Treatment of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent using baffled sedimentation and artificial substrates
The treatment performance of a 6 m wide by 67 m long by 0.8 m deep, baffled sedimentation basin receiving rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent was evaluated with and without the installation of artificial substrates (Aquamats ®). Treatment efficiency was also determined using normal...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Aquacultural engineering 2006-08, Vol.35 (2), p.166-178 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 178 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 166 |
| container_title | Aquacultural engineering |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Stewart, Nathan T. Boardman, Gregory D. Helfrich, Louis A. |
| description | The treatment performance of a 6
m wide by 67
m long by 0.8
m deep, baffled sedimentation basin receiving rainbow trout (
Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent was evaluated with and without the installation of artificial substrates (Aquamats
®). Treatment efficiency was also determined using normal rearing condition effluent loading versus cleaning and harvesting events. Total suspended solids (TSS) removal for the total basin averaged 79% and 71% during normal rearing conditions, as compared to 92% and 79% during cleaning and harvesting operations, when the Aquamats
® were installed versus removed, respectively. Total phosphorus (TP) removal by the total basin, with and without Aquamats
®, was 20% and 23% during normal rearing conditions as compared to 55% and 65% under cleaning and harvesting conditions, respectively. Higher TP removal during cleaning operations was attributed to sedimentation of particulate fractions. Dissolved nutrient removal (
ortho-phosphate (OP), total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrate, nitrite, and total organic carbon (TOC)) was not consistent throughout the basin and did not improve when the Aquamats
® were installed. A short contact time and periphyton grazing by isopods may have limited the capacity of the Aquamats
®.
Calculated retention times with and without Aquamats
® for the first half and total basin were 37% and 32% and 27% and 17% less than theoretical values, respectively based on a rhodamine WT dye study. Average surface overflow rates were adjusted accordingly and measured 19.1
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were installed, versus 14.8
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were removed for the overall basin. These rates are lower than previous recommendations for treating aquaculture effluents, but resulted in high solids removal and consistently low TSS effluent (average 2
mg/L by 50%. For the first half of the sedimentation basin, the overflow rate averaged 44.1
m
3/m
2
day with Aquamats
® versus 35.8
m
3/m
2
day without Aquamats
®. The majority of effluent treatment occurred within the first half of the basin, which was responsible for 84% and 94% of overall TSS removal, 42% and 100% of overall NH
3-N removal and 61% and 80% of overall TP removal during normal and cleaning/harvesting conditions, respectively. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2006.01.001 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20697914</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0144860906000021</els_id><sourcerecordid>14782611</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-1bf183b52bb46fd14f9b101237682b282cfe9f251b8aad4779ae2ed6dc84655c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUFvFCEYhidGE9fqTzBy0djDjMAwDJyMabSaNOnB9kw-GNiyzkILjHX_vUx2E4_1REie9_3ge5rmLcEdwYR_2nXwsIAN245izDtMOozJs2ZDxNi3AyfsebPBhLFWcCxfNq9y3mGMmeyHTfPnJlkoexsKig4l8EHHR1RSXAr6iK6DienuEMzdktH-8MvnfF4hYx_hgKxz87IGl-zDFmmodzuhbCe_9kHxMSAIE4JUvPPGw4zyonNJUGx-3bxwMGf75nSeNbffvt5cfG-vri9_XHy5ag0beGmJdkT0eqBaM-4mwpzU9dO0H7mgmgpqnJWODkQLgImNowRL7cQnIxgfBtOfNR-OvfcpPiw2F7X32dh5hmDjkhXFXI6SsP8Ae1E3Sp4ECRsF5WQFhyNoUsw5Wafuk99DOiiC1WpO7dTJnFrNKUxUNVdz708DIBuYXYJgfP4XHqWQdULl3h05B1HBNlXm9ietBZhgyQaCK_H5SNi64d_eJpWNt8FURcmaoqbon3jLX9BovM0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>14782611</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent using baffled sedimentation and artificial substrates</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Stewart, Nathan T. ; Boardman, Gregory D. ; Helfrich, Louis A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Nathan T. ; Boardman, Gregory D. ; Helfrich, Louis A.</creatorcontrib><description>The treatment performance of a 6
m wide by 67
m long by 0.8
m deep, baffled sedimentation basin receiving rainbow trout (
Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent was evaluated with and without the installation of artificial substrates (Aquamats
®). Treatment efficiency was also determined using normal rearing condition effluent loading versus cleaning and harvesting events. Total suspended solids (TSS) removal for the total basin averaged 79% and 71% during normal rearing conditions, as compared to 92% and 79% during cleaning and harvesting operations, when the Aquamats
® were installed versus removed, respectively. Total phosphorus (TP) removal by the total basin, with and without Aquamats
®, was 20% and 23% during normal rearing conditions as compared to 55% and 65% under cleaning and harvesting conditions, respectively. Higher TP removal during cleaning operations was attributed to sedimentation of particulate fractions. Dissolved nutrient removal (
ortho-phosphate (OP), total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrate, nitrite, and total organic carbon (TOC)) was not consistent throughout the basin and did not improve when the Aquamats
® were installed. A short contact time and periphyton grazing by isopods may have limited the capacity of the Aquamats
®.
