Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Aquacultural Engineering
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ aqua- onl i ne
Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture systems
Jaap van Rijn

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
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Recirculating aquaculture systems
RAS
Waste treatment
Waste production
Onsite treatment
Waste disposal
a b s t r a c t
Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) are operated as outdoor or indoor systems. Due to the intensive
mode of sh production in many of these systems, waste treatment within the recirculating loop as well as
in the efuents of these systems is of primary concern. In outdoor RAS, such treatment is often achieved
within the recirculating loop. In these systems, extractive organisms, such as phototrophic organisms
and detritivores, are cultured in relatively large treatment compartments whereby a considerable part
of the waste produced by the primary organisms is converted in biomass. In indoor systems, capture of
solid waste and conversion of ammonia to nitrate by nitrication are usually the main treatment steps
within the recirculating loop. Waste reduction (as opposed to capture and conversion) is accomplished
in some freshwater and marine indoor RAS by incorporation of denitrication and sludge digestion. In
many RAS, whether operated as indoor or outdoor systems, efuent is treated before nal discharge.
Such efuent treatment may comprise devices for sludge thickening, sludge digestion as well as those for
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 waste production as well as methods for waste reduction in the recirculating loop and
efuents 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.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Harmful effects attributed to aquaculture practices are of fore-
most 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 wetlands and mangroves, (2) spread of diseases, (3)
decreasedbiodiversity of natural shpopulations by escape of non-
native sh species, and (4) pollution of ground and surface waters
by efuent discharge (Boyd, 2003).
Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), in which water is
recirculated between the culture and water treatment stages,
provide an answer to some of the above mentioned problems
since they enable sh production in relative isolation from the
surrounding environment. However, this advantage is not with-
out a price as many challenges face the production of sh in these
highly contained systems. In this respect, water quality control and
waste management are among the most critical of these challenges.

Tel.: +972 8 9489302; fax: +972 8 9489024.

E-mail addresses: vanrijn@agri.huji.ac.il, jaap.vanrijn@mail.huji.ac.il
Careful design and management of RAS are the basis for a suc-
cessful waste management with respect to both waste production
and treatment. Operation of RAS under well controlled culture
conditions contributes signicantly to an efcient feed utilization,
hence, low waste production. Furthermore, proper incorporation
of treatment procedures within the recirculating loop or in the
efuent stream may further contribute to a signicant reduc-
tion in waste production by these systems. In most indoor RAS,
the bulk of waste produced by the sh is captured and removed
in a concentrated efuent stream that may be treated onsite
before nal discharge. Such onsite treatment generally involves
sludge thickening and ow stabilization but may also be designed
to allow bacterial decomposition of solid waste. Outdoor RAS,
mostly situated in warmer climates, are often operated with par-
tial 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 efuent
water.
This review summarizes some selected issues related to waste
management in RAS. Estimations of waste production are pre-
sented as well as methods for waste reduction in the recirculating
loopandefuents of freshwater andmarineRAS. Emphasis is placed
on those processes leading to waste reduction rather than those
used for waste capture and conversion.
0144-8609/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.11.010
50 J. van Rijn / Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956
2. Waste discharge regulation
Discharge regulations differ from country to country. Whereas
in some jurisdictions efuent 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
many countries is that, rather than efuent standards, guidelines
for best management practices or codes of conduct are provided
together with measures to ensure compliance to such guidelines
(e.g. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 2004; FoodandAgricultural
Organization, 1995). The rational of this approach is based on the
fact that universal guidelines as to efuent standards are difcult
to formulate due to 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 other production processes. Recently, it has
also been applied for evaluating the environmental impact of sev-
eral 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 promotion of
these policies by such organizations (Boyd, 2003).
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 sh connement, the year-round production regime, the use of
monitoring systems, and the possibility for treatment of the con-
centrated waste 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 oper-
ational parameters, it might be concluded that feed utilization by
sh cultured in RAS often compares favorably to that of sh raised
in other type of culture systems (Table 1). Production 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
sh, (b) the feed composition, (c) the feeding regime, and (d) the
prevalent water quality conditions in the system. In RAS, high feed
utilization efciencies can be attained by controlling some of these
factors. For instance, feeding in RAS, whether performed manu-
ally or automatically, is well monitored. Hence, lapses of off-feed
are easily identied thus minimizing overfeeding and consequent
accumulation of uneaten feed in the system. In addition, batch-
wise growth of uniform size classes of sh further contributes to
an efcient feed utilization in RAS (Karipoglou and Nathanailides,
2009). Another factor contributing to reduced feed wastage in RAS
is water quality control. Treatment systems in RAS are designed to
control water temperature and critical water quality parameters
within an acceptable range hence avoiding inferior water qual-
ity conditions and concomitant reduced feed utilization efciency.
Finally, intheserelativelywell monitoredsystems, aquickresponse
to changes in water quality conditions may also contribute to an
efcient feed utilization (Martins et al., 2010).
3.2. Quantifying of waste production
Waste production in aquaculture systems is quantied either
by the nutritional approachthroughdetermining the apparent feed
digestibilityof shor is directlyanalyzedbyquanticationof excre-
tion 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 reect the feed digestibil-
ity of the sh under more realistic culture conditions. In addition,
due to partial breakdown of the waste to gaseous forms within
the culture system, not all of the generated sh waste is discharged
withthe efuent water. Despite these shortcomings, the nutritional
approach is often preferred over the alternative method in which
waste is directly quantied in the culture system. Quantication of
waste production by means of this latter method, even in the sim-
plest of experimental systems, is complicated due to the difculty
in tting a sampling regime to accurately estimate the uctuating
waste production by sh. 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, analyti-
cal inaccuracies) contribute to the inaccuracy of the latter method
(Roque dOrbcastel et al., 2008).
Organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus utilization by the sh
are main indicators for the efciency of feed utilization. Often
these same parameters are also used to quantify the environmen-
tal impact of aquaculture waste. Except for site specic instances
or in cases of highly concentrated efuents, other potential envi-
ronmental harmful ingredients of aquaculture waste, such as other
inorganic compounds, metals, drugs and pathogens, are monitored
to a lesser extent. Clearly, production of organic matter, nitrogen
and phosphorus is directly linked to the food conversion ratio and
differs with different diets, temperatures, sh species, sh sizes
and culture systems (Table 2). By means of direct quantication,
the partitioning of nitrogen and phosphorus in solid and dissolved
waste has been studied for most of the commercially produced
sh species (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2011; Lupatsch and Kissil, 1998;
Piedrahita, 2003; Roque dOrbcastel et al., 2008). Despite the large
variability among sh species and culture methods, it can be con-
cluded from these studies that, in general, most of the nitrogen
waste (6090%) is inthe dissolvedform(mainlyammonia) whereas
for phosphorus, a larger proportion is excreted within the fecal
waste (2585%).
In intensive production systems such as ow-through systems
and cages, waste production based on the nutritional approach
(digestibility) might provide a fairly accurate estimate for the waste
that is discharged since in these systems most of the sh waste is
ushed 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 pro-
duction in these systems is lower than what would be predicted
by the nutritional approach. Due to differences in congurations
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 quantication of the waste production in
these systems is therefore only possible by direct measurements of
waste in the efuent stream.
4. Onsite waste treatment
4.1. Reduction of waste within the RAS
In most indoor RAS, ammonia removal and solids capture are
the primary treatment processes within the recirculation loop.
Although intended to collect or convert sh waste, these online
treatment processes might lead to a considerable waste reduction
through production of mainly gaseous carbon and nitrogen com-
pounds by biological decay. The extent of this decay, mainly due
to heterotrophic microorganisms, largely depends on the specic
J. van Rijn / Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956 51
Table 1
Feed conversion ratios in different types of culture systems.
Species Flowthrough RAS Earthen pond Cage Reference
Rainbowtrout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 0.81.2 0.81.1 1.11.3 Bureau et al. (2003), Roque
dOrbcastel et al. (2009a,b,c)
Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) 0.81.1 1.52.2 1.62.0 FAO (2012), Peet (2006),
Schipp et al. (2007)
Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) 1.02.2 0.83.5 >1.5 El-Sayed (2006), Leenhouwers
et al. (2007), Little et al. (2008),
Martins et al. (2009),
Perschbacher (2007), Shnel
et al. (2002)
Gilthead seabream(Sparus aurata) 0.91.9 1.42.2 Cromey and White (2004),
Zohar et al. (2005)
Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) 1.0 1.5 1.52.0 Benetti et al. (2008), Kaiser and
Holt (2005)
system conguration. In particular, the water and solid retention
time of the system as well as methods used for water treatment
within the recirculating loop are major factors underlying such
heterotrophic bacterial activity. Sludge recoveries as lowas 14% of
the added feed, much lower than the calculated sludge production
(3846%), were reported for recirculating systems not equipped
with dedicated treatment steps for sludge digestion (Chen et al.,
1993, 1997). Also Suzuki et al. (2003) found similar lowsludge pro-
duction 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 denitrication in oxygen depleted zones in the systemand
may account for as much as 21% of the nitrogen loss in some RAS
(reviewed by van Rijn et al., 2006).
Dedicated processes for waste reduction within the recirculat-
ing loop are mainly found in outdoor, marine and freshwater RAS.
Here, nutrients from the culture water are removed by a combi-
nation of assimilatory and dissimilatory processes, mediated by
phototrophic and heterotrophic organisms. In this modern form
of polyculture, production of fed species (e.g. sh, shrimps) is inte-
grated with that of extractive species. In most of these so called
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems (IMTA), extractive
species comprise phototrophic organisms such as plants, microal-
gae and macroalgae but in some, also other organisms such as
lter feeders, detritivores and heterotrophic bacteria are produced.
Examples of IMTA systems are integrated marine systems (Neori
et al., 2004), high rate algal ponds (Metaxa et al., 2006; Pagand
et al., 2000), aquaponic systems (Racocy, 2007), partitioned aqua-
culture systems (Brune et al., 2003), active suspension ponds based
on bio-ocs technology (Avnimelech, 2006; Crab et al., 2007), peri-
phyton systems (Schneider et al., 2005; Verdegemet al., 2005), and
constructed wetlands (Lin et al., 2005; Tilley et al., 2002; Zachritz
et al., 2008; Zhong et al., 2011). Inmany of these IMTAsystems, pro-
duction of the primary aquatic species is combined with growth of
other economical valuable crops such as plants, lter feeding sh
and detritivores (e.g. clams and oysters). They provide, therefore,
an elegant solution for increasing system productivity with con-
comitant reduction of waste output (Nobre et al., 2010). Depending
on the particular design and operating conditions, these IMTA
systems are operated without efuent discharge (e.g. partitioned
aquaculture systems, active suspension ponds), with discharge of
solids (e.g. aquaponic systems, high rate algal ponds), or, as com-
mon in marine systems, with solid and partial water discharge.
