Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RAS A Etudier
RAS A Etudier
www.elsevier.com/locate/aqua-online
Abstract
Fluidized-sand beds are an efficient, relatively compact, and cost-competitive technology for removing dissolved wastes
from recirculating aquaculture systems, especially in relatively cool or coldwater applications that require maintaining
consistently low levels of ammonia and nitrite. This paper describes several types of flow injection mechanisms used in
commercial fluidized-sand biofilters and provides criteria for design of flow distribution mechanisms at the bottom of the
fluidized bed. This paper also summarizes the most critical aspects of sand selection, as well as methods for calculating or
experimentally measuring fluidization velocities and pressure drop for a given filter sand size distribution. Estimates of
nitrification rate, ammonia removal efficiency, carbon dioxide production, and oxygen consumption across fluidized-sand
biofilters are also provided for various conditions. Fluidized-sand biofilter operational and management practices are also
described.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: Fluidize; Biofilter; Biofiltration; Ammonia removal; Sand; Water recirculation or reuse; Aquaculture
1. Introduction
Biofilter selection influences capital and operating
costs of recirculating aquaculture systems, their water
quality, and even the consistency of water treatment. A
perfect biofilter would remove all of the ammonia
entering the unit, produce no nitrite, support dense
microbial growth on an inexpensive support material
that does not capture solids, require little or no water
* Tel.: +1 304 870 2211; fax: +1 304 870 2208.
E-mail address: s.summerfelt@freshwaterinstitute.org.
276
Nomenclature
Ab
Aorif
A1
C
Deq
D10
D50
D60
D90
g
Hbed
Horif
L
Le
DP
Qbiof
Qorif
Re1
Sb
SGp
SGw
T
UC
vmf
v0
Vb
Greek letters
e
static bed porosity of a loose packed
bed, i.e., void fraction (unitless)
expanded bed void fraction (unitless)
ee
m
fluid viscosity (g/cm/s)
r
fluid density (g/cm3)
density of a particle of media (g/cm3)
rp
c
sphericity, the ratio of the surface area of
a sphere of equal volume to the actual
surface area of the particle (unitless)
Farm
cost ($)
Cost, US$
per kg/year
668000
620000
296000
124000
76000
0.31
0.28
0.14
0.054
0.036
277
through the FSB and exits the top of this vessel, the
elevation achieved is used to gravity flow the water
through the carbon dioxide stipping unit, low head
oxygenator, culture tank, particle trap, and microscreen filter, returning to the pump sump. So the
pumping energy through the FSB supplies approximately 90% of the mechanical power used within
these recirculating systems, i.e., the remaining 10%
of the mechanical power is used to ventilate the
stripping columns and intermittently turn the drum
filters.
The purpose of this paper is to provide design and
operation criteria for conventional fluidized-sand
biofilters. Toward this end the paper provides (1)
methods and criteria for obtaining uniform flow
distribution in FSBs, (2) criteria for filter sand
selection, (3) techniques for measuring bed expansion
for a given filter sand, (4) calculation of headloss
across expanded beds, (5) calculations of the
minimum water velocity required to provide fluidization and the bed expansion achieved at a given water
velocity, (6) descriptions of the effects of biofilm
growth on fluidization hydraulics and vertical stratification within the expanded bed, (7) estimates of
nitrification rate and ammonia removal efficiency, (8)
estimates of dissolved carbon dioxide production and
dissolved oxygen consumption, and (9) practices for
operating and managing FSBs.
278
279
Fig. 1. Four of the most common flow distribution manifold systems used in conventional fluidized-sand biofilters for recirculating aquaculture
systems include: (A) the vertical pipe manifold, (B) the horizontal pipe manifold, (C) the false floor orifice distribution plate, and (D) the
CycloBio1 w/slotted inlet manifold.
280
Fig. 1. (Continued ).
281
(2)
(3)
282
velocities suitable for introducing a controlling headloss (Montgomery, 1985). Creating a headloss across
the orifice that is much lower than the head required
to expand the sand bed would not provide uniform
flow distribution under the sand bed, but rather it
would produce water spouting through regions of the
bed while other regions of the bed remain static. In
contrast, an orifice headloss that is significantly larger
than the head required to expand the sand bed would
increase pumping costs and also produce a jetting
action that would be more likely to damage the base
of the vessel and abrade the sand in the jetting zone.
