Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/clcb

Exploration of efficient water, energy and nutrient use in aquaponics

systems in northern latitudes
Luuk Jansen a, Karel J. Keesman b,∗
a
Environmental Technology and Mathematical & Statistical Methods (Biometris), Wageningen University, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
b
Mathematical & Statistical Methods (Biometris), Wageningen University, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Efficient energy and resource management are essential for a more sustainable food production system. On-
Aquaponics demand coupled multi-loop aquaponics, containing at least a fish, plant and anaerobic digester unit, has shown
horticulture great potential for optimizing nutrient use. However, balancing the nutrients for both fish and crop production
sustainable agriculture
becomes increasingly complex at higher latitudes. In these areas also significant reductions in energy use are
dynamic model
required. Hitherto, the effects of energy-saving strategies on the dynamics of an aquaponics system have not
design scenarios
been explored.
The objective of the study was to investigate and mathematically model an aquaculture-hydroponic (aquapon-
ics) system with Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) or tomato (Solanum lycoper-
sicum L.), and to verify it for the Netherlands.
In the mathematical model several physical and operational parameters were varied to find their influence
on water and nutrient use efficiency, energy use and the growing environment, in particular in the greenhouse.
The variation in crop transpiration was found to be a simple, yet effective, indicator for the influence of
greenhouse settings on the performance of on-demand coupled multi-loop aquaponics systems. The correlation
between water or nutrient use efficiencies and transpiration variation (0.98) is stronger than the correlation with
energy use (0.78). The maximum allowed humidity (70% to 90%) and use of artificial lighting (0 – 200 W/m2 )
has the largest effect on both performance and energy use. Other settings, such as inclusion of thermal insulation
of the cover, minimum temperature, addition of heat storage, and use of screens, have effect on the energy
efficiency, but have little effect on the nutrient dynamics. To counter the negative effects of variation caused by
other energy-saving strategies or climatic variations, the use of a buffer tank, placed between anaerobic digester
and hydroponic system, was found a feasible option.
Aquaponics is an emerging technology in sustainable food production and this research supports the intro-
duction of on-demand coupled aquaponics systems in northern latitudes.

1. Introduction than conventional agriculture. However, soilless forms of agriculture

In the coming decades, food demand is expected to grow rapidly,
while agricultural land is being degraded as a consequence of climate
change and unsustainable agricultural practices (Searchinger et al.,
2019). Greenhouses are used as one of the strategies to mitigate these
problems and their area has been growing rapidly. Greenhouses can
have high food productivity in limited space, while being less depen-
dent on environmental conditions.
Greenhouses with soilless forms of agriculture, also known as hydro-
ponics, have significantly higher efficiencies for water and nutrients use
generally rely heavily on synthetic fertilizers, as organic fertilizers still
result in significantly lower yields (Zandvakili et al., 2019). For the cre-
ation of nitrogen fertilizers fossil fuels are used, while phosphate fertiliz-
ers are manufactured from non-renewable sources. Their discharge into
the environment causes severe damage to aquatic ecosystems through
eutrophication (Nedelciu et al., 2020). Consequently, the production of
synthetic fertilizers has significant negative effects on the environment.
The (re)introduction of the aquaponics concept, the combined culti-
vation of fish and crops, is an attempt to reduce the use of synthetic fer-
tilizer and to further improve nutrient and water use efficiencies of hy-

