .39 .10 .78 .71 .14

.27 .32 .57 .46 .61 .31
. . . . _ _

.w

____.________ 2.44 1.35 11.60 2 . 60 1915 _________ _. 1.00 1.20 10.80 1 .s9 . . . 1.07 .76 8.41 1.43 1.38 1.41 7.98 2.56 _ . _ .81 .7A 6.69 4 . 16 698 to 611: 1914_______._.___. 1.61 1.64 3.39 .28 .__ __.___ ____ .82 .86 4 . 9 7 .95 ...__._________.____ .37 5.41 .58 1.20 August _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ .41 . ! a 2 22 1.44 September._ _ . . . . . . _ _ .26 .n 3 . 17 1 . 28 October-.__.__________. .81 .60 4.68 3 . 33 November .__ . 13 -. 39 8.90 2 .04 December 1.35 1 . 40 9.20 .36 January,1915 __. 1.20 1.29 9.57 .21 February-.. 1.07 .87 .19 7.58 March 1.69 1.57 .35 6.94 April ;___ .24 . 18 4.75 .72

- --

. .

.____ ..

--__

._____ . . .

- ---

.089 .126 .135 ,128 .112 ,090

.

.213 ,532 1.090 .788 .761 .247

,380

. . . . .049 .043 .047

.050

.3n7 .234 1 .050

.m

.071

1 .05 .99 .59 .65 1.88

---2 -. -48 -4 .06 4.51 2 .53 1.56

3 . 26 1 . 07 .89 .74 .84 .75

17.8 25.6 27.1

26.5

-______ __ -________ --_____ __ -__ -__ __ ___ __________________ _______________

22.9
18.0

R e s u l t s abnormal; omii

10.0 3.8 1 . 6 3.2 4.8 1 28

.090 .170 .21 2 .94 .129 .613 .36 .85 .139 ,925 .47 .68 .135 ,792 .43 .56 .114 1.140 .87 .63 .091 ,446 -54 .60 . .--__. ,063 . .M7 .264 .75 2.24 .043 .185 .58 3.73 ,046 . 830 2.44 4 .11 .050 .295 .82 2.28 . n74

-_---

- - - - -- -

38
TAB^ No. 3.-D&ved
__

values of ( K ) at 20" C. ( f r o m Table KO.2)

---

Stretch

-I

Sep- act. AU- temJ u m July gust ber 1-15

? : : ~

J;

--

vem- cem- uary ber (1915

I
......I.....

De Jan~

2 : ; March April
____

_ _ . ~

.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 0 .1 8 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.38 0 .35 0.25 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . _ . , . .I2 .20 .I4 .14 .06 . 11-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 .17 .I9 .25 .I5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 23-65__.___.. _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _.____,__._. . . .59 .28 .I7 .33 .23 _._ 65-77. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11

.71 .33 77-88. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.07 .18 .12 104-349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 349-461. . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 .65 .28 475-482-. . . . . . . . . . . . .29 .32 .33 . . . . . _ .05 482-488. ___._. _ _ . . .I3 .27 .32 .57 492-598. ____.____.__ .21 .36 .47 598-611-________.__. I -

---

.16 .14 .15 .26 .07 .46 .43

.70 .I5 .13

.40 .05 .61

.16 .22 .33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. 1

' 1 1:::::
.

1-

lI -lI
1.43
.82

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . _ .

0 . 8 1

. . . . . . . .
. . . .

.s7

2.44

:;:
I

1 1______
1 . 0 9

iii

THE OXYCES' DENSND OF THE 01110 RIVER

The results of oxygen demand observations i n the Ohio River and n Table at the mouths of certain major tributaries,which are given i No. 1,columns 8,9, and 10, are presented i n terms of the 24-hour n terms loss of oxygen on incubation at 20" C. (column 8), and also i of the total oxygen demand as calculated from the 24-hour figure by taking the value of the deoxygenation coefficient (IC,) as being 0 . 1 (see p. 7),whence the %-hour demand represents 20.6 per cent of the total. I t m a y be noted i n this connection that this value of (IC,) defines a deoxygenation curve coinciding exactly with the ' 'relative stability" curve giTen i n Standard Methods of Water Analysis of the American Public Health Association (1920 edition, Table No. 15,p. 70). In column 10 of Table No. 1 the total oxygen n terms of milligrams per liter, have demand figures of column 9, i been weighted i n each case by the discharge of the river, i n thousand second-feet,observed at the particular sampling station coincidently with the laboratory determination. The purpose of these o show the total amounts of unosidized organic weighted figures is t o a common matter carried by the river at various points, corrected t n other words, to eliminate changes i n dilution basis of dilution; i as factors i n masking real changes i n the oxygen demand of the river between successive stations. Strictly speaking,the unit chosen for this purpose i s one of rate; that is, it measures the quantity of biologically oxidizable matter ( i n terms of oxygen demand) carried by the river past a given point i n each unit of time. Thus, the f i g ures i n column 10 m a y be reduced t o terms of grams per second by multiplying them by the factor 28.3. F o r convenience,however, these values w i l l be designated as "quantity units." Clorrected i n this manner, an increase i n the number of "quantity units " of oxygen demand as observed between two stations indicates that added amounts of oxidizable matter have been brought into the river at intermediate points either i n the form of sewage and other wsT:IqtPSdischarped directlv i n t o the stream, or through the medium

39
of tributaries and local surface drainage. A reduction,on the other hand, indicates that progressive satisfaction of oxygen denland has more than counterbalanced the effects of intermediate inflow i n the river stretch i n question. Ifthe oxygen demand data be interpreted from this standpoint,some highly significant facts are clisclosecl as to the sources and behavior of oxidizable matter i n the Ohio River. In certain stretches of the river, relatively undisturbed by inflowing pollution,marked and consistentreductions i ni t s oxygelen demand ars observable during periods of settled f l o w conditions. Among the short,er stretches, t h i s tendency is particularly noticeable in those e l o w Pittsburgh, and stations 475 extending from stations 3 to 11, b to 458, below Cincinnati, where decreases i n the oxygen denland of the river were observed consistently during the summer and autumn months of 1914. O f the longer stretches, which are i n general subject t o relatively large additions of inflowing drainage mater, even during low water, n which a rednction i n the number of quantity units the only one i of oxygen demand was observed with any degree of consistency was i n the stretch,approximately 300 miles long,extending from Station 619,below Louisville,to Station 904, a comparatively short distance above the mouth of the Ohio River. During the period of June 1 to October 15, 1914, the average number of quantity units of oxygen demand observed at Station 619 was 81.3, or 2,300 grams per second. A t Station 904 the average number during the same period or 1,432 grams per second. In spite of the large volunies was 50.6, of pollution brought into the Ohio between the two points by the sewage of Evansville, Henderson, and other cities, and by the Salt, Wabash, and numerous smaller rivers, the observed reduction i n oxygen demand i n this stretch of the river mas about 38 per cent. and it would undoubtedly have been much greater i n the absence of the intermediate sources of pollution noted. In longer stretches of the river farther upstream,as, for example, 0 4 ,below Wheeling, and Station 349, immediately between Station 1 above the Scioto Eiver, the influx of a number of highly polluted tributaries,adding a large volume of flow to the Ohio,has a constant tendency to mask the true effectsof organic oxidation going on i n the stream,as is evidenced by the increase i n the ( ( quantity units of oxygen demand between these two stations even during the summer low-water period of 1914. A similar tendency, though not so conn the long stretch of the river exsistently marked, mas observable i o tending from Station 492,below the mouth of the Miami River, t Station 598,above Louisville. In one stretch of the Ohio River receiving almost solely rural drainage, namely between Station 358,below the Scioto River, and qfqtinn 461. above Cincinnati, the increase i n oxygen-demand values

40
observed during the study was so marked as to indicate that a very considerable proportion of the total oxidizable organic content of the river originates in surface drainage from sparsely inhabited and unsewered areas. This conclusion i s borne out by the fact that the Ohio River carried, on the average, a very considerable excess of oxygen demand over that which would be accounted for by the total t Station 461, above Cinsewage contribution of the watershed. A cinnati,for example,the oxygen demand of the river during the year extending from Miy, 1914, to April, 1915, inclusive, ayeraged 358 grabs daily per capita of sewered population i n the entire matershed above this point. From observations immediately above and below Cincinnati during the low-mater period of June 1 to October 15, 1914,the average amount of oxygen demand contributed t o the river by the Cincinnati metropolitan district during t h i s period was equiralent to 140 grams per capita daily,which,it may be noted,does not greatly exceed the figures for normal sewage, 112 grams and 100 grams per capita, given on pages 2-3. Taking these values as representing the normal contribution of oxygen demand i n the form of sewage, the large excess of this constituent carried by the Ohio n terms of sewage,i s River, over that which would be accounted for i evident. I t may therefore be said that while evidences of the forces of pron the Ohio River are discernible i n gressive oxidation at work i certain stretches of the stream and under conditions wherein stal o w exists, these evidences are for the most part masked bility of f by disturbances resulting from inflowing pollution originating both i n sewage and i n surface drainage water. Bearing i n mind these factors,it i s now proposed to examine the n dedata with reference to the validity of an assumption made i riving the formulas on pages 18-19 ; namely, that the rate at which s satisfied i n the stream i s governed by the same oxygen demand i l a w that controls its rate of satisfaction under condit.ionsof the laboratory. This law has been stated on page 5 to be as follows:
The rate of biochemical oxidation of organic matter i s proportional to the remaining concentration of unoxidized substance, measured i n terms of oxidizability.