Water jets emitting from the downward facing orifices (at an angle 458 below horizontal) have been
known to sand blast holes through a 6 mm thick
fiberglass floor of a FSB within only 7 days of
start-up (Summerfelt et al., 1996). The AWWA
(1971) has also reported on jet action producing
problems at the base of filter beds. Therefore, to
reduce the likelihood of the nozzle created jet action
from sand-blasting through the vessel wall or floor,
an abrasion resistant concrete pad or brick liner
should be constructed on the biofilter floor, approximately 1015 cm below the distribution pipes, and
around the bottom 1020 cm of the sides of the FRP
vessel (Summerfelt et al., 1996).
2.5. CycloBio1 with slotted inlet manifold
The CycloBio1 FSB was developed by Neil
Helwig of Marine Biotech Inc. (Beverly, MA)
specifically for application in recirculating aquaculture systems, but it uses a flow distribution mechanism
that is radically different from that used by the vertical
pipe manifold, horizontal pipe-manifold, and falsefloor flow distribution mechanisms (Fig. 1) (Timmons
et al., 2000; Summerfelt et al., 2001, 2004b). The
CycloBio1 FSB injects water tangentially into an
annular space that surrounds the base of the circular
vessel and is integrated with the vessel wall. This
continuous tangential injection of water through the
annular space creates strong water rotation within the
annular chamber and also forces water to enter the
FSB vessel through a slot at the base of the sand bed
and around the circumference of the vessel (Fig. 1). An
inverted cone, incorporated into the center of the floor
of the vessel (Fig. 1), is used to increase the upwardflowing water velocity at the base of the sand bed,
283
Fig. 2. Sieve analysis of three filter sands that were evaluated in fluidized-sand biofilters at the Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute. The
sands D10, D60, and D90 are the sieve opening sizes that would pass only the smallest 10, 60, or 90% of the granular sample by weight. D10 is the
sands effective size.
284
(5)
r
L
(6)
the D10, D50, D90, UC, rp, e, and c for a given sand are
obtained or assumed, these values can be used to
calculate the superficial water velocity required to
achieve a given bed expansion at a given water
temperature, as will be discussed below.
3.2.1. Minimum fluidization velocity
Wen and Yu (1966) developed an equation to
predict the minimum fluidization velocity vmf at the
point of incipient fluidization of the sand, which only
requires knowledge of the equivalent diameter of the
sand granule (Deq), rp, r and fluid viscosity (m):
rrp rg 0:5
m
33:72 0:0408D3eq
vmf
m2
rDeq
33:7m
(7)
rDeq
3.2.2. Bed expansion versus velocity
The porosity of an expanded bed (ee), which can
never exceed 1.0 as the expanded bed depth goes to
infinity, can be calculated from e, L, and the expanded
bed depth (Le), e.g. (Weber, 1972):
ee 1 1 e
285
L
Le
(8)
e3
(9)
Dharmarajah and Cleasby (1986) fit the curve resulting from the plot of A1 versus Re1 using a step-wise
regression procedure, and report the polynomial relationship:
(10)
286
Table 2
Calculations of media characteristics (from Summerfelt and Cleasby, 1996)
Property
Definition. The porosity of a static bed of granular media is the fraction of the volume within
of voids
the bed which is not occupied by particles: e volume
volume of bed . The porosity required for fluidization
calculations is the porosity of the static bed after it has been fully expanded (200%) and has just
been brought to rest by gradually cutting back the hydraulic loading rate until the flow is zero
Determination. The static bed void fraction of the sample of clean sand can be calculated from the
total mass of the clean sand sample, the total volume of the sand sample, and the density of
density of sand
sand: e 1 total mass of sand=particle
volume of bed
Particle density, rp
Definition. The density of a particle is the ratio of particle mass to particle volume including
its pore volume but excluding inter-particle voids
Determination. The density of a particle can be determined for porous and non-porous media
Non-porous media: The density of non-porous media can be estimated by quantifying the volume
displaced by a given mass of particles
Porous media: Geldart (1990) described methods for calculating the density of porous particles
Definition. The density of the bed is ratio of bed mass (dry) to bed volume