Most of the above systems, in which treatment within the recir-
culation loop partially depends on phototrophic organisms, are
outdoor systems operated with relatively large treatment areas
under favorable climatic conditions. Hence, these latter systems are
more site-dependent than the more compact, indoor RAS systems.
Some indoor RAS, where ammonia is nitried to nitrate, employ
special reactors to induce bacterial reduction of nitrate to nitrogen
gas under anoxic conditions. Most of these reactors are supplied
with external carbon sources to fuel heterotrophic denitrication.
Others are designed to allow denitrication 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 compounds for denitrication whereby most
of the organic carbon is eventually oxidized to CO
2
. 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 dis-
charge for nitrogen and organic solids could be reduced by 81% and
Table 2
Waste production of different sh species as determined by the nutritional approach.
Fish species Total solids Total N Total P Reference
(kg per ton sh production)
Rainbowtrout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 148338 4171 7.515.2 Azevedo et al. (2011),
Bureau et al. (2003),
Roque dOrbcastel et al.
(2008)
Brown trout
a
(Salmo trutta) 438 (589) 49.2 (45.8) 6.2 (10.5) Cho et al. (1994)
Lake trout
a
(Salvelinus namaycush) 564. (562) 65.3 (59) 6.8 (6.8) Cho et al. (1994)
Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) 29.0302.3 21.8101.7 4.215.4 Bermudes et al. (2010)
Gilthead seabream(Sparus aurata) 447.5 102.9 17.8 Lupatsch and Kissil
(1998)
Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) 520650 72.4 2329 Beveridge (1984),
Beveridge and Phillips
(1993)
Tilapia (O. niloticus) 192268.8 4872.7 0.68.9 Schneider et al. (2004)
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) 224 32 1.1 Reid (2007)
a
Numbers in parenthesis represent values that were obtained by direct quantication of the waste in the culture water.
52 J. van Rijn / Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956
Table 3
Some characteristics of outdoor and indoor RAS with treatment components within the recirculating loop.
Organismcultured Type of treatment Maximum
biomass (kg)
Treatment volume and area Reference
Total Per kg of cultured biomass
Outdoor RAS
Sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) High rate algal pond
a
320 14.0m
3
26.0m
2
0.044m
3
0.081m
2
Metaxa et al. (2006)
Gilthead seabream(Sparus aurata) High rate algal pond
a
520 12.0m
3
43.7m
2
0.023m
3
0.084m
2
Schuenhoff et al. (2003)
Tilapia (Oreochromis.
mossambicus O. aureus)
Wetland
b
1230 50.0m
3
55.0m
2
0.041m
3
0.045m
2
Zachritz et al. (2008)
Shrimps (Litopenaeus vannamei) Wetland
b
924 21.0m
3
32.0m
2
0.023m
3
0.035m
2
Lin et al. (2005)
Tilapia (O. niloticus) Aquaponics
b
2184 80.0m
3
232.0m
2
0.037m
3
0.106m
2
Rakocy et al. (2004)
Indoor RAS
Tilapia (O. niloticus O. aureus) Denitrication/sludge digestion
c
4800 40.0m
3
23.0m
2
0.008m
3
0.005m
2
Shnel et al. (2002)
Gilthead seabream(Sparus aurata) Denitrication/sludge digestion
c
106 1.55m
3
2.75m
2
0.015m
3
0.026m
2
Gelfand et al. (2003)
Gilthead seabream(Sparus aurata) Denitrication/anammox/sludge
digestion
c
1752 14.4m
3
11.1m
2
0.008m
3
0.006m
2
Tal et al. (2009)
a
Treatment systemwas equipped with additional solids removal and nitrication units.
b
Treatment systemwas equipped with additional clarier for solids removal.
c
Treatment systemwas equipped with additional nitrication unit.
60%, respectively. Analternativetreatment methodbasedonsludge
digestion and bacterial nitrogen removal within the recirculation
loop was described by Tal et al. (2009). In this marine recircu-
lating system, digestion of sludge within a sludge digestion tank
was allowed to proceed at lowredox potentials to produce sulde
which was subsequently used to fuel autotrophic denitriers in an
additional reactor. RAS incorporating sludge digestion and denitri-
cationmay beoperatedwithlittletonoefuent dischargeas 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 consider-
able 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 efuent stream. However, in sys-
tems incorporating sludge digestion and denitrication within the
recirculating loop, a considerable part of the dissolved orthophos-
phate was found to be immobilized during the latter treatment
stages (see next section).
Additional water treatment in the formof 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
(Aitcheson et al., 2000). These compact, indoor systems potentially
lend themselves for use of recently developed water treatment
technology such as electrochemical and bio-electrochemical meth-
ods for removal of organic matter and inorganic nitrogen (Mook
et al., 2012; Virdis et al., 2008).
