Accepted Manuscript

Title: Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture systems

Author: Jaap van Rijn

PII: S0144-8609(12)00094-5
DOI: doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.11.010
Reference: AQUE 1670

To appear in: Aquacultural Engineering

Received date: 5-7-2012

Accepted date: 19-11-2012

Please cite this article as: van Rijn, J., Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture
systems, Aquacultural Engineering (2010), doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.11.010

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting
proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production
process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
*Highlights (for review)
 Waste treatment in indoor and outdoor RAS is reviewed
 Little waste reduction takes place in indoor RAS
 Outdoor RAS generally produce less waste than indoor RAS
 Many on and off-site methods exist for waste reduction in freshwater RAS effluents
 Treatment of effluents from marine RAS is little developed
Page 1 of 28
*Manuscript
 6
2
6
3
6
4
6
5
Waste Postal address: Department of Animal Sciences, The Robert H. Smith
treatment in
1 recirculating Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew
2
aquaculture University of Jerusalem, P.O. Box 12, Rehovot 76100, Israel. Phone:
3 systems
+972 8 9489302; Fax: +972 8 9489024; Email: vanrijn@agri.huji.ac.il
4
5
6
7 1
8
9 Page 2 of 28
1
0
1
1
2
1 Jaap van Rijn
3
1
4
1 The
5
1 Robert
6
1 H.
7
1 Smith
8
1 Faculty
9
2
0
2
of
1
2 Agricul
2 ture,
3
2 Food
4
2 and
5
2 Environ
6
2 ment
7
2
8
2 The Hebrew University
9
3 of Jerusalem
0
3
1
3 P.O. Box 12, Rehovot
2
3 76100
3
4
3
5
3
6
3
7
3
8
3
9
4
0
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
4
5
4
6
4
7
4
8
4
9
5
0
5
1
5
2
5
3
5
4
5
5
6
5
7
5
8
5
9
6
0
6
1
 Abstract
1
2
3
4 Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) are operated as outdoor or indoor
5
6
systems. Due to the intensive mode of fish production in many of these systems,
7 waste treatment within the recirculating loop as well as in the effluents of these
8
9 systems is of primary concern. In outdoor RAS, such treatment is often achieved
10
11 within the recirculating loop. In these systems, extractive organisms, such as
12
13 phototrophic organisms and detritivores, are cultured in relatively large treatment
14
15 compartments whereby a considerable part of the waste produced by the primary
16 organisms is converted in biomass. In indoor systems, capture of solid waste and
17
18 conversion of ammonia to nitrate by nitrification are usually the main treatment steps
19
20 within the recirculating loop. Waste reduction (as opposed to capture and conversion)
21
22 is accomplished in some freshwater and marine indoor RAS by incorporation of
23
24 denitrification and sludge digestion. In many RAS, whether operated as indoor or
25
outdoor systems, effluent is treated before final discharge. Such effluent treatment
26
27 may comprise devices for sludge thickening, sludge digestion as well as those for
28
29 inorganic phosphate and nitrogen removal. Whereas waste disposed from freshwater
30
31 RAS may be treated in regional waste treatment facilities or may be used for
32
33 agricultural purposes in the form of fertilizer or compost, treatment options for waste
34
35
disposed from marine RAS are more limited. In the present review, estimations of
36 waste production as well as methods for waste reduction in the recirculating loop and
37
38 effluents of freshwater and marine RAS are presented. Emphasis is placed on those
39
40 processes leading to waste reduction rather than those used for waste capture and
41
42 conversion.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 Keywords: recirculating aquaculture systems; RAS; waste treatment; waste
52
53 production; onsite treatment; waste disposal
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 2
63
64 Page 3 of 28
65
 1. Introduction
1
2
3
4 Harmful effects attributed to aquaculture practices are of foremost concern to the
5
6
industry and are subject to increased public awareness (Sapkota et al., 2008;
7 Subasinghe et al., 2009). Often, these harmful effects are related to the environmental
8
9 impact of aquaculture activities, among those: (1) destruction of natural sites such as
10
11 wetlands and mangroves, (2) spread of diseases, (3) decreased biodiversity of natural
12
13 fish populations by escape of non-native fish species, and (4) pollution of ground and
14
15 surface waters by effluent discharge (Boyd, 2003).
16
Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), in which water is recirculated between
17
18 the culture and water treatment stages, provide an answer to some of the above
19
20 mentioned problems since they enable fish production in relative isolation from the
21
22 surrounding environment. However, this advantage is not without a price as many
23
24 challenges face the production of fish in these highly contained systems. In this
25
26
respect, water quality control and waste management are among the most critical of
27 these challenges. Careful design and management of RAS are the basis for a
28
29 successful waste management with respect to both waste production and treatment.
30
31 Operation of RAS under well controlled culture conditions contributes significantly to
32
33 an efficient feed utilization, hence, low waste production. Furthermore, proper
34
35 incorporation of treatment procedures within the recirculating loop or in the effluent
36 stream may further contribute to a significant reduction in waste production by these
37
38 systems. In most indoor RAS, the bulk of waste produced by the fish is captured and
39
40 removed in a concentrated effluent stream that may be treated onsite before final
41
42 discharge. Such onsite treatment generally involves sludge thickening and flow
43
44 stabilization but may also be designed to allow bacterial decomposition of solid
45
46
waste. Outdoor RAS, mostly situated in warmer climates, are often operated with
47 partial waste reduction within the recirculation loop. In the latter systems,
48
49 phototrophic organisms such as plants and algae are often involved in treatment of
50
51 recirculation as well as of effluent water.
52
53 This review summarizes some selected issues related to waste management in
54
55 RAS. Estimations of waste production are presented as well as methods for waste
56
57
reduction in the recirculating loop and effluents of freshwater and marine RAS.
58 Emphasis is placed on those processes leading to waste reduction rather than those
59
60 used for waste capture and conversion.
61
62 3
63
64 Page 4 of 28
65
 1
2 2. Waste discharge regulation
3
4
5
6
Discharge regulations differ from country to country. Whereas in some jurisdictions
7 effluent standards are provided, in others, restrictions are placed on the amount of
8
9 feed or water that can be used by individual farms. However, the general tendency in
10
11 many countries is that, rather than effluent standards, guidelines for best management
12
13 practices or codes of conduct are provided together with measures to ensure
14
15 compliance to such guidelines (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004; Food
16 and Agricultural Organization, 1995). The rational of this approach is based on the
17
18 fact that universal guidelines as to effluent standards are difficult to formulate due to
19
20 differences in hydro-geographic, climatic and environmental conditions within
21
22 countries and regions. One such generic approach is the Life Cycle Assessment
23
24 (LCA). This method has received increased attention in recent years and has become a
25
26
recognized instrument in assessing the environmental impact of agricultural as well as
27 other production processes. Recently, it has also been applied for evaluating the
28
29 environmental impact of several aquaculture systems, including RAS (Martins et al.,
30
31 2010). Not only legislative bodies but also producer organizations advocate policies
32
33 for well monitored production regimes. Product quality, production transparency and
34
35 the added value of "environmentally friendly" raised products are major incentives for
36 promotion of these policies by such organizations (Boyd, 2003).
37
38 With respect to RAS, it is to be expected that operators of these, generally
39
40 well-managed systems are able to comply with compulsory monitoring and reporting
41
42 regimes. The high degree of fish confinement, the year-round production regime, the
43
44 use of monitoring systems, and the possibility for treatment of the concentrated waste
