Accepted Manuscript

Title: Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture systems Author: Jaap van Rijn PII: DOI: Reference: To appear in: Received date: Accepted date: S0144-8609(12)00094-5 doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.11.010 AQUE 1670 Aquacultural Engineering 5-7-2012 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 le 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 nal 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

Ac

ce pt

ed

an
Page 1 of 28

us

cr

ip t

*Manuscript

Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture systems

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment The Hebrew University of Jerusalem P.O. Box 12, Rehovot 76100

Postal address: Department of Animal Sciences, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, P.O. Box 12, Rehovot 76100, Israel. Phone: +972 8 9489302; Fax: +972 8 9489024; Email: vanrijn@agri.huji.ac.il

Ac

ce pt

ed
1
Page 2 of 28

an

us

cr

ip t

Jaap van Rijn

Abstract
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) are operated as outdoor or indoor systems. Due to the intensive mode of fish production in many of these systems, waste treatment within the recirculating loop as well as in the effluents of these systems is of primary concern. In outdoor RAS, such treatment is often achieved

phototrophic organisms and detritivores, are cultured in relatively large treatment

organisms is converted in biomass. In indoor systems, capture of solid waste and

within the recirculating loop. Waste reduction (as opposed to capture and conversion) is accomplished in some freshwater and marine indoor RAS by incorporation of denitrification and sludge digestion. In many RAS, whether operated as indoor or outdoor systems, effluent is treated before final discharge. Such effluent treatment

inorganic phosphate and nitrogen removal. Whereas waste disposed from freshwater RAS may be treated in regional waste treatment facilities or may be used for agricultural purposes in the form of fertilizer or compost, treatment options for waste disposed from marine RAS are more limited. In the present review, estimations of

effluents of freshwater and marine RAS are presented. Emphasis is placed on those processes leading to waste reduction rather than those used for waste capture and conversion.

Keywords: recirculating aquaculture systems; RAS; waste treatment; waste production; onsite treatment; waste disposal

Ac

ce pt

waste production as well as methods for waste reduction in the recirculating loop and

ed

M
2

may comprise devices for sludge thickening, sludge digestion as well as those for

an

us

conversion of ammonia to nitrate by nitrification are usually the main treatment steps

cr

compartments whereby a considerable part of the waste produced by the primary

ip t
Page 3 of 28

within the recirculating loop. In these systems, extractive organisms, such as

1. Introduction
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

Harmful effects attributed to aquaculture practices are of foremost concern to the industry and are subject to increased public awareness (Sapkota et al., 2008; Subasinghe et al., 2009). Often, these harmful effects are related to the environmental impact of aquaculture activities, among those: (1) destruction of natural sites such as

fish populations by escape of non-native fish species, and (4) pollution of ground and

Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), in which water is recirculated between

mentioned problems since they enable fish production in relative isolation from the surrounding environment. However, this advantage is not without a price as many challenges face the production of fish in these highly contained systems. In this respect, water quality control and waste management are among the most critical of

successful waste management with respect to both waste production and treatment. Operation of RAS under well controlled culture conditions contributes significantly to an efficient feed utilization, hence, low waste production. Furthermore, proper incorporation of treatment procedures within the recirculating loop or in the effluent

systems. In most indoor RAS, the bulk of waste produced by the fish is captured and removed in a concentrated effluent stream that may be treated onsite before final discharge. Such onsite treatment generally involves sludge thickening and flow

Outdoor RAS, mostly situated in warmer climates, are often operated with partial waste reduction within the recirculation loop. In the latter systems, phototrophic organisms such as plants and algae are often involved in treatment of recirculation as well as of effluent water. This review summarizes some selected issues related to waste management in RAS. Estimations of waste production are presented as well as methods for waste reduction in the recirculating loop and effluents of freshwater and marine RAS. Emphasis is placed on those processes leading to waste reduction rather than those used for waste capture and conversion.
3
Page 4 of 28

Ac

stabilization but may also be designed to allow bacterial decomposition of solid waste.

ce pt

stream may further contribute to a significant reduction in waste production by these

ed

these challenges. Careful design and management of RAS are the basis for a

an

us

the culture and water treatment stages, provide an answer to some of the above

cr

surface waters by effluent discharge (Boyd, 2003).

ip t

wetlands and mangroves, (2) spread of diseases, (3) decreased biodiversity of natural

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

2. Waste discharge regulation

Discharge regulations differ from country to country. Whereas in some jurisdictions effluent standards are provided, in others, restrictions are placed on the amount of feed or water that can be used by individual farms. However, the general tendency in

practices or codes of conduct are provided together with measures to ensure

and Agricultural Organization, 1995). The rational of this approach is based on the

differences in hydro-geographic, climatic and environmental conditions within countries and regions. One such generic approach is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This method has received increased attention in recent years and has become a recognized instrument in assessing the environmental impact of agricultural as well as

environmental impact of several aquaculture systems, including RAS (Martins et al., 2010). Not only legislative bodies but also producer organizations advocate policies for well monitored production regimes. Product quality, production transparency and the added value of "environmentally friendly" raised products are major incentives for

With respect to RAS, it is to be expected that operators of these, generally well-managed systems are able to comply with compulsory monitoring and reporting regimes. The high degree of fish confinement, the year-round production regime, the

are all factors contributing to a transparency in reporting on the production process in such systems.

3. Waste production 3.1 Feed conversion in RAS Although liable to imprecision due to large differences in operational parameters, it might be concluded that feed utilization by fish cultured in RAS often compares
4
Page 5 of 28

Ac

use of monitoring systems, and the possibility for treatment of the concentrated waste

ce pt

promotion of these policies by such organizations (Boyd, 2003).

ed

other production processes. Recently, it has also been applied for evaluating the

an

us

fact that universal guidelines as to effluent standards are difficult to formulate due to

cr

compliance to such guidelines (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004; Food

ip t

many countries is that, rather than effluent standards, guidelines for best management

favorably to that of fish raised in other type of culture systems (Table 1). Production
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

of waste in RAS, like in any other aquaculture system, depends on a number of factors with as most important ones: (a) the type and age of fish, (b) the feed composition, (c) the feeding regime, and (d) the prevalent water quality conditions in the system. In RAS, high feed utilization efficiencies can be attained by controlling some of these factors. For instance, feeding in RAS, whether performed manually or automatically,

overfeeding and consequent accumulation of uneaten feed in the system. In addition,

feed utilization in RAS (Karipoglou and Nathanailidis, 2009). Another factor

systems in RAS are designed to control water temperature and critical water quality parameters within an acceptable range hence avoiding inferior water quality conditions and concomitant reduced feed utilization efficiency. Finally, in these relatively well monitored systems, a quick response to changes in water quality