List of abbreviations: DWC, deep water culture; HPS, hydroponic system; RAS, recirculating aquaculture system; RH, relative humidity; UASB, upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactor; AP, aquaponics; NFT, nutrient film technique; AD, anaerobic digester; KPI, key performance indicator; RO, reverse osmosis; ETc, crop
transpiration; CV, coefficient of variation; COD, Chemical oxygen demand.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: karel.keesman@wur.nl (K.J. Keesman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100012
Received 25 March 2022; Received in revised form 20 May 2022; Accepted 23 May 2022
2772-8013/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman
droponics (David et al., 2022). Nowadays, an industrial aquaponics sys-
tem consists of a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) and hydroponic
system (HPS), with water flowing between the two to exchange nutrients
(Baganz et al., 2021). In the RAS, fish are reared in tanks and a screen fil-
ter and nitrification reactor are used to remove solids (fish feces and un-
eaten feed) and to convert ammonia to nitrates, respectively. In perma-
nently coupled aquaponics (previously called single-loop aquaponics),
the nutrient-rich RAS water is used as a hydroponic solution to grow
plants in the HPS and the water from the HPS is returned to the RAS
after the plants have taken up a fraction of the nutrients (Baganz et al.,
2021).
However, this single-loop system inherently creates suboptimal con-
ditions, as the plants and fish have different needs for nutrient levels and
pH (Goddek et al., 2016; Goddek & Keesman, 2018). To eliminate this
problem, an on-demand coupled aquaponics system has been developed
(previously called decoupled aquaponics), where the water flow from the
HPS to the RAS becomes optional, allowing more control over both sys-
tems (Baganz et al., 2021; Kloas et al., 2015; Goddek et al., 2016). To
increase the nutrient use efficiency in on-demand coupled aquaponics
systems a remineralization loop was added, in which an anaerobic di-
gester converts the filtered-out solids from the RAS into plant-available
nutrients for the HPS, leading to a multi-loop system (Goddek et al.,
2018). In addition to the remineralization loop, a desalination loop, in
which nutrients in the discharged RAS water are concentrated and clean
water returned to the RAS through reverse osmosis (RO) filtration, was
also proposed (Goddek & Keesman, 2018). The concentrated nutrient
solution is subsequently transferred to the hydroponic solution.
Besides concerns regarding fertilization, highly productive green-
houses are also known for their high energy consumption. In northern
latitudes, the majority of greenhouse energy demand is for heating, re-
sulting in a heavy reliance on fossil fuel (Semple et al., 2017). For a
standard greenhouse in the Netherlands, Kempkes et al. (2017) reported
that heating can account for up to 90% of the energy use and 25% of
the production costs. Reducing the energy consumption for heating is
crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the depen-
dency on fossil fuels.
In the past decades, there has been plenty of innovation and re-
search on saving energy in greenhouses, driven by environmental regu-
lation and cost reduction (Bakker, 2009; De Zwart, 1996; Kempkes et al.,
2017). To achieve this, a mix of technologies and operational strategies
can be used. For example, dehumidification and heat recovery can be
used to control the indoor climate, which decreases the need for (en-
ergy inefficient) ventilation (Kempkes et al., 2017; Semple et al., 2017).
In terms of operational strategies, changes in the temperature and hu-
midity ranges can decrease the need for heating in a dehumidification
process (Bakker, 2009).
With increasing latitude, seasonal differences generally increase,
while average temperatures decrease. In addition to an increase in heat-
ing demand, Goddek & Körner (2019) showed in a modeling study that
this increased seasonal variation makes an aquaponics system more dif-
ficult to manage and less efficient. This is because the main water trans-
fer in an on-demand coupled aquaponics system is driven by transpira-
tion, which in turn is mainly related to global radiation.
Thus, greenhouses at higher latitudes have much potential for energy
use reduction. Several studies already cover the effects that different
energy-saving strategies have on crop production (Elings et al., 2005).
However, its effect on nutrient use efficiencies in aquaponics systems
is largely unknown and complex due to dynamics and interactions in
such coupled systems. This study aims to investigate and explore what
effects various operational strategies and design parameters have on the
optimal design and operation of an on-demand multi-loop aquaponics
system in a cold and varied climate. For this, a model was used to sim-
ulate a multi-loop aquaponics system, growing lettuce (Lactuca sativa
L.) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.), using weather data from
the Netherlands. Subsequently, several design and operation parameters
were varied to find their influence on water and nutrient use efficiency,
2
Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012
Figure 1. The three compartments of the aquaponics system under study with
the most important flows.
energy use and the growing environment. Special interest was paid to
the variation in crop transpiration, which was used for the comparison
of different scenarios. To better support the theory proposed in this arti-
cle, the production of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) was explored,
as well. Additionally, two new buffering strategies were investigated,
intending to further increase the performance of the aquaponics system
in varied climates.
2. Methodology
2.1. Aquaponics system
The aquaponics system in this study mostly follows the design of
Dijkgraaf et al. (2019) and consists of three compartments: the recir-
culating aquaculture system (RAS), anaerobic digester (AD) and hydro-
ponic system (HPS). These elements are shown in Figure 1 and explained
in the following sub-sections.
The main component of a RAS is a set of fish tanks, where fish is
produced in staggered cycles at high densities. Nutrients are added to
the system in the form of fish feed, which is either consumed or wasted
by the fish. From the consumed fraction, nutrients partly contribute to
fish growth and leave the system with the harvest of fish, whereas the
other part is excreted as feces and urea. The urea dissolves in the wa-
ter, increasing the nitrogen concentration, while the solids (feces and
uneaten feed) remain in suspension.
In addition to the fish tanks a RAS has a treatment train with a drum
filter to remove these solids and a moving bed bioreactor to prevent the
build-up of ammonia, as shown by Goddek & Keesman (2020). The dis-
charge of RAS water is mainly directed to the HPS, while a small fraction
of the water remains with the separated solids. The solids form a sludge
that is transported to the AD. To maintain a constant water volume in
the RAS, fresh water from tap, rain or groundwater is added to compen-
sate for the discharge. The dilution of RAS water takes place when the
ammonia or nitrate concentration surpasses a prespecified limit.
To prevent, to a large extent, the loss of nutrients in the fish sludge,
it is treated in an anaerobic digester system. This system consists of two
sequential UASB reactors with different pH levels for optimal perfor-
mance, as in Goddek & Körner (2019). The chemical oxygen demand
(COD) present in the fish sludge is digested in the first reactor, resulting
in the production of biogas which can be utilized for heating the reactor,
fish tanks or greenhouse. In the second reactor, as a result of the rem-
ineralization process, a large fraction of the nutrients in the fish sludge
becomes soluble (Goddek et al., 2018). Combined with the direct RAS
discharge, this highly concentrated effluent flow makes up the nutrient
source from fish to crops. The whole AD system is explained in great
detail by Delaide et al. (2019).
The hydroponic system (HPS) is similar to conventional soilless,
closed-loop cultivation systems (Lennard & Goddek, 2019). Several irri-
gation techniques can be used, such as Deep Water Culture (DWC), Nu-
trient Film Technique (NFT) or drip irrigation, each with its own range
of suitable crops. The advantages and disadvantages of many soilless
systems are described by Maucieri et al. (2019). For this study, let-
tuce is grown, either in DWC or NFT. The main difference concern-
ing this study is the overall water volume of the nutrient solution,
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman
Figure 2. The placement of the two possible buffers in the AP system. Buffer 1
is for the RAS to HPS flow and buffer 2 is for the AD to HPS flow. The direct flow
between the RAS and HPS carries most of the nitrogen and its flow rate is linked
to the transpiration rate (Goddek & Körner, 2019). Most of the phosphorus enters
the HPS as digester effluent, at a relatively constant rate.
with DWC (200 L/m2 ) having a far greater volume than NFT (3 L/m2 )
(Stanghellini et al., 2019). For both technologies the nutrients not taken
up by the plant is returned to the sump for recirculation, forming closed
loop systems.
In this study, the preparation of the nutrient solution is different
from standard hydroponics, as it is largely based on a mix of RAS water
and digestor effluent, topped up with synthetic fertilizers. By managing
the fertilizer supplementation and adjustable combination of fresh water
intake and discharge of HPS water the solution can be kept within plant-
specific ranges (Bittsánszky et al., 2016). Transpiration of the crops is
the main driver of water transfer between RAS and HPS, as the water
level in the HPS is kept constant. Given the fact that also the amount
of water in the RAS is kept constant, the variation in transpiration (i.e.
radiation) results in a varying freshwater intake in the RAS.
In addition to the three basic elements, as shown in Figure 1, a re-
verse osmosis (RO) filtration system can be implemented to further in-
crease the difference in nutrient concentration between the RAS and
HPS (Goddek & Keesman, 2018). As a result of the filtration process, a
nutrient-rich brine is added to the HPS, while the remaining water with
largely reduced nutrient concentrations is fed back to the RAS. In this
study, the system has a fixed hourly flow but is deactivated when either
the nitrate or phosphorus concentration in the HPS nears its upper limit,
to prevent the need for dilution. The RO filtration system was not used
in most of the scenarios in this study and it is specifically stated in which
cases it was used.
Limited seasonal variation solar radiation climate was found to be
beneficial for a balanced and efficient aquaponics system by Goddek &
Körner (2019). In seasonally varied climates, a mismatch can arise be-
tween the stable nutrient flow from the RAS to the HPS and the varied
nutrient demand of the HPS (between summer and winter). Two addi-
tional strategies were tested to achieve the benefits of stable climates,
using water-buffering tanks as shown in Figure 2. The RAS to HPS buffer
and the AD to HPS buffer store nutrient rich water in the winter to be
released in summer. Both options aim to better match the supply and
demand of nutrients in the HPS throughout the year.
2.2. Aquaponics model
For ease of access, the model created in this study was imple-
mented in Microsoft ExcelTM and consists of various sub-models, as
shown in Figure 3. While discussed only briefly in the following sec-
tions, each is described in detail in Supplementary Materials SM 1.
For more advanced aquaponics model implementations we refer to
Karimanzira et al (2016) and Reyes Lastiri et al (2018). For clarity in
categorizing parameters and performance indicators, a distinction was
made between the aquaponics system (Fish production + Water & Nutri-
ents) and the greenhouse system (Plants + Greenhouse climate). Unless
stated otherwise, the parameter values used in this study are presented
in Appendix 1.
3
Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012
Figure 3. The four sub-models of the aquaponics model and the dynamic vari-
ables that are exchanged between them. As the nutrient solution is kept within
suitable bounds for the crop, it is assumed that the Water & nutrients sub-model
has no further influence on the Plants sub-model.
The balance equations of the four sub-models are solved numerically
using the Euler forward method. A time-step of one day was found to be
sufficiently accurate for the Fish production and Water & Nutrients sub-
models as variation in the nutrient concentration throughout the day
was not considered in this study. For the Greenhouse climate and Plants
sub-models, five minutes was chosen as the smallest acceptable time-
step in terms of computational requirements.
The growth of fish in the rearing tanks is calculated using
the equations from Timmons & Ebeling (2010), as implemented by
Dijkgraaf et al. (2019). Assuming the growing environment is optimal,
in terms of e.g. pH, dissolved oxygen and fish feed, the weight gain of the
fish is calculated using only water temperature and several fish-specific
parameters.
Besides being used to calculate the fish yield, the sub-model is used
to determine the feed requirements throughout the production cycle. For
this, a feed conversion rate is used, which describes the ratio between
feed uptake and weight gain, as explained by Dijkgraaf et al. (2019).
Staggered production of fish provides a smoother nutrient supply
(Goddek et al., 2016). As this study specifically estimates the perfor-
mance over one year of operation, the start-up phase of the RAS is omit-
ted.
The Water & Nutrients sub-model calculates the flows of nutri-
ents and water throughout the system. It is based on the work of
Dijkgraaf et al. (2019), with several corrections (Supplementary Ma-
terials SM 2). The model considers nitrogen and phosphorus, for their
importance in crop growth and dynamics of RAS and AD. Potassium (K)
was not considered as it makes up an insufficient fraction of the fish feed
(Shiau & Hsieh, 2001) to influence the system (<0.3% K, compared to
1% P and 7% N).
In the HPS, represented by the sub-models Greenhouse climate and
Plants, the concentrations of N and P were determined by the incom-
ing flow and the nutrient uptake of the crops. Given the very complex
process of nutrient uptake by plants (Roose et al., 2001; Picart et al.,
2015) and given the overall aim of the study to study the operation
and design of a full aquaponics system, the basic assumption that the
nutrient (N and P) uptake by the crops is equal to the product of
the crop transpiration and nutrient concentration, as in the studies of
(Dijkgraaf et al, 2019; Goddek & Körner, 2019), was made. Nutrient
supplementation or dilution of the HPS water was used to keep the con-
centrations within the suitable range for the crop. The ranges used in
this study are 140 – 180 mg/L nitrate (NO3 ) and 40 – 60 mg/L phosphate
(PO4 ), following Resh (2013).
The main function of the Plants sub-model is to use data from the
greenhouse climate (temperature, humidity and radiation) to deter-
mine the transpiration of the crop, according to Stanghellini and de
Jong (1995) and (Graamans et al., 2017). Crop transpiration (ETc) de-
pends on plant-specific parameters and environment variables. In this
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

Table 1
Parameter description and values for the aquaponics system, based on Timmons & Ebeling (2010), Stanghellini et al. (2019) and Goddek
& Keesman (2018).

Parameter Reference Range Unit

HPS area Area of the greenhouse planted with crops. 2000 1000 – 4000 m2
P content feed Mass fraction of phosphorus in the fish feed. 1% 0.8%, 1%, 1.4% −
System volume Water volume of the HPS, relative to HPS area. 200 3, 200 L/m2 HPS
Desalination flow Input flow for reverse osmosis desalination, relative to HPS area. 0 0 – 12 L/m2 HPS/d

Table 2
Parameter description and values for the greenhouse system, based on Stanghellini et al. (2019), Seginer et al. (2020), Kempkes & Janse (2016) and Van Beveren
et al. (2015).