45
46
are all factors contributing to a transparency in reporting on the production process in
47 such systems.
48
49
50
51 3. Waste production
52
53
54 3.1 Feed conversion in RAS
55
56
57 Although liable to imprecision due to large differences in operational parameters, it
58
59 might be concluded that feed utilization by fish cultured in RAS often compares
60
61
62 4
63
64 Page 5 of 28
65
 favorably to that of fish raised in other type of culture systems (Table 1). Production
1
2 of waste in RAS, like in any other aquaculture system, depends on a number of
3
4 factors with as most important ones: (a) the type and age of fish, (b) the feed
5
composition, (c) the feeding regime, and (d) the prevalent water quality conditions in
6
7 the system. In RAS, high feed utilization efficiencies can be attained by controlling
8
9 some of these factors. For instance, feeding in RAS, whether performed manually or
10
11 automatically, is well monitored. Hence, lapses of off-feed are easily identified thus
12
13 minimizing overfeeding and consequent accumulation of uneaten feed in the system.
14
15 In addition, batch-wise growth of uniform size classes of fish further contributes to an
16 efficient feed utilization in RAS (Karipoglou and Nathanailidis, 2009). Another factor
17
18 contributing to reduced feed wastage in RAS is water quality control. Treatment
19
20 systems in RAS are designed to control water temperature and critical water quality
21
22 parameters within an acceptable range hence avoiding inferior water quality
23
24 conditions and concomitant reduced feed utilization efficiency. Finally, in these
25
relatively well monitored systems, a quick response to changes in water quality
26
27 conditions may also contribute to an efficient feed utilization (Martins et al., 2010).
28
29
30
31 3.2 Quantifying of waste production
32
33
34
35 Waste production in aquaculture systems is quantified either by the nutritional
36
approach through determining the apparent feed digestibility of fish or is directly
37
38 analyzed by quantification of excretion products in the culture water (Cho et al.,
39
40 1991). Calculated values are often derived from feed trials under well-controlled
41
42 experimental conditions and not always reflect the feed digestibility of the fish under
43
44 more realistic culture conditions. In addition, due to partial breakdown of the waste to
45
46
gaseous forms within the culture system, not all of the generated fish waste is
47 discharged with the effluent water. Despite these shortcomings, the nutritional
48
49 approach is often preferred over the alternative method in which waste is directly
50
51 quantified in the culture system. Quantification of waste production by means of this
52
53 latter method, even in the simplest of experimental systems, is complicated due to the
54
55 difficulty in fitting a sampling regime to accurately estimate the fluctuating waste
56 production by fish. Furthermore, factors such as the cleaning regime of the culture
57
58 system, the frequency and duration of water replacement in the culture systems as
59
60 well as analytical errors in quantifying the waste products (e.g. sample preservation,
61
62 5
63
64 Page 6 of 28
65
 analytical inaccuracies) contribute to the inaccuracy of the latter method (Roque
1
2 d'Orbcastel et al., 2008).
3
4 Organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus utilization by the fish are main
5
6
indicators for the efficiency of feed utilization. Often these same parameters are also
7 used to quantify the environmental impact of aquaculture waste. Except for site
8
9 specific instances or in cases of highly concentrated effluents, other potential
10
11 environmental harmful ingredients of aquaculture waste, such as other inorganic
12
13 compounds, metals, drugs and pathogens, are monitored to a lesser extent. Clearly,
14
15 production of organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus is directly linked to the food
16 conversion ratio and differs with different diets, temperatures, fish species, fish sizes
17
18 and culture systems (Table 2). By means of direct quantification, the partitioning of
19
20 nitrogen and phosphorus in solid and dissolved waste has been studied for most of the
21
22 commercially produced fish species (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2011; Lupatsch and Kissil,
23
24 1998; Piedrahita, 2003; Roque d‟Orbcastel et al., 2008). Despite the large variability
25
among fish species and culture methods, it can be concluded from these studies that,
26
27 in general, most of the nitrogen waste (60-90%) is in the dissolved form (mainly
28
29 ammonia) whereas for phosphorus, a larger proportion is excreted within the fecal
30
31 waste (25-85%).
32
33 In intensive production systems such as flow-through systems and cages,
34
35 waste production based on the nutritional approach (digestibility) might provide a
36
fairly accurate estimate for the waste that is discharged since in these systems most of
37
38 the fish waste is flushed out by water exchange. However, in RAS with a high degree
39
40 of recirculation, some of the waste is either passively or actively digested (Chen et
41
42 al., 1993; van Rijn et al., 2006) and waste production in these systems is lower than
43
44 what would be predicted by the nutritional approach. Due to differences in
45
46
configurations and management of RAS, losses of nitrogen and carbon within the
47 system differ widely among the different RAS (Chen et al., 1997; Piedrahita, 2003). A
48
49 true quantification of the waste production in these systems is therefore only possible
50
51 by direct measurements of waste in the effluent stream.
52
53
54
55 4. Onsite waste treatment
56
57
58 4.1. Reduction of waste within the RAS
59
60
61
62 6
63
64 Page 7 of 28
65
 In most indoor RAS, ammonia removal and solids capture are the primary treatment
1
2 processes within the recirculation loop. Although intended to collect or convert fish
3
4 waste, these online treatment processes might lead to a considerable waste reduction
5
through production of mainly gaseous carbon and nitrogen compounds by biological
6
7 decay. The extent of this decay, mainly due to heterotrophic microorganisms, largely
8
9 depends on the specific system configuration. In particular, the water and solid
10
11 retention time of the system as well as methods used for water treatment within the
12
13 recirculating loop are major factors underlying such heterotrophic bacterial activity.
14
15 Sludge recoveries as low as 14% of the added feed, much lower than the calculated
16 sludge production (38-46%), were reported for recirculating systems not equipped
17
18 with dedicated treatment steps for sludge digestion (Chen et al., 1997; 1993). Also
19
20 Suzuki et al. (2003) found similar low sludge production values of 18% of the added
21
22 feed in a RAS not equipped with dedicated treatment for sludge removal. Not only
23
24 organic carbon but also nitrogen is lost from RAS. The loss of nitrogen is mainly due
25
to denitrification in oxygen depleted zones in the system and may account for as much
26
27 as 21% of the nitrogen loss in some RAS (reviewed by van Rijn et al., 2006).
28
29 Dedicated processes for waste reduction within the recirculating loop are mainly
30
31 found in outdoor, marine and freshwater RAS. Here, nutrients from the culture water are
32
33 removed by a combination of assimilatory and dissimilatory processes, mediated by
34
35 phototrophic and heterotrophic organisms. In this modern form of polyculture, production
36 of fed species (e.g. fish, shrimps) is integrated with that of extractive species. In most of
37
38 these so called integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems (IMTA), extractive species
39
40 comprise phototrophic organisms such as plants, microalgae and macroalgae but in some,
41
42 also other organisms such as filter feeders, detritivores and heterotrophic bacteria are
43
44 produced. Examples of IMTA systems are integrated marine systems (Neori et al., 2004 ),
45
46
high rate algal ponds (Metaxa et al., 2006; Pagand et al., 2000), aquaponic systems
47 (Racocy, 2007), partitioned aquaculture systems (Brune et al., 2003), active suspension
48
49 ponds based on bio-flocs technology (Avnimelech, 2003; Crab et al., 2007), periphyton
50
51 systems (Schneider et al., 2005; Verdegem et al., 2005), and constructed wetlands (Lin et
52
53 al., 2005; Tilley et al., 2002; Zachrits et al., 2008; Zhong et al., 2011). In many of these
54