Or. i n mathematical terms (p. 5) :

Owing to limitations above stated,the oxygen demand values observed at the various Ohio River stations must be sifted carefully for evidences of disturbance from surface inflow before being subjected to so severe a test as the one proposed. I t is desirable,moreover, to have a-cailable for the purpose data covering a fairly long period, a

41
) e a r at least. The only data from the Ohio River studies fulfilling tliese specifications are those which were obtained i n the river stretch 7 5t o Station 488,a disbelow Cincinnati extending from Station 4 tance of,roughly,13 miles. about midway between these two points was Station 482,but since it was located but a short distance below C';overnjineat D a m No.37,over which the water has a free fall during periods of low mater, the oxygen demand results obtained at this station were to some extent influenced by the presence of small n the samples and were therefore not as amounts of entrained air i reliable as those obtained at Stations 4 ' 7 5 and 488. For these two o stations results were available over the full period cl" May, 1914,t April, 1918,inclusive, as given i n table No. 1,and i n addition, for the months of M a y and June, 1915, during which period certain n the river below Cincinnati. specja1 observations were continued i Considering these monthly average f i , w r e s at Stations 475 and 488, it was obvious that if the rate at which the oxygen demand of the river was satisfied i n this stretch were a logarithmic function of time, i n accordance with the formula above stated, a close linear correlation should exist between the observed times of flow between n the formula, and the the two stations, corresponding to (t) i logarithms of the ratio: Oxygen demand at Station 475 Oxygen demand at Station 488 corresponding t o (low ) i n the formula. Employing the Galton1J Pearson coefficient (r) as an index of this correlation, a value of 0 . 8 5 & 0 . 0 4 3 was obtained from the observed results. Since a (r) = o unity would denote perfect correlation,it i s apparent value equal t that the value obtained indicates a high degree of correlationbetween n the river; so high,i n fact,as to leave the two variables as observed i little doubt concerning the_ agreement between actuality and theory i n this case. A more severe test of this correlation was provided by an analysis of the same data from another viewpoint. Referring to Table No. 4 .i n which the results of this study are tabulated, the observed nionthly reductions i n oxygen demand between the two stations w r e converted to terms of percentage of the i n i t i a l value (column 0 C . 5 ) and reduced t o a common basis of loss i n 24 hours at 2 (column 8), using for this correction the formule and temperature 8 . Referring to column 8 of the factors described on pages 7 s noted that during the period June-November, 1914,when table, it i f l o w conditions i n the river were stabilized, the decmase averaged " 3 . 5 per cent i n 24 hours. A t the mean temperature observed at Station 475 durine this period (21.3O C.) the value of K , , as given

L '

42
i n Figure No. 3,would be 0.116,and the 24-hourdecrease,assuming a logarithmic rate, would theoretically be 22 per cent. For other n 1914,a wide variation in months than the June-November period i the 24-hourfigures was found,but it w i l l be noted that during these months flow conditions i n the river were unsettled, and observed t i m e s of f l o w between the two stations were so low that large errors of extrapolation would be involved i n converting the r e s u l t st o a %hour b a s i s .
TBLE No. 4.-Reduction
in omygen demand between. Ohio River Stations 475 and 488, as observed and as corrected to a uniform basis of time equivalent to 24 hours and temperature 20" 0.
[Arranged i n order ofmagnitude i n times of f l o w ]
I I
I

Month

o ~ ~ ~ p $ ~ $ Decrease ~ ~ ; between Time o ff l o w ,days, e r cent Stations475 to 488 P stations observed decrease 24 hours: 2 0 C . (at A t river Equiva- observed Station Station Partsper Per cent temperalent a t rates) n i t i a l million of i 475 488 ture 200 c.

__

~(3)

(2)

(4)

-___

L High river stages, shorter

11. LOW 'river stages, longer o f flow: times ~. June, 1914. ________...____ 3.60 4.37 July, 1914_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ 3.30 3 . 94 3.01 September,1914-. . _ . . . _ 4.32 August,1914...______. . _ . _ _ 3 . 15 3.84 5 . 05 7 ._ 62 October,1914. . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ November, 1914. _ . . . _ . 9 .62 11. 85 3.98 Oct. 1-15, 1914__.____.__._. 6.41

times of flour: 7.08 Bebruary,1915 . . _ . . . . . 7 . 76 8.92 10.30 January, 1915. . . . . . _ . . _ . . 3 . 11 M a y , 1914. . . . . . . . 3 . 84 March, 1915. ___.._.___ . _ . _ 6.26 7 . 18 10.78 December,1914 . . . . . _ . _ . _ 1 2 14 June,1915________...._.___ 2 86 3.45 May, 1915__.____.._... _ . _ . 4.42 5 . 59 April 1915_ . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . . 4.78 5 ._ 72

____

0 .68 1. 38 .73 .02 1 . 36 .59

.17
.96 .77 .64 1.31 .69 2.57 2.23 2 . 43

8.8 13.4 1 9 .0 11.4 11.2 17.1 30.4 10.8

o . 18

.21 .23 .28 .29 .31 .37 .43

___

17.6 16.3 30.3 18.3 33. 7 18.8 37. 9

.73 .82

1 . 15 1. 62

.sa .98 .w

.94 1 . 12 .98 1.28

.W
.70

1.56 _ _ _

18.6 14.7 30.9 1 4 . 8 33.8 25.8 2 5 .8 23.5

Mean,. June-November,
~

1914-____._ ._____.____ . -

- - -- - --

_________

Further and even more striking evidence of the closeness with which the rate at which oxygen demand is s a t i s f i e di n streams follows the logarithmic law has been afforded by a preliminary analy s i s of extensive data obtained by the United States Public Health Service from studies of the I l l i n o i s River during the years 1921 and 1922. Observations i n a stretch of t h i s river about 70 miles long, extending from L a Salle to a point a short distance above Peoria, where conditions affecting natural purification are i n a very f a i r state of equilibrium, were especially illuminating on t h i s point. Taking the mean oxygen demand values observed at L a Salle (Station 227) a s the 100 per cent point, and computing the oxygen demand amounts observed at three other stations downstream as per-

centages of the La Salle figure, these results have been compared for the period of December,1921,to April, 1922,with corresponding percentages calculated on the assumption that a logarithmic rate of n the demand held throughout this river stretch. The redecrease i sults obtained are as follows:

1 I
Station Timeof

____
Observed

5-day oxygen demand, per cent of Station 227 value

f l o w

Assuming
logarithmic rate o f decrease

100

71
47 135
I

Assumed the same as the observed figurein order to calculate values a t Stations 196 and 179.

T h e closeness o f agreement i n the observed and calculated values at the two intermediate stations, 196 and 179, is the more striking i n view of the relatively high river stages and low temperatures prevailing throughout the period of the observations. A similar comparison, based on observations during the summer of 1921 and 1922, was less satisfactory i n view of an observed n oxygen demand between Stations 179 and 166 during increase i f the intensive growth and dethis period, probably as a result o composition af microscopic plants i n this stretch of the river,which i n the summer presents conditions approaching more closely those of a shallow lake than those o f a flowing stream. Based on the summer observations between Stations 227, 196, and 179, however. the observed oxygen demand at the intermediate station, 196, was 85 per cent of the Station 227 figure, as compared with a calculated value of 81 per cent, assuming a logarithmic rate of decrease. n demand between Stations 227 Inasmuch as the toha1 decrease i and 179 amounted to 34 per cent of the Station 227 value, the close agreement of the calculated with the observed demand az Station 196 i s significant. In considering the foregoing data it should be borne in mind that observations o f this kind made i n natural streams are subject to inherent errors such as mould cause inevitable variat iom i n oxygen-demand results obtained even under stable conditions of f l o w . T h e use o f such results for the purpose of verifying their o a fixed mathematical law, as has been done i n the conformance t present case, constitutes an extremely severe test, to be interpreted rather broadly and w i t h due allowance for the inevitable n this light,the evidence presented saread of the data. Viewed i

44
above affords ample justification for the assumption made i n deriving formula (1).
THE OXYGEN RESOURCES OF THE OHIO RIVER

I t has already been shown that the total oxygen resources of a stream at a given point are, first, the dissolved oxygen actually n the mater at that point and, second, the potential recontained i sources arailable through the capacity of the stream for reaeration. The data relative to these two sources of oxygen m i l l be separately discussed. Dissoli5ed osyyen.-In Table KO. 1 the dissolved oxygen values at various stations throughout the Ohio and at various times during n three ways, viz: the period of the observations are shown i (a) In parts per million; (6) In percentage of saturation;and (e) As the saturation deficit i n parts per million. I t is to be noted that the concentration of dissolved oxygen itself becomes critically low only during arerage and extreme low water and even then only i n comparatively short stretches of the river below Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. The conditions for a few miles below Pittsburgh approached complete exhaustion of dissolved oxygen at extreme lov water cluring October, 1914. Indeed,it is doubtful whether the present comparative freedom froiri general nuisance at this point would be enjoyed were it not for the bactericidal influence of the acid conditions i n the Pittsburgh district. The lowest average oxygen value recorded at station 475, about 7 miles below Cincinnati, was 82 per cent of saturation. observed during the first half of October, 1914. As far as could be determined, no offensive conditions existed i n the Ohio River below Cincinnati at that time. During low river stages the waters at the mouths of several of t,he tributaries were found t o be at a point of lower oxygen concentration than the waters of the main stream. This is noticeably true of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers, entering the Ohio near its mouth, at which point the main stream usually has recovered its dissolved oxygen to an extent of from 85 per cent t o over 95 per cent of its saturation value. A study of the saturation deficit figures is instructive i n showing h i o recovers its oxygen supply through the rapid rate at which the O n reaeration, even during low water periods. Thus, as indicated i Table No. 1, it appears that at station 461, above Cincinnati, the n better condition as regards reserve oxygen than stream is often i it is above Wheeling, and is sometimes i n better condition at station 904, near its mouth and above the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers than above Cincinnati. These facts are of special signifi,.ni-n-

: m

nnmnnnt;nm

m;th thn

;n,nnrtnmnn

of thn

vnna*o+;nn

Poetnr

4 . 5
Beaeration.-A direct computation of the amount of reaeration i n the river, expressed i n any convenient concentration unit, may be readily made by applying the principle illustrated i n Figure No. 5 and determining the difference between the actual oxygen content n the absence of reaeraat the lower station and its calculated value i tion, as determined from the average oxygen demand for the given river stretch. The actual amounts of reaeration per mile of river length observed during various months and i n various stretches of the O l i i o are given i n Table No. 5 . These amounts are rather widely dispersed, as would be expected i n view of the marked variations with respect to oxygen saturation deficiency and t o physical conditions of channel and flow encountered i n ttheseveral river stretches and at different times. The following further analysis of the data was undertaken to determine if the reaeration values obtained are consistent with the lmown physical features of the various river stretches.
TABLE No. Ei.-Al'el'agc
rcf!es c?f i~eifwfitioii, iia parts per naillion of dissolved ooygen, per m i l e of rim??-length, obserred in designuted stretrhes of the Ohio River dtiring specified month8 of 1914 and 1915.