3.2 Quantifying of waste production

Waste production in aquaculture systems is quantified either by the nutritional

analyzed by quantification of excretion products in the culture water (Cho et al., 1991). Calculated values are often derived from feed trials under well-controlled experimental conditions and not always reflect the feed digestibility of the fish under

gaseous forms within the culture system, not all of the generated fish waste is discharged with the effluent water. Despite these shortcomings, the nutritional approach is often preferred over the alternative method in which waste is directly quantified in the culture system. Quantification of waste production by means of this latter method, even in the simplest of experimental systems, is complicated due to the difficulty in fitting a sampling regime to accurately estimate the fluctuating waste production by fish. Furthermore, factors such as the cleaning regime of the culture system, the frequency and duration of water replacement in the culture systems as well as analytical errors in quantifying the waste products (e.g. sample preservation,
5
Page 6 of 28

Ac

more realistic culture conditions. In addition, due to partial breakdown of the waste to

ce pt

approach through determining the apparent feed digestibility of fish or is directly

ed

conditions may also contribute to an efficient feed utilization (Martins et al., 2010).

an

us

contributing to reduced feed wastage in RAS is water quality control. Treatment

cr

batch-wise growth of uniform size classes of fish further contributes to an efficient

ip t

is well monitored. Hence, lapses of off-feed are easily identified thus minimizing

analytical inaccuracies) contribute to the inaccuracy of the latter method (Roque

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

d'Orbcastel et al., 2008). Organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus utilization by the fish are main indicators for the efficiency of feed utilization. Often these same parameters are also used to quantify the environmental impact of aquaculture waste. Except for site specific instances or in cases of highly concentrated effluents, other potential

compounds, metals, drugs and pathogens, are monitored to a lesser extent. Clearly,

conversion ratio and differs with different diets, temperatures, fish species, fish sizes

nitrogen and phosphorus in solid and dissolved waste has been studied for most of the commercially produced fish species (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2011; Lupatsch and Kissil, 1998; Piedrahita, 2003; Roque dOrbcastel et al., 2008). Despite the large variability among fish species and culture methods, it can be concluded from these studies that,

ammonia) whereas for phosphorus, a larger proportion is excreted within the fecal waste (25-85%).

In intensive production systems such as flow-through systems and cages, waste production based on the nutritional approach (digestibility) might provide a

the fish waste is flushed out by water exchange. However, in RAS with a high degree of recirculation, some of the waste is either passively or actively digested (Chen et al., 1993; van Rijn et al., 2006) and waste production in these systems is lower than what

and management of RAS, losses of nitrogen and carbon within the system differ widely among the different RAS (Chen et al., 1997; Piedrahita, 2003). A true quantification of the waste production in these systems is therefore only possible by direct measurements of waste in the effluent stream.

4. Onsite waste treatment

4.1. Reduction of waste within the RAS

Ac

would be predicted by the nutritional approach. Due to differences in configurations

ce pt

fairly accurate estimate for the waste that is discharged since in these systems most of

ed

M
6

in general, most of the nitrogen waste (60-90%) is in the dissolved form (mainly

an

us

and culture systems (Table 2). By means of direct quantification, the partitioning of

cr

production of organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus is directly linked to the food

ip t
Page 7 of 28

environmental harmful ingredients of aquaculture waste, such as other inorganic

In most indoor RAS, ammonia removal and solids capture are the primary treatment
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

processes within the recirculation loop. Although intended to collect or convert fish waste, these online treatment processes might lead to a considerable waste reduction through production of mainly gaseous carbon and nitrogen compounds by biological decay. The extent of this decay, mainly due to heterotrophic microorganisms, largely depends on the specific system configuration. In particular, the water and solid

recirculating loop are major factors underlying such heterotrophic bacterial activity.

sludge production (38-46%), were reported for recirculating systems not equipped

Suzuki et al. (2003) found similar low sludge production values of 18% of the added feed in a RAS not equipped with dedicated treatment for sludge removal. Not only organic carbon but also nitrogen is lost from RAS. The loss of nitrogen is mainly due to denitrification in oxygen depleted zones in the system and may account for as much

Dedicated processes for waste reduction within the recirculating loop are mainly found in outdoor, marine and freshwater RAS. Here, nutrients from the culture water are removed by a combination of assimilatory and dissimilatory processes, mediated by phototrophic and heterotrophic organisms. In this modern form of

extractive species. In most of these so called integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems (IMTA), extractive species comprise phototrophic organisms such as plants, microalgae and macroalgae but in some, also other organisms such as filter feeders,

integrated marine systems (Neori et al., 2004 ), high rate algal ponds (Metaxa et al., 2006; Pagand et al., 2000), aquaponic systems (Racocy, 2007), partitioned aquaculture systems (Brune et al., 2003), active suspension ponds based on bio-flocs technology (Avnimelech, 2003; Crab et al., 2007), periphyton systems (Schneider et al., 2005; Verdegem et al., 2005), and constructed wetlands (Lin et al., 2005; Tilley et al., 2002; Zachrits et al., 2008; Zhong et al., 2011). In many of these IMTA systems, production of the primary aquatic species is combined with growth of other economical valuable crops such as plants, filter feeding fish and detritivores (e.g. clams and oysters). They provide, therefore, an elegant solution for increasing system
7
Page 8 of 28

Ac

detritivores and heterotrophic bacteria are produced. Examples of IMTA systems are

ce pt

polyculture, production of fed species (e.g. fish, shrimps) is integrated with that of

ed

as 21% of the nitrogen loss in some RAS (reviewed by van Rijn et al., 2006).

an

us

with dedicated treatment steps for sludge digestion (Chen et al., 1997; 1993). Also

cr

Sludge recoveries as low as 14% of the added feed, much lower than the calculated

ip t

retention time of the system as well as methods used for water treatment within the

productivity with concomitant reduction of waste output (Nobre et al., 2010).

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

Depending on the particular design and operating conditions, these IMTA systems are operated without effluent discharge (e.g. partitioned aquaculture systems, active suspension ponds), with discharge of solids (e.g. aquaponic systems, high rate algal ponds), or, as common in marine systems, with solid and partial water discharge. Most of above systems, in which treatment within the recirculation loop partially

large treatment areas under favorable climatic conditions. Hence, these latter systems

Some indoor RAS, where ammonia is nitrified to nitrate, employ special

conditions. Most of these reactors are supplied with external carbon sources to fuel heterotrophic denitrification. Others are designed to allow denitrification on internal carbon sources which are produced in the RAS (van Rijn et al., 2006). In the latter case, bacterial fermentation processes play an important role in supplying carbon

oxidized to CO2. Therefore, not only nitrogen but also organic carbon is removed by means of this treatment combination (Eding et al., 2003; van Rijn et al., 1995). Eding et al. (2009) calculated that by incorporating waste digestion and nitrate removal within the recirculating stream, waste discharge for nitrogen and organic solids could

sludge digestion and bacterial nitrogen removal within the recirculation loop was described by Tal et al. (2009). In this marine recirculating system, digestion of sludge within a sludge digestion tank was allowed to proceed at low redox potentials to

additional reactor. RAS incorporating sludge digestion and denitrification may be operated with little to no effluent discharge as much of the waste is converted to gases. They are, furthermore, operated with relatively small treatment volumes and areas as compared to outdoor RAS (Table 3). Whereas in outdoor RAS, a considerable part of the released phosphorus is assimilated by extractive organisms, in indoor RAS, phosphorus is not removed within the system and is discharged in the effluent stream. However, in systems incorporating sludge digestion and denitrification within the recirculating loop, a considerable part of the dissolved