55 IMTA systems, production of the primary aquatic species is combined with growth of
56
other economical valuable crops such as plants, filter feeding fish and detritivores (e.g.
57
58 clams and oysters). They provide, therefore, an elegant solution for increasing system
59
60
7
61
62 Page 8 of 28
63
64
65
 productivity with concomitant reduction of waste output (Nobre et al., 2010).
1
2 Depending on the particular design and operating conditions, these IMTA systems are
3
4 operated without effluent discharge (e.g. partitioned aquaculture systems, active
5
suspension ponds), with discharge of solids (e.g. aquaponic systems, high rate algal
6
7 ponds), or, as common in marine systems, with solid and partial water discharge.
8
9 Most of above systems, in which treatment within the recirculation loop partially
10
11 depends on phototrophic organisms, are outdoor systems operated with relatively
12
13 large treatment areas under favorable climatic conditions. Hence, these latter systems
14
15 are more site-dependent than the more compact, indoor RAS systems.
16
Some indoor RAS, where ammonia is nitrified to nitrate, employ special
17
18 reactors to induce bacterial reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas under anoxic
19
20 conditions. Most of these reactors are supplied with external carbon sources to fuel
21
22 heterotrophic denitrification. Others are designed to allow denitrification on internal
23
24 carbon sources which are produced in the RAS (van Rijn et al., 2006). In the latter
25 case, bacterial fermentation processes play an important role in supplying carbon
26
27 compounds for denitrification whereby most of the organic carbon is eventually
28
29
30
oxidized to CO2. Therefore, not only nitrogen but also organic carbon is removed by
31 means of this treatment combination (Eding et al., 2003; van Rijn et al., 1995). Eding
32
33 et al. (2009) calculated that by incorporating waste digestion and nitrate removal
34
35 within the recirculating stream, waste discharge for nitrogen and organic solids could
36
37 be reduced by 81% and 60%, respectively. An alternative treatment method based on
38
39
sludge digestion and bacterial nitrogen removal within the recirculation loop was
40 described by Tal et al. (2009). In this marine recirculating system, digestion of sludge
41
42 within a sludge digestion tank was allowed to proceed at low redox potentials to
43
44 produce sulfide which was subsequently used to fuel autotrophic denitrifiers in an
45
46 additional reactor. RAS incorporating sludge digestion and denitrification may be
47
operated with little to no effluent discharge as much of the waste is converted to
48
49 gases. They are, furthermore, operated with relatively small treatment volumes and
50
51 areas as compared to outdoor RAS (Table 3). Whereas in outdoor RAS, a
52
53 considerable part of the released phosphorus is assimilated by extractive organisms, in
54
55 indoor RAS, phosphorus is not removed within the system and is discharged in the
56 effluent stream. However, in systems incorporating sludge digestion and
57
58 denitrification within the recirculating loop, a considerable part of the dissolved
59
60
61
62 8
63
64 Page 9 of 28
65
 orthophosphate was found to be immobilized during the latter treatment stages
1
2 (see next section).
3
4 Additional water treatment in the form of disinfection through ozonation and
5
6
UV irradiation of culture and discharge water are used in many indoor RAS operated
7 today (Goncalves and Gagnon, 2011; Summerfelt et al., 2009). Furthermore,
8
9 adsorption methods for removal of therapeutants have also been used in such systems
10
11 (Aitcheson et al., 2000). These compact, indoor systems potentially lend themselves
12
13 for use of recently developed water treatment technology such as electrochemical
14
15 and bio-electrochemical methods for removal of organic matter and inorganic
16 nitrogen (Mook et al., 2012; Virdis et al., 2008).
17
18
19
20
21
22 4.2 Onsite treatment of the effluent stream
23
24
25
26
4.2.1. Sludge thickening
27 Usually, RAS effluents are characterized by a low solid content (<2%) and fluctuate
28
29 in volume as a result of specific feeding and cleaning regimes. As direct disposal of
30
31 these effluents is costly, solids thickening and stabilization of the effluent flow is
32
33 often required before final disposal. Thickening of the sludge through settling of
34
35 solids in basins or ponds (Bergheim et al., 1993), through solids capture by means of
36
37
geotextile bags (Schwartz et al., 2005; 2004) or, more recently, by means of belt filters
38 (Timmons and Ebeling, 2007) and membrane reactors (Sharrer et al., 2007) are
39
40 applied in RAS. The various methods are often used in combination with
41
42 coagulation/flocculation processes to allow a more complete removal of suspended
43
44 solids as well as phosphorus from the effluent water (Danaher et al., 2011b; Ebeling et
45
46 al., 2006; Ebeling et al., 2003; Sharrer et al., 2009). In combination with dewatering,
47 the various methods used for sludge thickening may produce sludge with a solid
48
49 content of between 5 - 22% (Sharrer et al., 2009).
50
51
52
53 4.2.2. Sludge digestion
54
55 In addition to methods for sludge thickening, methods for enhancing biological
56
57 degradation of sludge are also used in treatment of RAS effluents. Waste stabilization
58 ponds such as aerobic and anaerobic lagoons might be used for this purpose as well
59
60 as sludge digesters (Chen et al., 1997). In the various ponds/reactors used for sludge
61
62 9
63
64 Page 10 of 28
65
 digestion, sludge residence time (sludge age) is a major factor dictating the extent of
1
2 sludge degradation. Apart from the length of time during which the sludge is exposed
3
4 to microbial decay, the residence time also influences the type of electron acceptors
5 that are involved in sludge degradation. At relatively low retention times (e.g. settling
6
7 basins), oxygen will serve as the major electron acceptor while at higher retention
8
9 times (e.g. anaerobic lagoons), due to oxygen depletion, other electron acceptors such
10
11 as nitrate, sulfate (in marine systems) and carbon dioxide will be respired. Fast decay
12 of sludge in the presence of oxygen also coincides with fast growth in heterotrophic
13
14 biomass of the microorganisms involved in the sludge decay. Aerobic degradation
15
16 -1
constants of "fresh" sludge were found to range from 0.07-0.40 day (Boyd, 1973;
17
18 Chen et al., 1997). In settling basins operated at relatively long retention times, such
19
20 rapid breakdown of sludge and concomitant production of gases might cause poor
21
22 settling sludge properties (Timmons and Ebeling, 2007). In reactors operated at longer
23
24 retention times in which, besides oxygen, additional electron acceptors are respired,
25 decay of sludge proceeds at lower rates than under aerobic conditions and produces
26
27 less heterotrophic bacterial biomass. Sludge decay constants ranged from 0.024-0.006
28
29 -1
day in a reactor operated with a high sludge age with nitrate as the main electron
30
31 acceptor (van Rijn et al., 1995). Despite this apparently slow decay, this type of
32
33 reactor, when properly sized, can be operated for prolonged periods of time without
34
35 sludge wastage and, as discussed in the previous section, may be used as an on-line
36
37
treatment stage within the treatment loop. Sludge degradation of 30-40% was reported
38 for denitrifying reactors fed with marine RAS effluents and operated at shorter
39
40 retention times of up to 11 days (Klas et al., 2006).
41
42 Laboratory-scale sequencing batch reactors, operated under aerobic and anoxic
43
44 conditions, for removal of organic matter and nitrogen from concentrated sludge from a
45
46 shrimp facility were operated by Boopathy et al. (2007) and Fontenot et al. (2007).
47 They showed that at a hydraulic retention time of 8 days, a 74% reduction in
48
49 organic matter and a total reduction of nitrogen could be achieved with this kind a
50
51 treatment scheme.
52
53 Fully anaerobic, methanogenic digestion of aquaculture sludge has been
54
55 reported by several authors (reviewed by Mirzoyan et al., 2010). Although operational
56
57
conditions differ considerably among the few studies conducted, it can be concluded
58 that a considerable degradation and stabilization of aquaculture sludge can be
59
60 achieved through methanogenic digestion. Issues such as inhibition of the
61
62 10
63
64 Page 11 of 28
65
 methanogenic activity by unionized ammonia concentrations due to low C/N ratios
1