4.2. Onsite treatment of the efuent stream
4.2.1. Sludge thickening
Usually, RAS efuents are characterized by a low solid content
(<2%) and uctuate in volume as a result of specic feeding and
cleaning regimes. As direct disposal of these efuents is costly,
solids thickening and stabilization of the efuent ow is often
required before nal disposal. Thickening of the sludge through
settling of solids in basins or ponds (Bergheimet al., 1993), through
solids capture by means of geotextile bags (Schwartz et al., 2004,
2005) or, more recently, by means of belt lters (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/occulation processes to allow a more complete
removal of suspended solids as well as phosphorus fromthe efu-
ent water (Danaher et al., 2011b; Ebeling et al., 2003, 2006; Sharrer
et al., 2009). In combination with dewatering, the various methods
used for sludge thickening may produce sludge witha solid content
of between 5 and 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 the
treatment of RAS efuents. Waste stabilization ponds such as aero-
bic 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 digestion, sludge residence time (sludge age) is a
major factor dictating the extent of sludge degradation. Apart from
the length of time during which the sludge is exposed to micro-
bial decay, the residence time also inuences 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. anaer-
obic lagoons), due to oxygen depletion, other electron acceptors
such as nitrate, sulfate (in marine systems) and carbon dioxide
will be respired. Fast decay of sludge in the presence of oxygen
also coincides with fast growth in heterotrophic biomass of the
microorganisms involved in the sludge decay. Aerobic degrada-
tion constants of fresh sludge were found to range from 0.07 to
0.40day
1
(Boyd, 1973; Chen et al., 1997). In settling basins oper-
ated at relatively long retention times, such rapid breakdown of
sludge and concomitant production of gases might cause poor sett-
ling sludge properties (Timmons and Ebeling, 2007). In reactors
operated at longer retention times in which, besides oxygen, addi-
tional electron acceptors are respired, decay of sludge proceeds at
lower rates than under aerobic conditions and produces less het-
erotrophic bacterial biomass. Sludge decay constants ranged from
0.024 to 0.006day
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 slowdecay, this type of reactor, whenprop-
erly 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 treatment stage within the treatment loop.
Sludge degradation of 3040% was reported for denitrifying reac-
tors fedwithmarineRASefuents andoperatedat shorter retention
times of up to 11 days (Klas et al., 2006).
Laboratory-scale sequencing batch reactors, operated under
aerobic and anoxic conditions, for removal of organic matter and
nitrogen from concentrated sludge from 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% reduc-
tion in organic matter and a total reduction of nitrogen could be
achieved with this kind a treatment scheme.
J. van Rijn / Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956 53
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 fewstudies conducted, it can be concluded that a considerable
degradationandstabilizationof aquaculturesludgecanbeachieved
through methanogenic digestion. Issues such as inhibition of the
methanogenic activity by unionized ammonia concentrations due
to low C/N ratios of 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
Concentrations of inorganic nutrients in the supernatant of set-
tlers and digesters are 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 resi-
dence time has a major inuence on these processes. With respect
to nitrogen, ammonia concentrations are often found to increase
due to ammonication of nitrogenous organic matter (e.g. Conroy
and Couturier, 2010; Stewart et al., 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 nitri-
cation of ammonia may also take place in aerobic parts of the
reactors (Cytryn et al., 2005; Klas 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 efuent stream, will not only be denitried to
elemental nitrogen at appropriate hydraulic retention times, but
may indirectly, through reduction to nitrite, serve as an electron
acceptor for anammox bacteria whereby both ammonia and nitrite
areconvertedtoelemental nitrogengas (Lahavet al., 2009; Tal et al.,
2003).
In addition to ammonia release, hydrolysis of sludge in thick-
ening reactors or digesters leads to a release of orthophosphate. In
their study on hydrolysis of aquaculture sludge under static con-
ditions, Conroy and Couturier (2010) showed that 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 et al., 2003; Barak and van Rijn, 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 seques-
tration may be of importance during digestion of aquaculture
sludge. In nitrate-rich digestion basins of freshwater and marine
RAS it was found that denitriers accumulated orthophosphate
as intracellular polyphosphate in excess of metabolic require-
ments (Barak et al., 2003; Barak and van Rijn, 2000a). In these
RAS, sludge from areas of intensive denitrication was found to
contain up to 19% phosphorus on a dry weight basis while deni-
triers 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
thickening/digestion may pose a potential problemwith respect to
efuent discharge. This is especially true for marine RAS in which,
under anaerobic conditions, sulde may be produced as a result of
organic matter mineralization and sulfate reduction (Cytryn et al.,
2003; Schwermer et al., 2010; Sher et al., 2008). In these marine
systems it was found that the presence of nitrate during sludge
digestion prevents sulde formation by exclusion of bacterial sul-
fate reduction (Schwermer et al., 2010) as well as by promoting
the growth of sulde oxidizing, autotrophic denitriers (Sher et al.,
2008; Tal et al., 2009).
Depending on the accumulation of dissolved organic matter
and nutrients in sludge thickening reactors or sludge digesters,
further onsite treatment of the supernatant from these reactors
may be warranted before nal disposal. Brazil and Summerfelt
(2006) examined the effect of aerobic treatment of the super-
natant overowing 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 organic matter and
total ammonia nitrogen and a 65% reduction in orthophosphate
could be achieved. In addition, outdoor treatment systems, simi-
lar to those used within the recirculation loop (e.g. wetlands, high
rate algal ponds) may also be used for treatment of efuent water
before nal discharge or may serve both as an online and efu-
ent treatment stage. Largely depending on the size of such systems
relative to 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 fromthe previous sections, the nature and quantity
of waste disposed from RAS depend largely on the onsite treat-
ment facilities used. While several alternatives are available for
treatment of waste fromfreshwater RAS, waste treatment of waste
frommarine facilities is restricted to fewer methods. Liquid as well
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 con-
straint, these centralized facilities may be based on treatment by
means of stabilizationponds andwetlands. Alternatively, wastewa-
ter treatment facilities, primarily used for treatment of domestic
and industrial waste, with primary, secondary and tertiary treat-
ment steps, may also be used to treat RAS efuent. However,
treating aquaculture sludge in these latter systems seems wasteful
as concentrations of toxic and other health threatening compo-
nents in aquaculture sludge are lowas compared to those in sludge
from domestic and industrial origin. As such, the use of aquacul-
ture sludge as a fertilizer by direct land application(Bergheimet al.,
1993; Yeo et al., 2004) or its use for compost production (Adler and
Sikora, 2004; Danaher et al., 2011a) appears to be more sustainable
alternatives. Composting might require adjustment of the C/Nratio
and a decrease of the water content of the sludge by the addition of
a carbonaceous bulking agent in order to provide optimal aerobic
decomposition conditions (Adler and Sikora, 2004). Like the sludge
alsothe liquidfractionfromRAS efuents may be usedfor irrigation
of agricultural crops. Whereas compost production is site indepen-
dent, the use of solid as well as liquid waste for fertilizer purposes
depends on location. The absence of a properly scaled application
in the vicinity of the RAS may prohibit this latter form of disposal
(Yeo et al., 2004).