Calculated retention times with and without Aquamats
® for the first half and total basin were 37% and 32% and 27% and 17% less than theoretical values, respectively based on a rhodamine WT dye study. Average surface overflow rates were adjusted accordingly and measured 19.1
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were installed, versus 14.8
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were removed for the overall basin. These rates are lower than previous recommendations for treating aquaculture effluents, but resulted in high solids removal and consistently low TSS effluent (average <2
mg/L), which may be necessary for strict discharge permits. Use of the overall basin minimized the occurrence of TSS measurements >2
mg/L by 50%. For the first half of the sedimentation basin, the overflow rate averaged 44.1
m
3/m
2
day with Aquamats
® versus 35.8
m
3/m
2
day without Aquamats
®. The majority of effluent treatment occurred within the first half of the basin, which was responsible for 84% and 94% of overall TSS removal, 42% and 100% of overall NH
3-N removal and 61% and 80% of overall TP removal during normal and cleaning/harvesting conditions, respectively.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-8609</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5614</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaeng.2006.01.001</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AQEND6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animal aquaculture ; Animal productions ; Aquamats ; biofiltration ; Biological and medical sciences ; Effluent treatment ; effluents ; fish culture ; fish farms ; Freshwater ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Isopoda ; Oncorhynchus mykiss ; pollution control ; Raceway ; raceways ; Sedimentation ; sedimentation basin ; settling basins ; Solids removal ; Tracer ; trout ; wastewater treatment ; water flow ; water quality</subject><ispartof>Aquacultural engineering, 2006-08, Vol.35 (2), p.166-178</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-1bf183b52bb46fd14f9b101237682b282cfe9f251b8aad4779ae2ed6dc84655c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-1bf183b52bb46fd14f9b101237682b282cfe9f251b8aad4779ae2ed6dc84655c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2006.01.001$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17989826$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Nathan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boardman, Gregory D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helfrich, Louis A.</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent using baffled sedimentation and artificial substrates</title><title>Aquacultural engineering</title><description>The treatment performance of a 6
m wide by 67
m long by 0.8
m deep, baffled sedimentation basin receiving rainbow trout (
Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent was evaluated with and without the installation of artificial substrates (Aquamats
®). Treatment efficiency was also determined using normal rearing condition effluent loading versus cleaning and harvesting events. Total suspended solids (TSS) removal for the total basin averaged 79% and 71% during normal rearing conditions, as compared to 92% and 79% during cleaning and harvesting operations, when the Aquamats
® were installed versus removed, respectively. Total phosphorus (TP) removal by the total basin, with and without Aquamats
®, was 20% and 23% during normal rearing conditions as compared to 55% and 65% under cleaning and harvesting conditions, respectively. Higher TP removal during cleaning operations was attributed to sedimentation of particulate fractions. Dissolved nutrient removal (
ortho-phosphate (OP), total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrate, nitrite, and total organic carbon (TOC)) was not consistent throughout the basin and did not improve when the Aquamats
® were installed. A short contact time and periphyton grazing by isopods may have limited the capacity of the Aquamats
®.