2 of the sludge, optimal dry weight content of the sludge, and optimal hydraulic
3
4 retention times of the methanogenic reactors, still require further investigation prior
5 to the full scale use of these systems.
6
7
8
9 4.2.3. Inorganic nutrient transformations
10
11 Concentrations of inorganic nutrients in the supernatant of settlers and digesters are
12
13 dictated by the balance between chemical, physical and biological processes responsible
14
15 for their release from or removal by the sludge layer of the settler/digester. Sludge
16 residence time has a major influence on these processes. With respect to nitrogen,
17
18 ammonia concentrations are often found to increase due to ammonification of nitrogenous
19
20 organic matter (e.g. Conroy and Couturier, 2010; Stewart, 2006). Various processes may
21
22 counteract this ammonia accumulation. Ammonia assimilation is particularly evident in
23
24 reactors operated at high redox potentials due to a relative large increase in bacterial
25
26
biomass while nitrification of ammonia may also take place in aerobic parts of the
27 reactors (Cytryn et al., 2005; Klas et al., 2006). Not only under aerobic conditions but
28
29 also under anaerobic conditions ammonia removal might take place. Under such
30
31 conditions, nitrate, often present in the RAS effluent stream, will not only be denitrified to
32
33 elemental nitrogen at appropriate hydraulic retention times, but may indirectly, through
34
35 reduction to nitrite, serve as an electron acceptor for anammox bacteria whereby both
36
ammonia and nitrite are converted to elemental nitrogen gas (Lahav et al., 2009; Tal et al.,
37
38 2003).
39
40 In addition to ammonia release, hydrolysis of sludge in thickening reactors or
41
42 digesters leads to a release of orthophosphate. In their study on hydrolysis of aquaculture
43
44 sludge under static conditions, Conroy and Couturier (2010) showed that orthophosphate
45
46 release from the sludge was strongly correlated to the solubility of calcium
47
orthophosphates at low pH values. The same authors did not observed orthophosphate
48
49 release at pH values above 7.0. A decrease of orthophosphate in the water column of
50
51 reactors used for digestion of aquaculture sludge has been observed in many studies
52
53 (Barak and van Rijn, 2003; Barak et al., 2000a; Klas et al., 2006; Neori et al., 2007;
54
55 Sharrer et al., 2007; Tal et al., 2009). In addition to chemical precipitation with mainly
56
57 calcium and iron ions, biologically-mediated phosphate sequestration may be of
58 importance during digestion of aquaculture sludge. In nitrate-rich digestion basins of
59
60 freshwater and marine RAS it was found that denitrifiers
61
62 11
63
64 Page 12 of 28
65
 accumulated orthophosphate as intracellular polyphosphate in excess of metabolic
1
2 requirements (Barak and van Rijn, 2003; 2000a). In these RAS, sludge from areas
3
4 of intensive denitrification was found to contain up to 19% phosphorus on a dry
5 weight basis while denitrifiers isolated from these systems were found to contain up
6
7 to 9% phosphorus on a dry cell weight basis (Barak and van Rijn, 2000b).
8
9 Release of reduced inorganic sulfur compounds during sludge
10
11 thickening/digestion may pose a potential problem with respect to effluent discharge.
12
13 This is especially true for marine RAS in which, under anaerobic conditions, sulfide
14
15 may be produced as a result of organic matter mineralization and sulfate reduction
16 (Cytryn et al., 2003; Schwermer et al., 2010; Sher et al., 2008). In these marine
17
18 systems it was found that the presence of nitrate during sludge digestion prevents
19
20 sulfide formation by exclusion of bacterial sulfate reduction (Schwermer et al., 2010)
21
22 as well as by promoting the growth of sulfide oxidizing, autotrophic denitrifiers (Sher
23
24 et al., 2008; Tal et al., 2009).
25
26
Depending on the accumulation of dissolved organic matter and nutrients in
27 sludge thickening reactors or sludge digesters, further onsite treatment of the supernatant
28
29 from these reactors may be warranted before final disposal. Brazil and Summerfelt (2006)
30
31 examined the effect of aerobic treatment of the supernatant overflowing an aquaculture
32
33 sludge thickening tank. They showed that in aerobic reactors operated at hydraulic
34
35 retention time of up to 6 days, an 87% reduction of organic matter and total ammonia
36
nitrogen and a 65% reduction in orthophosphate could be achieved. In addition, outdoor
37
38 treatment systems, similar to those used within the recirculation loop (e.g. wetlands, high
39
40 rate algal ponds) may also be used for treatment of effluent water before final discharge
41
42 or may serve both as an online and effluent treatment stage. Largely depending on the
43
44 size of such systems relative to the waste load, these systems may be fed organic-rich
45
46 water directly released from the RAS or with supernatant from the sludge thickening
47 stage (Cohen and Neori, 1991; Metaxa et al., 2006; Neori et al., 1991; Pagand et al.,
48
49 2000; Sindilariu et al., 2009).
50
51
52
53 5. Waste disposal
54
55
56
57 As apparent from the previous sections, the nature and quantity of waste disposed
58 from RAS depends largely on the onsite treatment facilities used. While several
59
60 alternatives are available for treatment of waste from freshwater RAS, waste
61
62 12
63
64 Page 13 of 28
65
 treatment of waste from marine facilities is restricted to fewer methods. Liquid as well
1
2 as solid waste from freshwater RAS can be treated in centralized facilities such as
3
4 publicly owned treatment works (POWT) used for treatment of other livestock waste
5
as well as domestic and industrial waste. Where land availability and cost is less of a
6
7 constraint, these centralized facilities may be based on treatment by means of
8
9 stabilization ponds and wetlands. Alternatively, wastewater treatment facilities,
10
11 primarily used for treatment of domestic and industrial waste, with primary,
12
13 secondary and tertiary treatment steps, may also be used to treat RAS effluent.
14
15 However, treating aquaculture sludge in these latter systems seems wasteful as
16 concentrations of toxic and other health threatening components in aquaculture sludge
17
18 are low as compared to those in sludge from domestic and industrial origin. As such,
19
20 the use of aquaculture sludge as a fertilizer by direct land application (Bergheim et al.,
21
22 1993; Yeo et al., 2004) or its use for compost production (Adler and Sikora, 2004;
23
24 Danaher et al., 2011a) appear to be more sustainable alternatives. Composting might
25
require adjustment of the C/N ratio and a decrease of the water content of the sludge
26
27 by addition of a carbonaceous bulking agent in order to provide optimal aerobic
28
29 decomposition conditions (Adler and Sikora, 2004). Like the sludge also the liquid
30
31 fraction from RAS effluents may be used for irrigation of agricultural crops. Whereas
32
33 compost production is site independent, the use of solid as well as liquid waste for
34
35
fertilizer purposes depends on location. The absence of a properly scaled application
36 in the vicinity of the RAS, may prohibit this latter form of disposal (Yeo et al., 2004).
37
38 As most marine RAS are situated in close vicinity to the sea, waste discharge
39
40 into the sea is still the most common practice. While in marine RAS with online
41
42 waste treatment such practice results in little environmental impact such impacts may
43
44 be profound when waste is discharged from RAS with little post treatment. In the
45
46
latter case, the quantity of waste produced is not much different from cage
47 aquaculture. In coastal areas, constructed wetlands seem to be a promising method for
48
49 treatment of aquaculture waste (Gregory et al., 2010; Su et al., 2011). Where, due to
50
51 site restrictions, discharge to external facilities is not possible, on-site treatment
52
53 systems can be used by means of which excess nitrogen and carbon are converted into
54
55 gases (see section 4.1).
56
57
58 6. Conclusions
59
60
61
62 13
63
64 Page 14 of 28
65
 Water treatment technology has seen a dynamic development in recent years
1
2 with new treatment methods rapidly emerging. Also in the field of RAS, a choice can
3
4 be made from many different treatment methods. The choice of a suitable treatment
5
method depends, in addition to a proper cost/benefit analyses, largely on factors,
6
7 directly or indirectly, related to the location of the recirculating system. Climatic
8