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
profound when waste is discharged fromRAS with little post treat-
ment. In the latter case, the quantity of waste produced is not
much different fromcage aquaculture. In coastal areas, constructed
wetlands seemtobe a promising methodfor the treatment of aqua-
culture waste (Gregory et al., 2010; Su et al., 2011). Where, due
to site restrictions, discharge to external facilities is not possible,
54 J. van Rijn / Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956
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
Water treatment technology has seen a dynamic development
inrecent years withnewtreatment methods rapidlyemerging. Also
in the eld of RAS, a choice can be made frommany different treat-
ment methods. The choice of a suitable treatment methoddepends,
in addition to a proper cost/benet analyses, largely on factors,
directly or indirectly, relatedtothe locationof the recirculating sys-
tem. Climatic conditions, water availability, discharge regulations,
and land availability are suchlocation-dependent factors whichare
major determinants for the type of treatment methods to be used.
These factors, together with the market value of the cultured orga-
nisms, may justify the use of sophisticated treatment methods in
some cases while in others, optimal economical benet is accom-
plished with relatively simple water treatment techniques at the
expense of water savings and production intensity.
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 pho-
totrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Due to site and climatic
restrictions, indoor RAS are usually operated according to different
treatment protocols in which emphasis is placed on solid capture
and ammonia transformation to nitrate within the recirculation
loop with optional onsite treatment of the concentrated efuent
before discharge.
It is expected that with increased sh demand as well as
increased public awareness related to issues such as overshing,
water savings, pollution, animal welfare and ethics of animal hus-
bandry, research on RAS as well as their commercial exploitation
will show a steady growth in the near future. The development of
cost efcient and sustainable waste treatment methods will be an
important aspect contributing to the wider use of these systems.
References
Adler, P.R., Sikora, R.J., 2004. Composting sh manure fromaquaculture operations.
Biocycle 45, 6266.
Aitcheson, S.J., Arnet, J., Murray, K.R., Zhang, J., 2000. Removal of aquaculture ther-
apeutants by carbon adsorption: 1. Equilibriumadsorption behaviour of single
components. Aquaculture 183, 269284.
Avnimelech, Y., 2006. Biolters: the need for a comprehensive approach. Aquacul-
tural Engineering 34, 172178.
Azevedo, P.A., Podemski, C.L., Hesslein, R.H., Kasian, S.E.M., Findlay, D.L., 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,
175186.
Barak, Y., van Rijn, J., 2000a. Biological phosphate removal in a prototype recirculat-
ing aquaculture treatment system. Aquacultural Engineering 22, 121136.
Barak, Y., van Rijn, J., 2000b. Atypical polyphosphate accumulation by the denitrify-
ing bacteriumParacoccus denitricans. AppliedandEnvironmental Microbiology
66, 12091212.
Barak, Y., Cytryn, E., Gelfand, I., Krom, M., van Rijn, J., 2003. Phosphate removal in a
marine prototype recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture 220, 313326.
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).
Aquaculture Research 39, 701711.
Bergheim, A., Kristansen, R., Kelly, L., 1993. Treatment and utilization of sludge
from land based farms for salmon. In: Wang, J.K. (Ed.), Techniques for Mod-
ern Aquaculture. American Society for Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp.
486495.
Bermudes, M., Glencross, B., Austen, K., Hawkins, W., 2010. The effects of temper-
ature and size on the growth, energy budget and waste outputs of barramundi
(Lates calcarifer). Aquaculture 306, 160166.
Beveridge, M.C.M., 2012. Cage and Pen sh Farming. Carrying Capacity Models and
Environmental Impact. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 255. Blue Ocean Institute, Barra-
mundi, 131pp. www.blueocean.org/seafood/seafood-view?spc id=161
Beveridge, M.C.M., Phillips, M.J., 1993. Environmental impact of tropical inlandaqua-
culture. In: Pullin, R.S.V., Rosenthal, H., Maclean, J.M. (Eds.), Environment and
Aquaculture in Developing Countries. ICLARMConference Proceedings, vol. 31.
, pp. 213236, 359pp.
Boopathy, R., Bonvillain, C., Fontenot, Q., Kilgen, M., 2007. Biological treatment of
low-salinity shrimp aquaculture wastewater using sequencing batch reactor.
International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 59, 1619.
Boyd, C.E., 1973. The chemical oxygen demand of waters and biological materials
fromponds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103, 606611.
Boyd, C.E., 2003. Guidelines for aquaculture efuent management at the farm-level.
Aquaculture 226, 101112.