Stretch of Ohio Biver

3
3
v

Average rate of reaeration,i n parts per million ofoxygen, per mile of river length e

__42

9 M

2 2 u

A 4 _ _ _ _ - __
3 to ll.--11 to lY.-23 to C L 65 to 77--. 77 to 6 8 . . 104 to 849. 349 to 451. 475 to 4 6 2 . 482 to 458492 to 5 9 8 . 5 9 9 8 to 611.
1

$ 2

5 h

145.7
112.0 7 .3 5 .9 105.4 13.2

8 .7 7 .3 42.2 11.9 1 0 .8

0.45 0.6Y 1.04 0.28 .I4 .39 .02 .07 .002 .03 .03 .OG .10 .07 .03 .09 .oG .05 .03 .06 .16 .51 .01 .07 .02 .02 .005 .02 .20 .30 .01 .15 ,007 ,007 .03 .02 .22 .26 .01 .13 . 11 .06 ,001 .08

--

Probably in error by & wide nsrpin owing to the ewessively long inrlicEA.ed t i m e of f l o w .

Because of the varying and complicating influence o f these nunierous factors, the reaeration values themselves are only of special f derived values of the reaeration coeEloc,zl significance. A study o cient,however,and of its relationst o depth and turbulence,furnishes data. o f fundamental importance, and attention w i l l therefore be dii ectecl to this phase o f the subject. The reaeratiolz c o e # k & n t . V a l u e s of the reaeration coeflicieiit (li2).calculated by t l z e method outlined on pages 20-27,are given :n 'I'nble No. 3 . In Table No. 2 are also given the various factors employed i n the calculation,transcribed from Table No. 1 . a w l in

46
the last column,values o f (K,) corrected to a standard temperatiire, NoC., by means of the curve i n Fig.No.7. The proper symbols for the various quantities i n formula (1) are given at the heads of their respective coluwns, On referring t o Table N o . 2, it w i l l be noted that the assiqned f (Ea) for the two longer river stretches, stations 104-349 values o a~d 492-598, are so high i n some cases as t o appear rather icconn terms of actual oxygen concentration i n griious when visualized i the stream. This is notably true af the high value of (La) give11 for the river stretch, stations 10&349, f o r the period October 1-15, 1914. On referring to column 5 of the table i tw i l l be noted that f (La) are times of coincident with these excessively high values o flow-ranging from slightly less than 10 days to nearlp 30 days, whereas the times of flow coinciding with lower values of (La), both i n these two and the other river stretches, are, i n general. of a lower order of niapnilude. In interpreting this apparent abnormality i n the (La) figures,the significance o f (La) as defined on page 18 and a s further interpreted n mind. Being an hypothetical on pages 21-26 should be borne i na l l cases, an assumed quantity sufficient i n d u e . it represents, i magnitude, if concentrated immediately below Statio:% A, to cause n residual oxygen demand at Station B equal to tho arjthnvtical mean of ( L , ) and ( L ' * ) . Where the time factor i s long, as i n the two rirer stretches above cited, the quantity thus assumed i s necessarily higlirr than would be the case if the time were shorter, 2nd it may be much higher than the total oxygen demand actually introduced into the stream at points intermediatebetween A and B,cansing the divergence of (LB) from ( L ' * ) . Perhaps the best evidence that these are not abnormal is afforded by the excessively high values of (La) f values of (K,) derived from thein, as conigeneral consistency o pared with corresponding values derived for the same river Ltretch during months of shortened times of flow and lower valiies ,Jf (La). Taking as an example the results of (K,) calculations i n the stan Table No. 2,column 8,comparison tions 104-349 stretch, as given i of the (K,) value, 0.18,obtained for May, 1914, (La) being 3.8, w i t h the value, 0.20,for October, (La) being 618.9,is significant evidence on t his point. As previously noted, however (see footnote, p. 23), errors of observation and extrapolation are most l i k e l y to produce erroneous results when the time factor is long; hence the results of calculations i n Table No. 2 for the two river stretches, stations 104-349 and 492-598, during the months of extreme low water i n the summer of 1914 are t o be regarded as being less reliable, on the whole, than corresponding results obtained for the shorter river stretches during the same period. These results have been retained -Far f11rfhPr nnalvsis chieflv because of their general concordance

47
with the figures obtained for the shorter river stretches; likewise
because they are desirable material for subsequent correlations to n this text. be described later i Inspection of the (K,) values, corrected to a uniform temperature o considerable variation i n each basis, shows that they are subject t river stretch wider the different flow conditions encountered from month to month. With a few exceptions, however, their general n different river stretches order of magnitude is about the same i when determined under similar conditions of river stage,indicating that the conditions which cause variations i n rates of reaeration are n different sections of the river under much more nearly uniform i n a given stretch at difsimilar conditions of flow than they are i ferent river stages. In other words, those physical factors which change with river stage are the more influential upon reaeration rates. The two stream conditions most affected by variations i n gage height are depth and velocity of flow, the latter being closely related, of course, t o turbulence. In Table No. 6 a fairly definite K , ) and both depths (H) correlation i s shown between values of ( and velocities of flow (V) , the depth (H) being expressed as gage n the footnote of the table. The true heights at river gages listed i n t i l . each (K,) nature of this relation, however, does not appear u value i s weighted by the square of the depth (H") , whereupon the i s found i n every river stretch to approximate quantity (K,H*) having the forclosely a simple power function of velocity (V), mula : K,H"=cV" (4)
TA- No. 6.-Relation. between the reaeration coefioient (K2), the meam depth (H) of the stream above extrertw l o w water, ami the velocity of flow ( V )
in certaln stretches

OT

the Ohio R i v e r

iVoiolnt6on:
&=Reaeration coemcient. H = N e a n depth i n feet of stream above zero points of reference gages, which points are taken as representing extreme low water. V =Mean velocity of flowof stream in feet per second.
.~

Month

(feet)

H I K z H g
___.

V
(feetper second)

12.7 16.4 16.3 16.3 1 6 .6 17.0 11. 6 4.8 3.6 3 .1 2 .6 2 .5

m. 0
94.0 6 6 .3 45. 1 49.6 3 4 . 0 45.7 2.80 2 80 1.35
.95

2 . 4 8 .50 .29 .19 .18 .09 2 . 50 I59 .32 .22 .19 .10

.37

TABLE No.6.-Relatitn& between the reaeration co@%ient (K.).the meaa depth (E) of the stream above e@treme l o w water. and the celocity of pozn ( V ) i n certain stretches of the Ohio Ricer-Continued
Month

I
~

(zoo

K*

c.)
.30
12.4 6 . 0 4.6 4 . 0 3.8 1.4 11.4 6. 1 7.8 8.2 t i 9 2.0
1 0.6 5.6

V KzH* (feet per

second)

Station N o.23 to station No .65 May. 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August.-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct.1-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shtion N o.65 t o station N o.77: May, 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J u l y . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.25 .15 .17 . 19 . 43

1.11 . 59 . 28 . 17 . 33 .23

46.0 9.0 3.1 7 2.72 2.74 .84 144.0 ?1 .9 6.9 -1.4 15.7 .91 1% .0 22.30 9.30 3.85 10.60 1.85 49.0 3.50 1.73 1.10 1.26 .27

4. M 1.36 -86 . 53 .43 . 23

3.64 .71 .44 .31 .31 .15

August. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct.1 1 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Station N o.77 t o station N o.88: May, 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 u g u s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O c t.1-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Station N o.104 to station N o . 349: May, 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J u l y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct.1-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Station N o.349 t o station N o . 461: May, 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oct.1-15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Station N o .475 t o station N o .482: May, 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deeemher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I

I. 07
. 71 . 33

.1 6 . 70 .16 .24 .18 .12

.14 .15 .2 . 2

5.3 4.9 3.9 3.4 14.3 4.4 3.8 2.8 2.9 1.1 19.4 5.4 5.0 4.0 4.5 1.7 22.4 1 0.1 10.9 1 0.5 10.8 10.6 IO.4 1% 1 2 9.I 34.8

3.68 1.01 .62 .40 .40 .22 3.72 1.48 1.18 .91 .96 .51 3.90 2.36 2.32 1.98 2.18 1.41 3.35 .93 .79 . 66 .73 . 63 . 6 4 2.89 3.83 4.29 2.74 1.73 3.61 1.47 1.40 1.23 1.34 1.23 1.12 3.00 4.11 4.57 3.00 2.12
3.26

.16 . 65 . 28 .15 . 13 .33 . 32 . 33 . 2 6 .40 .13 3.98 . 9 f i 1. 14 .fil 1.43 1.09 .0 5

. . . . .

BO.0
19.0 fi.70 2.40 2.65 .95 145.0 32.6 39.2 28.7 46.G 8 2 . .0 432.0 314.0 965.0 738.0 464.0 144.0
.

. 2 9

January.1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

February. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Station N o.482 to station N o .488: May, 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
July. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . buglust. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iao

11.5

. 13

October. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Novem~er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . December. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1915. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Station N o.492 t o station N o.598: May, 1914. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 0 7 .0 5 .36 .81 .39

.la

.78 .71 .1 4 . 2 7 .32 .57 .4F

19.9 5.3 4.9 3.7 4.4 3.7 2.8 15.2 26.2 31.9 15.4 9.6 19.9
5. 3 4.9 3.7 4.4 1 5 . 8

-- 3 -. -80 -. .12
19
.

. 96 .97 4.80 6.35 90.0 6H.50 793.0 168.0 1 290

107.0 9.0 i3.7 G .3 11.8 10.3

I74 AUgUYt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 .81 September. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 October. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . . . 2.8 . . . . . . . . . . . -hovcmber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 2.48 1. OE 242.0 December. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9E 678.0 26.2 January,191s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C06 . 5 5 4.51 31.9 800.0 February. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.63 154.0 March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 15.4 1.56 173.0 9.6 1.a S p r i l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * Mean gage height at D a m N o.37 increased to allow for effects of1 1 rains.as indicated by mean gage heights a t the United States Weather Bureau gage. Madison. Ind .

