Estudo de caso para a viabilidade de implementação de sistema de tratamento de esgoto compacto na região metropolitana de Goiânia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130810964Palavras-chave:
Biofiltro aerado submerso, ETE compacta, Reator UASBResumo
O objetivo deste estudo consiste em avaliar a viabilidade de um sistema de ETE compacta em detrimento de um sistema convencional de estações de tratamento de esgoto já consolidado no país no tratamento de esgoto sanitário, considerando seu custo, eficiência e demanda espacial. Os sistemas comparados nesta análise são: ETE Goianira, sistema convencional; ETE Campos Dourados, sistema compacto. A estação Campos Dourados não alcançou a eficiência do sistema convencional, porém os resultados estão em conformidade com o que estabelece a legislação ambiental. A ETE compacta apresenta maior custo de implantação e manutenção, mas a diferença não a torna inviável devido ao retorno na ocupação de espaço, que é substancialmente favorável comparado com o sistema convencional de lagoas de estabilização da ETE Goianira.
Downloads
Referências
FUNASA. Saneamento para promoção da saúde. [S.l.], 2011. Disponível em: http://www.funasa.gov.br/internet/SanPromSau.asp. Acesso em: 29 abril 2011.
IBGE. Pesquisa nacional de saneamento básico: Tabela 46 - Distritos, total e sem rede coletora de
esgoto, por principal solução alternativa, segundo as Grandes Regiões, Unidades da Federação, Regiões Metropolitanas e Municípios das Capitais. [S.l.], 2000. Disponível em: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/condicaodevida/pnsb/esgotamento_sanitario/esg_sanitario46.shtm. Acesso em: 13 maio 2011.
SANEAGO. O esgoto em Goiânia. [S.l.], 2004. Disponível em: http://www.saneago.com.br/novasan/index.php?id=esgoto6&tit=esgoto. Acesso em: 29 abril 2011.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
