You are on page 1of 14

Aquacultural Engineering6 (1987) 127-140

Comparative Hydraulics of a Rectangular Cross-flow Rearing Unit


Barnaby J. Watten and L. Todd Beck
Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., Department of Technology and Energy Assessment, Brurmer Island Aquaculture Project, PO Box 221, York Haven, Pennsylvania 17370, USA

ABSTRACT The cross-flow rearing unit described was designed to provide completely mixed flow reactor (CMFR) behavior in a standard rectangular vessel with little required tank modification. Water is distributed uniformly along one side of the vessel, via a manifold, and is collected in a drain gutter assembly running the length of the opposite side. The influent is jetted directly at the water surface with sufficient force to establish rotary circulation about the longitudinal axis. Hydraulic characteristics of the tank are identified based on an analysis of residence time distribution and are compared with those established for standard rectangular and circular tanks of equal liquid capacity (1"715 mS). Results confirm the crossflow tank is operating as a CMFR both with and withoutfish present. This tank type appears particularly suited for high density culture applications requiring minimal flow. Specific advantages include: (1) a homogeneous content, (2) self-cleaning properties, (3) efficient use of water supplies and pressure, (4) velocity control, and (5) the flexibility of operating as a plug flow type rearing unit during flushing or fish handling operations.

NOMENCLATURE
Tracer concentration in effluent above normal supply level (mg liter- l) Tracer concentration in effluent at time i (mg liter- ~) Ci Cmin Tracer concentration in influent following step down (mg liter- 1) Tracer concentration in influent above normal supply level (mg Co liter- l) ACmax Maximum change (negative) in tracer concentration (mg liter -1)
127

Aquacuhural Engineering 0144-8609/87/S03.50-- Elsevier Applied Science


Publishers Ltd. England, 1987. Printed in Great Britain

128

B.J. Watten, L. Todd Beck

D D]IuL L Q
t.

Dispersion coefficient (m 2 s-

1)

t V
O2

Vessel dispersion number, dimensionless Characteristic length (m) Volumetric flow rate (liters min- l) Time (min) V/Q, theoretical mean retention time (min) Calculated mean retention time (rain) Volume of liquid in tank (liters) Fluid velocity (m s-x) Variance about ic (mirl 2) t/i, normalized time, dimensionless INTRODUCTION

Research at the Brunner Island facility is directed towards establishing the most appropriate technology for utilizing thermal effluent for aquaculture purposes. Primary emphasis has been placed on the high density culture of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), hybrid striped bass (Morone saxatilis x Morone chrysops ) and tilapia ( Oreochromis aureus ) in raceways receiving supply water supersaturated with dissolved oxygen (DO) (Watten and Beck, 1985). The raceways used, measuring 3.1 m wide x 1.1 m deep x 61 m long, were originally designed to simulate the performance of a plug flow reactor (PFR); i.e. water introduced into the vessel at one end moves through it with constant and uniform velocity and is discharged at the opposite end. Although the rectangular shape offers the advantages of ease of flushing and fish handling (Piper et al., 1982), velocities are characteristically low resulting in fish with poor stamina (Burrows and Chenoweth, 1970). More importantly, a gradient in DO and fish metabolites is established along the longitudinal axis of the tank promoting disparity in fish distribution, fish quality (Burrows and Chenoweth, 1970) and, as evidenced in production trials recently conducted at our facility, mortality and growth. The extent of the gradient established is proportional to the fish biomass present (Westers and Pratt, 1977). Thus, this potential problem is of particular concern in high density culture applications. Circulating rearing units, including the Swedish (Piper et al., 1982), circular (Larmoyeux et al., 1973) and Burrows types (Burrows and Chenoweth, 1970), are operated as completely mixed flow reactors (CMFR) and as such avoid the problems outlined above. Water introduced under pressure establishes a circulating flow which, in addition to maintaining a homogeneous content, provides (Piper et al., 1982): (1)

Hydraulics of a rectangular cross-flow rearing unit

129

self-cleaning properties, (2) efficient use of available water supplies, and (3) velocity control. The cross-flow tank described here was designed to offer the hydraulic characteristics of a CMFR yet retain the desirable rectangular shape of the raceways currently in use. The design was intended to provide an alternative to the Burrows-type raceway modification that, at our facility, was considered uneconomical in terms of both construction and energy requirements. In this paper, the hydraulic characteristics of the cross-flow tank are identified based on an analysis of residence time distribution. Data are compared with those established for standard rectangular and circular tanks of equal liquid capacity. To test the hypothesis that fish influence hydraulic behavior, performance was assessed both with and without channel catfish present in each tank type. In addition, correlation is established among cross-flow velocity, operating pressure, and flow rate.