Parameter Reference Range Unit

RH max Maximum allowed humidity in the greenhouse 80% 70% - 90% -

T min The temperature at which heating is enabled. 12 10 - 15 °C
𝛼 glazing Heat transfer coefficient of the cover 2.7 1.2 - 5 W/m2 /K
PHS diameter Diameter of water-filled cylinders, placed in parallel under the grow beds, functioning as passive heat storage. 0 0 – 0.3 m
Shade screen Threshold of solar radiation for which the screen is activated if exceeded. Lowers transmissivity by 30% >900 (disabled) > 900 - > 600 W/m2
Energy screen Threshold of solar radiation for which the screen is activated. Lowers 𝛼 glazing by 40%. <1 Disabled, < 1 - < 50 W/m2
Artificial light The electrical power rating of SON-T lamps, controlled as described in Greenhouse climate, Control strategy. 0 0 - 200 W/m2

study, the growth of the crops was not affected by the Water & Nutri-
ents or Fish production sub-model, as nutrient concentrations were kept
within optimal bounds.
In the Greenhouse climate sub-model, the temperature, humidity and
light inside the greenhouse are simulated, representing the growing en-
vironment of the crops. The greenhouse climate is described by physics-
based, dynamic balance equations for uniform temperature (energy) and
absolute humidity (mass) of the greenhouse, as done by Van Beveren
et al. (2015), see Supplementary Materials SM 1. All variables and pa-
rameters are also explained in SM 1. While the model created for this
study is of relatively low complexity, the outcomes fit within those found
in the literature, as shown in Supplementary Materials SM 1.5. To en-
sure a suitable temperature and humidity for the crops, management
and control strategies have been modelled, as well. For instance, the
energy screen is deployed when solar radiation is below a threshold,
as described in Kempkes & Janse (2016). The shade screen is deployed
when solar radiation exceeds a maximum or when outside temperatures
are close to the maximum allowed greenhouse temperature. Artificial
lighting, if used, is activated between 8 am and 8 pm if solar radiation
is below a threshold and is disabled from May to October to save energy.
Temperature and humidity are controlled based on the energy and va-
por fluxes of the greenhouse in four steps, as displayed in Supplementary
Materials SM 1.
2.3. Design and operation parameters
In this study, four aquaponics parameters were varied to investi-
gate their influence on the nutrient dynamics and system performance
(Table 1). Additionally, seven greenhouse parameters were varied for
their effect on the energy use and crop transpiration (Table 2).
For the greenhouse parameters, also two combination scenarios were
tested. In both scenarios we assumed a well-insulated cover (𝛼 glazing:
1.7 W/m2 /K) and passive heat storage (0.3m). Combination 1 also had
a lower minimum temperature (10°C) and combination 2 had a higher
maximum humidity (90%).
For tomato production, the parameters different from lettuce pro-
duction are presented in Table A5.1.
the performance of the system. Table 3 lists the KPIs that were used to
evaluate the different parameter settings of the aquaponics system.
The unweighted average of the WUE, NUE and NSS is used for a quick
overview and referred to as the ‘average KPI’. As the RAS volume was
kept constant and the fish growing conditions were kept within desired
bounds, the feed rate and yield of the fish remain unchanged and are
not displayed.
The KPIs used to evaluate the greenhouse system are shown in
Table 4 and give information on the transpiration rate, growing envi-
ronment and energy use.
Because of the explorative character of the study, we used param-
eter sensitivity and scenario analyses to have an indication about the
influence of individual design and control parameters (Tables 1 and 2)
on the KPIs.
2.5. Location
The model was designed to be applicable for different locations with
corresponding climate data (temperature, relative humidity and solar
radiation). For this study, the operational strategies and simulated tech-
nical equipment have been designed to meet the demands of moderate
and sub cold climates, such as in Canada, Northern Europe and North-
ern Asia, which share strong seasonal differences. This study used hourly
weather data from 2017 of de Bilt in the Netherlands (KNMI 2021).
3. Results
3.1. Fish production
For all the scenarios of this study, the parameters of the RAS, as
shown in Supplementary Materials SM1, were left unchanged. As the
growing environment for the fish is kept within optimal ranges, it is
assumed that the production is also the same for each scenario. For a
total tank volume of 100 m3 , the calculated feed rate varied between 34
and 42 kg per day (14 tons per year) and a yearly fish yield of 11640
kg.
3.2. Aquaponics parameter sensitivity analysis

2.4. Model data analysis
From the large amount of data generated by the model, the most
important outcomes are summarized in a set of key performance indica-
tors (KPIs). Together, the KPIs cover the relevant factors for determining
First, the general impact that individual parameters (Table 1) have
on the nutrient balances, and by extension, on the system performance
is presented. Figure A2.1 in Appendix 2 provides an additional visual
representation of the effect of each parameter on the nutrient dynamics
throughout the year.

4
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman
Table 3
KPIs for the aquaponics system.
WUE (%) Water Use Efficiency.
NUE N & P (%) Nutrient Use Efficiency for both nitrogen and phosphorus.
NSS N & P (%) Nutrient Self Sufficiency: fraction of nutrients entering the HPS originating from the fish (as opposed to supplementation).
Table 4
KPIs for the crop and greenhouse.
ETc avg. Daily average transpiration of the crop
ETc CV Coefficient of variation of daily transpiration values: an indication of the variation
throughout the year
Energy use greenhouse The amount of energy (MJ/m2 /year) required for the greenhouse per square meter in one year, split into heating,
mechanical dehumidification and supplementary lighting
Figure 4. The required dilution and supplementation for various HPS areas
with an NFT system.
The total transpiration of the greenhouse is directly proportional to
the HPS floor area. As it is assumed that nutrient uptake is proportional
to the crop transpiration and the concentrations in the nutrient solu-
tion, an increase in the HPS area will increase the nutrient demand. In
general, a system with a high HPS area will require nutrient supple-
mentation, while dilution is required for a smaller HPS, as is shown in
Figure 4. While nutrients can be supplemented individually, dilution re-
sults in the loss of all nutrients in the diluted volume. At a low HPS
area, the dilution resulting from one nutrient may lead to the need to
increase supplementation of the other, as is the case for N with an HPS
area smaller than 1500 m2 .
The chosen irrigation technique determines the volume of water in
the HPS. While nutrient supply and demand are initially unchanged by
this, the buffering capacity of high-volume systems can prevent shocks
in the nutrient concentrations. Overall, a larger volume results in an
increase in performance, as shown in Figure 5, with most benefits for
medium and large-sized HPS areas (2000 to 4000 m2 ). The discontinuity
at around an HPS area of 2700 m2 for DWC is a result of the absence of
any need for dilution. The remaining inefficiency is due to fixed losses
from the nutrients in the waste sludge of the digester.
The ratio between the phosphorus and nitrogen content in the fish
feed is an important factor in balancing the nutrient supply to the crop
demand. Determining the optimal ratio is complicated by the different
ways through which N and P are supplied to the HPS. Most of the ni-
trogen flow is directly from the RAS (70%) and is linked to the tran-
spiration rate, which varies greatly throughout the season. Phospho-
rus, on the other hand, mainly enters the HPS through digester efflu-
ent (85%), with only a slight oscillation resulting from the staggered
fish production (20 days). With the reference settings, the ratio be-
tween the nutrients was optimal for a low P content between 0.65% and
0.8%. However, this could be insufficient for proper fish growth. While
Sugiura et al. (2006) reported no difference in the growth of tilapia be-
tween 1% and 1.4%, a decrease of 28% in overall growth was found for
a P content of 0.5% by Eding et al. (2012).
5
Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012
𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡
𝑢𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡
𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑓 𝑖𝑠ℎ
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡
𝐸𝑇 𝑐 𝑎𝑣𝑔
𝐸 𝑇 𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑑 𝑑 𝑒𝑣
The reverse osmosis system (RO) results in an additional transfer of
nutrients from the RAS to the HPS, which also lowers the nitrate con-
centration in the RAS. Besides increasing the HPS area, adding RO is
practically the only way of reducing NO3 in the RAS, which is especially
important for more sensitive fish species. The RO system was temporar-
ily disabled when the concentration of either N or P in the HPS was at
95% of their respective maximum, as it could otherwise result directly
in dilution. This puts a limit on the desalination flow and decreased ad-
ditional benefits at higher flow capacities, especially for smaller HPS
areas. As the N content in the RAS and HPS are closely linked, the RO
system is mainly able to transfer nutrients when demand is low, result-
ing in only a minor increase in performance. When demand is high in
summer, the low nutrient concentrations of the RAS results in only a
small additional transfer from the RO.
As shown in Figure 3, the Greenhouse climate and Plant sub-models
can only influence the AP system through the transpiration rate. A large
variation in crop transpiration can result in a mismatch between the
relatively constant supply of nutrients and the transpiration-dependent
demand. This large variation can also lead to the requirement of both
supplementation and dilution of a nutrient within the same year, as is
also more likely in the low-volume NFT system. The same effects of vari-
ation can be seen for the nitrate concentration in the RAS. While low
variation results in lower peaks in the cold months, the higher concen-
tration in summer also means that more nitrate is transferred to the HPS,
lowering supplementation requirements.
3.3. Greenhouse parameter sensitivity analysis
To quantify the effect of different greenhouse settings, both the to-
tal transpiration and its variation throughout the year are investigated,
represented by the daily average transpiration (ETc avg) and coefficient
of variation (ETc CV) respectively. For the parameter values defined in
Table 2, their effects on the transpiration variation and energy use are
described in the following sections and summarized in Figure 6. Ad-
ditional outputs of the greenhouse model in Supplementary materials
Table SM 3.1.
3.3.1. Maximum relative humidity
Increasing the maximum humidity is a common energy-saving strat-
egy, which comes with a higher risk of crop disease. Increasing humidity
lowers transpiration, resulting in a significantly lower heating and dehu-
midification requirement. As this mainly happens in winter, the seasonal
transpiration difference is increased.
3.3.2. Power of artificial lighting
The artificial lighting is used according to simple logic (described
in Greenhouse climate, Control strategy) and increases yearly transpira-
tion, while lowering its variation. While the Daily Light Integral (DLI)
in winter is initially only a quarter of that in summer, it increases lin-
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