Brazil, B.L., Summerfelt, S.T., 2006. Aerobic treatment of gravity thickening tank
supernatant. Aquacultural Engineering 34, 92102.
Brune, D.E., Schwartz, G., Eversole, A.G., Collier, J.A., Schwedler, T.E., 2003. Intensi-
cation of pond aquaculture and high rate photosynthetic systems. Aquacultural
Engineering 28, 6586.
Bureau, D.P., Gunther, S.J., Cho, C.Y., 2003. Chemical composition and preliminary
theoretical estimates of waste outputs of rainbow trout reared in commercial
cage culture operations in Ontario. North American Journal of Aquaculture 65,
3338.
Chen, S., Cofn, D.E., Malone, R.F., 1993. Production, characteristics, and modeling of
aquacultural sludge from a recirculating aquacultural system using a granular
media biolter. In: Wang, J.-K. (Ed.), Techniques for Modern Aquaculture. ASAE,
St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 1625.
Chen, S., Cofn, D., Malone, R., 1997. Sludge production and management for recir-
culating aquacultural systems. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 28,
303315.
Cho, C.Y., Hynes, J.D., Wood, K.R., Yoshida, H.K., 1991. Quantitation of sh 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 International
Symposium on Nutritional Strategies in Management of Aquaculture Waste.
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., 1990, pp. 3750.
Cho, C.Y., Hynes, J.D., Wood, K.R., Yoshida, H.K., 1994. Development of high-nutrient-
dense, lowpollution diets and prediction of aquaculture waste using biological
approaches. Aquaculture 124, 293305.
Cohen, I., Neori, A., 1991. Ulva lactuca biolters for marine shpond efuents. I.
Ammonia uptake kinetics and nitrogen content. Botanica Marina 34, 475482.
Conroy, J., Couturier, M., 2010. Dissolutionof minerals duringhydrolysis of shwaste
solids. Aquaculture 298, 220225.
Crab, R., Avnimelech, Y., Defoirdt, T., Bossier, P., Verstraete, W., 2007. Nitrogen
removal techniques in aquaculture for a sustainable production. Aquaculture
270, 114.
Cromey, C.J., White, P., 2004. Potential farmmanagement practices for the reduction
of aquaculture impact. In: The Meramed Project: Development of Monitoring
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. Environmental Microbiology 5, 5563.
Cytryn, E., van Rijn, J., Schramm, A., Gieseke, A., de Beer, D., Mintz, D., 2005. Iden-
tication of bacterial communities potentially responsible for oxic and anoxic
sulde oxidation in biolters of a recirculating mariculture system. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 71, 61346141.
Danaher, J.J., Shultz, R.C., Rakocy, J.E., 2011a. Evaluation of two textiles with or
without polymer addition for dewatering efuent from an intensive biooc
production system. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 42, 6672.
Danaher, J.J., Rakocy, J.E., Shultz, R.C., Bailey, D.S., Pantanella, E., 2011b. Dewater-
ing and composting aquaculture waste as a growing medium in the nursery
production of tomato plants. Acta Horticulturae 89, 223230.
Ebeling, J.M., Welsh, C.F., Rishel, K.L., 2006. Performance evaluationof the Hydrotech
belt lter using coagulation/occulation aids (alum/polymers) for the removal
of suspended solids and phosphorus from intensive recirculating aquaculture
microscreen backwash efuent. Aquacultural Engineering 35, 6177.
Ebeling, J.M., Sibrell, P.L., Ogden, S., Summerfelt, S.T., 2003. Evaluation of chemical
coagulationocculation aids for the removal of phosphorus fromrecirculating
aquaculture efuent. Aquacultural Engineering 29, 2342.
Eding, E.H., Klapwijk, A., Verreth, J.A.J., 2003. Design and performance of an upow
sludge blanket reactor in a zero discharge recirculating system. Abstracts and
Extended Communications of Contributions Presented at the International Con-
ference Aquaculture Europe Beyond Monoculture, Trondheim. Norway. EAS
Spec. Publ. No. 33, pp. 172174.
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, 277pp.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. Efuent Guidelines:
Aquatic 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 Technology 98, 17001703.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 1995. Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome, 41pp. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/
fao/005/v9878e/v9878e00.pdf.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2012. Cultured Aquatic Species Infor-
mation Programme. Lates calcarifer. Cultured Aquatic Species Information
Programme. http://www.fao.org/shery/culturedspecies/Lates calcarifer/en
J. van Rijn / Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956 55
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 sh. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 34, 344358.
Goncalves, A.A., Gagnon, G.A., 2011. Ozone application in recirculating aquaculture
systems: an overview. Ozone Science and Engineering 33, 345367.
Gregory, S.P., Shields, R.J., Fletcher, D.J., Gatland, P., Dyson, P.J., 2010. Bacterial com-
munity responses to increasing ammonia concentrations in model recirculating
vertical owsaline biolters. Ecological Engineering 36, 14851491.
Kaiser, J.B., Holt, G.J., 2005. Species prole Cobia. Southern Regional Aquaculture
Center Publication No. 7202. www.scribd.com/doc/16595767/Cobia-SRAC7202
Karipoglou, C., Nathanailides, C., 2009. Growthrate and feed conversionefciency of
intensively cultivated European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.). International Journal
of Fisheries and Aquaculture 1, 1113.
Klas, S., Mozes, N., Lahav, O., 2006. Development of a single-sludge denitrication
method for nitrate removal fromRAS efuents: lab-scale results vs. model pre-
diction. Aquaculture 259, 342353.