TANK DESIGN The cross-flow tank is rectangular with a depth-to-width ratio of about 1 to 1 (Fig. 1, Tank B). Water is distributed uniformly along the length of one side of the tank, via a manifold, and is collected in a drain gutter
SIDEVIEWS , ..... ii ::::[ I.(k:mSTAND FIFE 33~00m TRACER ~ ENDVIEWS INFLUENT --I, rl ;~:tE~:'i~:~

SUPPLY MANIFOLD WITH/'i" T 15x7.gmmDIkHOLES ,.~ TANKA

DSF i SUPPLY MANIFOLD WITH42xS~mm DIk HOLES~...~. TRACER~I ~__ T T TTTTT ~.T TTT TT T..~r

~,---73.7cm ---~

INFLUENT -~%

| ~.~t 7,6mDRAIN VALUE ~:~"i~-'- REAR FLOOR DRAIN


r

I
"

| ~ ,'

J ,I

Fig. 1. Dimensions of the rectangular test tanks. Tank A represents the conventional or plug-flow configuration. Tank B represents the cross or completely mixed flow configuration. Note that the side view of Tank B's supply manifold has been depicted above its true position in the tank. The effluent sample point is marked DSP.

130

B.J. Watten, L. Todd Beck

assembly running the length of the opposite side. The influent is jetted directly at the water surface with sufficient force to induce rotary circulation about the longitudinal axis. The contents of the tank are intended to be homogeneous with water mixing in the circumferential but not longitudinal direction. Therefore, unlike alternative CMFR designs, dissolved or suspended matter introduced at one point will not necessarily pass through or circulate among the entire group of fish in the vessel. It was also intended that the cross-flow velocity would be sufficient to scour solids from the tank floor allowing this material to be purged continuously with the tank overflow. Overflow exits the tank through a series of standpipes which project downward from the drain gutter." The standpipes extend to a depth at which the rotating contents are flowing upwards in a vertical direction, thus eliminating the need for solids to make abrupt changes in direction prior to being purged. Overflow collected in the gutter is discharged through a dam wall at the rear of the tank. The contents of the tank are drained completely by opening a gate valve positioned in the dam at floor level. When fish are to be crowded with a screen, or if the tank is to be flushed, a standpipe is inserted in the rear floor drain to maintain the water level below the drain gutter assembly. With this drain configuration, the cross-flow tank can then be converted from CMFR to a PFR type rearing unit by diverting water from the side-mounted manifold to an auxiliary diffuser (not shown in Fig. 1 ) positioned at the head end of the vessel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Background
Hydraulic behavior is evaluated here, as in previous rearing unit studies (Burrows and Chenoweth, 1955; Hughes et al., 1974; Burley and Klapsis, 1985), using methodology developed by Danckwerts (1953) to characterize non-ideal flow within process reactors. The analysis requires a pulse or step change in an influent (non-reactive) tracer concentration. Monitoring the response of the effluent and developing a rectangular-coordinate plot of tracer concentration versus time establishes the exit-age distribution of material flowing through the vessel. From these data flow anomalies, such as short circuiting, can be identified as well as the variables to, a2 and D/pL. fc represents the mean residence time of a fluid element within the reactor whereas cr~ represents the dispersion about the mean. With a step down in tracer concentration, f~ and 02 are calculated as follows (Levenspiel, 1979):

Hydraulics of a rectangular cross-flow rearing unit

131

o ( Cmin- Ci) dt

ic=

ACmR~

(1)