Calculated retention times with and without Aquamats
® for the first half and total basin were 37% and 32% and 27% and 17% less than theoretical values, respectively based on a rhodamine WT dye study. Average surface overflow rates were adjusted accordingly and measured 19.1
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were installed, versus 14.8
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were removed for the overall basin. These rates are lower than previous recommendations for treating aquaculture effluents, but resulted in high solids removal and consistently low TSS effluent (average <2
mg/L), which may be necessary for strict discharge permits. Use of the overall basin minimized the occurrence of TSS measurements >2
mg/L by 50%. For the first half of the sedimentation basin, the overflow rate averaged 44.1
m
3/m
2
day with Aquamats
® versus 35.8
m
3/m
2
day without Aquamats
®. The majority of effluent treatment occurred within the first half of the basin, which was responsible for 84% and 94% of overall TSS removal, 42% and 100% of overall NH
3-N removal and 61% and 80% of overall TP removal during normal and cleaning/harvesting conditions, respectively.</description><subject>Animal aquaculture</subject><subject>Animal productions</subject><subject>Aquamats</subject><subject>biofiltration</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Effluent treatment</subject><subject>effluents</subject><subject>fish culture</subject><subject>fish farms</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Isopoda</subject><subject>Oncorhynchus mykiss</subject><subject>pollution control</subject><subject>Raceway</subject><subject>raceways</subject><subject>Sedimentation</subject><subject>sedimentation basin</subject><subject>settling basins</subject><subject>Solids removal</subject><subject>Tracer</subject><subject>trout</subject><subject>wastewater treatment</subject><subject>water flow</subject><subject>water quality</subject><issn>0144-8609</issn><issn>1873-5614</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkUFvFCEYhidGE9fqTzBy0djDjMAwDJyMabSaNOnB9kw-GNiyzkILjHX_vUx2E4_1REie9_3ge5rmLcEdwYR_2nXwsIAN245izDtMOozJs2ZDxNi3AyfsebPBhLFWcCxfNq9y3mGMmeyHTfPnJlkoexsKig4l8EHHR1RSXAr6iK6DienuEMzdktH-8MvnfF4hYx_hgKxz87IGl-zDFmmodzuhbCe_9kHxMSAIE4JUvPPGw4zyonNJUGx-3bxwMGf75nSeNbffvt5cfG-vri9_XHy5ag0beGmJdkT0eqBaM-4mwpzU9dO0H7mgmgpqnJWODkQLgImNowRL7cQnIxgfBtOfNR-OvfcpPiw2F7X32dh5hmDjkhXFXI6SsP8Ae1E3Sp4ECRsF5WQFhyNoUsw5Wafuk99DOiiC1WpO7dTJnFrNKUxUNVdz708DIBuYXYJgfP4XHqWQdULl3h05B1HBNlXm9ietBZhgyQaCK_H5SNi64d_eJpWNt8FURcmaoqbon3jLX9BovM0</recordid><startdate>20060801</startdate><enddate>20060801</enddate><creator>Stewart, Nathan T.</creator><creator>Boardman, Gregory D.</creator><creator>Helfrich, Louis A.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H98</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>H96</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060801</creationdate><title>Treatment of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent using baffled sedimentation and artificial substrates</title><author>Stewart, Nathan T. ; Boardman, Gregory D. ; Helfrich, Louis A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-1bf183b52bb46fd14f9b101237682b282cfe9f251b8aad4779ae2ed6dc84655c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Animal aquaculture</topic><topic>Animal productions</topic><topic>Aquamats</topic><topic>biofiltration</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Effluent treatment</topic><topic>effluents</topic><topic>fish culture</topic><topic>fish farms</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Isopoda</topic><topic>Oncorhynchus mykiss</topic><topic>pollution control</topic><topic>Raceway</topic><topic>raceways</topic><topic>Sedimentation</topic><topic>sedimentation basin</topic><topic>settling basins</topic><topic>Solids removal</topic><topic>Tracer</topic><topic>trout</topic><topic>wastewater treatment</topic><topic>water flow</topic><topic>water quality</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stewart, Nathan T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boardman, Gregory D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helfrich, Louis A.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><jtitle>Aquacultural engineering</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stewart, Nathan T.</au><au>Boardman, Gregory D.</au><au>Helfrich, Louis A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent using baffled sedimentation and artificial substrates</atitle><jtitle>Aquacultural engineering</jtitle><date>2006-08-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>166</spage><epage>178</epage><pages>166-178</pages><issn>0144-8609</issn><eissn>1873-5614</eissn><coden>AQEND6</coden><abstract>The treatment performance of a 6