Ac

produce sulfide which was subsequently used to fuel autotrophic denitrifiers in an

ce pt

be reduced by 81% and 60%, respectively. An alternative treatment method based on

ed

M
8

compounds for denitrification whereby most of the organic carbon is eventually

an

us

reactors to induce bacterial reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas under anoxic

cr

are more site-dependent than the more compact, indoor RAS systems.

ip t
Page 9 of 28

depends on phototrophic organisms, are outdoor systems operated with relatively

orthophosphate was found to be immobilized during the latter treatment stages (see
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

next section). Additional water treatment in the form of disinfection through ozonation and UV irradiation of culture and discharge water are used in many indoor RAS operated today (Goncalves and Gagnon, 2011; Summerfelt et al., 2009). Furthermore, adsorption methods for removal of therapeutants have also been used in such systems

for use of recently developed water treatment technology such as electrochemical and

(Mook et al., 2012; Virdis et al., 2008).

4.2 Onsite treatment of the effluent stream

4.2.1. Sludge thickening

in volume as a result of specific feeding and cleaning regimes. As direct disposal of these effluents is costly, solids thickening and stabilization of the effluent flow is often required before final disposal. Thickening of the sludge through settling of solids in basins or ponds (Bergheim et al., 1993), through solids capture by means of

filters (Timmons and Ebeling, 2007) and membrane reactors (Sharrer et al., 2007) are applied in RAS. The various methods are often used in combination with coagulation/flocculation processes to allow a more complete removal of suspended

al., 2006; Ebeling et al., 2003; Sharrer et al., 2009). In combination with dewatering, the various methods used for sludge thickening may produce sludge with a solid content of between 5 - 22% (Sharrer et al., 2009).

4.2.2. Sludge digestion In addition to methods for sludge thickening, methods for enhancing biological degradation of sludge are also used in treatment of RAS effluents. Waste stabilization ponds such as aerobic and anaerobic lagoons might be used for this purpose as well as sludge digesters (Chen et al., 1997). In the various ponds/reactors used for sludge
9
Page 10 of 28

Ac

solids as well as phosphorus from the effluent water (Danaher et al., 2011b; Ebeling et

ce pt

geotextile bags (Schwartz et al., 2005; 2004) or, more recently, by means of belt

ed

Usually, RAS effluents are characterized by a low solid content (<2%) and fluctuate

an

us

cr

bio-electrochemical methods for removal of organic matter and inorganic nitrogen

ip t

(Aitcheson et al., 2000). These compact, indoor systems potentially lend themselves

digestion, sludge residence time (sludge age) is a major factor dictating the extent of
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

sludge degradation. Apart from the length of time during which the sludge is exposed to microbial decay, the residence time also influences the type of electron acceptors that are involved in sludge degradation. At relatively low retention times (e.g. settling basins), oxygen will serve as the major electron acceptor while at higher retention times (e.g. anaerobic lagoons), due to oxygen depletion, other electron acceptors such

of sludge in the presence of oxygen also coincides with fast growth in heterotrophic constants of "fresh" sludge were found to range from 0.07-0.40 day-1 (Boyd, 1973;

rapid breakdown of sludge and concomitant production of gases might cause poor settling sludge properties (Timmons and Ebeling, 2007). In reactors operated at longer retention times in which, besides oxygen, additional electron acceptors are respired, decay of sludge proceeds at lower rates than under aerobic conditions and produces day-1 in a reactor operated with a high sludge age with nitrate as the main electron acceptor (van Rijn et al., 1995). Despite this apparently slow decay, this type of reactor, when properly sized, can be operated for prolonged periods of time without sludge wastage and, as discussed in the previous section, may be used as an on-line

for denitrifying reactors fed with marine RAS effluents and operated at shorter retention times of up to 11 days (Klas et al., 2006). Laboratory-scale sequencing batch reactors, operated under aerobic and anoxic

a shrimp facility were operated by Boopathy et al. (2007) and Fontenot et al. (2007). They showed that at a hydraulic retention time of 8 days, a 74% reduction in organic matter and a total reduction of nitrogen could be achieved with this kind a treatment scheme. Fully anaerobic, methanogenic digestion of aquaculture sludge has been reported by several authors (reviewed by Mirzoyan et al., 2010). Although operational conditions differ considerably among the few studies conducted, it can be concluded that a considerable degradation and stabilization of aquaculture sludge can be achieved through methanogenic digestion. Issues such as inhibition of the
10
Page 11 of 28

Ac

conditions, for removal of organic matter and nitrogen from concentrated sludge from

ce pt

treatment stage within the treatment loop. Sludge degradation of 30-40% was reported

ed

less heterotrophic bacterial biomass. Sludge decay constants ranged from 0.024-0.006

an

us

Chen et al., 1997). In settling basins operated at relatively long retention times, such

cr

biomass of the microorganisms involved in the sludge decay. Aerobic degradation

ip t

as nitrate, sulfate (in marine systems) and carbon dioxide will be respired. Fast decay

methanogenic activity by unionized ammonia concentrations due to low C/N ratios of

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

the sludge, optimal dry weight content of the sludge, and optimal hydraulic retention times of the methanogenic reactors, still require further investigation prior to the full scale use of these systems.

4.2.3. Inorganic nutrient transformations

dictated by the balance between chemical, physical and biological processes responsible for their release from or removal by the sludge layer of the

settler/digester. Sludge residence time has a major influence on these processes. With

ammonification of nitrogenous organic matter (e.g. Conroy and Couturier, 2010; Stewart, 2006). Various processes may counteract this ammonia accumulation. Ammonia assimilation is particularly evident in reactors operated at high redox potentials due to a relative large increase in bacterial biomass while nitrification of

et al., 2006). Not only under aerobic conditions but also under anaerobic conditions ammonia removal might take place. Under such conditions, nitrate, often present in the RAS effluent stream, will not only be denitrified to elemental nitrogen at appropriate hydraulic retention times, but may indirectly, through reduction to nitrite,

are converted to elemental nitrogen gas (Lahav et al., 2009; Tal et al., 2003). In addition to ammonia release, hydrolysis of sludge in thickening reactors or digesters leads to a release of orthophosphate. In their study on hydrolysis of

orthophosphate release from the sludge was strongly correlated to the solubility of calcium orthophosphates at low pH values. The same authors did not observed orthophosphate release at pH values above 7.0. A decrease of orthophosphate in the water column of reactors used for digestion of aquaculture sludge has been observed in many studies (Barak and van Rijn, 2003; Barak et al., 2000a; Klas et al., 2006; Neori et al., 2007; Sharrer et al., 2007; Tal et al., 2009). In addition to chemical precipitation with mainly calcium and iron ions, biologically-mediated phosphate sequestration may be of importance during digestion of aquaculture sludge. In nitraterich digestion basins of freshwater and marine RAS it was found that denitrifiers
11
Page 12 of 28