Lahav, O., Bar Massada, I., Yackoubov, D., Zelikson, R., Mozes, N., Tal, Y., Tarre, S., 2009.
Quanticationof anammoxactivityina denitricationreactor for a recirculating
aquaculture system. Aquaculture 288, 7682.
Leenhouwers, J.I., Ortega, R.C., Verreth, J.A.J., Schrama, J.W., 2007. Digesta character-
istics in relation to nutrient digestibility and mineral absorption in Nile tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus L.) fed cereal grains of increasing viscosity. Aquaculture
273, 556565.
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 wastewater under
high hydraulic loading rate. Environmental Pollution 134, 411442.
Little, D.C., Murraya, F.J., Azima, E., Leschena, W., Boyd, K., Watterson, A., Young,
J.A., 2008. Options for producing a warmwater sh in the UK: limits to Green
Growth? Trends in Food Science and Technology 19, 255264.
Lupatsch, I., Kissil, G.W., 1998. Predicting aquaculture waste fromgiltheadseabream
(Sparus aurata) culture using a nutritional approach. Aquatic Living Resources
11, 265268.
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 low water
exchange recirculating aquaculture systems? Aquaculture 298, 4350.
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. Aquacultural Engineering 43, 8393.
Metaxa, E., Deviller, G., Pagand, P., Alliaume, C., Casellas, C., Blancheton, J.P.,
2006. High rate algal pond treatment for water reuse in a marine sh
recirculation system: water purication and sh health. Aquaculture 252,
92101.
Mirzoyan, N., Tal, Y., Gross, A., 2010. Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive
recirculating aquaculture systems: review. Aquaculture 306, 16.
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) fromaquaculture wastewater using electrochemical tech-
nology: a review. Desalination 285, 113.
Neori, A., Cohen, I., Gordin, H., 1991. Ulva lactuca biolters for marine sh-
pond efuents: II. Growth rate, yield and C:N ratio. Botanica Marina 34,
483489.
Neori, A., Krom, M.D., van Rijn, J., 2007. Biochemical processes in intensive zero-
efuent marine sh culture with recirculating aerobic and anaerobic biolters.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 349, 235247.
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 bioltration in modern mariculture. Aquaculture 231,
361391.
Nobre, A.M., Robertson-Andersson, D., Neori, A., Sankar, K., 2010.
Ecologicaleconomic assessment of aquaculture options: comparison between
abalone monoculture and integrated multi-trophic aquaculture of abalone and
seaweeds. Aquaculture 306, 116126.
Pagand, P., Blancheton, J.P., Lemoalle, J., Casellas, C., 2000. The use of high rate algal
ponds for the treatment of marine efuent from a recirculating sh rearing
system. Aquaculture Research 31, 729736.
Peet, C., 2006. Farmed barramundi. Seafood report, Monterey Bay Aquarium.
www.montereybayaquarium.org/../MBA SeafoodWatch
Perschbacher, P.W., 2007. Growth rates of GMT and mixed-sex Nile tilapia Ore-
ochromis niloticus on natural and supplemental feeds. Asian Fisheries Science
20, 425431.
Piedrahita, R.H., 2003. Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank aqua-
culture efuents through intensication and recirculation. Aquaculture 226,
3544.
Racocy, J.E., 2007. Aquaponics: integrated sh and plant culture. In: Timmons, M.B,
Ebeling, J.M. (Eds.), Recirculating Aquaculture. NRAC Publ. no. 01-007. Cayuga
Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, NY, pp. 767822, 975pp.
Rakocy, J.E., Bailey, D.S., Shultz, R.C., Thoman, E.S., 2004. Update on tilapia and veg-
etable production in the UVI aquaponic system. In: NewDimensions on Farmed
Tilapia: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Tilapia in Aqua-
culture, Manila, Philippines, pp. 676690.
Reid, K.R., 2007. Nutrient release form salmon culture. In: Nutrient impacts 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
sustainable aquaculture: comparison between two trout farming systems using
life cycle assessment. Aquacultural Engineering 40, 113119.
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 owthrough system. Aquacultural Engineering 40, 135143.
Roque dOrbcastel, E., Person-Le-Ruyet, J., Le Bayon, N., Blancheton, J.P., 2009c. Com-
parative growth and welfare in rainbowtrout reared in re-circulating and ow
through rearing systems. Aquacultural Engineering 40, 7986.
Roque dOrbcastel, E., Blancheton, J.P., Boujard, T., Aubin, J., Moutounet, Y., Przybyla,
C., Belaud, A., 2008. Comparison of two methods for evaluating waste of a ow
through trout farm. Aquaculture 274, 7279.
Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A.R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P., Lawrence,
R., 2008. Aquaculturepractices andpotential humanhealthrisks: current knowl-
edge and future priorities. Environment International 34, 12151226.
Schipp, G., Bosmans, J., Humphrey, J., 2007. Northern Territory Barramundi Farm-
ing Handbook. Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, Australia,
71pp. www.nt.gov.au/../NT Barra Farming Handbook Online
Schneider, O., Sereti, V., Eding, E.H., Verreth, J.A.J., 2005. Analysis of nutrient
ows in integrated intensive aquaculture systems. Aquacultural Engineering
32, 379401.
Schneider, O., Amirkolaie, A.K., Vera-Cartas, J., Eding, E.H., Schrama, J.W., Verreth,
J.A.J., 2004. Digestibility, feces recovery, and related C, N, and P balances of ve
feed ingredients evaluated as shmeal alternatives in Oreochromis niloticus L.