Determination. The density of the bed of granular media can be found by measuring the mass
of the media and dividing by the volume that mass occupies
Definition. The particle size distribution is defined as the relative percentage by weight of grains
of each the different size fractions represented in the sample
Determination. The size distribution of a sample of sand is generally determined from a sieve
analysis and results in a table of the percentage of media finer than a given opening size. A plot
on log-probability graph paper of the percent finer (normal scale) vs. the corresponding
sieve size (log scale) will show a straight line for most natural sands (Weber, 1972)
Definition. The effective size is defined as the opening size that will pass only the smallest
10%, by weight, of the granular sample
Determination. The D10 can be taken from a log-probability plot of the particle size distribution
Definition. The calculating size is the sieve size for which 90% of the grains by weight are
smaller. The D90 provides an estimate of the largest sand in the sample and is the value used
during design to calculate the velocity required to fluidize even the largest sand
Determination. The D90 can be determined from the particle size distribution as plotted on
log-probability paper or can be approximated (Cleasby, 1990) by: D90 D10 101:67 logUC
Uniformity coefficient, UC
Definition. The uniformity coefficient is a quantitative measure of the variation in particle size
of a given media and is defined as the ratio of D60:D10
Determination. The UC for a given granular media equals the D60 divided by the D10 values
which are determined after plotting the results of a sieve analysis on log-probability paper
Definition. The equivalent diameter of an irregular particle is defined as the diameter of a sphere
with the same volume as the particle
Determination. The average equivalent diameter of a sample of sand can be found by determining
the mass of the average grain. The equivalent diameter of the sand can be calculated
1=3
mass of one grain
from: Deq p6 average
particle density of sand
Definition. The particle specific surface area is defined as the surface area per unit of particle
volume. The Sp for particles which are perfectly spherical can be calculated
2
surface area
4pR
3
6
from: Sp sphere sphere
sphere volume 4=3pR3 R D
(where R and D are the radius and diameter of the sphere, respectively). The Sp for particles which
are not completely uniform must take into account the particles shape (e.g. sphericity, c,
surface area
6
defined below): Sp particle
particle volume cDeq
287
Table 2 (Continued )
Property
Definition. The bed specific surface area is the total surface area of particles per unit of bed volume
Determination. The Sb is dependent upon how tightly the bed is packed or conversely on how much
the bed is expanded. The Sb can be calculated for a given e once Sp is known, e.g.: Sb = Sp(1 e)
Fig. 4. Relationship between fluid superficial velocity v0 and bed expansion for sand of a uniform size (Deq) assuming typical values for c
(0.75), e (0.45) and T (25 8C) (from Summerfelt and Cleasby, 1996).
288
Fig. 5. Relationship between bed expansion and superficial velocity measured at water temperatures of 4.4 8C (~) and 26.7 8C (&) and at water
salinities of 0 ppt () and 32 ppt (- - -) for a 20/40 sand expanded in a 0.61 m diameter CycloBio1 containing 0.91 m depth of initially loose
static sand. Data courtesy of Thomas Lauttenbach, Marine Biotech Inc., Beverly, MA.
(11)
The v0 measured in test columns at sand bed expansions of 20, 50, 100, and 150% are reported in Table 3
for four filter sand samples with a D10 of approximately 0.24, 0.45, 0.60, and 0.80 mm. Table 3 also
contains estimates of v0 that were calculated using the
Dharmarajah and Cleasby (1986) model, i.e., Eqs. (9)
289
Table 3
Water velocities required to expand four different sands approximately 20, 50, 100, and 150%
Sands tested
Retaining sieve
mesh sizes
Effective size,
D10 (mm)
Uniformity
coefficient
D50 (mm)
40/70
30/50
20/40
18/30
0.24
0.45
0.60
0.80
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.3
0.37
0.59
0.79
0.99
Velocity requirements
20% expansion
50% expansion
100% expansion
150% expansion
(cm/s)
0.5/0.4
1.0/0.8
1.4/1.4
1.9/1.9
0.7/0.9
1.3/1.5
2.0/2.4
2.7/3.1
0.8/1.4
1.9/2.2
3.1/3.3
4.1/4.2
1.3/1.9
2.7/2.9
4.6/4.2
5.9/5.2
The four sands tested had a D10 of 0.24, 0.45, 0.60, and 0.80 mm.