July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.07 .89

__

49
TABLE No. B . R e l & i o n betwem the reaeration coeflcimt (K,) , the niean. depth (H) of the stream above extrenze l o w water, mnd the velocity of flow ( V )
in certailt stretches of the Ohio River-Continued
Month

_________
1

.21 .36 .47 .43 .87 .64

.75 . % 3 2.44 .82

96.0 21.4 17.1 6.9 17.0 8 . 0 11.2 5 . 1 28.3 5.5 16.4 5 . 6 3.9 197.0 16.2 490.0 29.1 36.1 3.180.0 223.0 18.5

- - -- - - -- -

2 9 4 .86 .68 .66 . I 3 .60 .39

NOTE.-ValUe of (E) estimated as follows for the various river stretches: . upper gage. Stations 3 to 11, from gage heights at D a m No. 3 Stations 11 to 19, from gage heights at D a m No.4, upper gage, and D a m No. 8, lower gage. Btations 23 to 65 from gage heights at D a m N o 8 lower gage Stations 85 to 7 7 ' from gage heights at United States Weather'Bureau gage, Wheeling, W.Va. Stations 77 to 88)from gage heights at D a m No.17 middle gage. Stations 104 to 3k9,fromaverage of gage heights at'refereneegages from D a m No. 14 to Portsmouth, in clusive. Stations 349 to 461, from average ofgage heights at Portsmouth, Ohio, Maysville, Ey., and D a m No.35, mlddle gage. Stations 475 to 482 from weighted average of gage heights a t United States Weather BureaU gage, gage. Cincinnati, and at d a m No.37,lo,wer Stations 482 to 488 from gage heights at D a m No. 37,lower gage. Stations 492 to 598' from gage heights at D a m No.37, lower gage. Stations 598 to 611: from gage heights at D a m No. 41, lower gage.

In Figure No. 8 are shown plots of (V)against (K,H2) for three stretches o f the river selected at random, the data for these plots 6. having been taken directly from the last two columns of Table NO. I tw i l l be noted that both ordinate and abscissa scales are logarithmic and that the plotted points follow closely a straight l i n e ,the equation s of which i log (K,HZ) = n log V + log c. whence K2Hz = cVnas above If the term (H2) be transposed to the denominator of the second i l l be noted that the value of member of the above equation, it w (K,) is inversely proportional to the square of the depth,as measured H ) .Bearing i n mind that (K,) i s a direct by the gage height ( s strikingly measiwe of the rate of reaeration,this empirical finding i i n accordance with the theory of the depth-square function as a factor i n reaeration, stated on page 28,wherein it was shown that, viewed from standpoints of both diffusion and dilution, the reaeration rate should bear an inverse relation to a quantity approximating s further borne out by the the square of the depth. This theory i fact that when the discharge o f the Ohio River, corresponding to (Q) .is substituted for the square of the gage height i n formula (4), the qunntity (K,Q) bears the same kind of a power function relation to the observed velocity of f l o w as does (K,H2). In Table No.7 are given the empirical values of (c) and (n) for
iLn

,J:n

c A T , , . -

L L , . l . -

I^

2 . : 2

L-- -1-J.-

- 2 1L- 3 - L -

-A

50
Table No. 6 similar to those shown i n Figure No. 8 . From the manner i n which these c o e f f i c i e n t s have been obtained, wherein the biochemical factors controlling the oxygen demand and deficit values have been taken into account,it is apparent tha.t (c) and (n) should be independent o f such factors and should depend only upon the physical characteristics of the particular stream stretch for which they have been derived. The manner and extent of their dependence i l l thereforebe discussea. upon such characteristics w
TABLE No. %'.-Values

Notation: K,=reaeration coefficient. V =mean velocity of flow, feet per second. H =mean depth ofwater above extreme low water.

$7
I
Stretch

V" of (c) and (m) i n relation: K ~ c pfor , various stretches of the Ohio River

--I

1 depth Mean a i
extreme Formula

3 .1 4 . 4

11 19

131.

0.57
1.58
1.39

11.7
6 . 2 , 38.0 18.0

23

65

5 .2

77
. . .

6 .2
7 .4
8.a 9 .5
12.8

1 . 00.
1.48

88
104
349 461

2.62
W 6
1 . 71

x"2360.0

482
488
492
598

15.3 15.2

-a23
18.0

5Ao
2.35
2.12

598
611

11.7

38.0

M e a n depth ofextremel o w water corresponds to mean depth at zero reading of reference gages.

Vahes of the constants (c) and (n) which,it w i l l be noted,niodify only the velocity of flow function,depend primarily upon physical stream conditions which influence turbulence. Broadly, the exn rates of reaeration i n ponent (n) ddnes the range of variation i a given river stretch under differentf l o w conditions,while the coeficient (c) defines their general order of magnitude. Physical condin the same river stretch under tions which influence turbulence i various f l o w Fonditions should therefore modify (n) to the greater extent, while those which determine the e f f e c t s of the same flow conditions upon turbulence i n various river stretches should exert the more influence upon ( c ) . The e f f e c t of a given variation i n-. river stage upon the v e l o c i t y . . -

. ,

stretch under various flow conditions, and this effect should therefore be closely related to the value o f (n). The physical condition which influences the river stage-velocity relation i s principally the i t h level bottoms and shape of the channel. For example,channels w straight,steep side slopes produce an entirely different river stagevelocity relation than irregular channels w i t h flat side slopes. In the latter instance it i s common to observe conditions i n which the cross-sectional area of flow of a rising river increases more rapidly i t h a resulting decrease i n the actual mean than the!discharge, w n which the channel side slopes are velocity. In many instances i straight and steep, as is frequently the case i n the Ohio River, the velocity is closely proportional t o river stage. n thel various Ohio River The river stage-velocity relations i stretches for which values of (c) and (n) have been obtained are n Figure No. 9,which show t h e illustrated by the curves shown i variations o f this relation i n differeut stretches of the Ohio. In Table No.8 are summarized the relative increases i n velocity produced by n the different river stretches. specified increases of gage height i The mean value for each stretch is an index of the river stagevelocity relation, and their relation to corresponding (n) values, n Tablle No.9 and Figure No. 10,is definite and fairly as shown i h e consistent,considering the comparative roughness of the index. T data from the stations 3-11 stretch are omitted, its river stagevelocity relation being very poorly defined because of the manipulat i o n of dams during the greater part of the period of study. The o 482 is also under greates part of the stretch froni stations 475 t the influence of backwater from D a m No.37 during pool stages of the river. For this reason the data from this stretch have been sepa'conrated into two groups, one of which applies to "d a m down ) ditions and the other to "d a m up " conditions.
TABLE No. 8.-Iiicl-ease in menn celocity o f porn, feet per second, in certa,iiaOhio River-stretches as related to i.?zzcrensa iiz gage height (feet)
Increasein velocity of flow per &foot increase in gage height Stations, Ohio River stretch

11-19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-65. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65-77-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10&349__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349461. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475-182.(dam u ~. . ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475-482 (dam down) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452488.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492-598- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
598-611. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1 6.3 1.8 1 . 4 1 .5

1. 8 2 .6

. . . . . . . . . .

3.2 . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .

3 .1 3 .2 6.4 6 .3
1.8

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

1 .a 7.2

___._

2.0 1. 7 2.0 2.0

1.3 i. 2 2 .0 1 .6 1. 9 2.3

52
TABLE No. 9.-Relation
b e t m m meant increase' +r& velocity of flow for g k n increase of gage height i,n certain Ohio River stretches and ernresponding values of (n) i n reaeration formzcla (KX=cV%), tabulated according to magnitude of values of ( n )
Ohio river stretch Mean velocity Increase with E foot increase o f river stage
4

1 I1
8-a
4 3 5

Stations

11 8-b 1 0

3475-482 65-77 23-66 77- 88 11- 19 59&611 8 475-482 492-598

Negativi 1. M) 1 .39 1.48 1.58 1.98 2.00 2.35

2.62

7 .a
6.4 3 . 2 6.3 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.6

4.06 5.40
1

Df$ved from data i n Table No.8 . Derived from data in Table No.7 . a Dam u 4 ProbabfG due to influence of algse growths in October and November. Allowing for this Influenee, value of (n)probably positive and very low. 6 D a m down.
2

A s regards the coefficient (c) , it has already been noted that its value i s defined largely by physical characteristics producing clifferent degrees of turbulence i n various river stretches under similar flow conditions. The slope and irregularity of the channel are probably the most prominent o f such characteristics. The relation of these two factors to values of (c) in various stretches of the Ohio i s therefore a matter of importance. The numerical expression of the average slope of a river channel or of the water surface is simple, a convenient unit being i n terms of feet vertical drop per mile of horizontal length. Measurement o f the average slope of an irregular channel bottom i s subject, however, t o considerable error, since the elevation of the bottom at terminal poinks of a given stretch may not be representative, but may be determined by some local irregularity of profile rather than by the general slope 0 9 the channel. For khis reason, the slope of the water surface at extreme low river stage i s probably the more reliable index of the general slope of the bottom, allowing for whatever change occurs in khe general depth o f the waber. The irregularity of the channel, on the other hand, i s not subject to the definiteness of expression that may be employed for the slope, since it i s i n itself an abstract, relative characteristic. Certain arbitrary methods of expression may be resorted to,however, which w i l l permit comparison of the approximate irregularities of various f river channel. Such methods are subject f~ much stretches o

53
variation, and the r e s u l t s derived through any one o f them are to be regarded as merely rough indices o f actual conditions. As regards i t s influence upon the turbulence o f a stream,the unevenness of the channel is defined not only by the frequency o f slope irregularities i z e s and depths from the water surface. but a l s o by their relative s Obviously the expression of all o f these factors,constantly varying i n natural streams, i sf u t i l e . A workable compromise which may be convenienrtly adopted consists of noting the number, per unit of

VALUE

OF

. n

length,of slope irregularities,greater i ns i z e than a s p e c i f i e d minimum, and assuming that i n fairly large groups their average s i z e and depth from the surface w i l l be similar. For example, from a o t t o m the number o f changes longitudinal p r o f i l e of the channel b i n slope per mile may be counted, each one of which produces a change of elevation exceeding 1 foot. For convenience,t h i s number may and w i l l hereafter be. designated as the "irregularity factor." In Table No. 10, values o ft h i s Pactor are given for the various stretches of the river enumerated i n preceding tables.