Ac

aquaculture sludge under static conditions, Conroy and Couturier (2010) showed that

ce pt

serve as an electron acceptor for anammox bacteria whereby both ammonia and nitrite

ed

ammonia may also take place in aerobic parts of the reactors (Cytryn et al., 2005; Klas

an

us

respect to nitrogen, ammonia concentrations are often found to increase due to

cr

ip t

Concentrations of inorganic nutrients in the supernatant of settlers and digesters are

accumulated orthophosphate as intracellular polyphosphate in excess of metabolic

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

requirements (Barak and van Rijn, 2003; 2000a). In these RAS, sludge from areas of intensive denitrification was found to contain up to 19% phosphorus on a dry weight basis while denitrifiers isolated from these systems were found to contain up to 9% phosphorus on a dry cell weight basis (Barak and van Rijn, 2000b). Release of reduced inorganic sulfur compounds during sludge

This is especially true for marine RAS in which, under anaerobic conditions, sulfide

(Cytryn et al., 2003; Schwermer et al., 2010; Sher et al., 2008). In these marine

sulfide formation by exclusion of bacterial sulfate reduction (Schwermer et al., 2010) as well as by promoting the growth of sulfide oxidizing, autotrophic denitrifiers (Sher et al., 2008; Tal et al., 2009).

Depending on the accumulation of dissolved organic matter and nutrients in

supernatant from these reactors may be warranted before final disposal. Brazil and Summerfelt (2006) examined the effect of aerobic treatment of the supernatant overflowing an aquaculture sludge thickening tank. They showed that in aerobic reactors operated at hydraulic retention time of up to 6 days, an 87% reduction of

could be achieved. In addition, outdoor treatment systems, similar to those used within the recirculation loop (e.g. wetlands, high rate algal ponds) may also be used for treatment of effluent water before final discharge or may serve both as an online

the waste load, these systems may be fed organic-rich water directly released from the RAS or with supernatant from the sludge thickening stage (Cohen and Neori, 1991; Metaxa et al., 2006; Neori et al., 1991; Pagand et al., 2000; Sindilariu et al., 2009).

5. Waste disposal

As apparent from the previous sections, the nature and quantity of waste disposed from RAS depends largely on the onsite treatment facilities used. While several alternatives are available for treatment of waste from freshwater RAS, waste
12
Page 13 of 28

Ac

and effluent treatment stage. Largely depending on the size of such systems relative to

ce pt

organic matter and total ammonia nitrogen and a 65% reduction in orthophosphate

ed

sludge thickening reactors or sludge digesters, further onsite treatment of the

an

us

systems it was found that the presence of nitrate during sludge digestion prevents

cr

may be produced as a result of organic matter mineralization and sulfate reduction

ip t

thickening/digestion may pose a potential problem with respect to effluent discharge.

treatment of waste from marine facilities is restricted to fewer methods. Liquid as well
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

as solid waste from freshwater RAS can be treated in centralized facilities such as publicly owned treatment works (POWT) used for treatment of other livestock waste as well as domestic and industrial waste. Where land availability and cost is less of a constraint, these centralized facilities may be based on treatment by means of stabilization ponds and wetlands. Alternatively, wastewater treatment facilities,

secondary and tertiary treatment steps, may also be used to treat RAS effluent.

concentrations of toxic and other health threatening components in aquaculture sludge

the use of aquaculture sludge as a fertilizer by direct land application (Bergheim et al., 1993; Yeo et al., 2004) or its use for compost production (Adler and Sikora, 2004; Danaher et al., 2011a) appear to be more sustainable alternatives. Composting might require adjustment of the C/N ratio and a decrease of the water content of the sludge

decomposition conditions (Adler and Sikora, 2004). Like the sludge also the liquid fraction from RAS effluents may be used for irrigation of agricultural crops. Whereas compost production is site independent, the use of solid as well as liquid waste for fertilizer purposes depends on location. The absence of a properly scaled application

As most marine RAS are situated in close vicinity to the sea, waste discharge into the sea is still the most common practice. While in marine RAS with online waste treatment such practice results in little environmental impact such impacts may be

case, the quantity of waste produced is not much different from cage aquaculture. In coastal areas, constructed wetlands seem to be a promising method for treatment of aquaculture waste (Gregory et al., 2010; Su et al., 2011). Where, due to site restrictions, discharge to external facilities is not possible, on-site treatment systems can be used by means of which excess nitrogen and carbon are converted into gases (see section 4.1).

6. Conclusions

Ac

profound when waste is discharged from RAS with little post treatment. In the latter

ce pt

in the vicinity of the RAS, may prohibit this latter form of disposal (Yeo et al., 2004).

ed

M
13

by addition of a carbonaceous bulking agent in order to provide optimal aerobic

an

us

are low as compared to those in sludge from domestic and industrial origin. As such,

cr

However, treating aquaculture sludge in these latter systems seems wasteful as

ip t
Page 14 of 28

primarily used for treatment of domestic and industrial waste, with primary,

Water treatment technology has seen a dynamic development in recent years

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

with new treatment methods rapidly emerging. Also in the field of RAS, a choice can be made from many different treatment methods. The choice of a suitable treatment method depends, in addition to a proper cost/benefit analyses, largely on factors, directly or indirectly, related to the location of the recirculating system. Climatic conditions, water availability, discharge regulations, and land availability are such

methods to be used. These factors, together with the market value of the cultured

in others, optimal economical benefit is accomplished with relatively simple water

In most outdoor RAS, waste reduction is generally achieved within the recirculating loop by an integrative approach in which organic carbon and inorganic nutrients are assimilated by phototrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Due to site and climatic restrictions, indoor RAS are usually operated according to different treatment

to nitrate within the recirculation loop with optional onsite treatment of the concentrated effluent before discharge.

It is expected that with increased fish demand as well as increased public awareness related to issues such as overfishing, water savings, pollution, animal

exploitation will show a steady growth in the near future. The development of cost efficient and sustainable waste treatment methods will be an important aspect contributing to the wider use of these systems.