Figure 5. KPIs for different HPS volumes. Left: an NFT system with 3 L/m2 . Right: a DWC system with 200 L/m2 .

Figure 6. Total energy use (heating, dehumidification and lighting) against transpiration variation (CV) of 37 scenarios. Each of the parameters is varied along the
range shown in Table 2, with one or two parameter values present to indicate the direction. The lower graph displays a zoomed-in fraction of the upper graph, as
marked by the dashed rectangle.

early with the power of lighting deployed, until the summer and winter
DLI are almost equal at 200 W/m2 .
3.3.3. Energy-saving screen
As energy-saving screens (bottom graph of Figure 6) have become
common in new Dutch greenhouses (Kempkes et al., 2014; Van Beveren
et al., 2015), it is used in the reference scenario. From sunset to dawn,
the energy screen is deployed, lowering the heat transfer coefficient of
the greenhouse by approximately 40%. Extending the closed period be-
yond a minimum radiation of 25 W/m2 does not provide additional
benefits.
3.3.4. Diameter of passive heat storage
For passive heat storage (PHS) (bottom graph of Figure 6), long
water-filled cylinders are installed in parallel under the grow beds. As

6
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman
Figure 7. KPI values against the corresponding variation of the transpiration for 37 different scenarios. Total yearly transpiration has been kept equal by resizing
the HPS area. Initial HPS areas: 2000 and 3000 m2 , 1% P content in the feed, DWC.
the volume of the PHS is relatively small and without active control,
it only functions as a short-term energy buffer. Additional storage vol-
ume decreases the rate at which the temperature and humidity in the
greenhouse change, which slightly lowered the energy requirement in
the spring and fall.
3.3.5. Minimum daytime temperature
Changing the minimum temperature (bottom graph of Figure 6) has
a minor effect on the transpiration rate and its variation. Lowering the
minimum leads to a substantial decrease in heating demand while the
energy required for dehumidification increases slightly.
3.3.6. Average heat transfer coefficient of the glazing
An increase in the insulation of the greenhouse (decrease of trans-
fer coefficient) results in a minor decrease in variation as the average
temperature in winter is higher, paired with large energy savings.
3.3.7. Shade screen
In the reference situation, the shade screen was required for the
warmest days as ventilation cooling could no longer prevent overheat-
ing of the crop. When activation of the shade screen is also based on
the solar radiation, the transpiration and variation decrease, with a ne-
glectable change in energy use.
3.3.8. Combination scenarios
Both scenarios, as described in Section 2.3 and shown in top graph of
Figure 6, combine insulation with passive heat storage. Also decreasing
the minimum temperature by two degrees further lowers the energy
demand, with little effect on variation. Some more savings are achieved
when increasing the maximum humidity, as done in combination 2. Due
to the higher maximum humidity, transpiration is reduced mainly in
winter. Allowing a higher humidity also lowers the dehumidification
demand, but it increases the variation. A lower transpiration rate does,
however, increase the risk of tipburn due to insufficient transport of
calcium to the leaves (Frantz et al., 2004).
3.4. Impact of transpiration variation on AP performance
Using the crop transpiration data from the 37 unique greenhouse
scenarios, the AP model was run to calculate the KPIs related to water
and nutrients. In Figure 7 the CV of the transpiration rate was used as
an indicator for the influence of each greenhouse scenario on the AP
system for HPS areas of 2000 and 3000 m2 , respectively. Both graphs
show either no effect or a decrease in the performance indicators with
an increasing variation. Increasing the HPS area results in a higher WUE
7
Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012
and NUE, at the expense of NSS, as also shown in Figure 5. For an NFT
system, the drop in performance is roughly double.
To allow for better comparison between greenhouse parameter set-
tings, the HPS area was resized slightly for most scenarios to maintain
equal average transpiration, which leaves only the impact of the varia-
tion. This is explained in more detail in Appendix 3.
3.5. Experimental buffering strategies
3.5.1. Buffering RAS to HPS flow
An actively managed buffer between the RAS and HPS stabilizes the
direct flow between the RAS and HPS, effectively lowering the variation
throughout the year. RAS effluent is added to the buffer when transpi-
ration is low and released to the HPS when transpiration is high, as is
shown in Appendix 4. For this study, the average transpiration was used
to set an upper and lower bound on the flow from the RAS to the HPS.
Increasing the buffer size allows for tighter bounds, resulting in a lower
variation.
In Figure 8 (left), the difference in total phosphate demand of the
AP system, i.e. phosphate in buffer 1 and HPS (Figure 2), for the case
without and with a buffer is shown. The total phosphate (P) demand
was calculated such that the phosphate level in the HPS remained be-
tween 40 – 60 mg/L phosphate (PO4 ), the required range for the crop
(Resh, 2013). Figure 8 (right) shows the combined KPIs for five scenarios
and different buffer volumes. For the RAS, the average NO3 concentra-
tion is slightly decreased with this buffering system, that is 3% for a
2000 m2 HPS and 50L/m2 buffer capacity. More importantly, adding
buffer 1 decreases the highest peaks in the nutrients concentrations that
could result in dilution.
3.5.2. Buffering the AD to HPS flow
As an alternative to the first case, a buffer between the digester and
HPS (buffer 2, Figure 2) can be used to match supply to AP system de-
mand. This buffer ensures a good match between phosphorus supply
and total (buffer 2 and HPS) demand throughout the year, as shown in
Figure 9 (left). For nitrogen, the supply is already to some extent linked
to the transpiration rate, but there is still an improvement with the AD
buffer. As the nutrients in the AD effluent are far more concentrated, a
relatively small-sized buffer can be used to realize an increase in perfor-
mance of 4% – 10%. Also, as shown in Figure 9 (right), similar combined
KPIs as in Figure 8, were found, but with a much smaller buffer capacity.
3.5.3. Cost estimation
An estimation of the costs to construct both buffer types is made us-
ing interpolated data for the Netherlands (Raaphorst & Benninga, 2019,
p. 75) and is shown in Table 5.
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

Figure 8. Buffering of RAS to HPS flow. Left, the supply and demand for phosphorus are displayed for a 2000 m2 HPS and the reference scenario. For the upper
graph, no buffer is used, resulting in a stable supply and variable demand. For the lower graph, a buffer of 50 L per m2 HPS buffer is used (100 m3 for 2000 m2 )
which stabilizes the flow from the RAS to the HPS, decreasing the difference between supply and demand. In the right-hand graph, the combined KPI is shown for
five GH scenarios with NFT and various buffer volumes.

Figure 9. Buffering of the AD to HPS flow. Left, the supply and demand for phosphorus are displayed for a 2000 m2 HPS. For the upper graph, no buffer is used,
resulting in a stable supply and variable demand. For the lower graph, an 8 L/m2 buffer is used (16 m3 for 2000 m2 ) of which the output is linked to the crop
transpiration rate, and thus, to nutrient demand. In the right graph, the combined KPI is shown for five GH scenarios with NFT and various buffer volumes.