9 conditions, water availability, discharge regulations, and land availability are such
10
11 location-dependent factors which are major determinants for the type of treatment
12
13 methods to be used. These factors, together with the market value of the cultured
14
15 organisms, may justify the use of sophisticated treatment methods in some cases while
16 in others, optimal economical benefit is accomplished with relatively simple water
17
18 treatment techniques at the expense of water savings and production intensity.
19
20 In most outdoor RAS, waste reduction is generally achieved within the
21
22 recirculating loop by an integrative approach in which organic carbon and inorganic
23
24 nutrients are assimilated by phototrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Due to site and
25
26
climatic restrictions, indoor RAS are usually operated according to different treatment
27 protocols in which emphasis is placed on solid capture and ammonia transformation
28
29 to nitrate within the recirculation loop with optional onsite treatment of the
30
31 concentrated effluent before discharge.
32
33 It is expected that with increased fish demand as well as increased public
34
35 awareness related to issues such as overfishing, water savings, pollution, animal
36 welfare and ethics of animal husbandry, research on RAS as well as their commercial
37
38 exploitation will show a steady growth in the near future. The development of cost
39
40 efficient and sustainable waste treatment methods will be an important aspect
41
42 contributing to the wider use of these systems.
43
44
45
46
References
47
48
49 Adler, P.R. and Sikora, R.J., 2004. Composting fish manure from aquaculture
50
51 operations. Biocycle 45, 62-66.
52
53 Aitcheson, S.J., Arnet, J., Murray, K.R., Zhang, J., 2000. Removal of aquaculture
54
55 therapeutants by carbon adsorption: 1. Equilibrium adsorption behaviour of
56 single components. Aquaculture 183, 269-284.
57
58 Avnimelech, Y., 2006. Biofilters: The need for a comprehensive approach.
59
60 Aquacult. Eng. 34, 172-178.
61
62 14
63
64 Page 15 of 28
65
 Azevedo, P.A., Podemski, C.L., Hesslein, R.H., Kasian, S.E.M., Findlay, D.L.,
1
2 Bureau, D.P, 2011. Estimation of waste outputs by a rainbow trout cage farm
3
4 using a nutritional approach and monitoring of lake water quality. Aquaculture
5 311, 175-186.
6
7 Barak, Y., van Rijn, J., 2000a. Biological phosphate removal in a prototype
8
9 recirculating aquaculture treatment system. Aquacult. Eng. 22, 121-136.
10
11 Barak, Y.,van Rijn, J., 2000b. Atypical polyphosphate accumulation by the denitrifying
12
13 bacterium Paracoccus denitrificans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 1209-1212.
14
15 Barak, Y., Cytryn, E., Gelfand, I., Krom, M., van Rijn, J., 2003. Phosphate removal in
16 a marine prototype recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture 220, 313-326.
17
18 Benetti, D.D., Orhun, M.R., Sardenberg, B., O‟Hanlon, B., Welch, A., Hoenig, R.,
19
20 Zink, I., Rivera, J.A., Denlinger, B., Bacoat, D., Palmer, K., Cavalin, F., 2008.
21
22 Advances in hatchery and grow-out technology of cobia Rachycentron canadum
23
24 (Linnaeus). Aquacult. Res. 39, 701-711.
25
26 Bergheim, A, Kristansen, R., Kelly, L., 1993. Treatment and utilization of sludge
27 from land based farms for salmon. In: J.K. Wang (ed.), Techniques for Modern
28
29 Aquaculture. American Society for Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp.
30
31 486-495.
32
33 Bermudes, M., Glencross, B., Austen, K., Hawkins, W., 2010. The effects of
34
35 temperature and size on the growth, energy budget and waste outputs of
36 barramundi (Lates calcarifer). Aquaculture 306, 160-166.
37
38 Beveridge, M.C.M., 1984. Cage and pen fish farming. Carrying capacity models and
39
40 environmental impact. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 255, 131 pp. Blue Ocean Institute,
41
42 2012. Barramundi <www.blueocean.org/seafood/seafood-view?spc_id=161>
43
44 Beveridge, M.C.M., Phillips, M.J.,1993. Environmental impact of tropical inland
45
46 aquaculture, p. 213-236. In: R.S.V. Pullin, H. Rosenthal and J.M. Maclean
47 (eds.). Environment and aquaculture in developing countries. ICLARM
48
49 Conference Proceedings 31, 359 p.
50
51 Boopathy, R., Bonvillain, C. Fontenot, Q. Kilgen, M., 2007. Biological treatment of
52
53 low-salinity shrimp aquaculture wastewater using sequencing batch reactor.
54
55 Inter. Biodeter. Biodegr. 59, 16-19.
56
57 Boyd, C.E., 1973. The chemical oxygen demand of waters and biological materials
58 from ponds. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103, 606-611.
59
60 15
61
62 Page 16 of 28
63
64
65
 Boyd, C.E., 2003. Guidelines for aquaculture effluent management at the farm-level.
1
2 Aquaculture 226, 101-112.
3
4 Brazil, B.L., Summerfelt, S.T., 2006. Aerobic treatment of gravity thickening
5
tank supernatant. Aquacult. Eng. 34, 92-102
6
7 Brune, D.E., Schwartz, G., Eversole, A.G., Collier, J.A., Schwedler, T.E., 2003.
8
9 Intensification of pond aquaculture and high rate photosynthetic systems.
10
11 Aquacult. Eng. 28, 65-86.
12
13 Bureau, D. P., Gunther, S.J., Cho, C.Y., 2003. Chemical composition and preliminary
14
15 theoretical estimates of waste outputs of rainbow trout reared in commercial
16 cage culture operations in Ontario. N. Am. J. Aquacult. 65: 33-38.
17
18 Chen, S., Coffin, D..E., Malone, R.F., 1993. Production, characteristics, and modeling
19
20 of aquacultural sludge from a recirculating aquacultural system using a granular
21
22 media biofilter. In: In: Jaw-Kai Wang (Editor). Techniques for Modern
23
24 Aquaculture. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 16-25.
25
26
Chen, S, Coffin, D., Malone, R., 1997. Sludge production and management for
27 recirculating aquacultural systems. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 28, 303-315.
28
29 Cho, C.Y., Hynes, J.D., Wood, K.R., Yoshida, H.K., 1991. Quantitation of fish
30
31 culture wastes by biological (nutritional) and chemical (limnological) methods;
32
33 the development of high-nutrient dense (HND) diets. In: Cowey, C.B., Cho, C.Y.
34
35 (Eds.), Nutritional Strategies and Aquaculture Waste. Proceedings, 1st
36 International Symposium on Nutritional Strategies in Management of
37
38 Aquaculture Waste. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., 1990, pp. 37-50.
39
40 Cho, C.Y., Hynes, J.D., Wood, K.R., Yoshida, H.K., 1994. Development of high-
41
42 nutrient-dense, low pollution diets and prediction of aquaculture waste using
43
44 biological approaches. Aquaculture 124, 293-305.
45
46 Cohen, I., Neori, A., 1991. Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fishpond effluents: I.
47 Ammonia uptake kinetics and nitrogen content. Bot. Mar. 34, 475-482.
48
49 Conroy, J., Couturier, M., 2010. Dissolution of minerals during hydrolysis of fish
50
51 waste solids. Aquaculture 298, 220-225.
52
53 Crab, R., Avnimelech, Y., Defoirdt, T., Bossier, P., Verstraete, W., 2007. Nitrogen
54
55 removal techniques in aquaculture for a sustainable production. Aquaculture
56 270, 1-14.
57
58 Cromey, C.J., White, P., 2004. Potential farm management practices for the reduction
59
60
61
62 16
63
64 Page 17 of 28
65
 of aquaculture impact. In: The Meramed project: Development of monitoring
1
2 guidelines and modeling tools for environmental effects from Mediterranean
3
4 aquaculture <meramed.akvaplan.com/>
5
6
Cytryn, E., Barak, Y., Gelfand, I., van Rijn, J., Mintz, D., 2003.Diversity of microbial
7 communities correlated to physiochemical parameters in a digestion basin of a
8
9 zero-discharge mariculture system. Environ. Microbiol 5, 55-63
10
11 Cytryn, E., van Rijn, J., Schramm, A., Gieseke, A., de Beer, D., Mintz, D., 2005.
12
13 Identification of bacterial communities potentially responsible for oxic and anoxic
14
15 sulfide oxidation in biofilters of a recirculating mariculture system. Appl.
16 Environ. Microbiol 71, 6134-6141.
17
18 Danaher, J.J., Shultz, R.C., Rakocy, J.E, 2011b. Evaluation of two textiles with or
19
20 without polymer addition for dewatering effluent from an intensive biofloc
21
22 production system. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 42, 66-72.
23
24 Danaher, J.J., Rakocy, J.E., Shultz, R.C., Bailey, D.S., Pantanella, E., 2011a.
25
26
Dewatering and composting aquaculture waste as a growing medium in the
27 nursery production of tomato plants. Acta Horticult. 89, 223-230.
28
29 Ebeling, J.M., Welsh, C.F., Rishel, K.L., 2006. Performance evaluation
30
31 of the Hydrotech belt filter using coagulation/flocculation aids (alum/polymers)
32