54
TABLE No. IO.--VaEues of irregularity factor for given Ohio Ricer stretches, consisting of number per r i u w m i l e of changes i n longitudinal 810pe of chanm l bottom resulting in over m e foot change in eleva.tion.
Ohio river stretch
1 -

1I
i
Length (miles) Tot81

Serial

No.

Station

~~

2hanges n direction o f ahamel bottom 3er m i l e (irregularity factor) 4 . 6 2.6 2.5 2.8 4 .1 2 .6 2 .2 4.9 2.4 1
1 -

1 2 3 4 5 6

3-11 11-19

7.1 7.3

7
8

9 10 11
__

33 19 123 39 44 3i5 286 36 14 328 38

__

: .
1.9

In Table KO.11 these same river stretches are divided into two groups according to values of the irregularity factor and arranged i n each group i n the order of decreasing low water slopes, n each case. The first group, the value of (c) being given also i comprising stretches having factors between the limits 3 and 5,m a y be regarded as relatively uneven,while the second and larger group, with factors between 2 and 3,m a y be classified as relatively smooth. 130th groups present, however, the fairly smooth type of channel n the Ohio River and similar streams. The irregularity found i n this manner, and attention m a y then factor is taken account of i he directed to a study of the relations between slope factors and s shown i n the values of (e) in each group. This relationship i table and i s illustrated graphically i n Figure No. ll? i n which the characteristic curve for each group i s drawn through the plotted values. Each relation is shown to be definite and the curves themselves are consistent with each other ; for example,the curve of the higher irregularity group (3.0 to 5.0) gives higher values of (c) with equal slopes. The method of dividing the remits into groups defined by limiting values of the irregularity factor is employed for the reason that the factors themselves are but approximate indices of channel unevenness and hence individual values are not i n themselves highly significant. In streams of the type of the Ohio, lack of smoothness of the channel i s probably not as important a factor i n reauration as i s watercourses having rough, irregular channels. In some of the latter type, the frequency and s also probably a factor modifying sharpness of horizontal bends i the influence of channel roughness upon the turbulence of the stream.

55
TABLE No. 11.-Relations
between value of (c) i n reaeration fomaula (K#= cvn) and low-water slope in feet per mile, for t w a genera2 tgpes of stretchof Ohio River, grouped according to relatiue irregularitiesof channel

I
-1-1

Relatively uneven irregulsritg factors* ranging from 3 . 0 to 3 . 0 Ohio River stretch

Lowmile)

-1-1-1

4 11 2 3 8

7
9
1

65- 77 598-611 11- 19 23- 65 1C4-349 344-461 4 8 -

38.0 38.0 120

6 . 0 1 .5

1.G8 1.67 1.04

.65 .88 .36

2.8 2 .Q
26

.2 .2

.17

2.5 2.6 2.2 24

Irregularity factor=number, per river mile, of changes in longitudinaldirection o f channel bottom(See Table No. IO.) 2 See p. 54. a For open-channelconditions ( D a m 37 lowered).

From the relationship curves derived i n Figures Nos. 10 and 11 it appears that whatever m a y be the weight of other factors i n modifying the control exerted by stream depth and velocity of flow over n the Ohio River (and there are doubtless other rates of reaeration i factors involved) the influences of channel slope and irregularity and of variations i n river stage as related to changes i n velocity are manifest and well defined. This i s true, as w i l l be shown later, to n the terms stated,values the extent that, given these three factors i n the formula: m a y be assigned to (c) and (n) i
CV K =H2

sufficiently close to give a very fair approximationof the true rate of reaeration of the Ohio under any given condition of flow. By deriving empirical formulae for the curves above noted, this operation m a y be done more directly. The relationship curre for values of (n) i n Figure No. 10 i sa hyperbola having the general form: (x-a) (y-b) =I. For this curve, (a) =1 and (b) =1.17, approximately. Taking the exponent (n) as (x) i n the general equation, the following empirical formula i s readily derived : n = l + A y-1.17
n=-y-0.17 V- 1.17 i n which (n) represents the abscissae and (y) the ordinates of the
n l . n T I c I
0-

-LA--

: -+LA

-L,-L

t -

\
&
\
\
\

I
I

\
__5_

I I I I

T --I--

56
The two (c) curves i n Figure KO.11 are more difficult t o formulate and unfortunately are not well fitted by empirical formule having exactly the same type of equation. Curve A,for smoother channels,has the more complex formula?which i s that of an expoiiential function with an additive constant, having the general equaFor the curve i n questioq, a=0.39, b=1.16, tion: y=a(1ObX)+c. and c=17, approximately. Denoting (x) by the coefficient (c) and (y) by the slope (S) , w e then have : c=0.39 ( 101-la) +17 (5) The formula of curve B is less complicated,being a simple power function of the general form: y=ax*. For this curve, a=l.l and mz2.3, whence (using the same notation as above) : ~=1.1~2.3 (6) Having derived formulas (4), (5), and (6), the equivalents of (c) and (n) m a y be substituted i n the equation :
cvn
K2=

g i -

giving the following empirical formulas for ( K , ) directly i n terms of its determining factors: 1 . For relatively smooth channel (irregularity factor=2.0 to 3 . 0 ) ,

y-0.11

E ,= [0.39(101.'8) + 17]Vy-1"7 HJ

(7)

2 . For relatively irregular channel (irregularity factor=3.1 t o

i n whichK,=reaeration coefficient. V =velocity of flow i n feet per second. H =mean river depth, i n feet, above extreme low water (ordinarily given by means readings of gages i n or near the river stretch considered). S=low-water slope of the channel,i n feet per mile. n velocity of f l o w per 5 feet increase y=mean relative increase i i n gage height. The formulie (7) and ( 8 ) have been derived principally i n order to provide a concise mathematical statement of the empirical relations modifying the reaeration coefficient ( K , ) . While probably less accurate for purposes of computation than are the curves them-

57
selves, they are sufficiently well correlated with the observed data for all practical purposes of estimate. In applying the formulas to o choose the Ohio River it is evidently preferable, where possible, t for a given river stretch the specific values of (c) and (n) which have been derived for it. Since, as shown i n Figure No. 9,the gage height (H) and the velocity (V) are definitely related to each other, a given reading o f the former i n a particular section of the river fixes the value of the latter, permitting the direct calculation of the reaeration coefficient (IC,) for a given river-stage condit i o n by means of the formula:

Employing this general method, except that depths (H) were derived irom assumed velocities of flow (V),values of the reaerawere computed for a number of stretches of tion coeflicient (K2) the Ohio River under different velocity-of-flowconditions, w i t h ren Table No.12 and shown graphically i n Figure No. sults.asgiven i 1 2 . In Table KO.13 are tabulated values of (1) i n the several o the different velocities of flow asriver stretches corresponding t n obtaining Table No.12,these values having been derived sumed i . The purpose of drawing from the relation curves of Figure No. 9 the curyes of Figure No. 12 has been to show the relations existing between variations i n flow conditions, as indicated by velocities of flo~, and induced rates of reaeration,as measured by vaIues of the reaeration coefficient (K,) .
TABLE No. 12.-CalcuZated valum of reaeration coeflcient i% specified stretches of the Ohio Rirer under direrent celocity-of-flowconditions, aasuming streamz-depth factors H correspondi%g to velocities as defined bg curzres of Figure No. 9
Value o f K,at velocities (feet per second)
Serid
NO.

Ohio River stretch

0.5

-~________
1
2

1.0

12.0

1 1
3.0
0.92
.H)

4 . 0

0 . 7 4
.35 .31 1 . 05 1.00

0.80 .42

3 4 5
5

.32

7 8
9 1 0 11
I I

.a
.24
.12 .62 .78

1.12 1. 14 .31 .28

.30 .QQ 1 . 04 .15 .I3

1 . 16

58

Seriah

No.

Ohio River stretch

0.5

~ ~ - _ _ _ 116.3 4.4 3.9 5 .2 4.9 .9 116.3

6.6 5 . 0

I I 1 I
1 . 0
2 . 0

Value ofE at velocities

3 . 0 4.0

7.0 5 .8 3.2

116.3 1 0 . 0 7.2 8.5 7 .1 5.7

116.3 128 9.4 10.1 9 .0 9.2

19.0
15. 8 12.0 1 24

11.6 1 9 .2 22.2 31. 1 24.8

25.5

I
1

33.4

Pool stage. Dam up.