2 [ t ( f m i n - C,)dt a =
2 JO

ACm~

-tc

-2

(2)

Atc less than the theoretical retention time lr establishes the presence of stagnant regions within the reactor. The extent of these regions expressed as a fraction of the reactor's total liquid volume is one minus the quotient of fc/L A ~ greater than f is not in accord with the Law of Conservation of Matter and as such is used as an indicator of error in analytical procedure (Levenspiel, 1979, 1985). The degree of axial dispersion, or mixing within a reactor is characterized by the dimensionless group D//uL. This group, termed the vessel dispersion number, ranges in value from zero for ideal plug flow to infinity for completely mixed flow reactor behavior. In the case of a vessel operating with turbulent flow within its restricted inlet and outlet, D//uL is related to a 2 as follows (Levenspiel, 1979):

~2 = 2( D/IuL ) - 2( D/laL )2[1 - e - uL/D] t

(3)

Analyses
The dimensions of the three tank types evaluated are given in Figs 1 and 2. All tanks were constructed of fiberglass with a similar finish. The liquid capacity of each tank was set at 1.715 m 3 prior to the stocking of test fish. Calibration was achieved by transferring water from one tank to another and adjusting standpipes accordingly. The resultant operating levels in the cross-flow, rectangular and circular tanks were, respectively, 68-6, 66.0 and 65.9 cm. Water from an elevated reservoir flowed by gravity into each tank at a rate of 52.7 liters min- 1 providing a retention time, L of 32.5 min. Flow rate was measured using a stopwatch and container of known capacity. Residence time distribution was identified based on the response of each tank type to a reduction in tracer concentration from one steady value to another. Chloride was used as the non-reactive tracer. A 0"315 N NaC1 solution was dispersed in the water supply pipe of each tank at a

132

B. J. Watten, L. Todd Beck

T R A C E R

SUPPLY MANIFOLO WITH

kr~,, at,~.s-..~
....... i

~Tlm-~ n',

Fig. 2. Dimensions of the circular test tank representing the conventional completely mixed flow configuration. The influent is directed tangentially at an angle of 83* from the horizonal. The effluent sample point is marked DSP.

rate that provided a 1-1.5 fold increase in CI- concentration above the normal influent level of 9"3 mg liter-1. The brine was dispersed immediately upstream of a series of internal baffle plates which served to mix the brine with the influent just prior to distribution. Brine flow was provided by a peristaltic pump operating at a constant speed. A step down in tracer concentration was initiated once constant and equal C1concentrations were established in both the influent and effluent. The step down was achieved by terminating brine flow and thus returning influent C1- concentrations to the normal water supply level. Samples of the influent and effluent were then taken at periodic intervals for C1analysis. Chloride concentrations were determined by titration using the argentometric method (APHA, 1975). Tracer tests conducted with fish present in the tanks were initiated between 23.00 and 24.00 h to minimize outside disturbances. Each tank was stocked on 13 July 1984 with 49.4 kg of channel catfish averaging 23.7 cm in fork length and 159 g in weight. The fish were fed a pelleted feed at a rate corresponding to 2% of their body weight on each of the first 4 days of a 5-day acclimation period. Tracer curves were established in duplicate for tanks with and without fish present. Water temperature

Hydraulics of a rectangular cross-flow rearing unit

133

during all tests ranged between 28.9 and 29-4C. Following data collection f~, a 2, and D/lzL were calculated based on eqns (1)-(3). Analysis of variance was used to compare mean values of the factors measured. Correlation among mean cross-flow velocity, flow rate, and operating pressure was obtained by measuring the time required for dye to travel 30 cm from a point perpendicular to, and 25 cm from, the drain gutter side of the tank. The dye was dispersed at a depth of 5 cm at four points along the length of the vessel. A manometer was used to measure static pressure within the inlet manifold at each of the flow rates tested.