33 for the removal of suspended solids and phosphorus from intensive recirculating
34
35 aquaculture microscreen backwash effluent. Aquacult. Eng. 35, 61-77.
36 Ebeling, J.M., Sibrell, P.L., Ogden, S., Summerfelt, S.T., 2003. Evaluation of
37
38 chemical coagulation–flocculation aids for the removal of phosphorus from
39
40 recirculating aquaculture effluent. Aquacult. Eng. 29, 23-42.
41
42 Eding, E.H., Klapwijk, A., Verreth, J.A.J., 2003. Design and performance of an
43
44 upflow sludge blanket reactor in a zero discharge recirculating system.
45
46
Abstracts and Extended Communications of Contributions Presented at the
47 International Conference Aquaculture Europe “Beyond Monoculture”
48
49 Trondheim, Norway. EAS Spec. Publ. No. 33, pp. 172-174.
50
51 Eding, E., Verdegem, M., Martins, C., Schlaman, G., Heinsbroek, L., Laarhoven, B.,
52
53 Ende, S., Verreth, J., Aartsen, F., Bierbooms,V., 2009. Tilapia farming using
54
55 Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) - Case study in the Netherlands, in a
56 handbook for sustainable Aquaculture, Project N°: COLL-CT-2006-030384
57
58 <http:/ /www.sustainaqua.org/ >
59
60 El-Sayed., A.F.M., 2006, Tilapia Culture. CABI Publ., Wallingford, UK, 277 pp.
61
62 17
63
64 Page 18 of 28
65
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. Effluent guidelines: aquatic
1
2 animal production industry <www.epa.gov/ost/guide/aquaculture/>
3
4 Fontenot, Q., Bonvillain, C., Kilgen, M., Boopathy, R., 2007. Effects of temperature,
5
salinity, and carbon: nitrogen ratio on sequencing batch reactor treating shrimp
6
7 aquaculture wastewater. Bioresource Technol. 98, 1700-1703.
8
9 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 1995. Code of conduct for responsible
10
11 fisheries. FAO, Rome, 41p. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/ fao/005/v9878e/
12
13 v9878e00.pdf>
14
15 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2012. Cultured Aquatic Species
16 Information Programme. Lates calcarifer. Cultured Aquatic Species
17
18 Information Programme <http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/
19
20 Lates_calcarifer/en>
21
22 Gelfand, I. , Barak Y., Even-Chen, Z., Cytryn, E., Krom, M., Neori, A.,van Rijn, J.,
23
24 2003. A novel zero-discharge intensive seawater recirculating system for culture
25
26
of marine fish. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 34, 344-358.
27 Goddard, S. 1996. Feed Management in Intensive Aquaculture. Chapman & Hal, NY,
28
29 194 pp.
30
31 Goncalves, A.A., Gagnon, G.A., 2011. Ozone application in recirculating aquaculture
32
33 systems: an overview. Ozone - Sci. Eng. 33, 345-367.
34
35 Gregory, S. P., Shields, R. J., Fletcher, D.J., Gatland, P., Dyson, P.J., 2010. Bacterial
36 community responses to increasing ammonia concentrations in model
37
38 recirculating vertical flow saline biofilters. Ecol. Eng. 36, 1485-1491.
39
40 Kaiser, J.B. and Holt, G.J., 2005. Species profile Cobia. Southern Regional
41
42 Aquaculture Center Publication no. 7202 <www.scribd.com/doc/16595767/
43
44 Cobia-SRAC7202>
45
46 Karipoglou, C. and Nathanailides, C., 2009. Growth rate and feed conversion
47 efficiency of intensively cultivated European eel (Anguilla Anguilla L.). Intern.
48
49 J. Fisheries and Aquacult. 1, 11-13
50
51 Klas, S., Mozes, N., Lahav, O., 2006. Development of a single-sludge denitrification
52
53 method for nitrate removal from RAS effluents: Lab-scale results vs. model
54
55 prediction. Aquaculture 259, 342-353
56
57
Lahav, O., Bar Massada, I., Yackoubov, D. Zelikson, R., Mozes, N., Tal, Y., Tarre,
58 S., 2009. Quantification of anammox activity in a denitrification reactor for a
59
60 recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture 288, 76-82.
61
62 18
63
64 Page 19 of 28
65
 Leenhouwers, J.I., Ortega, R.C., Verreth, J.A.J., Schrama, J.W., 2007. Digesta
1
2 characteristics in relation to nutrient digestibility and mineral absorption in Nile
3
4 tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) fed cereal grains of increasing viscosity.
5 Aquaculture 273, 556-565
6
7 Lin, Y.F., Jing, S.R., Lee, D.Y., Chang, Y.F., Chen, Y.M., Shih, K.C., 2005.
8
9 Performance of a constructed wetland treating intensive shrimp aquaculture
10
11 wastewater under high hydraulic loading rate. Environ. Poll. 134, 411-442
12
13 Little, D.C., Murraya, F.J., Azima, E., Leschena, W., Boyd, K., Watterson, A., Young,
14
15 J.A., 2008. Options for producing a warmwater fish in the UK: limits to
16 „„Green Growth‟‟? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19, 255-264.
17
18 Lupatsch, I. and Kissil, G.W., 1998. Predicting aquaculture waste from gilthead
19
20 seabream (Sparus aurata) culture using a nutritional approach. Aquat. Living
21
22 Resour. 11, 265-268.
23
24 Martins, C.I.M., Ochola, D., Ende, S.S.W., Eding, E.H., Verreth, J.A.J., 2009.
25
26
Is growth retardation present in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus cultured in
27 low water exchange recirculating aquaculture systems? Aquaculture 298, 43-50.
28
29 Martins, C.I.M., Eding, E.H., Verdegem, M.C.J., Heinsbroek, L.T.N., Schneider, O.,
30
31 Blancheton, J., Roque d‟Orbcasteld, E., Verreth, J.A.J., 2010. New
32
33 developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on
34
35 environmental sustainability. Aquacult. Eng. 43, 83-93.
36
37
Metaxa, E., Deviller, G., Pagand, P., Alliaume, C., Casellas, C., Blancheton, J.P.,
38 2006. High rate algal pond treatment for water reuse in a marine fish
39
40 recirculation system: water purification and fish health. Aquaculture 252, 92-
41
42 101.
43
44 Mirzoyan, N., Tal, Y., Gross, A., 2010. Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive
45
46
recirculating aquaculture systems: review. Aquaculture 306, 1-6.
47 Mook, W.T., Chakrabarti, M.H., Aroua, M.K., Khan, G.M.A., Ali, B.S., Islam, M.S.,
48
49 Abu Hassan, M.A., 2012. Removal of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrate
50
51 and total organic carbon (TOC) from aquaculture wastewater using
52
53 electrochemical technology: A review. Desalination 285, 1-13.
54
55 Neori, A., Cohen, I., Gordin, H., 1991. Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fishpond
56
57
effluents: II. Growth rate, yield and C:N ratio. Bot. Mar. 34, 483-489.
58 Neori, A., Krom, M.D., van Rijn, J., 2007. Biochemical processes in intensive zero-
59
60
61
62 19
63
64 Page 20 of 28
65
 effluent marine fish culture with recirculating aerobic and anaerobic biofilters. J.
1
2 Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 349, 235-247.
3
4 Neori, A., Chopin, T., Troell, M., Buschmann, A.H., Kraemer, G.P., Halling, C.,
5
6
Shpigel, M.,Yarish, C., 2004. Integrated aquaculture: rationale, evolution and
7 state of the art emphasizing seaweed biofiltration in modern mariculture.
8
9 Aquaculture 231, 361-391.
10
11 Nobre, A.M., Robertson-Andersson, D., Neori, A., Sankar, K., 2010. Ecological–
12
13 economic assessment of aquaculture options: Comparison between abalone
14
15 monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture of abalone and seaweeds.
16 Aquaculture 306, 116-126.
17
18 Pagand, P., Blancheton, J.P., Lemoalle, J., Casellas, C., 2000. The use of high rate
19
20 algal ponds for the treatment of marine effluent from a recirculating fish rearing
21
22 system. Aquacult. Res. 31, 729-736.
23
24 Peet, C., 2006. Farmed barramundi. Seafood report, Monterey Bay Aquarium
25
26
<www.montereybayaquarium.org/.../MBA SeafoodWatch>
27 Perschbacher, P.W., 2007. Growth rates of GMT and mixed-sex Nile tilapia
28
29 Oreochromis niloticus on natural and supplemental feeds. Asian Fish. Sci. 20,
30
31 425-431
32
33 Piedrahita, R.H., 2003. Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank
34
35 aquaculture effluents through intensification and recirculation. Aquaculture 226,
36 35-44.
37
38 Racocy, J.E., 2007. Aquaponics: integrated fish and plant culture, pp 767-822. In:
39
40 Timmons, M.B, Ebeling, J.M. (Eds.). Recirculating Aquaculture. NRAC Publ.
41
42 no. 01-007, Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, NY, 975 pp.
43
44 Rakocy, J. E., Bailey, D.S., Shultz, R.C., Thoman, E.S., 2004. Update on tilapia and
45
46 vegetable production in the UVI aquaponic system. In: New Dimensions on
47 Farmed Tilapia: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Tilapia in
48
49 Aquaculture, Manila, Philippines, pp. 676-690.
50
51 Reid, K.R., 2007. Nutrient release form salmon culture. In: Nutrient impact s of
52
53 farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) on pelagic ecosystems and implications
54
55 for carrying capacity. Report of the Technical Working Group (World Wildlife