Table 5
Estimated cost ranges for construction of buffers, scaled for various HPS areas. A buffer volume of 50 L/m2 was used
for the RAS to HPS buffer and 8 L/m2 for the AD buffer.

HPS area RAS-HPS buffer volume Costs AD buffer volume Costs

2500 m2
125 m 3
€ 4,000 - 5,100 20 m3
€ 2,150 - 2,750
20000 m2 1000 m3 € 17,000 - 21,000 160 m3 € 4,750 - 6,000
50000 m2 2500 m3 € 23,500 - 30,000 400 m3 € 8,900 - 11,100
Cost per m2 HPS Between €0.50 and €2.05 per m2 Between €0.20 and €1.10 per m2

3.6. Combining greenhouse and aquaponics scenarios
Using the CV of transpiration, all 37 greenhouse scenarios were
combined with the 9 settings of the aquaponics system, as shown in
Figure 10. For visualization, the KPIs of the AP system are combined
as an unweighted average. A similar analysis was made for the tomato
crop, which is shown in Appendix 5.2.
an on-demand coupled aquaponics system with anaerobic digester and
potential use of RO filtration system. The research focused on changes
that could result in energy savings, as it is one of the crucial aspects
of sustainable food production in northern latitudes. While there are
studies that compare the system performance at different locations, the
specific influence of physical and operational parameters was not yet
investigated for aquaponics systems.

4. Discussion 4.1. Transpiration variation as a performance indicator

The objective of this research was to investigate and demonstrate Goddek & Körner (2019) suggested that a plant production system
the effect of changes in various physical and operational parameters on with a constant nutrient demand (which is more or less equivalent to a

8
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman
constant transpiration), would result in a balanced system with better
performance. This observation resulted in our hypothesized correlation
between the (seasonal) variation in transpiration and the performance of
the AP system. It has been found that the coefficient of variation (CV)
of the transpiration rate, as representative for the different scenarios
(Figure 6 and 7), was an appropriate factor that highly correlates with
the chosen KPIs of the AP system (correlation of 0.98 to 1 for WUE and
NUE), given that the HPS area is resized as shown in Appendix 3. This
strong correlation also holds for the average KPI, as was demonstrated
in Figure 10.
While increasing variation generally results in decreasing efficiency,
the sensitivity to it was not the same for different settings of the
aquaponics system. Starting from the lowest line in Figures 10, it is
shown that a poor P:N ratio (surplus of P) results in significantly lower
efficiencies than the other combinations, for all levels of variation. The
NFT system, with its lower system volume, shows the highest sensitiv-
ity to variation (steepest slope). The 3000 m2 HPS scores lower than
the reference due to its relatively low fraction of nutrients supplied by
the fish (NSS of N & P). The addition of the RO system for a 2500 m2
HPS resulted in only a small performance difference with the reference
(<1.2%), due to the low availability of nutrients in the RAS when de-
mand is high in summer. Therefore, RO has limited added value in
northern latitudes. The scenarios with buffer show very low sensitiv-
ity to transpiration variation, of which an AD buffer for the NFT system
shows the greatest performance increase (up to 8.5%). For the DWC sys-
tem, the AD buffer outperforms the RAS to HPS buffer, despite requiring
less than a sixth of the volume.
The production of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) was also simu-
lated and briefly explored to support the theories brought forward in this
study. The corresponding methods, results and discussion can be found
in Appendix 5. For a tomato crop, a similar decline in AP efficiency is
found with increasing variation in the seasonal transpiration. However,
the changes in the greenhouse parameters resulted in a smaller differ-
ence in variation than with lettuce.
Most of the GH parameters tested in this study had only a small effect
on the transpiration variation and could, therefore, be readily changed
to save energy. This includes the thermal insulation of the cover, min-
imum temperature, heat storage, and screens, as shown by the smaller
differences in transpiration in figure 6. Further increasing the bounds
of maximum humidity lowered the performance of the aquaponics sys-
tem the most and is, therefore, not advised for low volume systems. In
agreement with Dijkgraaf et al. (2019), it is in most cases better to have
a system that requires supplementation rather than dilution. For scenar-
ios with a high CV as a result of energy savings, an increase in the HPS
area is a suitable measure to decrease dilution requirements, with an
acceptable loss in nutrient self-sufficiency (NSS). The same can be seen
in the outcomes of Goddek & Körner (2019), where the HPS area is in-
9
Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012
Figure 10. The average KPI for 9 AP settings
(lines) against the 37 GH scenarios (expressed
as their corresponding CV, x-axis) for lettuce
production. It shows the difference in perfor-
mance between the different AP settings for
each level of variation. Also, the sensitivity
to variation can be read as the slope of the
lines. The legend is sorted to match the order
in which the lines appear. The full dataset is
shown in Supplementary materials Table SM
3.1, which allows the comparison of all GH and
AP scenarios, including the total energy use.
creased relatively more than the decrease in transpiration rate between
the different scenarios.
4.2. Buffers and their potential for low-volume systems
The addition of a buffer for the direct flow from the RAS to the HPS
reduces the variation in this flow, which leads to a significant increase in
performance compared to the reference (Figure 10). However, the vol-
ume required to have this effect is substantial, with more than 10L/m2
required for each percentage point of performance increase. The buffer
for the AD output has shown similar benefits (Figure 9) with a much
smaller volume of 0.6 to 0.75 L/m2 for an increase of one percentage
point, which greatly reduces the estimated construction costs.
The AD to HPS buffer increases performance by linking the (normally
constant) nutrient supply to the seasonally variable demand. While this
mainly influenced phosphorus, the NUE of N was also improved in some
scenarios due to lower dilution requirements from phosphorus peaks.
The RAS to HPS buffer flattens the peaks of NO3 in the RAS, which is
especially beneficial for sensitive fish.
It is not yet studied how the water quality is affected by the long-
term storage suggested here. This concerns both food safety aspects, as
well as chemical reactions that could change the nutrient composition
during storage. It is expected that both chemical and microbial reactions
continue in the storage tank, which could decrease the water quality and
safety (M. van Eekert, personal communication, March 3rd , 2021). If re-
quired, several adjustments can be made to lower the risk of pathogens
in the storage tanks, such as temperature and pH control and disinfec-
tion.
Buffering the brine flow of the RO system was not explored in this
study, but we expect a similar increase in performance as for the RAS to
HPS buffer. While not only resulting in a more concentrated inflow than
buffering RAS water, and thus a smaller required buffer, it would allow
the RO to be activated more during the winter. This is when the nutrient
concentrations in the RAS are generally the highest, while RO cannot be
used as it would result in a nutrient surplus and subsequent dilution in
the HPS. Buffering the brine flow could likely flatten the nitrate peaks
displayed by Goddek & Körner (2019, figs. 3 & 4).
5. Conclusion
This study showed an elaborate sensitivity and scenario analysis with
respect to many parameters in an aquaponics greenhouse concerning the
efficient use of resources and energy. The study provides a methodology
to gain insight into some of the many settings and to support a basis for
constrained optimization in design studies.
The coefficient of variation (CV) of the daily transpiration values
was shown to be a good indicator for the impact of different greenhouse
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

settings on an aquaponics system, with the performance of the AP system
generally decreasing with a higher variation. For the tested scenarios of
lettuce production in the Netherlands, the CV ranged from 42% to 75%,
with a decrease of up to 6.5% and 10% for the nutrient use efficiency
(NUE) and nutrient self-sufficiency (NSS) when comparing the lowest and
highest variation. For tomato production, the CV ranged from 40% to
61%, which also resulted in a smaller difference in the NUE and NSS at
1.4% and 3%, respectively, for the highest and lowest variation.
For an aquaponics system in the Netherland, the benefits of energy-
saving techniques are likely to outcompete the decreased efficiency of
the aquaponics system. This study shows that several parameters, such
as thermal insulation of the cover, minimum indoor temperature, the
addition of heat storage and use of energy/ shade screens, could be
changed to increase the energy efficiency of the greenhouse with little
effect on the nutrient dynamics.
The use of buffers could greatly improve the water and nutrient use
efficiencies of the aquaponics system, especially in high CV scenarios.
Buffering the effluent of the anaerobic digester raised the overall effi-
ciency of the aquaponics system from 86% to 94%, at an estimated cost
between 0.20 – 1.10 euro/m2 of cultivated area.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Luuk Jansen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing –
original draft, Visualization, Investigation. Karel J. Keesman: Supervi-
sion, Writing – review & editing.
Acknowledgments
This work is part of the (i) research program SUGI/Food-Water-
Energy-Nexus “CITYFOOD”, which is (partly) financed by the Nether-
lands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) with project number
438-17-402, and (ii) BlueCycling project that has received funding from
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program
under grant agreement No 862555 within the 2019 Joint Call of the
ERA-NET Cofund on Food Systems and Climate. We also like to thank
Dr Feije Zwart (Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture) for his sug-
gestions on greenhouse modelling.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100012.
Appendix 1. Initial model settings
Initial parameter values are shown in Table A1.1. These are the val-
ues used in the study for each parameter, unless specifically stated oth-
erwise.