The first v0 reported is an average of measurements made during
fluidization tests in a 10 cm diameter test column. The second v0 was
predicted for the mean sand size (D50) using the Dharmarajah and
Cleasby (1986) model, assuming that e and c are 0.45 and 0.75,
respectively, and a water temperature of 25 8C.
and (10), assuming e and c of 0.45 and 0.75, respectively, a water temperature of 25 8C, and D50 for each
sand of 0.37, 0.59, 0.79, and 0.99 mm. Comparing the
two v0 reported in Table 3, for a given sand at a given
sand bed expansion, indicates that the Dharmarajah
and Cleasby (1986) model can be used to estimate
sand bed expansion. However, the assumption that
each of the sand samples was represented by a e and c
of 0.45 and 0.75, respectively, and a D50 did create
some error in estimating the v0 requirements for a
given sand (Table 3). Therefore, conducting the sand
bed expansion tests in a test column is still deemed
necessary.
3.4. Comparing sand bed expansion measured in
test columns with full-scale FSB tests
Over the last decade, three of the five flow
distribution mechanisms illustrated in Fig. 1 were
evaluated at TCFFI in Shepherdstown, West Virginia,
i.e., the vertical probe system (Heinen et al., 1996;
Weaver, 2005), the horizontal pipe manifold (Summerfelt et al., 1996), and the CycloBio1 FSB
(Summerfelt et al., 2004b). The full-scale vertical
probe FSB and the horizontal pipe manifold FSB both
appeared to produce a sand bed expansion that were
consistent with or slightly lower (within approximately
290
Fig. 6. Comparison of three sands in expansion tests in a 2.7 m diameter fluidized-sand CycloBio1 biofilter (
column (^) (from Summerfelt et al., 2004b).
291
292
293
Timmons, 1998; Brazil, 2005). When the TAN concentration in the fish culture tank is held constant, a
low f rem results in higher water flow requirements that,
even at relatively low head, can produce rather high
energy requirements to move sufficient water to meet
the TAN concentration limit. Overestimates of the
biofilter f rem would result in the design of a water
recirculating system that could not maintain TAN
concentrations within the culture tank within the limits
defined in the design.
4.1. Nitrification rate and ammonia removal
efficiency
The total surface area available for microbial
attachment is the principle design parameter used to
define the mass of TAN that a biofilter can remove
daily. However, FSBs present an interesting dilemma
regarding the effective use of surface area, as typical
filter sands used in FSBs provide specific surface areas
of anywhere from 4000 to 20,000 m2/m3. The specific
surface area of a loosely-packed bed of static sand (Sb)
is relatively large because specific surface area is
inversely proportional to the mean diameter of the
sand (D50) as described by the equation:
Sb
61 e
CD50
(15)
(16)
294
Table 4
Average concentrations (S.E.) of dissolved oxygen, total ammonia-nitrogen, and nitrite in the test column influent and effluents reported by
Tsukuda et al. (1997)
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Total ammonia-nitrogen
Nitrite
10.05 0.16
0.62 0.04
0.038 0.002
0.45 mm
0.60 mm
0.80 mm
5.69 0.19
0.07 0.02
0.067 0.005
9.08 0.24
0.55 0.04
0.061 0.004
9.54 0.21
0.57 0.04
0.051 0.004
9.61 0.15
0.57 0.05
0.045 0.006
Table 5
Average removal efficiencies (S.E.) of dissolved oxygen and total ammonia-nitrogen across the four different sand sizes as reported by
Tsukuda et al. (1997)
Parameter
Dissolved oxygen
Total ammonia-nitrogen
0.45 mm
0.60 mm
0.80 mm
43 1
89 2
10 1
11 2
51
82
41
83
295
Table 6
Mean ammonia removal rates (S.E.) across the four different sand sizes as reported by Tsukuda et al. (1997)
Total ammonia-nitrogen removal rates
g/day
kg/m3 biofilm expanded bed per day
kg/m3 clean static bed per day
g/m2 clean sand per day
0.45 mm
0.60 mm
0.80 mm
8.0 0.5
0.41 0.03
1.5 0.09
0.13 0.01
2.2 0.3
0.19 0.03
0.48 0.07
0.06 0.01
2.5 0.5
0.31 0.06
0.45 0.09
0.08 0.02
3.2 1.2
0.39 0.15
0.56 0.21
0.13 0.05
296
Table 7
Diameter (mean S.E.) of cleaned sand and of bio-floc particles collected from the upper, middle, and lower portions of the FSB
Mean sand size (mm)
Stripper off
Upper bed
Middle bed
Lower bed
0.289 0.004
0.319 0.005
0.420 0.004
1.096 0.077
1.706 0.114
None present
257 18
203 13
59 7
Stripper on
Upper bed
Middle bed
Lower bed
0.305 0.004
0.330 0.003
0.430 0.004
0.887 0.044
0.936 0.031
None present
231 20
207 11
68 4
In addition, approximate bed expansions are reported for samples taken from upper, middle, and lower regions of the biofilter and fluidized in
10.2 cm diameter test columns at a superficial velocity of 0.63 cm/s.