56
Fund) on nutrients and carrying capacity of salmon aquaculture dialogue
57
58 <www.worldwildlife.org/.../WWFBinaryitem11788.pdf>
59
60 Roque d‟Orbcastel, E., Blancheton, J.P., Aubin, J., 2009a. Towards environmentally
61
62 20
63
64 Page 21 of 28
65
 sustainable aquaculture: comparison between two trout farming systems using
1
2 life cycle assessment. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 113-119.
3
4 Roque d‟Orbcastel, E., Blancheton, J.P., Belaud, A., 2009b. Water quality and
5
rainbow trout performance in a Danish Model Farm recirculating system:
6
7 comparison with a flow through system. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 135-143.
8
9 Roque d‟Orbcastel, E., Person-Le-Ruyet, J., Le Bayon, N., Blancheton, J.P., 2009c.
10
11 Comparative growth and welfare in rainbow trout reared in re-circulating and
12
13 flow through rearing systems. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 79-86.
14
15 Roque d‟Orbcastel, E., Blancheton, J.P., Boujard. T., Aubin, J., Moutounet, Y.,
16 Przybyla, C., Belaud, A., 2008. Comparison of two methods for evaluating
17
18 waste of a flow through trout farm. Aquaculture 274, 72-79.
19
20 Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A.R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P.,
21
22 Lawrence, R., 2008. Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks:
23
24 Current knowledge and future priorities. Environ. Inter. 34, 1215-1226
25
26
Schipp, G., Bosmans, J., Humphrey, J, 2007. Northern Territory Barramundi Farming
27 Handbook. Department of |Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, Australia, 71
28
29 pp. <www.nt.gov.au/.../NT_Barra_Farming Handbook Online ...>
30
31 Schneider, O., Sereti, V., Eding , E.H., Verreth, J.A.J., 2005. Analysis of nutrient
32
33 flows in integrated intensive aquaculture systems. Aquacult. Eng. 32, 379-401.
34
35 Schneider, O., Amirkolaie, A.K., Vera-Cartas, J., Eding, E.H., Schrama, J.W.,
36 Verreth, J.A.J., 2004. Digestibility, feces recovery, and related C, N, and P
37
38 balances of five feed ingredients evaluated as fishmeal alternatives in
39
40 Oreochromis niloticus L. Aquacult. Res. 35, 1370-1379.
41
42 Shnel, N., Barak, Y., Ezer, T., Dafni, Z., van Rijn, J., 2002. Design and performance
43
44 of a zero-discharge tilapia recirculating system. Aquacult. Engin. 26, 191-203.
45
46 Schuenhoff, A., Shpigel, M., Lupatsch, I., Ashkenazi, A., Msuya, F.E., Neori, A.,
47 2003. A semi-recirculating, integrated system for the culture of fish and
48
49 seaweed. Aquaculture 221, 167-181
50
51 Schwartz, M.F., Ebeling, J., Summerfelt, S., 2004. Geotextile tubes for aquaculture
52
53 waste management. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
54
55 Recirculating Aquaculture. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
56 Blacksburg, VA.
57
58 Schwartz, M.F., Ebeling, J.M., Rishel, K.L., Summerfelt, S.T., 2005. Dewatering
59
60
61
62 21
63
64 Page 22 of 28
65
 aquaculture biosolids with geotextile bags. In: Aquaculture America 2005, New
1
2 Orleans, LA. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA., January 17-20, pp.
3
4 118.
5
6
Schwermer, C.U., Ferdelman, T.G., Stief, P., Gieseke, A., Rezakhani, N., van Rijn, J.,
7 de Beer, D., Schramm, A., 2010. Effect of nitrate on sulfur transformations in
8
9 sulfidogenic sludge of a marine aquaculture biofilter. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 72,
10
11 476-484.
12
13 Sindilariu, P. D., Brinker, A., Reiter, R., 2009. Waste and particle management in a
14
15
commercial, partially recirculating trout farm. Aquacult. Eng. 41, 127-135
16 Sharrer, M. J., K. L. Rashel, Summerfelt, S.T., 2009. Evaluation of geotextile
17
18 filtration applying coagulant and flocculant amendments for aquaculture
19
20 biosolids dewatering and phosphorus removal. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 1-10.
21
22 Sharrer, M.J., Tal, Y., Ferrier, D., Hankins, J.A., Summerfelt, S.T., 2007. Membrane
23
24 biological reactor treatment of a saline backwash flow from a recirculating
25
aquaculture system. Aquacult. Eng. 36, 159-176.
26
27 Sher, Y., Schneider, K., Schwermer, C.U., van Rijn, J., 2008. Sulfide induced nitrate
28
29 reduction in the sludge of an anaerobic treatment stage of a zero-discharge
30
31 recirculating mariculture system. Wat. Res. 42, 4386-4392.
32
33 Stewart, N.T., Boardman, G.D., Helfrich, L.A., 2006. Characterization of nutrient
34
35 leaching rates from settled rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sludge.
36 Aquacult. Eng. 35, 191-198
37
38 Su, Y-M, Lin, Y-F, Jing, S-R, Lucy Hou, P.C., 2011. Plant growth and the
39
40 performance of mangrove wetland microcosms for mariculture effluent
41
42 depuration. Marine Pollut. Bull. 62, 1455-1463.
43
44 Subasinghe, R., Soto, D., Jia, J., 2009. Global aquaculture and its role in sustainable
45
46
development. Rev. Aquacult. 1, 2-9
47 Summerfelt, S.T., Sharrer, M.J., Tsukuda, S.M., Gearheart, M., 2009. Process
48
49 requirements for achieving full-flow disinfection of recirculating water
50
51 using ozonation and UV irradiation. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 17-27.
52
53 Suzuki, Y., Maruyama, T., Numata, H., Sato, H., Asakawa, M., 2003. Performance of
54
55 a closed recirculating system with foam separation, nitrification and
56 denitrification units for intensive culture of eel: towards zero emission.
57
58 Aquacult. Eng. 29, 165-182.
59
60 Tal, Y., Watts, J.E.M., Schreier, S.B., Sowers, K.R., Schreier, H.J., 2003.
61
62 22
63
64 Page 23 of 28
65
 Characterization of the microbial community and nitrogen
1
2 transformation processes associated with moving bed bioreactors in a
3
4 closed recirculated mariculture system. Aquaculture 215, 187-202.
5
6
Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., Sowers, K.R., Stubblefield, J.D., Place, A.R., Zohar, Y., 2009.
7 Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 286,
8
9 28-35.
10
11 Tilley, D.R., Badrinarayanan, H., Rosati, R., Son, J., 2002. Constructed wetlands as
12
13 recirculation filters in large-scale shrimp aquaculture. Aquacult. Eng. 26, 81-
14
15
109.
16 Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., 2007. Recirculating Aquaculture. NRAC Publ. no. 01-
17
18 007, Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, NY, 975pp.
19
20 van Rijn, J., Fonarev, N., Berkowitz, B., 1995. Anaerobic treatment of fish culture
21
22 effluents: Digestion of fish feed and release of volatile fatty acids. Aquaculture
23
24 133, 9-20.
25
26
van Rijn, J., Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., 2006. Denitrification in recirculating systems:
27 theory and applications. Aquacult. Eng. 34, 364-376.
28
29 Verdegem, M.C.J., Eding, E.H., Sereti, V., Munubi, R.N., Santacruz-Reyes, R.N., van
30
31 Dam, A.A., 2005. Similarities between microbial and periphytic biofilms in
32
33 aquaculture systems. In: Azim, M.E., Verdegem, M.C.J., van Dam, A.A.,
34
35 Beveridge, M.C.M. (Eds.). Periphyton, ecology, exploitation and management,
36 pp. 191-206. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA, 325pp.
37
38 Virdis, B., Rabaey, K., Yuan, Z., Keller, J., 2008. Microbial fuel cells for
39
40 simultaneous carbon and nitrogen removal. Water Res. 42, 3013–3024.
41
42 Yeo, S.E., Binkowski, F.P., Morris, J.E., 2004. Aquaculture effluents and waste by-
43
44 products. Characteristics, potential recovery, and beneficial reuse. NCRAC
45
46
Publications Office, North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Iowa State
47 University, 45p.
48
49 Zachritz II, W.A., Hanson, A.T., Sauceda, J.A., Fitzsimmons, K.M., 2008. Evaluation
50
51 of submerged surface flow (SSF) constructed wetlands for recirculating tilapia
52
53 production systems. Aquacult. Eng. 39, 16-23.
54
55 Zhong, F., Liang, W., Yu, T., Cheng, S.P., He, F., Wu, Z.B., 2011. Removal
56 efficiency and balance of nitrogen in a recirculating aquaculture system
57
58 integrated with constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A:
59
60 Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environ. Eng. 46, 789-794.
61
62 23
63
64 Page 24 of 28
65
 Zohar, Y., Tal, Y., Schreier, H., Steven, C., Stubblefield, J., Place, A.R., 2005.
1
2 commercially feasible urban recirculated aquaculture: addressing the marine
3
4 sector. In: Costa-Pierce, B., DesBonnet, A., Edwards, P., Baker, D. (Eds.),
5 Urban Aquaculture. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 159-171.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 24
63
64 Page 25 of 28
65
Table 1
Table 1. Feed conversion ratios in different types of culture systems