References

Adler, P.R. and Sikora, R.J., 2004. Composting fish manure from aquaculture operations. Biocycle 45, 62-66. Aitcheson, S.J., Arnet, J., Murray, K.R., Zhang, J., 2000. Removal of aquaculture therapeutants by carbon adsorption: 1. Equilibrium adsorption behaviour of single components. Aquaculture 183, 269-284. Avnimelech, Y., 2006. Biofilters: The need for a comprehensive approach. Aquacult. Eng. 34, 172-178.
14
Page 15 of 28

Ac

ce pt

welfare and ethics of animal husbandry, research on RAS as well as their commercial

ed

protocols in which emphasis is placed on solid capture and ammonia transformation

an

us

treatment techniques at the expense of water savings and production intensity.

cr

organisms, may justify the use of sophisticated treatment methods in some cases while

ip t

location-dependent factors which are major determinants for the type of treatment

Azevedo, P.A., Podemski, C.L., Hesslein, R.H., Kasian, S.E.M., Findlay, D.L.,
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

Bureau, D.P, 2011. Estimation of waste outputs by a rainbow trout cage farm using a nutritional approach and monitoring of lake water quality. Aquaculture 311, 175-186. Barak, Y., van Rijn, J., 2000a. Biological phosphate removal in a prototype recirculating aquaculture treatment system. Aquacult. Eng. 22, 121-136.

denitrifying bacterium Paracoccus denitrificans. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66,

Barak, Y., Cytryn, E., Gelfand, I., Krom, M., van Rijn, J., 2003. Phosphate removal in Benetti, D.D., Orhun, M.R., Sardenberg, B., OHanlon, B., Welch, A., Hoenig, R., Zink, I., Rivera, J.A., Denlinger, B., Bacoat, D., Palmer, K., Cavalin, F., 2008. Advances in hatchery and grow-out technology of cobia Rachycentron canadum (Linnaeus). Aquacult. Res. 39, 701-711.

from land based farms for salmon. In: J.K. Wang (ed.), Techniques for Modern Aquaculture. American Society for Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 486-495.

Bermudes, M., Glencross, B., Austen, K., Hawkins, W., 2010. The effects of

barramundi (Lates calcarifer). Aquaculture 306, 160-166. Beveridge, M.C.M., 1984. Cage and pen fish farming. Carrying capacity models and environmental impact. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 255, 131 pp. Blue Ocean Institute,

Beveridge, M.C.M., Phillips, M.J.,1993. Environmental impact of tropical inland aquaculture, p. 213-236. In: R.S.V. Pullin, H. Rosenthal and J.M. Maclean (eds.). Environment and aquaculture in developing countries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 31, 359 p. Boopathy, R., Bonvillain, C. Fontenot, Q. Kilgen, M., 2007. Biological treatment of low-salinity shrimp aquaculture wastewater using sequencing batch reactor. Inter. Biodeter. Biodegr. 59, 16-19. Boyd, C.E., 1973. The chemical oxygen demand of waters and biological materials from ponds. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103, 606-611.
15
Page 16 of 28

Ac

2012. Barramundi <www.blueocean.org/seafood/seafood-view?spc_id=161>

ce pt

temperature and size on the growth, energy budget and waste outputs of

ed

Bergheim, A, Kristansen, R., Kelly, L., 1993. Treatment and utilization of sludge

an

us

a marine prototype recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture 220, 313-326.

cr

1209-1212.

ip t

Barak, Y.,van Rijn, J., 2000b. Atypical polyphosphate accumulation by the

Boyd, C.E., 2003. Guidelines for aquaculture effluent management at the farm-level.
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

Aquaculture 226, 101-112. Brazil, B.L., Summerfelt, S.T., 2006. Aerobic treatment of gravity thickening tank supernatant. Aquacult. Eng. 34, 92-102 Brune, D.E., Schwartz, G., Eversole, A.G., Collier, J.A., Schwedler, T.E., 2003. Intensification of pond aquaculture and high rate photosynthetic systems.

Bureau, D. P., Gunther, S.J., Cho, C.Y., 2003. Chemical composition and preliminary

cage culture operations in Ontario. N. Am. J. Aquacult. 65: 33-38.

of aquacultural sludge from a recirculating aquacultural system using a granular media biofilter. In: In: Jaw-Kai Wang (Editor). Techniques for Modern Aquaculture. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 16-25.

Chen, S, Coffin, D., Malone, R., 1997. Sludge production and management for

Cho, C.Y., Hynes, J.D., Wood, K.R., Yoshida, H.K., 1991. Quantitation of fish culture wastes by biological (nutritional) and chemical (limnological) methods; the development of high-nutrient dense (HND) diets. In: Cowey, C.B., Cho, C.Y. (Eds.), Nutritional Strategies and Aquaculture Waste. Proceedings, 1st

Aquaculture Waste. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., 1990, pp. 37-50. Cho, C.Y., Hynes, J.D., Wood, K.R., Yoshida, H.K., 1994. Development of highnutrient-dense, low pollution diets and prediction of aquaculture waste using

Cohen, I., Neori, A., 1991. Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fishpond effluents: I. Ammonia uptake kinetics and nitrogen content. Bot. Mar. 34, 475-482.

Conroy, J., Couturier, M., 2010. Dissolution of minerals during hydrolysis of fish waste solids. Aquaculture 298, 220-225. Crab, R., Avnimelech, Y., Defoirdt, T., Bossier, P., Verstraete, W., 2007. Nitrogen removal techniques in aquaculture for a sustainable production. Aquaculture 270, 1-14. Cromey, C.J., White, P., 2004. Potential farm management practices for the reduction

Ac

biological approaches. Aquaculture 124, 293-305.

ce pt

International Symposium on Nutritional Strategies in Management of

ed

M
16

recirculating aquacultural systems. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 28, 303-315.

an

us

Chen, S., Coffin, D..E., Malone, R.F., 1993. Production, characteristics, and modeling

cr

theoretical estimates of waste outputs of rainbow trout reared in commercial

ip t
Page 17 of 28

Aquacult. Eng. 28, 65-86.

of aquaculture impact. In: The Meramed project: Development of monitoring

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

guidelines and modeling tools for environmental effects from Mediterranean aquaculture <meramed.akvaplan.com/> Cytryn, E., Barak, Y., Gelfand, I., van Rijn, J., Mintz, D., 2003.Diversity of microbial communities correlated to physiochemical parameters in a digestion basin of a zero-discharge mariculture system. Environ. Microbiol 5, 55-63

Identification of bacterial communities potentially responsible for oxic and anoxic

Environ. Microbiol 71, 6134-6141.

without polymer addition for dewatering effluent from an intensive biofloc production system. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 42, 66-72.