RESULTS Results of the chloride tracer tests have been plotted in Fig. 3 using a normalized value of time (0) and tracer concentration (C/Co). Normalized time is obtained by dividing the observed time t by the theoretical retention time L The latter, i, is calculated by dividing the calibrated tank volume by flow rate. In those tests involving fish, a conversion factor of 0.982 liters kg- ~biomass was used to correct the calibrated tank volume for the volume displaced by the total biomass present. The conversion factor used represents the mean of a series of individual mass-volume measurements (sample size = 12; SD = 0.021 ). The performance of the cross-flow and circular tanks, as indicated by the close fit of the data to the theoretical response curves (Fig. 3), approximates that of an ideal CMFR in which a non-reactive tracer is being purged. Further evidence of CMFR behavior is provided by calculated D/~uLvalues of oo (Table 1 ). The response of the rectangular tank, however, deviated considerably from that predicted for an ideal PFR (Fig. 3). D/juL values established for this tank type averaged 0.422 (SD = 0.057)and 0-682 (SD -- 0.117), respectively, for tests conducted with and without fish; values which confirm a high degree of mixing within the vessel. The effect of fish on D/IaL was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Table 1 provides a comparison of the ratio fc/t established for each of the three tank types. Note that fc in the rectangular tank was very close to the theoretical retention time whereas i~ in both mixed flow tanks represents 73-84% of the same. Analysis of variance indicates the tank type effect on Ut is highly significant ( P < 0.01). It can also be seen that the presence of fish in the mixed flow tanks resulted in a moderate reduction in ~/f while in the rectangular tank an increase was observed. The effect of fish on this ratio, however, was not significant at the 95% confidence level. Further inspection of Table 1 reveals that variance, as indicated by the ratio of cr:/fc, was greater in tank tests not involving fish than in tests in

134
1.0" * -

B. J. Watten, L. Todd Beck

i 0J.
0,IF

RE.c'rN~U~R TANK THEORETIC PFR ALRI~PON~E

i 0.40.0"

,-.
. s. = Ae s. ,: ,

1.0~

'f' Ell i OJl-' 0.4I X~ ~ / ",,~,

CROSS FLOW TANK THEORETIC CMFR AL RESPONSE ClCo=e "~e~

mI
O~I ff 0.8

10.
, \ / ~*
0.0 o.s

, CIRCULAR TANK THEORETIC CMFR AL RESPONSE C/C=""

U-J I

1.0

1.5 2.o ~ NOmAUZEO'nZE, Ui--e.

3.0

3.s

Fig. 3. Summary of the chloride tracer studies conducted with and without 49.4 kg of channel catfish present in each tank type. Data plotted represent the mean of two observations. which fish were present. As expected, variance was also greater in the mixed flow tanks than in the rectangular tank. Both fish and tank type effects on variance Were significant ( P < 0-05) but were not correlated

(P> 0-05).
Figure 4 gives a c o m p a r i s o n of the surface velocity measured in the cross-flow tank with that predicted for an ideal P F R of the same dimensions. Note that at a given flow rate, the surface velocity measured is 7.3-8.7 times that predicted for the PFR. T h e increase in velocity within

Hydraulics of a rectangular cross-flow rearing unit


TABLE 1

135

Residence Time Distribution Characteristics SD of Three Experimental Tanks (Analyses were performed with and without 49.4 kg of channel catfish present in each tank type)

Variable Circular
Mean residence time, f(min) with fish without fish Mean ratio, icl[(%)a with fish without fish Mean variance, o 2 (min2) with fish without fish Mean ratio o~-/~(min) with fish without fish Mean dispersion number, D/uL with fish without fish 24-4 + 1"5 25"8 + 0.6 77"3 4-7 79.3 1.7 581.4+9.5 676.0 _+65.0 18.4 0"3 20.8 2.0 oz

Tank type Cross-flow


23"2 0-6 27-4 1-6 73-4 1"8 84-4 5"0 635.2 15"8 799-5 _+74"8 20-1 0"5 24.6 _ _ _ 2-3

Rectangular
31"50-6 30"61"8 99"71"8 94"25"4 515'119-0 591"5113-8 16'30"6 18-23-5 0"42 _+0"06 0"63+0"12

"The theoretical retention time for tanks with and without fish present was 31.6 and 32.5 min, respectively.

the cross-flow tank has b e e n established with a minimal pressure head requirement.