One characteristic of these curves deserving comment i s the tend. ency of (K,) to reach a maximum with increasing velocities af flow np to a certain point, beyond which lower values are obtained. The relocity of flow coinciding with this maximum (K,) point varies i n different river stretches studied, but i n a majority of them it i s reached at somewhere between 2 and 4 feet per second. I t thus appears that at a certain critical velocity, peculiar to a given stream type, the induced rate of reaeration reaches its maximum, but that when the velocity is greater or less than this critical value, reaeration proceeds more slowly. The reasons for this apparently paradoxical situation are to be found i n the relation existing i n a given river stretch between the i n the second member of the reaeration two terms'(cVn) and (H,), formula :

In this formula it w i l l be noted that if (V)and (1) increase at the same rate,the value of (K,) increases or diminishes according to whether the exponent of (V), which i s (n),is greater or less than the exponent of (I) ,which is 2 . 0 . If the exponent of (V) ,however, i s less than 2.0, ( K , ) increases if (V) increases at a sufficiently greater rate than ( H ) . The converse is likewise true; that is, (K2) inay actually decrease i n value with an exponent of (V) greater . 0i f (H) increases at a sufficiently greater rate than (V). than 2 Under natural flow conditions it i s found (see fig.No.12) that i na few stretches, as between Stations 23 and 65, the velocity (V) increases at about the same rate as the depth (H) above a certain l o w depth, but i n a majority of the stretches (V)increases i n relation to (H) at greatly decreasing rates above a certain point; hence

. 1

59
w i t h increasing river stages the effectof depth upon (K,) becomes increasingly manifest above this point, while that of velocity becomes less so. In other words, at low depths the velocity effect predonzinates, but at greater depths the depth factor predominates. The velocity-depth relations themselves are influenced almost entirely by the shape of the channel cross section, as has already been pointed out. Snotlier characteristic of the reaeration-velocity curves i s found i n their reaching of a dehite minimum point at some low velocity. Apparently below this point the effect of decreasing depth predominates over that of diminishing velocity. However, these extremely low portions of the eiirves are probably not as reliable as the portions n fact,it is likely that at the minimum above this minimum point; i point the effect of velocity becomes almost negligible and reaeration n quiescent waters. tends to follow the laws of diffusion i

I t has been shown i n the foregoing text that the oxygen self-purification of the Ohio River i s a measurable phenomenon, governed by definite laws and proceeding according to certain fundamental physical and biochemical reactions. Because of the fundamental character of these reactions and laws, it i s fairly evident that the principles underlying the phenomenon as a whole are applicable to virtually a l l polluted streams. In considering the applications of the s therefore important to recognize the data which m a y be made, it i Ielation which they m a y bear not only to the problems of the Ohio River but also to those of other streams i n general. A s regards the Ohio River, no widespread and detailed applications of the data mere justifiedunder conditions of pollution of this stream, as existing at the time of these observations, for the reason that it was not, as a whole, seriously overburdened from a standpoint of its oxygen reserve. This i s amply shown by the dissolved oxygen results which have been cited. In only two short sections of the river,below Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, respectively,did conditions at any season of the year approach serious oxygen depletion. With the possible exception of Pittsburgh, where the situation i s complicated by a chemical withdrawal of oxygen from the river as a step i n the oxidation and precipitation of soluble iron salts, conditions nowhere approached an acute stage. For these reasons any applications which m a y be made of the data must deal largely with hypothetical cases. In this connection, however, it i s instructive to show,by applying the principles developed from the study,approxin the mately what dissolved oxygen conditions m a y be expected i river stretches below the two cities under various conditions of

63
pollution and to compare them i n this respect under similar pollution conditions. i t h respect to deoxygenation The most critical seasonal condition w of the river consists of dry-weather flow at summer temperatures. Referring to Table N o . 3, the average reaeration capacities of the

river below Pittsburgh and Cincinnati,respectively,during the Julyn 1914, sire shown by the following mean values October period i of the reaeration coefficient,K, : Below Pittsburgh,K,=0.25 (approximately). Below Cincinnati,K,=0.45 (approximately).

A t the mean temperatures prevailing in the river during this period the rate of deoxygenation below both cities i s given by K value o f the c o e f f i c i e n t K,, equal to 0.12. Referring t o the general formula (I) on page 18,and assuming the above constants,values of the oxygen saturation deficit (D) after

various times of flow (t) may be feadily computed for different BSsumed values of i n i t i a l oxygen d e f i c i t (Da) and i n i t i a loxygen demand (La) . Assuming these values and computing D, r e s u l t s are obtainea as shown graphically i n Figures Nos. 13 and 14,t h e former chark illustrating conditions below Pittsburgh and the latter p a r a l l e l conditions below Cincinnati.

In constructing the two charts it has been assumed that all of the pollution enters the river at a single point and is immediately mixed thoroughly with the stream water, producing the initial oxygen demand and oxygen-saturation values employed. This assumption is, of course, not i n accordance w i t h the actual circumstances, since the wastes of both cities are discharged into the river along frontages of several miles. In order to obtain proper values (La) and (Da) , it would be necessary to make a detailed stddy of the amount and composition of the wastes discharged at e t i c l i sewer outfall and also of the times of flow of the river between the various outfalls. In spite of the crudeness of the assumptions upon which they are based, the two charts bring out several interesting Eoints concerning the reaeration capacity of the river as related to its permissible pollution. Thus, it is indicated that no dangerously low depletion of the dissolved oxygen supply of the river below the two cities n t i l the amounts of pollution added by them are m a y be expected u sufficient to prodnce an initial oxygen demand i n the fiver of 25 parts per million or thereabouts. Assuming the oxygen demand of normal city sewage to be 112 grams per capita daily, this mould represent a critical dilution of 11 parts of river water t o 1 part of sewage. The present low-mater dilution at both cities i s much higher than this figure. Under actual circumstances it is, of course, certain that locally o prevail in the. river at. both offensive conditions m a y be expected t cities long before a general exhaustion of its reserve oxygen supply is threatened at points below them. W i t h sluggish conditions of flow the rate of mixture of sewage with the river i s extremely slow, and more or less localized zones are formed around the sewer outlets within which sludge deposition and deoxygenation of the supernatant water proceeds far more actively than at points i n the stream farther removed. Such zones are yery likely to become foci of local offense, while the stream as a whole still maintains a considerable amount of reserve oxygen. For this reason a detailed study of local conditions is essential to the fixing of safe minimum standards of residual oxygen supply below any given city. As regards the application of the various constants to calculations of oxygen changes i n different stretches of the Ohio River, it i s of interest to note the approximate precision obtainable therefrom i n SO fa;. as it i s indicated by the deviation of calculated from observed oxygen values at the lower terminals of those river stretches for w1iic.h clata were obtained i n connection with the present study. In orc1t.r to make such a comparison ralues of the velocity-gage height factor (y) and the slope (S)i n formulas ( 4 ) and (j),respectively, \I~IC taken for each river stretch from Tables Sos. 9 and 11, and

from them values of (c) and (n) were derived, using the curves of Figures Nos. 10 and 11. P r o m the (c) and (n) values thus obtained reaeration coefficients ( K , ) at the stream temperature were computed for several river stretches and various months, following the detailed method outlined i n Appendix C . Employing these calculated (K,) values, the oxygen content of the river at the lower terminal of a particular stretch was computed from the observed oxygen deficit at the upper station, employing formula (1) for this purpose. The calculated figure mas then compared with the corresponding dissolved oxygen content as actually observed at the lower station,w i t h results as indicated i n Table No. 14.
TABU No. 14.--Compa~son of the observed dissolved oxyges contmt of the Ohio River at varlous sampling stations with corresponding values culculated bg the use of formulae (I), (7), and (a), busii1.g the cnlcltlatiom in ea& case on the o b s m e d o;cygen content a t the next sta.%ion upstream
Dissolved oxygen per cent saturation dtaDeriationpf calculated from observed ' c r cent saturation
(h

tlon

Month

Observed

Calculated

' e r cent o f observed

(X)

I9 698 65 598 598 598 65 65 88 SeDtember. 1 9 1 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . 88.0 1 24 +11.9 May, 1 9 1 4 . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . _ . _ 83.4 . . _ ~ . . -9. 6 91.6 September, 1914. .____ -7. 1 April, 1915_.._._________._.___-----. 97.6 December, 1 9 1 4 . . . _ . . _ . . . _ ____.. _ . _ -6.9 89.5 June,.1914-. . _ ___. _ . _ _ ___. 90.2 4-6.6 August, 1914_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _91. _1 _____.______ -6. 1 94.7 October 1-15,1914 ._______...__ . _ . . . -5.0 89. .____ _ d_ o _____._._...___. _ 5_-----...-. +3.9 May, 191484.0 4-4.2 October, 1914-_ . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . 91.5 -3.8 86.5 June, 1914__________..__.__________ t3.4 August, 1914____._.__.______._______ 91.5 +2. 8 .~ 81.1 -2. 8 96.3 -2. 2 87.7 -2. 3 ____d ____._...--___________________ o 88.9 +I. 9 91.4 January, 1915__________..__ . . . . . . _ _ _ -1. 9 89. 4...______ June, 1914-___.____._._._. _ -1.7 91.9 February, 1915 ____. _ . . .___ __. -1.5 95. 1 August, 1914 ______..____.__._. +I. 4 December, 1914____. _ . _ . _ . . _ _ 81. 1 +I. 5 October 1-15, 1914 72.5 -1.5 May, 1914. ________._..__._____---.. 90.9 . June, 1914.. __.__ . _ _ _.____ __. . 95.5 July. 1914_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . 93.8 + : April, 1914.._.________________-----. 94.6 4 May, 1914_.____ 1_____..____..___ . _ . 87.7 3 February, 1914- _.____ -. 95.0 2 July, 1914__________________._...---. 95.4 .2 September, 1914___. 97.0 .2 May, 1914. _________._._._____.____. 02 8 .1 March,1915______..____________--. 95.1 + .1 _-_-do _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ 8 9 . 0-..--.... 1 January, 1915. __ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ _ . . _ . _ .. 94.4 .o

- - - --- -

- __ ___ _________ -

492
598 1 9

_________________________

88 19 88 1 9
85 598 65 298 598 482 19 88 88
88 482

153.76 141.61 92 I6 50.41 47.61 43.56 37.21 25.00 15.21 17.64 14.44 11.56 7 . 84 7.84 4.84
5.29 3 . 6 1 3 . 61

_____ __ _____ ___ --__ __ : . - ____ ______ - - -- -__ - - __ -__ __ T o t a l zr __ - ____ ______ - __________ _________ _________ -_
~

2.89 2.25 1.96 2 . 25

2.25

65 482 5% 19 432 588 482

+ . ++ .
+ .

-2 &

.64 .49 ,36

.I6 .09

.04
,04 .04

598

. 01
.01

__
. _ .

number~

__.___________

_____._

.M __----- --- 696.69

. . .