Danaher, J.J., Rakocy, J.E., Shultz, R.C., Bailey, D.S., Pantanella, E., 2011a. Dewatering and composting aquaculture waste as a growing medium in the

Ebeling, J.M., Welsh, C.F., Rishel, K.L., 2006. Performance evaluation of the Hydrotech belt filter using coagulation/flocculation aids (alum/polymers) for the removal of suspended solids and phosphorus from intensive recirculating aquaculture microscreen backwash effluent. Aquacult. Eng. 35, 61-77. chemical coagulationflocculation aids for the removal of phosphorus from recirculating aquaculture effluent. Aquacult. Eng. 29, 23-42. Eding, E.H., Klapwijk, A., Verreth, J.A.J., 2003. Design and performance of an

Eding, E., Verdegem, M., Martins, C., Schlaman, G., Heinsbroek, L., Laarhoven, B., Ende, S., Verreth, J., Aartsen, F., Bierbooms,V., 2009. Tilapia farming using Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) - Case study in the Netherlands, in a handbook for sustainable Aquaculture, Project N: COLL-CT-2006-030384 <http:/ /www.sustainaqua.org/ > El-Sayed., A.F.M., 2006, Tilapia Culture. CABI Publ., Wallingford, UK, 277 pp.
17
Page 18 of 28

Ac

upflow sludge blanket reactor in a zero discharge recirculating system. Abstracts and Extended Communications of Contributions Presented at the International Conference Aquaculture Europe Beyond Monoculture Trondheim, Norway. EAS Spec. Publ. No. 33, pp. 172-174.

ce pt

Ebeling, J.M., Sibrell, P.L., Ogden, S., Summerfelt, S.T., 2003. Evaluation of

ed

nursery production of tomato plants. Acta Horticult. 89, 223-230.

an

us

Danaher, J.J., Shultz, R.C., Rakocy, J.E, 2011b. Evaluation of two textiles with or

cr

sulfide oxidation in biofilters of a recirculating mariculture system. Appl.

ip t

Cytryn, E., van Rijn, J., Schramm, A., Gieseke, A., de Beer, D., Mintz, D., 2005.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. Effluent guidelines: aquatic

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

animal production industry <www.epa.gov/ost/guide/aquaculture/> Fontenot, Q., Bonvillain, C., Kilgen, M., Boopathy, R., 2007. Effects of temperature, salinity, and carbon: nitrogen ratio on sequencing batch reactor treating shrimp aquaculture wastewater. Bioresource Technol. 98, 1700-1703. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 1995. Code of conduct for responsible

v9878e00.pdf>

Information Programme. Lates calcarifer. Cultured Aquatic Species

Lates_calcarifer/en>

Gelfand, I. , Barak Y., Even-Chen, Z., Cytryn, E., Krom, M., Neori, A.,van Rijn, J., 2003. A novel zero-discharge intensive seawater recirculating system for culture of marine fish. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 34, 344-358.

194 pp.

Goncalves, A.A., Gagnon, G.A., 2011. Ozone application in recirculating aquaculture systems: an overview. Ozone - Sci. Eng. 33, 345-367. Gregory, S. P., Shields, R. J., Fletcher, D.J., Gatland, P., Dyson, P.J., 2010. Bacterial

recirculating vertical flow saline biofilters. Ecol. Eng. 36, 1485-1491. Kaiser, J.B. and Holt, G.J., 2005. Species profile Cobia. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Publication no. 7202 <www.scribd.com/doc/16595767/

Karipoglou, C. and Nathanailides, C., 2009. Growth rate and feed conversion efficiency of intensively cultivated European eel (Anguilla Anguilla L.). Intern. J. Fisheries and Aquacult. 1, 11-13 Klas, S., Mozes, N., Lahav, O., 2006. Development of a single-sludge denitrification method for nitrate removal from RAS effluents: Lab-scale results vs. model prediction. Aquaculture 259, 342-353 Lahav, O., Bar Massada, I., Yackoubov, D. Zelikson, R., Mozes, N., Tal, Y., Tarre, S., 2009. Quantification of anammox activity in a denitrification reactor for a recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture 288, 76-82.
18
Page 19 of 28

Ac

Cobia-SRAC7202>

ce pt

community responses to increasing ammonia concentrations in model

ed

Goddard, S. 1996. Feed Management in Intensive Aquaculture. Chapman & Hal, NY,

an

us

Information Programme <http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/

cr

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2012. Cultured Aquatic Species

ip t

fisheries. FAO, Rome, 41p. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/ fao/005/v9878e/

Leenhouwers, J.I., Ortega, R.C., Verreth, J.A.J., Schrama, J.W., 2007. Digesta
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

characteristics in relation to nutrient digestibility and mineral absorption in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) fed cereal grains of increasing viscosity. Aquaculture 273, 556-565 Lin, Y.F., Jing, S.R., Lee, D.Y., Chang, Y.F., Chen, Y.M., Shih, K.C., 2005. Performance of a constructed wetland treating intensive shrimp aquaculture

Little, D.C., Murraya, F.J., Azima, E., Leschena, W., Boyd, K., Watterson, A., Green Growth? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19, 255-264.

seabream (Sparus aurata) culture using a nutritional approach. Aquat. Living Resour. 11, 265-268.

Martins, C.I.M., Ochola, D., Ende, S.S.W., Eding, E.H., Verreth, J.A.J., 2009. Is growth retardation present in Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus cultured in

Martins, C.I.M., Eding, E.H., Verdegem, M.C.J., Heinsbroek, L.T.N., Schneider, O., Blancheton, J., Roque dOrbcasteld, E., Verreth, J.A.J., 2010. New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental sustainability. Aquacult. Eng. 43, 83-93.

2006. High rate algal pond treatment for water reuse in a marine fish recirculation system: water purification and fish health. Aquaculture 252, 92101.

Mook, W.T., Chakrabarti, M.H., Aroua, M.K., Khan, G.M.A., Ali, B.S., Islam, M.S., Abu Hassan, M.A., 2012. Removal of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrate and total organic carbon (TOC) from aquaculture wastewater using electrochemical technology: A review. Desalination 285, 1-13. Neori, A., Cohen, I., Gordin, H., 1991. Ulva lactuca biofilters for marine fishpond effluents: II. Growth rate, yield and C:N ratio. Bot. Mar. 34, 483-489. Neori, A., Krom, M.D., van Rijn, J., 2007. Biochemical processes in intensive zero-

Ac

Mirzoyan, N., Tal, Y., Gross, A., 2010. Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive recirculating aquaculture systems: review. Aquaculture 306, 1-6.

ce pt

Metaxa, E., Deviller, G., Pagand, P., Alliaume, C., Casellas, C., Blancheton, J.P.,

ed

M
19

low water exchange recirculating aquaculture systems? Aquaculture 298, 43-50.

an

us

Lupatsch, I. and Kissil, G.W., 1998. Predicting aquaculture waste from gilthead

cr

Young, J.A., 2008. Options for producing a warmwater fish in the UK: limits to

ip t
Page 20 of 28

wastewater under high hydraulic loading rate. Environ. Poll. 134, 411-442

effluent marine fish culture with recirculating aerobic and anaerobic biofilters. J.
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 349, 235-247. Neori, A., Chopin, T., Troell, M., Buschmann, A.H., Kraemer, G.P., Halling, C., Shpigel, M.,Yarish, C., 2004. Integrated aquaculture: rationale, evolution and state of the art emphasizing seaweed biofiltration in modern mariculture. Aquaculture 231, 361-391. Nobre, A.M., Robertson-Andersson, D., Neori, A., Sankar, K., 2010. Ecological economic assessment of aquaculture options: Comparison between abalone

Aquaculture 306, 116-126.

algal ponds for the treatment of marine effluent from a recirculating fish rearing system. Aquacult. Res. 31, 729-736.

