My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7819
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Copyright
>
7819
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:01:46 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 6:19:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7819
Author
Many
Title
Journal of Applied Aquaculture
USFW Year
1992
USFW - Doc Type
1(3)
Copyright Material
YES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Palter 21 <br />TAIILE 3. Sensitivity of a model that predicts the carrying capacity of biofilters. <br />Tabulated values arc the~percent changes in carrying capacity resulting from 20% <br />and 40% increases in each parameter of the model described in this paper. Each <br />parameter was varied individually, while the others were held constant. <br /> <br /> <br />Parameter <br /> <br />Symbol Parameter <br />increase <br />of 20t: Parameter <br />increase <br />of 40~ <br />Flow rate (1/min} F 6.1 10.8 <br />Ammonia concentration (mg/1) C 20.0 90.0 <br />Ammonia production <br />(mg/kg fish/min) A -16.6 -28.6 <br />Temperature (°C) T 18.6 37.2 <br />Freshwater flush (1/min) L 3.3 6.6 <br />Biofilter depth (cm) D 8.8 16.1 <br />Biofilter cross- X 8.8 16.1 <br />sectional area (cmZ} <br />Ammonia removal R 16.7 33.4 <br />were multiplied to yield Biofilter volume. Freshwater flush rate was <br />reduced to zero for similar reasons; all other parameters were kept <br />at the standard values. Carrying capacity differed little between <br />high ammonia removal (R = 0.63) S-1 and 2S-t biofilters when <br />flow rates were very low (Figure 4). As the flow rate increased, the <br />carrying capacity of both biofilters increased; but that of the 25-1 <br />Biofilter increased far more than that of the S-1 biofitter. In both <br />biofilters, the relationship between flow rate and carrying capacity <br />was asymptotic. This simulation indicated that increasing the size <br />of a biofitter will not necessarily increase carrying capacity unless <br />the flow rate is also increased. <br />Figure 4 illustrates that carrying capacity initially increases rap- <br />idly with flow rate but eventually reaches a level at which further <br />increases in flow rate have little effect. To optimize performance, it <br />is desirable to operate at flow rates higher than those in the steeply <br />ascending portion of this curve but below those near the asymptote. <br />Very low flows are inefficient because they result in a large loss of <br />potential carrying capacity. Very high flows are inefficient because <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.