(76 1 in.) and 1.76 0.03 m (69 1 in.), respectively, during the control period and the period when
the biofilm stripping mechanism was activated.
However, the biofilm stripping mechanism was able
to maintain a fairly constant bed depth without the
having to siphon biosolids from the top of the bed,
which was required when the biofilm stripping
mechanism was not in use.
The TAN and nitrite-nitrogen concentrations
exiting the FSB biofilter were both low, i.e., TAN
was 0.08 and 0.12 mg/L and nitrite-nitrogen was 0.04
and 0.07 mg/L, when operated with or without the
biofilm stripping mechanism, respectively (Table 8).
In addition, TAN removal efficiency and removal rate
were comparable, i.e., removal efficiency of 88 and
82% and removal rate of 164 and 146 g TAN removed
per day per cubic meter of expanded bed, when
operated with or without the biofilm stripping
mechanism, respectively (Table 8).
Table 8
Total ammonia-nitrogen (TAN), nitrite-nitrogen, and oxygen biofilter inlet and outlet concentrations, as well as biofilter removal efficiencies and
removal rates within a FSB operated with or without a biofilm shearing mechanism
Biofilter inlet
(mg/L)
Biofilter outlet
(mg/L)
Removal
efficiency (%)
Stripper off
TAN
Nitrite-nitrogen
Oxygen
0.63 0.02
0.10 0.02
10.0 0.2
0.12 0.02
0.07 0.02
6.2 0.2
82 2
90 2
38 2
146 8
157 9
1070 80
Stripper on
TAN
Nitrite-nitrogen
Oxygen
0.66 0.01
0.06 0.00
9.4 0.3
0.08 0.01
0.04 0.00
4.5 0.2
88 1
94 0
50 3
164 5
169 5
1380 140
297
Table 9
Nitrification performance using two different sands in a full-scale CycloBio1 FSB as reported by Summerfelt et al. (2004b)
#1 Mapleton sand
1.1% makeup
6.4% makeup
3.4% makeup
8.4% makeup
Total ammonia-nitrogen
Biofilter inlet (mg/L)
Biofilter outlet (mg/L)
Biofilter delta TAN (mg/L)
TAN removal efficiency (%)
TAN removal rate, g/day/m3 of expanded bed depth
1.49 0.04
0.22 0.01
1.24 0.03
83.1 0.2
160
1.18 0.04
0.09 0.01
1.09 0.03
92.2 0.7
140
1.68 0.02
1.02 0.05
0.660 0.066
39.3 3.5
170
1.07 0.11
0.38 0.01
0.69 0.10
64.2 2.9
170
Nitrite-nitrogen
Biofilter inlet (mg/L)
Biofilter outlet (mg/L)
0.28 0.03
0.25 0.07
0.06 0.00
0.02 0.00
0.72 0.02
0.74 0.01
0.27 0.02
0.31 0.01
25 0
28.5 2
42
Dissolved oxygen
Biofilter inlet (mg/L)
Biofilter outlet (mg/L)
Biofilter delta O2 (mg/L)
Dissolved organic carbon
Biofilter outlet (mg/L)
Makeup flow, % total flow
Feed (kg/day)
Flow through biofilter (L/min)
Biofilter bed depth (m)
20 2
28 2
81
9.4 0.1
2.5 0.0
6.9 0.2
10.9 0.4
4.6 0.1
6.4 0.3
7.4 0.1
1.1 0.0
126.4 3.1
2696 17
5.27 0.01
2.7
6.4 0.1
136.7 11.7
2716 6
5.27 0.01
8.1 0.1
3.4 0.1
143.2 4.6
4497 11.5
4.37 0.01
4.1 0.7
8.4 0.3
152.7 0
4447 0
4.37 0.01
298
1.2 mg/L across the FSB, depending upon concentration of dissolved oxygen entering the FSB that was
assumed to be the saturation concentration in cold and
warm water applications, respectively. According to
more traditional wastewater treatment biofilter technologies discussed by Zhu and Chen (2002), dissolved
oxygen will begin to limit TAN removal in a submerged
biofilter when the ratio of dissolved oxygen to TAN
concentration becomes less than 1.52.0. Therefore, if
the TAN concentration exiting the FSB was 1.0 mg/L,
then at least 1.52.0 mg/L of dissolved oxygen would
have to be present to prevent oxygen from limiting
nitrification. In the fine sand FSB applications described
above, TAN outlet concentrations were less than
0.3 mg/L, so dissolved oxygen concentration would
not be limiting until dissolved oxygen concentrations
approached 0.6 mg/L.