Peet, C., 2006. Farmed barramundi. Seafood report, Monterey Bay Aquarium <www.montereybayaquarium.org/.../MBA_SeafoodWatch>

Oreochromis niloticus on natural and supplemental feeds. Asian Fish. Sci. 20, 425-431

Piedrahita, R.H., 2003. Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank aquaculture effluents through intensification and recirculation. Aquaculture 226,

Racocy, J.E., 2007. Aquaponics: integrated fish and plant culture, pp 767-822. In: Timmons, M.B, Ebeling, J.M. (Eds.). Recirculating Aquaculture. NRAC Publ. no. 01-007, Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, NY, 975 pp.

Reid, K.R., 2007. Nutrient release form salmon culture. In: Nutrient impact s of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) on pelagic ecosystems and implications for carrying capacity. Report of the Technical Working Group (World Wildlife Fund) on nutrients and carrying capacity of salmon aquaculture dialogue <www.worldwildlife.org/.../WWFBinaryitem11788.pdf> Roque dOrbcastel, E., Blancheton, J.P., Aubin, J., 2009a. Towards environmentally
20
Page 21 of 28

Ac

Rakocy, J. E., Bailey, D.S., Shultz, R.C., Thoman, E.S., 2004. Update on tilapia and vegetable production in the UVI aquaponic system. In: New Dimensions on Farmed Tilapia: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, Manila, Philippines, pp. 676-690.

ce pt

35-44.

ed

Perschbacher, P.W., 2007. Growth rates of GMT and mixed-sex Nile tilapia

an

us

Pagand, P., Blancheton, J.P., Lemoalle, J., Casellas, C., 2000. The use of high rate

cr

monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture of abalone and seaweeds.

ip t

sustainable aquaculture: comparison between two trout farming systems using

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

life cycle assessment. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 113-119. Roque dOrbcastel, E., Blancheton, J.P., Belaud, A., 2009b. Water quality and rainbow trout performance in a Danish Model Farm recirculating system: comparison with a flow through system. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 135-143. Roque dOrbcastel, E., Person-Le-Ruyet, J., Le Bayon, N., Blancheton, J.P., 2009c.

flow through rearing systems. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 79-86.

Przybyla, C., Belaud, A., 2008. Comparison of two methods for evaluating

Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A.R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P., Lawrence, R., 2008. Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities. Environ. Inter. 34, 1215-1226 Schipp, G., Bosmans, J., Humphrey, J, 2007. Northern Territory Barramundi Farming

pp. <www.nt.gov.au/.../NT_Barra_Farming_Handbook_Online_...> Schneider, O., Sereti, V., Eding , E.H., Verreth, J.A.J., 2005. Analysis of nutrient flows in integrated intensive aquaculture systems. Aquacult. Eng. 32, 379-401. Schneider, O., Amirkolaie, A.K., Vera-Cartas, J., Eding, E.H., Schrama, J.W.,

balances of five feed ingredients evaluated as fishmeal alternatives in Oreochromis niloticus L. Aquacult. Res. 35, 1370-1379. Shnel, N., Barak, Y., Ezer, T., Dafni, Z., van Rijn, J., 2002. Design and performance

Schuenhoff, A., Shpigel, M., Lupatsch, I., Ashkenazi, A., Msuya, F.E., Neori, A., 2003. A semi-recirculating, integrated system for the culture of fish and seaweed. Aquaculture 221, 167-181 Schwartz, M.F., Ebeling, J., Summerfelt, S., 2004. Geotextile tubes for aquaculture waste management. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Schwartz, M.F., Ebeling, J.M., Rishel, K.L., Summerfelt, S.T., 2005. Dewatering

Ac

of a zero-discharge tilapia recirculating system. Aquacult. Engin. 26, 191-203.

ce pt

Verreth, J.A.J., 2004. Digestibility, feces recovery, and related C, N, and P

ed

M
21

Handbook. Department of |Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, Australia, 71

an

us

waste of a flow through trout farm. Aquaculture 274, 72-79.

cr

Roque dOrbcastel, E., Blancheton, J.P., Boujard. T., Aubin, J., Moutounet, Y.,

ip t
Page 22 of 28

Comparative growth and welfare in rainbow trout reared in re-circulating and

aquaculture biosolids with geotextile bags. In: Aquaculture America 2005, New
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

Orleans, LA. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA., January 17-20, pp. 118. Schwermer, C.U., Ferdelman, T.G., Stief, P., Gieseke, A., Rezakhani, N., van Rijn, J., de Beer, D., Schramm, A., 2010. Effect of nitrate on sulfur transformations in sulfidogenic sludge of a marine aquaculture biofilter. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 72,

Sindilariu, P. D., Brinker, A., Reiter, R., 2009. Waste and particle management in a

Sharrer, M. J., K. L. Rashel, Summerfelt, S.T., 2009. Evaluation of geotextile

biosolids dewatering and phosphorus removal. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 1-10. Sharrer, M.J., Tal, Y., Ferrier, D., Hankins, J.A., Summerfelt, S.T., 2007. Membrane biological reactor treatment of a saline backwash flow from a recirculating aquaculture system. Aquacult. Eng. 36, 159-176.

reduction in the sludge of an anaerobic treatment stage of a zero-discharge recirculating mariculture system. Wat. Res. 42, 4386-4392. Stewart, N.T., Boardman, G.D., Helfrich, L.A., 2006. Characterization of nutrient leaching rates from settled rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sludge.

Su, Y-M, Lin, Y-F, Jing, S-R, Lucy Hou, P.C., 2011. Plant growth and the performance of mangrove wetland microcosms for mariculture effluent depuration. Marine Pollut. Bull. 62, 1455-1463.

Summerfelt, S.T., Sharrer, M.J., Tsukuda, S.M., Gearheart, M., 2009. Process requirements for achieving full-flow disinfection of recirculating water using ozonation and UV irradiation. Aquacult. Eng. 40, 17-27. Suzuki, Y., Maruyama, T., Numata, H., Sato, H., Asakawa, M., 2003. Performance of a closed recirculating system with foam separation, nitrification and denitrification units for intensive culture of eel: towards zero emission. Aquacult. Eng. 29, 165-182. Tal, Y., Watts, J.E.M., Schreier, S.B., Sowers, K.R., Schreier, H.J., 2003.
22
Page 23 of 28

Ac

Subasinghe, R., Soto, D., Jia, J., 2009. Global aquaculture and its role in sustainable development. Rev. Aquacult. 1, 2-9

ce pt

Aquacult. Eng. 35, 191-198

ed

Sher, Y., Schneider, K., Schwermer, C.U., van Rijn, J., 2008. Sulfide induced nitrate

an

us

filtration applying coagulant and flocculant amendments for aquaculture

cr

commercial, partially recirculating trout farm. Aquacult. Eng. 41, 127-135

ip t

476-484.