Aquaculture Research 35, 13701379.
Shnel, N., Barak, Y., Ezer, T., Dafni, Z., van Rijn, J., 2002. Design and performance
of a zero-discharge tilapia recirculating system. Aquacultural Engineering 26,
191203.
Schuenhoff, A., Shpigel, M., Lupatsch, I., Ashkenazi, A., Msuya, F.E., Neori, A., 2003.
A semi-recirculating, integrated system for the culture of sh and seaweed.
Aquaculture 221, 167181.
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 aqua-
culture biosolids with geotextile bags. In: Aquaculture America 2005, New
Orleans, LA. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, p. 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 sul-
dogenic sludge of a marine aquaculture biolter. FEMS Microbiology Ecology
72, 476484.
Sindilariu, P.D., Brinker, A., Reiter, R., 2009. Waste and particle management in
a commercial, partially recirculating trout farm. Aquacultural Engineering 41,
127135.
Sharrer, M.J., Rashel, K.L., Summerfelt, S.T., 2009. Evaluation of geotextile ltra-
tion applying coagulant and occulant amendments for aquaculture biosolids
dewatering and phosphorus removal. Aquacultural Engineering 40, 110.
Sharrer, M.J., Tal, Y., Ferrier, D., Hankins, J.A., Summerfelt, S.T., 2007. Membrane
biological reactor treatment of a saline backwash ow from a recirculating
aquaculture system. Aquacultural Engineering 36, 159176.
Sher, Y., Schneider, K., Schwermer, C.U., van Rijn, J., 2008. Sulde induced nitrate
reduction in the sludge of an anaerobic treatment stage of a zero-discharge
recirculating mariculture system. Water Research 42, 43864392.
Stewart, N.T., Boardman, G.D., Helfrich, L.A., 2006. Characterizationof nutrient leach-
ing rates fromsettled rainbowtrout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sludge. Aquacultural
Engineering 35, 191198.
Su, Y.-M., Lin, Y.-F., Jing, S.-R., LucyHou, P.C., 2011. Plant growthandthe performance
of mangrove wetland microcosms for mariculture efuent depuration. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 62, 14551463.
Subasinghe, R., Soto, D., Jia, J., 2009. Global aquaculture and its role in sustainable
development. Reviews in Aquaculture 1, 29.
Summerfelt, S.T., Sharrer, M.J., Tsukuda, S.M., Gearheart, M., 2009. Process require-
ments for achieving full-owdisinfectionof recirculating water using ozonation
and UV irradiation. Aquacultural Engineering 40, 1727.
Suzuki, Y., Maruyama, T., Numata, H., Sato, H., Asakawa, M., 2003. Performance of
a closed recirculating system with foam separation, nitrication and denitri-
cation units for intensive culture of eel: towards zero emission. Aquacultural
Engineering 29, 165182.
Tal, Y., Watts, J.E.M., Schreier, S.B., Sowers, K.R., Schreier, H.J., 2003. Characterization
of the microbial community and nitrogen transformation processes associated
with moving bed bioreactors in a closed recirculated mariculture system. Aqua-
culture 215, 187202.
Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., Sowers, K.R., Stubbleeld, J.D., Place, A.R., Zohar, Y., 2009.
Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 286,
2835.
Tilley, D.R., Badrinarayanan, H., Rosati, R., Son, J., 2002. Constructed wetlands as
recirculationlters inlarge-scale shrimpaquaculture. Aquacultural Engineering
26, 81109.
Timmons, M.B., Ebeling, J.M., 2007. Recirculating Aquaculture. NRAC Publ. No. 01-
007. Cayuga Aqua Ventures, Ithaca, NY, 975pp.
van Rijn, J., Fonarev, N., Berkowitz, B., 1995. Anaerobic treatment of sh culture
efuents: digestion of sh feed and release of volatile fatty acids. Aquaculture
133, 920.
vanRijn, J., Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., 2006. Denitricationinrecirculatingsystems: theory
and applications. Aquacultural Engineering 34, 364376.
56 J. van Rijn / Aquacultural Engineering 53 (2013) 4956
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 biolms in aqua-
culture systems. In: Azim, M.E., Verdegem, M.C.J., van Dam, A.A., Beveridge,
M.C.M. (Eds.), Periphyton, Ecology, Exploitation and Management. CABI Pub-
lishing, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 191206, 325pp.
Virdis, B., Rabaey, K., Yuan, Z., Keller, J., 2008. Microbial fuel cells for simultaneous
carbon and nitrogen removal. Water Research 42, 30133024.
Yeo, S.E., Binkowski, F.P., Morris, J.E., 2004. Aquaculture Efuents and Waste by-
products. Characteristics, Potential Recovery, and Benecial Reuse. NCRAC
Publications Ofce, North Central Regional Aquaculture Center, Iowa State Uni-
versity, 45pp.
Zachritz I.I., W.A., Hanson, A.T., Sauceda, J.A., Fitzsimmons, K.M., 2008. Evaluation
of submerged surface ow (SSF) constructed wetlands for recirculating tilapia
production systems. Aquacultural Engineering 39, 1623.
Zhong, F., Liang, W., Yu, T., Cheng, S.P., He, F., Wu, Z.B., 2011. Removal efciency
and balance of nitrogen in a recirculating aquaculture system integrated with
constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A:
Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering 46, 789794.
Zohar, Y., Tal, Y., Schreier, H., Steven, C., Stubbleeld, J., Place, A.R., 2005. commer-
cially 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. 159171.