Performance of disc, conventional and automatic screen filters under rainbow trout fish farm effluent for drip irrigation system
This study aims to investigate the performance of disc, conventional screen, and automatic screen filters when rainbow troutfish effluent is used for irrigation. The experiments were performed in a fish farm, located in the north-west of Iran. Thedisc and conventional screen filters were tested at p...
| Autores: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión aceptada para publicación |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:10256/24165 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10256/24165 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Regatge per degoteig Aqüicultura Trickle irrigation Aquaculture Filtres i filtració Filters and filtration |
| Sumario: | This study aims to investigate the performance of disc, conventional screen, and automatic screen filters when rainbow troutfish effluent is used for irrigation. The experiments were performed in a fish farm, located in the north-west of Iran. Thedisc and conventional screen filters were tested at pressures of 150 and 300 kPa, and the automatic screen filter at 200 and300 kPa. The filtration experiments continued until the backwashing was reached. The results showed that (1) the initial headloss of disc and conventional screen filters was 40 kPa, while for the automatic screen filter was 5 kPa. (2) In the disc filter,with increasing working pressure, the filtered volume significantly (P < 0.05) increased from 9.7 to 14.5 m 3 m −2 (10 kPa) −1 ,but for conventional and automatic screen filters, it was constant at 5.5 and 7.0 m 3 m −2 (10 kPa)−1 , respectively, and all ofthem had significant (P < 0.05) differences. (3) In the disc filter, with increasing the working pressure, the filtered volumeto reach backwashing significantly (P < 0.01) increased from 80.9 to 104.4 m 3 m −2 , while in the conventional screen filterincreased from 14.1 to 16.4 m 3 m −2 . This volume at two working pressures was 29.5 m 3 m −2 for the automatic screen filter.These volumes were significantly different (P < 0.01) between filters. (4) The mass retention for the disc, conventional, andautomatic screen filters were 28.88, 9.11, and 7.72 g min −1 m −2 , respectively, and tended to increase at lower working pres-sures. Based on this index, the difference in the performance of the filters was significant (P < 0.01). (5) Overall, the bestperformance was for the disc filter, and after that was the automatic screen filters, but the period of time to operate for thefilters until backwashing time was less than half an hour, which is not applicable under farm conditions |
|---|