Characterization of the microbial community and nitrogen transformation

1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

processes associated with moving bed bioreactors in a closed recirculated mariculture system. Aquaculture 215, 187-202. Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., Sowers, K.R., Stubblefield, J.D., Place, A.R., Zohar, Y., 2009. Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 286, 28-35.

recirculation filters in large-scale shrimp aquaculture. Aquacult. Eng. 26, 81-

Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., 2007. Recirculating Aquaculture. NRAC Publ. no. 01-

van Rijn, J., Fonarev, N., Berkowitz, B., 1995. Anaerobic treatment of fish culture effluents: Digestion of fish feed and release of volatile fatty acids. Aquaculture 133, 9-20.

van Rijn, J., Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., 2006. Denitrification in recirculating systems:

Verdegem, M.C.J., Eding, E.H., Sereti, V., Munubi, R.N., Santacruz-Reyes, R.N., van Dam, A.A., 2005. Similarities between microbial and periphytic biofilms in aquaculture systems. In: Azim, M.E., Verdegem, M.C.J., van Dam, A.A., Beveridge, M.C.M. (Eds.). Periphyton, ecology, exploitation and management,

Virdis, B., Rabaey, K., Yuan, Z., Keller, J., 2008. Microbial fuel cells for simultaneous carbon and nitrogen removal. Water Res. 42, 30133024. Yeo, S.E., Binkowski, F.P., Morris, J.E., 2004. Aquaculture effluents and waste by-

Zachritz II, W.A., Hanson, A.T., Sauceda, J.A., Fitzsimmons, K.M., 2008. Evaluation of submerged surface flow (SSF) constructed wetlands for recirculating tilapia production systems. Aquacult. Eng. 39, 16-23. Zhong, F., Liang, W., Yu, T., Cheng, S.P., He, F., Wu, Z.B., 2011. Removal efficiency and balance of nitrogen in a recirculating aquaculture system integrated with constructed wetlands. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environ. Eng. 46, 789-794.
23
Page 24 of 28

Ac

products. Characteristics, potential recovery, and beneficial reuse. NCRAC Publications Office, North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Iowa State University, 45p.

ce pt

pp. 191-206. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA, 325pp.

ed

theory and applications. Aquacult. Eng. 34, 364-376.

an

us

007, Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, NY, 975pp.

cr

109.

ip t

Tilley, D.R., Badrinarayanan, H., Rosati, R., Son, J., 2002. Constructed wetlands as

Zohar, Y., Tal, Y., Schreier, H., Steven, C., Stubblefield, J., Place, A.R., 2005.
1 2 3 4 5 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 63 64 65

commercially feasible urban recirculated aquaculture: addressing the marine sector. In: Costa-Pierce, B., DesBonnet, A., Edwards, P., Baker, D. (Eds.), Urban Aquaculture. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 159-171.

Ac

ce pt

ed
24
Page 25 of 28

an

us

cr

ip t

Table 1

Table 1. Feed conversion ratios in different types of culture systems

Species

Flow through 0.8-1.2

RAS

Earthen Pond -

Cage

Reference

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) -

0.8-1.1

1.1-1.3

Bureau et al. (2003); Roque d'Orbcastel et al., (2009a,b,c)

Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) -

0.8-1.1

1.5-2.2

1.6-2.0

1.0-2.2

0.8-3.5

us
>1.5 1.4-2.2 1.5-2.0

Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) Cobia (Rachycentron canadum)

0.9-1.9

M
1.5

an
-

ed
1.0

Ac

ce pt

cr

ip t

FAO (2008); Peet (2006); Schipp et al. (2007)

El Sayed (2006); Leenhouwer et al., (2007); Little et al. (2008); Martins et al., (2009); Perschbacher (2007); Schnell et al. (2003) Cromey and White (2004); Zohar et al., (2005)

Benetti et al. (2008); Kaiser and Holt (2005)

Page 26 of 28

Table 2

Table 2. Waste production of different fish species as determined by the nutritional approach

Fish species Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Brown trout* (Salmo trutta) Lake trout* (Salvelinus namaycush) Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) Tilapia (O. niloticus) Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Total solids Total N Total P (kg per ton fish production) 148-338 41-71 7.5-15.2

Reference Azvedo et al. (2011); Bureau et al. (2003); Roque d'Orbcastel et al. (2008) Cho et al. (1994)

438 (589)

49.2 (45.8) 6.2 (10.5)

564 (562)

65.3 (59)

6.8 (6.8)

Cho et al. (1994)

29.0-302.3

21.8-101.7 4.2-15.4

447.5

102.9

17.8

520-650

72.4

M
23-29 0.6-8.9 1.1

192-268.8

ed
48-72.7 32

ce pt

224

* numbers in parenthesis represent values that were obtained by direct quantification of the waste in the culture water

Ac

an

us

Bermudes et al. (2010)

Lupatch and Kissil (1998)

Beveridge (1984); Beveridge and Phillips (1993)

Schneider et al. (2004)

Reid (2007)

cr
Page 27 of 28

ip t

Table 3

Table 3. Some characteristics of outdoor and indoor RAS with treatment components within the recirculating loop

Organism cultured Outdoor RAS Sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) Tilapia (Oreochromis. mossambicus x O. aureus) Shrimps (Litopenaeus vannamei) Tilapia (O. niloticus) Indoor RAS Tilapia (O. niloticus x O. aureus) Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata)
1 2

Type of treatment

Maximum biomass (kg)

Treatment volume and area Total Per kg of cultured biomass 0.044m3 0.081m2 0.023m3 0.084m2 0.041m3 0.045m2

Reference

High rate algal pond1

320

14.0m3 26.0m2 12.0m3 43.7m2 50.0 m3 55.0 m2

wetland2

1230

us
0.023m3 0.035m2 0.037m3 0.106m2 0.008 m3 0.005 m2 0.015 m3 0.026 m2 0.008 m3 0.006 m2

High rate algal pond1

520

cr

924

wetland2

21.0m3 32.0m2

an

aquaponics2

ed

2184

80.0m3 232.0m2

ce pt

denitrification/ sludge digestion3

4800

40.0 m3 23.0 m2 1.55m3 2.75m2 14.4m3 11.1m2

Ac

denitrification/ sludge digestion3

106

denitrification/ anammox/sludge digestion3

1752

Treatment system was equipped with additional solids removal and nitrification units. Treatment system was equipped with additional clarifier for solids removal. 3 Treatment system was equipped with additional nitrification unit.

ip t

Metaxa et al. (2006)

Schuenhoff et al. (2003)

Zachritz et al. (2008)

Lin et al. (2005)

Racocy et al. (2004)

Shnel et al. (2002)

Gelfand et al. (2003)

Tal et al. (2009)

Page 28 of 28