Table A1.1
The initial settings for the parameters used in the model.

Function Parameter Value Unit Source

RAS Fish species Tilapia As in Goddek & Körner, 2019

Temperature fish tank 29 °C As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
Tanks 10 As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
RAS size m3 100 m3 Chosen
Fish per m3 130 Fish/m3 Determined
Fingerling weight 0.3 g Timmons & Ebeling, 2010
Harvest weight 600 g Timmons & Ebeling, 2010
Max stocking density 80 kg/m3 As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
Growth cycle 252 days Determined
Fish Dry matter content 90% Of feed FAO, 2020
feed P content feed 1.00% Of feed Craig et al., 2017
Uneaten feed 18% Of feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
Protein content 38% Of feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
N content protein 16% Of protein Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
Total suspended solids (TSS) 25% Of feed Timmons & Ebeling, 2010
Fish N fish retention 35% of N in feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
metabolism N feces 13% of N in feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
TAN excretion 33% of N in feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
P soluble excretion 17% of P in feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
P fish retention 28% of P in feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
P feces 45% of P in feed Neto & Ostrensky, 2015
Water Biofilter efficiency 0,95 % TAN nitrified As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
and Ground water TAN 1.5 mg/L www.watertool.be
nutrients Ground water NO3 1 mg/L www.watertool.be
Ground water P 0 mg/L Assumed
Anaerobic P mineralization 90% Of incoming flow As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
digestion N mineralization 30% As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
Water in effluent 50% Assumed
Reverse Desalination flow 0 L/hour (for 24h/d) Chosen
osmosis Desalination flow to RAS (filtered) 62% Of incoming flow As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
Desalination flow to HPS (brine) 38% As in Goddek & Körner, 2019
Crop nutrients N HP minimum 140 mg/L Resh, 2013
N HP maximum 180 mg/L Resh, 2013
P HP minimum 40 mg/L Resh, 2013
P HP maximum 60 mg/L Resh, 2013
Greenhouse Average height 5.8 m Determined
Floor area 2000 m2 Chosen
HPS volume 200 L/m2 Maucieri et al., 2019 (DWC)
Cladding area relative to floor area (Ac /As ) 1.2 - determined

10
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman
Table A1.2
Initial values for several variables.
Variable Value unit
Startup-time 252 days
RAS TAN 0.5 mg/L
RAS NO3 50 mg/L
RAS P 0.7 mg/L
HPS N 160 mg/L
HPS P 50 mg/L
Fish biomass 1870 kg
As the start-up phase is excluded in this study, the following values
are used at the start of the modeled year (Table A1.2).
Appendix 2. Nutrient overviews for different aquaponics settings
Figure A2.1 shows the dynamic effect of several of the aquaponics
settings, as described in Section 3.1 Aquaponics parameters on the nu-
trient concentrations in the HPS throughout the year. Notice that the
reference trajectories are shown in Figure A2.1-5 (central subfigure).
Each of the graphs in this figure represents a different setting of the
aquaponics system:
1) Decreasing the phosphorus concentration from 1% to 0.8%.
2) Increased transpiration variation, which could be caused by changes
in the greenhouse system (Section 3.3 Greenhouse parameter sensitivity
analysis).
3) Lower water volume in the HPS, which increases the sensitivity to tran-
spiration variation.
4) Decreased HPS area from 2000 m2 to 1500 m2 , changing the RAS: HPS
ratio to 15 m2 /m3 .
5) Reference scenario: 2000 m2 HPS, DWC, CV of 66%, P content of 1%,
no desalination.
6) Increased HPS area from 2000 m2 to 3000 m2 , changing the RAS: HPS
ratio to 30 m2 /m3 .
7) Desalination module added to the RAS, with a maximum flow of 3m3 /d.
This equates to 1.5 L/m2 HPS/d.
8) Decreased transpiration variation (CV of 40%), either through buffer-
ing (Section 3.5 Experimental buffering strategies) or adjustments of the
greenhouse system (Section 3.3 Greenhouse parameter sensitivity analy-
sis).
9) Increased phosphorus concentration from 1% to 1.4%.
Appendix 3. Resizing the HPS area to maintain equal
transpiration
Using the crop transpiration data from the 37 unique greenhouse
scenarios, the AP model was run to estimate the performance indica-
tors related to the nutrients and water. The coefficient of variation (CV)
of the daily transpiration values was used as to quickly compare the
different GH scenarios. However, these scenarios also had different av-
erage transpiration rates, e.g. because of extra transpiration in winter
with artificial lighting or reduced transpiration with additional shading.
Figure A3.1 displays the strong correlation (-0.93) between the average
transpiration and the variation for the calculated scenarios.
A change in the average transpiration rate has a significant effect on
the nutrient dynamics. In practice, it has a similar effect to a change in
the HPS area, where WUE and NUE increase with high transpiration and
NSS increases at low transpiration rates. As this effect is stronger than
the negative effect of variation, Figure A3.2 (left) shows increasing NSS
N & P with higher variation.
To distill the effect of transpiration variation on performance, the
changes in the average transpiration were canceled out. To maintain
equal average transpiration for the different scenarios, the HPS area was
resized inversely proportional to the change in average transpiration, as
Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012
Note
Time until all tanks are in use, with an 18-day interval
Middle of optimum range
Middle of optimum range
Biomass at start-up, determined
shown in Figure A3.3. If the reference transpiration is 33% lower than
in the selected scenario, decreasing the HPS area of that scenario by
33% will result in the same total transpiration. Other parameters (LAI,
cropping density) remain unchanged and transpiration per square meter
is not affected significantly within the range of 1000 to 3000 m2.
Using this method to maintain equal total transpiration, the effect
of variation shown clearly in the right graph of Figure A3.2. With only
the variation causing the difference in performance, an average KPI of
94.0% was estimated for the lowest and 90.0% at the highest variation.
For an NFT system, with a lower buffering capacity, the decrease in
performance is roughly doubled, with the average KPI decreasing from
92.3% at the lowest variation to 84.3% at the highest variation.
Appendix 4. Buffer operation and sensitivity analysis
4.1. RAS to HPS buffering
In Figure A4.1 the operation and effect of a RAS to HPS buffer is
shown. This buffer creates an upper and lower limit for the direct flow
from the RAS to the HPS. If this flow is too high, water is diverted to
the buffer. Conversely, if the flow is too low, water is released from
the buffer. The result is a more constant flow of RAS water to the HPS,
reducing volatility in the nutrient concentrations of both the RAS and
the HPS.
While Figure A4.1 shows the optimal operation with the chosen
buffer volume, this is based on information that would normally not
be available. While a poor estimate of the average transpiration rate re-
sults in a lesser performance improvement, the day-to-day timing and
buffered volume are of lesser importance. Basing the flow to and from
the buffer on the previous five days did not decrease performance sig-
nificantly and a large difference between the start and end could still be
prevented in the final months of the year.
4.2. AD to HPS buffering
Optimal control of the incoming and outgoing flow of the buffer,
again, requires some predictions of the coming year. An estimate of the
total yearly transpiration is required to prevent a surplus or deficit of
buffer water at the end of the year. While the decision-making for filling
and discharging the buffer is currently made only based on the transpira-
tion rate, a more advanced approach could consider the concentrations
in the HPS, lowering the reliance on estimations. The results of a sensi-
tivity analysis (Table A4.1) show how well a poor guess for the first half
of the year can be recovered from.
Overall, the performance difference between the worst and optimal
case was found to be small, with the worst-case performing better than
the case without a buffer for all parameters. This would suggest that the
control of the buffer does not necessarily have to be as precise as done
in this study.
As the HPS area has been adjusted for the total transpiration of each
greenhouse scenario, the initial HPS size (2000 m2 ) was used to calcu-
late the total buffer volume (8 L/m2 ).
11
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

Figure A2.1. Nutrient concentrations, dilution and supplementation throughout the year for different aquaponics settings. For each of the nine graphs the yellow
line on top displays the nitrogen concentration in the HPS throughout the year, while the green line at the bottom displays the phosphorus concentration (left
axis). The concentrations are kept within their respective bounds (dotted lines). In the middle, the nitrogen and phosphorus added through supplementation and
removed through dilution are shown (right axis). In general, a higher sum of the dilution and supplementation results in lower performance (of WUE/ NUE and NSS
respectively).