m wide by 67
m long by 0.8
m deep, baffled sedimentation basin receiving rainbow trout (
Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent was evaluated with and without the installation of artificial substrates (Aquamats
®). Treatment efficiency was also determined using normal rearing condition effluent loading versus cleaning and harvesting events. Total suspended solids (TSS) removal for the total basin averaged 79% and 71% during normal rearing conditions, as compared to 92% and 79% during cleaning and harvesting operations, when the Aquamats
® were installed versus removed, respectively. Total phosphorus (TP) removal by the total basin, with and without Aquamats
®, was 20% and 23% during normal rearing conditions as compared to 55% and 65% under cleaning and harvesting conditions, respectively. Higher TP removal during cleaning operations was attributed to sedimentation of particulate fractions. Dissolved nutrient removal (
ortho-phosphate (OP), total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrate, nitrite, and total organic carbon (TOC)) was not consistent throughout the basin and did not improve when the Aquamats
® were installed. A short contact time and periphyton grazing by isopods may have limited the capacity of the Aquamats
®.
Calculated retention times with and without Aquamats
® for the first half and total basin were 37% and 32% and 27% and 17% less than theoretical values, respectively based on a rhodamine WT dye study. Average surface overflow rates were adjusted accordingly and measured 19.1
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were installed, versus 14.8
m
3/m
2
day when the Aquamats
® were removed for the overall basin. These rates are lower than previous recommendations for treating aquaculture effluents, but resulted in high solids removal and consistently low TSS effluent (average <2
mg/L), which may be necessary for strict discharge permits. Use of the overall basin minimized the occurrence of TSS measurements >2
mg/L by 50%. For the first half of the sedimentation basin, the overflow rate averaged 44.1
m
3/m
2
day with Aquamats
® versus 35.8
m
3/m
2
day without Aquamats
®. The majority of effluent treatment occurred within the first half of the basin, which was responsible for 84% and 94% of overall TSS removal, 42% and 100% of overall NH
3-N removal and 61% and 80% of overall TP removal during normal and cleaning/harvesting conditions, respectively.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.aquaeng.2006.01.001</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0144-8609 |
| ispartof | Aquacultural engineering, 2006-08, Vol.35 (2), p.166-178 |
| issn | 0144-8609 1873-5614 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_20697914 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
| subjects | Animal aquaculture Animal productions Aquamats biofiltration Biological and medical sciences Effluent treatment effluents fish culture fish farms Freshwater Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects Isopoda Oncorhynchus mykiss pollution control Raceway raceways Sedimentation sedimentation basin settling basins Solids removal Tracer trout wastewater treatment water flow water quality |
| title | Treatment of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) raceway effluent using baffled sedimentation and artificial substrates |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T10%3A47%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment%20of%20rainbow%20trout%20(%20Oncorhynchus%20mykiss)%20raceway%20effluent%20using%20baffled%20sedimentation%20and%20artificial%20substrates&rft.jtitle=Aquacultural%20engineering&rft.au=Stewart,%20Nathan%20T.&rft.date=2006-08-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=166&rft.epage=178&rft.pages=166-178&rft.issn=0144-8609&rft.eissn=1873-5614&rft.coden=AQEND6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2006.01.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E14782611%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=14782611&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0144860906000021&rfr_iscdi=true |