DISCUSSION Results of the analysis of residence time distribution confirm the crossflow vessel is operating as a mixed-flow reactor with p e r f o r m a n c e equivalent to that of a standard circular tank. Unlike the B u r r o w s - t y p e rectangular rearing unit (Burrows and C h e n o w e t h , 1970), C M F R behavior has b e e n achieved with little r e q u i r e d tank modification. A d d i tionally, the p o w e r required to maintain mixing is kept to a m i n i m u m by jetting water at low velocity along the entire length of the vessel. Fox and Gex (1956), in studies addressing the single phase blending of liquids, d e m o n s t r a t e d that a low velocity jet will p r o d u c e equivalent mixing results with less p o w e r than is required with a high velocity jet u n d e r conditions of equal flow.

136

B . J . Watten, L. T o d d B e c k

ClIOSSFLOWTANK

.3 em

5.~ca

>: 4.00-

9
3.00u'l

2.1~IOF.~LPLUG FLOW TANK

1.00-

.o

~5

r~o
FLOW RATE.LITER/MIN

~s

Io~o

Fig. 4. Comparison of velocity obtained in the cross-flowtank with that predicted for an ideal PFR of the same dimensions.Data plotted represent the mean of measurements taken at four locations.Static pressures within the inlet manifold(cm)are givenalso.

As noted earlier, the difference between mean residence time, to, and theoretical retention time, L is a measure of the stagnant region within a flow reactor (Danckwerts, 1953). Burrows and Chenoweth (1955), employing a stimulus-response analysis without fish, identified fc within a raceway PFR as well as a circular and Foster-Lucas type CMFR. tc established for the C M F R vessels were comparable, representing 88 and 83% of L respectively, fc established for the raceway PFR, however, indicated the entire tank volume was active. Similar results were obtained in the present study. The f~ derived for the cross-flow and circular CMFR averaged 82% of f while tc within the PFR was again greater, representing 94% of L Results of both studies indicate the inactive region within a C M F R will be larger than that of a PFR, suggesting inferior hydraulic performance. The location of the inactive area, however, as well as its extent, must also be considered. Dead areas in a rectangular PFR develop along f~ed boundaries (Burrows and Chenoweth, 1955). Decomposition products

Hydraulics of a rectangular cross-flow rearing unit

137

of excrement and debris accumulating in these areas will have a detrimental effect on water quality and may adversely affect production. Conversely, relatively high velocities are present near fLxed boundaries of the circular CMFR. The dead area formed is a torus, or doughnut shaped, and is rotating slowly above a current moving radially over the tank floor toward the center outlet (Burrows and Chenoweth, 1955; Larmoyeux et al., 1973). This inactive region, unlike that of the PFR, contributes to the self-cleaning properties of the vessel and as such is not entirely undesirable. Quiescent conditions within the dead area promote the settling of particulate matter. Solids dropping out of the region are picked up by the radial current and transported to the discharge screen (Larmoyeux et al., 1973). The inactive region of the cross-flow tank similarly promotes the purging of particulates. Dye studies have established the presence of a low velocity core rotating about the longitudinal axis of the vessel. Solids dropping out of this region are swept by the cross-flow current present at tank boundaries towards standpipes projecting downward from the drain gutter assembly. Channel catfish, under the conditions tested, had little effect on hydraulic performance (Fig. 3). D / # L and i c values established with and without fish were not different (P> 0"05). The presence of fish did, however, result in a moderate but statistically significant reduction in o2/~c. The reduction observed may be the result of fish swimming in and out of dead regions within the vessel. This movement would probably increase the degree of interchange between the active and inactive areas thereby reducing the time required to purge the tracer completely from the tank. Differences between replicate determinations of uE/fc, as measured by the coefficient of variation, decreased from a mean of 12.7% without fish to 2.6% with fish present, suggesting fish activity within a vessel may also act to stabilize hydraulic behavior. The unusual flow pattern provided by the cross-flow design does not appear to adversely affect fish behavior. Results of preliminary production trials conducted in duplicate within each of the three tank types evaluated here are given in Table 2. Flow rate and background water quality variables monitored are summarized in Table 3. Note that feed conversion in the cross-flow and rectangular PFR were similar, averaging 1-64 kg feed per kg net gain, while conversion in the circular tank was significantly higher (P<0-05), averaging 1.86 kg per kg net gain. Conversely, statistical analyses indicate ending mean length and weight achieved in the cross-flow and circular CMFR were not different (P>0-05) but were greater (P<0.05) than that obtained in the rectangular PFR. Increased fish growth in CMFR versus PFR type rearing units has also been observed by Johnson and Gastineau (1952) and