Figure A3.1. Average transpiration rate against coeffi-

cient of variation for scenarios above. The black circle
marks the reference setting at 2.09 L/m2/d and 66%
variation.

12
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

Figure A3.2. KPI values for GH different sce-

narios against the corresponding variation of the
transpiration set. The HPS area is kept equal in
the left graph (2000m2 ). In the right graph, the
changes in the transpiration rate are ‘compen-
sated’ for so that the total yearly transpiration is
kept equal between different greenhouse scenar-
ios. This was done by resizing the HPS area as
described below.

Table A4.1
Performance differences for the AD buffer with a poor estimate of the average transpiration.

Reference - No
buffer Difference between guessed average and the actual average for the first half of the year difference optimum - difference no
worst case buffer - worst case
-20% -15% -10% 0 +10% +15% +20%

WUE 89.5% 95.0% 96.1% 96.1% 96.1% 96.1% 96.1% 95.2% -1.2% 6.1%
NUE N 90.3% 92.5% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.9% 92.5% -0.4% 2.4%
NSS N 89.1% 94.8% 95.2% 95.1% 95.0% 95.1% 95.2% 95.5% -0.1% 6.4%
NUE P 89.2% 93.7% 94.6% 94.6% 94.6% 94.6% 94.6% 93.9% -1.0% 5.0%
NSS P 96.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 3.9%
KPI avg 90.9% 95.2% 95.8% 95.7% 95.7% 95.7% 95.8% 95.4% -0.5% 4.7%

Table A5.1
Crop specific parameters

Crop rs (s/m) rb (s/m) LAI start LAI max Time to LAI max Growing season (days)

Lettuce 100 – 450, following eq. SM1.4 200 0.2 1.6 40 45, staggered
Tomato 200-450 following eq. A5.1 200 0.2 3.5 80 360

Figure A3.3. The concept of resizing the HPS area to maintain equal total tran-
spiration. If transpiration increases from 2 to 3 L/m2 /d, the HPS area is de-
creased from 300 to 200 m2 to maintain the total transpiration of 600 L/d.
Appendix 5. Tomato production parameters, results and
discussion
The same model and procedures were used to assess the performance
of an aquaponics system with a tomato crop (Solanum lycopersicum L.).
The differences in the methodology compared to lettuce, as well as the
results and discussion are presented in this Appendix.
5.1. Methodology
In terms of operational parameters, the minimum temperature was
changed from 12 to 18°C and the substrate on which the tomatoes
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) are grown (rockwool) has different water hold-
ing capacity at 10 L/m2 (Stanghellini et al., 2019). While lettuce has an
almost constant LAI due to the staggered production, the tomato crops
modeled in this study do not. The plants start with a small LAI, after
which a linear increase is assumed until it reaches its maximum, as
shown in Table A5. At the end of the year, the plants are removed to
make space for the plants of the following year, resulting in several days
without transpiration. The ranges for the nutrients remained the same
as for lettuce, as this roughly covers the nutrient demand of the different
growth phases (Resh, 2013).
As not all of the parameters for equations SM1.4 and SM1.5 were
available for tomato production, different equations were used for the
stomatal resistance and net radiation on the crop. The stomatal resis-
tance (rs ) was calculated based on the temperature, radiation and the
leaf area index (LAI), as in Van Beveren et al. (2015) and the net ra-
diation on the crop (Rnet ) was calculated with an estimation of the soil
cover, as done by Stanghellini et al. (2019).
( ) ( ( )2 )
𝑟𝑠 = 82∗ 1 + 6.95∗𝑒−0.4∗𝐼𝑠𝑢𝑛 ∕𝐿𝐴𝐼 ∗ 1 + 0.23∗ 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟 − 20 (A5.1)
( )
𝑅𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 0.86∗ 1 − 𝑒−0.7∗𝐿𝐴𝐼 ∗𝐼𝑠𝑢𝑛 (A5.2)
5.2. Results
Compared to lettuce, the transpiration relative to the leaf area is
higher for low radiation (mainly in winter and at night) and lower for
high radiation, as shown in Figure A5.1. In total, the transpiration is
higher and less varied for tomato plants than for lettuce.
Figure A5.2 displays the average AP KPI for all 37 greenhouse sce-
narios (represented by their corresponding CV, x-axis) and 7 settings for
the aquaponics system (lines).

13
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012

Figure A4.1. Flow from RAS to HPS during a

year with a 50 L/m2 buffer. The red line shows
the net flow to the HPS, after adjustments are
made using the buffer. The buffer has to start
the year with roughly 35 L/m2 and is com-
pletely emptied in July (green line) The aver-
age transpiration was used to set an upper and
lower bound on the transpiration flow. These
bounds are not at equal distance from the av-
erage and an error in this ratio will result in
a difference between the start and final water
volume in the buffer. The ratio between the
upper and lower bound, which depends on the
climate dataset and greenhouse operation,
was roughly 1 to 0.65 for the reference sce-
nario shown in the figure.

Figure A5.1. The estimated LAI development of a tomato crop (right) as well as daily transpiration values of both tomato and lettuce throughout the year. The
tomato crop has a small CV of 48%, compared to 66% for lettuce.

Figure A5.2. The average KPI for 7 AP settings (lines) against the CV of 37 GH scenarios with tomato production. With the plants grown in rockwool, the water
volume in the system is similarly small to NFT at 10 L/m2. The HPS sizes of 1350, 1650 (reference) and 1950 m2 result in roughly the same total transpiration as
the lettuce crop with HPS areas of 2000, 2500 and 3000 m2 respectively. The legend is sorted to match the order in which the lines appear. The full dataset is shown
in Supplementary materials SM 3.2.

5.3. Discussion 5.4. Conclusion

Like the lettuce crop, the average KPI decreases with variation, as
shown in Figure. The transpiration variation is generally lower than for
lettuce, as was also seen in Goddek & Körner (2019). As all AP settings
had the same system volume of 10 L/m2 , there was little difference in
sensitivity to variation, except for the AD buffer.
For tomato production, the CV ranges from 40% to 61%, which also
results in a smaller difference in the NUE and NSS at 1.4% and 3%,
respectively, for the highest and lowest variation. The difference caused
by the variation in transpiration is smaller for tomato than for lettuce.
Like with lettuce, the use of an AD buffer greatly decreased the influence
of transpiration variation.