Species Flow RAS Earthen Cage Reference

through Pond
Rainbow trout 0.8-1.2 0.8-1.1 - 1.1-1.3 Bureau et al. (2003);
(Oncorhynchus Roque d'Orbcastel et al.,
mykiss) (2009a,b,c)
Barramundi - 0.8-1.1 1.5-2.2 1.6-2.0 FAO (2008); Peet (2006);

Schipp et al. (2007)

(Lates
calcarifer)
Tilapia - 1.0-2.2 0.8-3.5 >1.5 El Sayed (2006);

(Oreochromis Leenhouwer et al., (2007);

spp.) Little et al. (2008); Martins
et al., (2009); Perschbacher
(2007); Schnell et al.
(2003)
Gilthead - 0.9-1.9 - 1.4-2.2 Cromey and White (2004);

seabream Zohar et al., (2005)

(Sparus aurata)
Cobia - 1.0 1.5 1.5-2.0 Benetti et al. (2008);

(Rachycentron Kaiser and Holt (2005)

canadum)
Page 26 of 28
Table 2
Table 2. Waste production of different fish species as determined by the nutritional approach

Fish species Total solids Total N Total P Reference

(kg per ton fish production)
Rainbow trout 148-338 41-71 7.5-15.2 Azvedo et al. (2011); Bureau et
(Oncorhynchus al. (2003); Roque d'Orbcastel
mykiss) et al. (2008)
Brown trout* 438 (589) 49.2 (45.8) 6.2 (10.5) Cho et al. (1994)

(Salmo trutta)
Lake trout* 564 (562) 65.3 (59) 6.8 (6.8) Cho et al. (1994)

(Salvelinus
namaycush)
Barramundi 29.0-302.3 21.8-101.7 4.2-15.4 Bermudes et al. (2010)

(Lates calcarifer)
Gilthead 447.5 102.9 17.8 Lupatch and Kissil (1998)

seabream
(Sparus aurata)
Tilapia 520-650 72.4 23-29 Beveridge (1984); Beveridge

(Oreochromis and Phillips (1993)

spp.)
Tilapia 192-268.8 48-72.7 0.6-8.9 Schneider et al. (2004)

(O. niloticus)
Atlantic salmon 224 32 1.1 Reid (2007)

(Salmo salar)

* numbers in parenthesis represent values that were obtained by direct quantification of the
waste in the culture water
Page 27 of 28
Table 3
Table 3. Some characteristics of outdoor and indoor RAS with treatment components within the
recirculating loop

Organism Type of Maximum Treatment volume and area Reference

cultured treatment biomass Total Per kg of cultured
(kg)
biomass
Outdoor RAS
Sea bass High rate algal 320 3 3 Metaxa et al.
14.0m 0.044m
1 2 2
(Dicentrachus pond 26.0m 0.081m (2006)
labrax)
Gilthead High rate algal 520 3 3 Schuenhoff et
12.0m 0.023m
1 2 2
seabream pond 43.7m 0.084m al. (2003)
(Sparus aurata)
Tilapia 2 1230 3 3 Zachritz et al.
wetland 50.0 m 0.041m
2 2
(Oreochromis. 55.0 m 0.045m (2008)
mossambicus x
O. aureus)
Shrimps 2 924 3 3 Lin et al.
wetland 21.0m 0.023m
2 2
(Litopenaeus 32.0m 0.035m (2005)
vannamei)
Tilapia 2 2184 3 3 Racocy et al.
aquaponics 80.0m 0.037m
(O. niloticus) 2 2 (2004)
232.0m 0.106m
Indoor RAS
Tilapia denitrification/ 4800 3 3 Shnel et al.
40.0 m 0.008 m
3 2 2
(O. niloticus x sludge digestion 23.0 m 0.005 m (2002)
O. aureus)
Gilthead denitrification/ 106 3 3 Gelfand et al.
1.55m 0.015 m
3 2 2
seabream sludge digestion 2.75m 0.026 m (2003)
(Sparus aurata)
Gilthead denitrification/ 1752 3 3 Tal et al.
14.4m 0.008 m
2 2
seabream anammox/sludge 11.1m 0.006 m (2009)
(Sparus aurata) 3
digestion

1Treatment system was equipped with additional solids removal and nitrification units.
2 Treatment system was equipped with additional clarifier for solids removal.
3 Treatment system was equipped with additional nitrification unit.
Page 28 of 28