138

B.J. Watten, L. Todd Beck

TABLE 2 Results of a Production Trial Conducted in Duplicate Within Each of Three Tank Types (Tanks were stocked on 24 August 1984, with 13.6 kg of hybrid striped bass (Morone saxatilis x Morone chrysops) averaging 25.3 g in weight and 115 mm in total length. Fish were fed a pellet containing 38% protein ad libitum three times per day during a 70-day culture period. Data are ending means + standard deviations. Subsample size is designated as N. Values in the same row possessing a common letter do not differ at the 95% confidence level)

Variable Circular
Mean total length (mm) (N = 64-67) Mean individual weight (g) (N=64-67) Mean condition constant a (K x 10 3) (N-- 64-67) Mean daily gain (mg day- ~) Feed fed (kg) Total harvest weight (kg) Feed conversion (kg feed/net weight gain) Survival (%) 1884, a 89.4 ___ 6.2, a 12.8 +0.3, a 917_+88a 49.9 + 6.2, a 40"5 _+3-9, a 1"86_ 0.04, a 83.9 + 2.3, a

Tank type Cross-flow


182+ l,a 79.6 + 2-0, a 12.6+0.2, a 776+30a 38"3 + 0"20, a 37"3_+ 0-14, a 1"62 + 0.01,b 87.2 + 2.4, a

Rectangular
172+ 1,b 65.4 + 0.3, b 12.4_0.1,a 573+4b 29-3 + 0.7, b 31"5+0"5, b 1.65 + 0-09, b 89.4 + 1.8, a

"K = ( Wt/L3) 100 where Wt = final mean weight (g); L = final mean total length (cm).

Burrows and Chenoweth (1970). Stress imposed by environmental conditions can manifest itself in mortality rate, changes in body condition, and body composition (Esch and Hazen, 1980; Fagerlund et al., 1981 ). Proximate analyses (AOAC, 1975) conducted on whole fish samples taken at harvest did not reveal differences in body composition among the three tank types (P> 0.05); nor did tank type influence fish condition (P>0.05) as indexed by the proportional constant K (Table 2). A trend towards higher mortality in CMFR rearing units is evident in Table 2, but again tank-type effects were not significant (P>0"05). These results, although not definitive, suggest stress levels within each tank type are similar. In summary, studies described here have demonstrated the feasibility of establishing CMFR behavior in a rectangular tank by introducing water uniformly along one side of the vessel, via a manifold, and collecting the overflow along the length of the opposite side. The rectangular cross-flow tank appears particularly suited for high density culture

Hydraulics of a rectangular cross-flow rearing unit


TABLE 3

139

Flow Rate and Water Quality (a.m. samples) Monitored During a Production Trial Conducted in Duplicate Within Each of Three Tank Types (Data are means _+standard deviations. Sample size is designated as N)
Variable Circular Tank type Cross-flow Rectangular

6.2+0.1 Mean effluent dissolved 0 2 (mg litre -j ) (N-- 70) 104.9_+0.2 Mean tank dissolved N, + Ar (% saturation) (N= 10)h Mean effluent temperature (C) 27_+0 (N = 70)~ Mean effluent N H : N (mg litre-l) 0.43 _+0.09 (U=9) o Mean effluent NH3-N (mg litre -~) 0.02_+0.00 (N= 9)' Mean effluent pH (N= 9)~ 7.82_+0.05 Mean flow rate (liters min- 1)(N= 140)d 60.9_+0.07