.01

In order t o show the distribution and range i n magnitude of den this viations of the calculated from observed values, the results i table have been arranged i n descending order of magnitude of the squared percentage deviations. I tw i l l be noted that the positive and negative deviations are fairly well balanced, considering the relaf these deviations be taken as a tively small number of items. I f each one of the two measure of the error of calculation, and i groups,positive and negative,he classified according to the frequency of errors greater than varying amounts, a curve is obtained which coincides closely with the so-called normal curve of error. This o determine the probable error by being the case, it is permissible t the conventional method, which consists of squaring the individual errors (v) and computing the standard deviation and probable error by the following relations:
Standard deviation =

dn
~

Probsble error = 0.67449

z v z c-

where (2vz) =sum of squares of deviations and ( n )=number of items. Applying this method, the standard deviation and probable error n Table No. 14 are found t o be of the calculated oxygen values i 4 . 5 and 3 per cent, respectively, as referred t o the observed results. n t o account the errors involved i n the laboratory and physiTaking i n the formula, this comcal determinations of the various factors i posite error is remarkably low. T h e result obtained tends strongly t o confirm the theory underlying the formulas applied, and to indicate that the errors involved i n their application are, to a large extent, compensating ones. It should be pointed out, however, that a calculation such as the foregoing one i s by no means a test of the general applicability of the formula and constants derived from this study,for reasons that are obvious. I t constitutes,on the other hand, an excellent check upon the forniuls, as far as their application to the Ohio River i s concerned. As regards the more general application of the Ohio River cono note the results of a test stants to other streams,it is of interest t of this kind made i n connection with an analysis of results obtained n Connecticut, from a sanitary survey of the Thames Rirer basin, i conducted during the summer of 1915. A m o n g the data from this survey were gathered certain basic figures relative to the amounts of domestic sewage and idustrial wastes discharged into the Thames at various important points, the summer clischarge of the stream and its tributaries, and the slope and general characteristics of its channel. F r o m these data, values of the reaerstion coefficient ( K2)

Dissolsed oxygen (parts per million) Station Calculated 1 Observed *

_____
~

____-

3.9 ----.----Above Webster_______.._______________________________---------.-----.---.-----.-.3 1 . 7 French River at State iine___.____________._______________________.~~~.-...-.-.-..-1.6 2 . 8 French River at mouth ______________._________________________-.--.------.--------3 .Y 3 . 9 Quinebang River at State line 5.4 4.8 Quinebnug River above French River 3.4 3 .1 Quinebaug River above Putnam 5.4 3.4 Quinebaug River above Five Mile River 5.5 3.2 Quinebaug River above Jewett City 8.5 3.8 Quinebaug River at mouth________________________________________-----.------.-.--6.7 4.7 Willimantic River at mouth ._______....____________________________--.--.-----.----7.4 4.7 Shetucket River above Quinebaug River________________________________________.--6.8 5 .9 Shetucket River below Quinebnug River

___________________________________ -_____------------________________________________________-----________________________________________-----------________________________________________---________________________________________--------

Mean

________________________________________---~ ...................................................... --_______-_--

_____

4.8

28

66
ratlier widely from those prevailing i n the Ohio. In many cases, as i n the example above given, certain of these characteristics can not be properly determined i n definitely measurable terms without detailed local study. In this phase of the matter merely a beginn the Ohio River studies, and further work ning has been made i i t h a large variety of stream types w i l l be necessary bedealing w fore the entire working range of reaeration coefficients can be established.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The studies described in this paper have had as their chief aim
the formulation o f a reasonably complete set of working principles from which further studies of questions involving the organic stability of polluted streams m a y be made with more assurance than has hitherto been possible. In working out such a statement it has bean necessary, i n certain parts of the discussion,t o reverse the usual procedure of developing a law f r o m empirical findings,t o the extent of

evolving what may appear to be a rather elaborate theory i n order t o lay the groundwork for interpreting the findings themselves. This has been especially true of the portion of our discussion dealing with reaeration,wherein the establishment of a basis for numericaly measuring the rate factor has necessitated the formulation of a reaeration coefficient from wholly theoretical considerations. The basic theory n underlying practically the whole discussion,which is summarized i formula (1),is i n reality,however,an extremely simple one when resolved into i t s componant parts, and i ti s our belief that the experimental evidence on which it rests is fundamentally sound. o reaeraThe empirical relationships established with respect t t i o n rates i n the Ohio River m u s t be interpreted, for the prment f a closely at least, as applicable only to this stream or to rivers o similar type as regards their physiography. Further studies of these relations w i l l doubtless reveal wide variations i n the specific f different types, and w i l l values of constants derived for streams o probably also disclose that formulas expressing them do not always follow the same mathematical laws as found in'the present case. These matters can be cleared up only by additional observations on streams of widely different characteristics and by the checking of formulas against results of observations. Certain basic units of nieasurenient employed i n connection w i t h this study, especially those measures which apply to factors correlated with stream turbulence, need far more satisfactory defin i t i o n than has been practicable i n the present case. This statement applies i n particular to the rather crude indices which have been employed for expressing channel irregularity and the velocity-depth relation. For the former. the use of the Iiiitter (n) or the Chezy

!
& I

67
( c ) , and for the latter, the constants of the velocity-depth relation curve, might be advantageous from a standpoint of their more general applicability. Here again are questions for further study. As regards future studies of the subject, that which i s probably most needed at present is a further experimental investigation of a number of fundamental points bearing an both the biochemical oxidation and the physical reaeration of streams, employing improved laboratory methods which have been developed since the data for the present study were collected. Studies of this kind should comprehend the following main subjects: (1) Coefficients of oxidation (corresponding to K , )for various types of city sewage and industrial wastes. ( 2 ) The temperature relations of both oxidation and reaeration coefficients. (3) Rates of reaeration of bodies of water subjected to various coiitrolled degrees of turbulence. ( 4 ) The influence of various physical factors,operating i n natural streams, upon reaeration rates, such as, for example, the action of dams, bends, channel obstructions of different kinds, and irregularities i n the channel bottom. T h e modifying influence o f variations i n stream depth upon these phenomena should also be studied under controlled conditions. Studies of this kind can be made to the best advantage by a conibination of facilities afforded by the laboratory, the experimental tank and flume, and a small polluted natural stream, so situated as t o offer opportunities for a close measurement and, if desired, n certain degree o f artificial control,of the factors influencing natural purification phenomena; Further studies along these lines are conn connection with the work of the stream pollution labotemplated i f the United States Public Health Service at Cincinnati, ratory o Ohio,where exceptionally good facilities are available for making them. In the present text the applications of the various foimulz and constants to specific problems have been merely touched upon, attention i n this respect having been confined to one or two examples, designed t o illustrate methods and t o indicate roughly the expected precision of calculations of the kind. Further studies of this character need t o be made for a number of actual cases where the results of calculation m a y be checked against those of observation. F r o m the few studies that have been made, it wonld appear that a high degree of precision is obtainable i n estimating the conditions of pollution of the Ohio and its main tributaries under which any specified minimum reserve of dissolved oxygen may be maintained i n this stream. I ti s also our belief that the application of the principles formulated i n this paper to many stream pollution problems

70

APPENDIX B
Reformulation of resultant oxygen formula (1)1 for a condition such that any from (Lne-Kst) i s assumed to be due to pollution or dilution deviation o f (LB) uniformly distributed along the stream between stations A and B. Comparison of results obtained by applichion o f the equation thus developed,with results 1 ) . 1 obtained by using formula ( Given: L A =the observed osygcn demand at station A. LB =the observed oxygen demand at station R. LfA=the oxygen demand at station B as calculated from the observed value o f (LA) at station A. t =time o f flow,in days. K1=coefficient of deoxygenation. K2=coefficient of reaeration. L, =increase or decrease in osygen demand produced up to time (t) by uniformly distributed increments o f inflow. p =increase or decrease in osygen demand of stream,per i u i i to f time,producing an effect equivalent to (L, )at time ( t ) . A t station B,(-Lt)=(Lg-L~). Required : dD Integrated form o f differential equation x = K 1 L K2D for the condition assumed, where D=osygen saturation deficit at time ( t ) t ) and L=remaining oxygen demand at time ( For the assumed condition, L=LAe-KltfLt

L , ) in terms o f deThe problem f i r s t becomes one o f determining the value o f( terminable factors. In order to derive an expression for ( L , ) in terms of ( p ) , the method o f increments may be employed,assuming (LJto remain constant through each unit increment o f time ( A t ) . Then,where t=l, Lt=p where t=2, Lt=p+pe-Ki where t= 3, Lt=p+pe-Kl+pe-zKi where t=n, Lt=p+pe-Kl+pe-3Kl_ - ---pe-(n-l) KI
From this series the sum o f the terms up to any time ( t ) may be derivedthus:.

p(l-e-rlt) at Station B, l-ee-K, =La or, p=

1 ---Kit

-LA
(3).

(LB -LA)(1-e-K1)

Substituting the value o f( L , )from ( 2 ) and (l),

This queation i s a linear one of the first order, corresponding to Leibnitzs: Z + P y = Q where x=t

TOdetermine the value o f( C ) , l e t( t ) = O in ( 6 ) . Then ( 6 )becomes

Gnbstituting the equivalent of (p) into ( 7 ) and canceling out the terms (1=e-5), we have at Station B,

D= KiL~(l-e-Kst) -K(LB-L~) (e-K?t--e-K2t) +lC1(LB-L)A) (K? -K 1 ) ( 1-e K i t ) Kz(1- e K i t )

(1-(?-Kit) $ . DAe-KZt (8)

Referring to the original formula ( l ) , page IS, it i s noted that equation ( 9 ) differsfrom it only in respect to t,herather complex expression contained in the brackets, [ 1, which expression represents the effect o f the assumption of uniform didxibution o f inflow between stations A and B. Simplifying further equation ( 9 ) by substituting for (L*)i t s equivalent (LAe-Kit), we have

72
Equation (10) reduces to the symmetricalform:

for four stretches Comparison of results obtained in calculations of (ICu,) of the Ohio River, by use of formula (1) , as applied in the main test and by use of equation (ll), as developed by assuming a uniform distribution of inflow between stations A and B: In order to test the application of: the original resultant oxygen formula (11, employed i n connection with the main text against results obtained by at Station assuming that any deviation of the observed oxygen demand (LR) B from the Station A residual (L*) at Station B i s due to a uniformly distributed inflow between the two points, a comparison was made of ( & ) values obtained in four stretches of the Ohio River, f i r s t by using the orighal formula, (1) and, second, by employing equation (11). developed i n this appendix. To make the test severe,the longest two river stretches of the entire eeriea (viz, stations 104349 and stations 492-598) were included in the four stretches selected for comparative study. The other two stretches selected (stations 475-482 and stations 77-88) are of less than average length; hence the two extremes of stretch length are fairly represented. The data for the calculations were taken from Table No. 2,presented in connection with the main text. The method of calculation employed was similar to that which n i s outlined in Appendix C, modified in applying it to equation (11) only i respect to the terms used. (See derivation of equation (ll),this appendix.) obtained by use of the two formuls i s gi-ren A summary of values of (K2) i n the table following.
Value of (Kz) by equation (11) (b) Deviation from Per cent devistion referred to (b)

River stretch

Mouth

(a)

@ )
-__-I

_ n . y_ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ 0.180 _ _ _ Stations 104-349 (245 miles) .._.-_..-.M June...____-_.. ,268 July_ _ . _ . _ _ . ,202 . . ALtgust.____.. ,212 _ September- . . ,172 Octoher . __. . .200 I

0.1135 ,299 .?88

,190

Mean

_______- ___ -__

. . . . .