14
L. Jansen and K.J. Keesman
References
Baganz, G.F.M., Junge, R., Portella, M.C., Goddek, S., Keesman, K.J., Baganz, D.,
Staaks, G., Shaw, C., Lohrberg, F., Kloas, W., 2021. The aquaponic principle—It is
all about coupling. Rev. Aquac. raq. 12596. doi:10.1111/raq.12596.
Bakker, J.C., 2009. Energy Saving Greenhouses. Chronica Horticulturae 49 (2), 19–23.
https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/energy-saving-greenhouses.
Bittsánszky, A., Uzinger, N., Gyulai, G., Mathis, A., Junge, R., Villarroel, M., Kotzen, B.,
Kőmíves, T., 2016. Nutrient supply of plants in aquaponic systems. Ecocycles 2 (2),
17–20. doi:10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.57.
Craig, S., Helfrich, L.A., Kuhn, D., Schwarz, M.H.others, 2017. Understand-
ing fish nutrition, feeds, and feeding. Virginia Cooperative Extension.
https://fisheries.tamu.edu/files/2019/01/FST-269.pdf.
David, L.H., Pinho, S.M., Agostinho, F., Costa, J.I., Portella, M.C., Keesman, K.J., Garcia, F.,
2022. Sustainability of urban aquaponics farms: An emergy point of view. Journal of
Cleaner Production 331, 129896.
De Zwart, H.F., 1996. Analyzing energy-saving options in greenhouse cultivation using a
simulation model. Wageningen University PhD Thesis.
Delaide, B., Monsees, H., Gross, A., Goddek, S., 2019. Aerobic and Anaerobic Treat-
ments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and Mineralisation. In: Goddek, S., Joyce, A.,
Kotzen, B., Burnell, G.M. (Eds.), Aquaponics Food Production Systems: Combined
Aquaculture and Hydroponic Production Technologies for the Future. Springer In-
ternational Publishing, pp. 247–266. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6_10.
Dijkgraaf, K.H., Goddek, S., Keesman, K.J., 2019. Modeling innovative aquapon-
ics farming in Kenya. Aquaculture International 27 (5), 1395–1422.
doi:10.1007/s10499-019-00397-z.
Eding, E.H., Janssen, K., Heinsbroek, L.T.N., Verreth, J.A.J., Schrama, J.W., 2012. Can
water phosphorus level in recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) compensate for
low dietary phosphorus level in nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)? In: Proceedings
of the Ninth International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture, pp. 34–35.
Elings, A., Kempkes, F.L.K., Kaarsemaker, R.C., Ruijs, M.N.A., Van De Braak, N.J.,
Dueck, T.A., 2005. The energy balance and energy-saving measures in green-
house tomato cultivation. Acta Horticulturae 691, 67–74. doi:10.17660/ActaHor-
tic.2005.691.5.
FAO. (n.d.). Nile tilapia - Oreochromis niloticus. Retrieved November 10, 2020, from
http://www.fao.org/fishery/affris/species-profiles/nile-tilapia/nile-tilapia-home/en/
Frantz, J.M., Ritchie, G., Cometti, N.N., Robinson, J., Bugbee, B., 2004. Explor-
ing the limits of crop productivity: Beyond the limits of tipburn in lettuce.
Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 129 (3), 331–338.
doi:10.21273/jashs.129.3.0331.
Goddek, S., Delaide, B.P.L., Joyce, A., Wuertz, S., Jijakli, M.H., Gross, A., Eding, E.H.,
Bläser, I., Reuter, M., Keizer, L.C.P., Morgenstern, R., Körner, O., Verreth, J.,
Keesman, K.J., 2018. Nutrient mineralization and organic matter reduction perfor-
mance of RAS-based sludge in sequential UASB-EGSB reactors. Aquacultural Engi-
neering 83, 10–19. doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.07.003.
Goddek, S., Espinal, C.A., Delaide, B., Jijakli, M.H., Schmautz, Z., Wuertz, S.,
Keesman, K.J., 2016. Navigating towards decoupled aquaponic systems: A system dy-
namics design approach. Water (Switzerland) 8 (7), 1–29. doi:10.3390/W8070303.
Goddek, S., Keesman, K.J., 2018. The necessity of desalination technology for design-
ing and sizing multi-loop aquaponic systems. Desalination 428 (May 2017), 76–85.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2017.11.024.
Goddek, S., Körner, O., 2019. A fully integrated simulation model of multi-loop aquapon-
ics: A case study for system sizing in different environments. Agricultural Systems
171, 143–154. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.010.
Graamans, L., van den Dobbelsteen, A., Meinen, E., Stanghellini, C., 2017. Plant fac-
tories; crop transpiration and energy balance. Agricultural Systems 153, 138–147.
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.003.
Karimanzira, D., J.Keesman, K, Kloas, W, Baganz, D, Rauschenbach, T, 2016. Dynamic
modeling of the INAPRO aquaponic system. Aquacultural Engineering 75, 29–45.
doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2016.10.004.
Kempkes, F., De Zwart, H.F., Munoz, P., Montero, J.I., Baptista, F.J., Giuffrida, F., Gilli, C.,
Stepowska, A., Stanghellini, C., 2017. Heating and dehumidification in production
greenhouses at northern latitudes: Energy use. Acta Horticulturae 1164, 445–452.
doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1164.58.
Kempkes, F.L.K., Janse, J., Hemming, S., 2014. Greenhouse concept with high insulating
double glass with coatings and new climate control strategies; From design to results
from tomato experiments. Acta Horticulturae 1037, 83–92. doi:10.17660/ActaHor-
tic.2014.1037.6.
15
Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy 2 (2022) 100012
Kempkes, Frank, & Janse, J. (2016). Teelt en energie 2SaveEnergy kas (GTB-1402).
https://edepot.wur.nl/385096
Kloas, W., Groß, R., Baganz, D., Graupner, J., Monsees, H., Schmidt, U., Staaks, G., Suhl, J.,
Tschirner, M., Wittstock, B., Wuertz, S., Zikova, A., Rennert, B., 2015. A new con-
cept for aquaponic systems to improve sustainability, increase productivity, and re-
duce environmental impacts. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 7 (2), 179–192.
doi:10.3354/aei00146.
KNMI. (n.d.). KNMI - Uurgegevens van het weer in Nederland. Retrieved February 27, 2021,
from https://www.knmi.nl/nederland-nu/klimatologie/uurgegevens
Lennard, W., Goddek, S., 2019. Aquaponics: The Basics. In: Goddek, S., Joyce, A.,
Kotzen, B., Burnell, G.M. (Eds.), Aquaponics Food Production Systems: Combined
Aquaculture and Hydroponic Production Technologies for the Future. Springer In-
ternational Publishing, pp. 113–143. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6_5.
Maucieri, C., Nicoletto, C., Os, E.van, Anseeuw, D., Havermaet, R.Van, Junge, R, 2019.
Hydroponic Technologies. In: Goddek, S., Joyce, A., Kotzen, B., Burnell, G.M. (Eds.),
Aquaponics Food Production Systems: Combined Aquaculture and Hydroponic Pro-
duction Technologies for the Future. Springer International Publishing, pp. 77–110.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6_4.
Nedelciu, C.E., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Schlyter, P., Stjernquist, I., 2020. Global phosphorus
supply chain dynamics: Assessing regional impact to 2050. Global Food Security 26,
100426. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100426.
Neto, R.M., Ostrensky, A., 2015. Nutrient load estimation in the waste of Nile tilapia
Oreochromis niloticus (L.) reared in cages in tropical climate conditions. Aquaculture
Research 46 (6), 1309–1322. doi:10.1111/are.12280.
Picart, D., Ozier-Lafontaine, H., Omrane, A., Louison, L., 2015. Modeling plant nutrient
uptake: Mathematical analysis and optimal control. Evolution Equations and Control
Theory 4 (2), 193–203. doi:10.3934/eect.2015.4.193.
Raaphorst, M. G. M., & Benninga, J. (2019). Kwantitatieve Informatie voor de Glastuinbouw
2019.
Resh, H.M., 2013. Hydroponic Food Production. CRC Press.
Reyes Lastiri, D., Geelen, C., Cappon, H.J., Rijnaarts, H.H.M., Baganz, D., Kloas, W., Ka-
rimanzira, D., Keesman, K.J, 2018. Model-based management strategy for resource
efficient design and operation of an aquaponic system. Aquacultural Engineering 83,
27–39. doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2018.07.001.
Roose, T., Fowler, A., Darrah, P., 2001. A mathematical model of plant nutrient uptake. J
Math Biol 42, 347–360. doi:10.1007/s002850000075.
Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P., Matthews, E., & Klirs,
C. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future: A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10
billion people by 2050. Final report.
Seginer, I., van Straten, G., van Beveren, P.J.M., 2020. Day-to-night heat storage in green-
houses: 4. Changing the environmental bounds. Biosystems Engineering 192, 90–107.
doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.01.005.
Semple, L., Carriveau, R., Ting, D.S.-K., 2017. Assessing heating and cooling demands of
closed greenhouse systems in a cold climate. International Journal of Energy Research
41 (13), 1903–1913. doi:10.1002/er.3752.
Shiau, S.-Y., Hsieh, J.-F., 2001. Quantifying the dietary potassium requirement of juvenile
hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus×O. aureus). British Journal of Nutrition 85 (2),
213–218. doi:10.1079/bjn2000245.
Stanghellini, C., de Jong, T., 1995. A model of humidity and its applica-
tions in a greenhouse. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 76 (2), 129–148.
doi:10.1016/0168-1923(95)02220-R.
Stanghellini, C., Van ’t Ooster, B., Heuvelink, E., 2019. Greenhouse hor-
ticulture. Greenhouse horticulture. Wageningen Academic Publishers
doi:10.3920/978-90-8686-879-7.
Sugiura, S.H., Marchant, D.D., Kelsey, K., Wiggins, T., Ferraris, R.P., 2006. Effluent profile
of commercially used low-phosphorus fish feeds. Environmental Pollution 140 (1),
95–101. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2005.06.020.
Timmons, M., Ebeling, J., 2010. Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. In: Tidwell, J.H. (Ed.),
Aquaculture Production Systems. Ithaca Publishing Company, Ithaca, pp. 245–277.
doi:10.1002/9781118250105.ch11.
Van Beveren, P.J.M., Bontsema, J., Van Straten, G., Van Henten, E.J., 2015. Minimal
heating and cooling in a modern rose greenhouse. Applied Energy 137, 97–109.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.083.
Zandvakili, O.R., Barker, A.V., Hashemi, M., Etemadi, F., Autio, W.R., 2019. Com-
parisons of commercial organic and chemical fertilizer solutions on growth
and composition of lettuce. Journal of Plant Nutrition 42 (9), 990–1000.
doi:10.1080/01904167.2019.1589505.