6.3+0.1 106-0_+0.4 27+0 0.35 _+0.01 0.02_+0.01 7.83_+0.00 60.1 _+0.21

6.5_+0.1 104.6_+0.4 27_+0 0-26 _+0"00 0.01 _+0.00 7.88-+0.01 60-9_+0.0

"Analyses performed using standard methods (APHA, 1975). ~'Values based on an ECO Model ES-2 Weiss Saturometer. ' Calculated using disassociation constants from Emerson et al. (1975). ,/Measured using a stopwatch and container of known capacity.

applications requiring minimal flow. T h e contents of the tank have b e e n shown to be h o m o g e n e o u s . Thus, undesirable gradients in D O and fish metabolites along the length of the vessel are avoided. Additional advantages include: (1) self-cleaning properties, (2) velocity control, (3) efficient use of available water supply a n d pressure, and (4) the flexibility of operating as a P F R during flushing and fish handling operations. F u r t h e r research is being c o n d u c t e d on large-scale units to establish the effects of r o u n d i n g the b o t t o m c o r n e r s of the tank as well as to d e t e r m i n e the optim u m position of the inlet manifold and drain gutter assemblies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank D. Rottiers and C. J o h n s o n of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t Laboratory, Wellsboro, Pennsylvania, for p e r f o r m i n g the p r o x i m a t e analyses.

140

B.J. Watten, L. Todd Beck REFERENCES

AOAC (1975). Official Methods of Analysis (12th Edn), Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC. APHA (1975). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ( 14th Edn), American Public Health Association, New York, 1193 pp. Burley, R. & Klapsis, A. (1985). Flow distribution studies in fish rearing tanks. Part 2 - Analysis of hydraulic performance of 1 m square tanks. Aquacultural Engineering, 4, 113-34. Burrows, R. E. & Chenoweth, H. H. (1955). Evaluation of three types of fish rearing ponds. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Research Report, Washington DC, 39, 29 pp. Burrows, R. E. & Chenoweth, H. H. (1970). The rectangular circulating rearing pond. Prog. Fish-Cult., 32, 67-80. Danckwerts, E V. (1953). Continuous flow systems -- distribution of residence times. Chem. EngngSci., 2, 1-18. Emerson, K., Russo, R. C., Lund, R. E. & Thurston, R. B. (1975). Aqueous ammonia equilibrium calculations: effect of pH and temperature. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can., 32, 2379-83. Esch, G. W. & Hazen, T. C. (1980). Stress and body condition in a population of largemouth bass: implications for red-sore disease. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 109, 532-6. Fagerlund, V. H. M., McBride, J. R. & Stone, E. T. (1981 ). Stress-related effects of hatchery rearing density on coho salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 110, 644-9. Fox, E. & Gex, V. (1956). Single-phase blending of liquids. AIChE, 2 (4), 539-44. Hughes, J. T., Shleser, R. A. & Tchobanoglous, G. (1974). A rearing tank for lobster larvae and other aquatic species. Prog. Fish-Cult., 36, 129-32. Johnson, H. E. & Gastineau, A. C. (1952). A comparison of the growth of fingerling chinook salmon reared in ponds, troughs and circular tanks. Prog. Fish-Cult., 14 (2), 76-8. Larmoyeux, J. D., Piper, R. G. & Chenoweth, H. H. (1973). Evaluation of circular tanks for salmonid production. Prog. Fish-Cult., 35, 122-31. Levenspiel, O. (1979). The Chemical Reactor Omnibook, Oregon State Univ. Book Stores Inc., Corvallis, Oregon. Levenspiel, O. (1985). Comment on mean residence time in flow systems.Chem. Engng Sci., 40, 1614. Piper, R. G., McElwain, I. B., Orme, L. E., McCraren, J. E, Fowler, L. G. & Leonard, J. R. (1982). Fish Hatchery Management, US Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, 517 pp. Watten, B. J. & Beck, L. T. (1985). Modeling gas transfer in a u-tube oxygen absorption system: effects of off-gas recycling. Aquacultural Engineering, 4, 271-97. Westers, H. & Pratt, K. M. (1977). Rational design of hatcheries for intensive salmonid culture, based on metabolite characteristics. Prog. Fish-Cult., 39, 157-65.