.___.___._. .

___

,152 ,187

1
I

9.015 . 031 + . 014 f.022 + . 020 + . 013

9 .1 10.4 7.4 11.6 13.2 6.9

Stations 492-598 (106 m i l e s )

1014 Julie. _ . . . . . . . . Septcmber.-.j October._____.,

,532 July_ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ 1.090 August . . _ . . _ _ _ 788

I
I

M e 3 n ._.__. _ Stations 475-483 (7 miles)

---

__ -___

:7G1 .247 ,

.708 1.799 .515

1.084 .37G

. 176 -.702 +. 273 -.323 -. 029

24.8 39.2 53.0 28.8 I O .6

. _ . _

. _ . . . . . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ ._______.. . _ . . _ _ . _ . . . . . _
-

1914

May. . . _ _ _ ,225 June _.____.. ,570 . _ July_ _ _ _ _ _ .G50 __.__ August-.-. .35 .FA4 September---. October .GO1

___ ____ _____ __

I ____

32.4

.4
I

The calenlations incidental to thia comparison were m a d e by Sanitary Engineer H.R.

River stretch
. .

I 1
Month September October

Value of (Kz) by formula equation (11) ( 1 )

(8)

Deviation (a) from

Per cent deviareferred

tion

( b )

(b)

to (b)
22

Stations77-88 (11 m i l e s )._

.....................

1 9 1 4 .541 .529 July. _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ ,236 August . 2 4 5

____________________I__________ Mean-.--------.---..-----------------------------------parposes of application,values of

+ . ________ 8 .7 ____ .144 .136 + . B _______ _

-.012 009

3.8
6 .

.716

.784

. 068
008

6 .2

In interpreting the results above tabulated,it should be pointed out that, for ( K , )are not to be considered as being significant beyond the second decimal place ; hence deviations in the third decimal

place are insignificant. It w i l l be noted further that thedeviations obtained in the present series of comparisons, when taken as a whole, are fairly well balanced as regards algebraic sign,11 of them being positive and 12 negative. This would appear to indicate that the differences i n (K2)values as obtained by the two methods are not due t o any inherent source of error i n one procedure or the other,but are more likely due t o departures, in individual cases, of conditions of inflow and other disturbing factors from those which may be n applying a particular formula. That the errors involved i n either assumed i procedure are not serious as far as the final result i s concerned i s indicated by & ) values obtained by the two formulae in three out the close agreement of ( of the four cases for which the comparison was made. In one of the three cases where the agreement was reasonably close (viz,the river stretch,stations 104449) the degree of concordance between the two sets of figures i s surprisingly high i n view of the extreme length of this river stretch and the correspondingly long time period over which the calculation must be made. In the single instance in which the agreement between the calculated values of ( & ) was not close (via, the stations 49259s stretch) there is good reason for believing that the use of equation (11) would give results subject to a considerable margin of error, since a large proportion of the inflow entering the river stretch in question i s discharge& into it at a single point, about midway between the two terminal stations (through the mouth of the Kentucky River). An assumption of uniformly distributed inflow in a case of this kind, such as would be involved in the use of equation (11),would be an obvious source of error, tending to give higher than the true figure. On referring to the table it will be noted that in four of the five months for which the comparison was made for the stations 492-595 stretch the values of (Kz) obtained by use of equation (11) were higher than corresponding values obtained by 1 ) . formula ( With the one exception above noted, the diEerences i n values of (Kz) as obtained by the two formulae are not strikingly great, their general agreement being w e l l within the expected limits of precision in calculations of this kind. Furthermore, the evidence at hand does not indicate the existence of any fundamental source of unbalanced error in the use of formula (l), such as would vitiate it for purposes of calculation where conditions of disturbance in a given river stretch are indeterminate. For such cases, as as the one most freqnently encountered in practice, namely,a condition of massive pollution of a stream at certain well-defined points, the wisdom of employing formula (l),rather than the much more complex formulae of the type of equation (11).appears to be borne out rather strikingly by the results obtained from the foregoing compnrison.

APPENDIX C
M E T H O D OF DERIVATIOIV OF REAERATION COEFFICIENTS FOR OHIO B
m

A. Data.-(1) Monthly mean initial dissolved osygen content at upper and lower ends of stretch. (2) Monthly mean final dissolved osygen content at upper and lower ends of stretch,after 24 hours' incubation in closed bottle at 20 C. (Other incubation periods=2 or 5 days.) (3) Monthly mean 24-hour loss of dissolved oxygen upon incubation at 20" C., obtained as differences of monthly mean initial and final dissolved oxygen content. (Other incubation periods=2 or 5 days.) ( 4 ) Temperature of water at each end of stretch (monthly mean). (5) Time interval o f flow for stretch,in days (monthly mean). (6) Mean velocity of flow-for stretch in feet per second (monthly mean). B . Method of caZcuZnt;on.-(l) Using value of B=1.047, correct 24-hour . to To C . (river temperaturr), assuming losses upon incubation from 20" C Kl=0.l for 20"C . L ' (K,) i s value in formula: Log -=Kit

L'=initial total oxygen demand. L =final total oxygen demand after time t. (2) Referring to Figure KO. 6 b, compute the total oxygen demand (L) from the observed 1 ,2, or 5 day loss of dissolved oxygen on incubatim, at A " C., of sampIes collected at Station A. I f the incubation temperaturei s 30" C. L a = 1day loss 2-day los~ 5-day IOSR 0.206 0.369 0.634
(3) Compute the total osygeii demand (LR)at Station I3 by a similar procedure. (4) With the value of (IL) at the river temperature, compute the value of (rA. thus :

(5) Formula for (Kz) :

Da=dissolved oxygen saturation d e f i c i ta t Station A (parts per million). Db=dissolved oxygen saturation deficit at Station B (parts per million). Ln=mean total oxygen demand (parts per million) at Station (A),based on mean of (LB) and (Lb). Kl=deoxygenation coefficient at river temperature. t =time from (A)to (B).in days. &=reaeration coefficient at river temperature (unknown). (2) Assume three or four values of (Kz) and solve for ( D b ) in each case. (3) Plot values of (K2) and ( D b ) obtained as above, and connect points with smooth curve. (4) Take from the curve the value of (IC,) corresponding t o the actual salue of (Db). (5) Substitute the value of (HZ) obtained as in (4)in the formula and cornpute (Db). If (ICz)i s correct, ( D b ) should be the same as the observed value. Correction of (EL)values for temperature : Use temperature relation curve, as given in F i g u r e 7,correcting (K?) from the river temperature to 20" 0.

,
i

75
Cbrrelation of (IC2) at 20" C . with mean velocities (V)and depths (H) :

(1) General formula: K2=-

CV"

HZ

where (V)=mean velocity i n feet per second and (H)=mean depth of the river above extreme low water, taken in the present case as the gauge height at a convenient reference gauge for the river stretch in questlon. (2) P l o t corresponding values of (K?Hp) and (V) on logarithmic paper, with ( J L ) as ordinates and (V) as abscissae. (3) Scale the slope of a line drawn through the plotted points. This slope, expressed as a ratio, equals the term (n)above. ( 4 )Determine (e), which is represented by the intercept on the vertical axis of the plot. (5) The equation of (Kz) i n terms of ( 1 ' ) and ( p )i s now defined,and the method of correlating (c) and (n)with physical conditions has been given in the main test. C. Nurnericul exampleStation A = Station.3,Ohio River }Month of J L I ~ 1914 ~ , (Table No. 1). Station B=Station 11, Ohio River Mean temperature (T) =24.6" C. T i m e of flow (t) = 1.81 days. (K,)at 2 4 . 6 ' C.=0.124. D,=S.36-4.36=4 parts per million. Dt,=8.53-7.21= 1.32 parts per million. L.=2.73 parts per million.

10-K1t=0.598 D,=0.89X0.474+

Try K,=0.500

10-K't=0.59S

+4.00X 0.124=

This value too lon. Therefore (IC-?) assumed too high.

Dg=

1 ..90 X 0.312X

Try K2=0.300 10-K1t=0.598 X 4.00X 0.286= K1=% 10-K2t=0.286 __ -ap- 0.335 =0.594+ 1.144= K2-K1=0.176 diff. =0.312 0.176-1.90 =l.738 This value s t i l l too low. D~=4.41X0.163+ Try K2=0.200 10-K1t=0.598 +4.00X 0.435= K1~0.124 10-KPt=0.435 0 3 3 : =4.41 =0.718+1,74= K2-K,=0.076 d i f f . " = O % =2.46 Plot above corresponding values of (K,) and (DB) and take o f f value o f ( K , ) corresponding to DB= 1.32. Thus, K2=0.38. T o confirm K,=O.38.

=clB

Try K2=0.380 10-Iilt=0.598

K , = E 2 4 10-K2t=0.206 c-0.335-1.31 Ka-K1=0.256 d i f f . =0.392 0.156 This value checks that. of (Kz) from the curve.

1.31X392+ +4.00X. 0.206= . =0.51$0.81= =1.31

D B =