To counter the dissolved carbon dioxide production
and dissolved oxygen consumption across the FSB
and also across the fish culture tank(s) within this
recirculating system a forced-ventilated cascade
aeration column is typically placed immediately after
the FSB to reduce dissolved carbon dioxide concentrations and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations
to near saturation (Summerfelt et al., 2003; Summerfelt and Sharrer, 2004).
299
300
Note that the blind flange over the access port into the annular
chamber must not be removed until after water inside the vessel has
been removed.
301
302
Culture Series 101. Central Regional Aquaculture Center Publication Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, pp. 277309.
Summerfelt, S.T., Cleasby, J.L., 1996. A review of hydraulics in
fluidized-bed biological filters. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 39
(3), 11611173.
Summerfelt, S.T., Sharrer, M.J., 2004. Design implication of biofilter carbon dioxide production within recirculating salmonid
culture systems. Aquacult. Eng. 32, 171182.
Summerfelt, S.T., Vinci, B.J., 2004. Avoiding water quality failures.
Part 2. Recirculating systems. World Aquacult. 35 (4) 911, 71.
Summerfelt, S.T., Wade, E.M., 1998. Fluidized-sand biofilters
installed at two farms. Recirc Today 1 (1), 1821.
Summerfelt, S.T., Hankins, J.A., Durant, M.D., Goldman, J.N.,
1996. Removing obstructions: modified pipe-lateral flow distribution mechanism reduces backflow in fluidized-sand biofilters. Water Environ. Technol. 8 (11), 3949.
Summerfelt, S.T., Bebak-Williams, J., Tsukuda, S., 2001. Controlled systems: water reuse and recirculation. In: Wedemeyer,
G. (Ed.), Fish Hatchery Management. 2nd ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 285395.
Summerfelt, S.T., Davidson, J.T., Waldrop, T., Vinci, B.J., 2003.
Evaluation of full-scale carbon dioxide stripping columns in a
coldwater recirculating system. Aquacult. Eng. 28, 155169.
Summerfelt, S.T., Wilton, G., Roberts, D., Savage, T., Fonkalsrud,
K., 2004a. Developments in recirculating systems for arctic char
culture in North America. Aquacult. Eng. 30, 3171.
Summerfelt, S.T., Davidson, J., Helwig, N., 2004b. Evaluation of a
full-scale CycloBio fluidized-sand biofilter in a coldwater recirculating system. In: Rakestraw, T.T., Douglas, L.S., Correa, A.,
Flick, G.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Roanoke, VA, pp. 227237.
Sutton, P.M., Mishra, P.N., 1991. Biological fluidized beds for
wastewater treatment: a state-of-the-art review. Water Environ.
Technol. 3 (8), 5256.
Thomasson, M.P., 1991. Nitrification in fluidized-bed sand filters for
use in recirculating aquaculture systems. Masters Thesis.
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
Timmons, M.B., Summerfelt, S.T., 1998. Application of fluidizedsand biofilters. In: Libey, G.S., Timmons, M.B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Recirculating