See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333938727

Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and

Mineralisation

Chapter · June 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6_10

CITATIONS READS

5 1,711

4 authors:

Boris Delaide Hendrik Monsees

University of Liège Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries
11 PUBLICATIONS   358 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amit Gross Simon Goddek

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Wageningen University & Research
124 PUBLICATIONS   3,148 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   486 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Safe Greywater Reuse View project

Aquaponics Food Production Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Goddek on 24 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 10
Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments
for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction
and Mineralisation

Boris Delaide, Hendrik Monsees, Amit Gross, and Simon Goddek

Abstract Recirculating aquaculture systems, as part of aquaponic units, are effective

in producing aquatic animals with a minimal water consumption through effective
treatment stages. Nevertheless, the concentrated sludge produced after the solid
filtration stage, comprising organic matter and valuable nutrients, is most often
discarded. One of the latest developments in aquaponic technology aims to reduce
this potential negative environmental impact and to increase the nutrient recycling by
treating the sludge on-site. For this purpose, microbial aerobic and anaerobic treat-
ments, dealt with either individually or in a combined approach, provide very prom-
ising opportunities to simultaneously reduce the organic waste as well as to recover
valuable nutrients such as phosphorus. Anaerobic sludge treatments additionally offer
the possibility of energy production since a by-product of this process is biogas,
i.e. mainly methane. By applying these additional treatment steps in aquaponic
units, the water and nutrient recycling efficiency is improved and the dependency on
external fertiliser can be reduced, thereby enhancing the sustainability of the system in
terms of resource utilisation. Overall, this can pave the way for the economic improve-
ment of aquaponic systems because costs for waste disposal and fertiliser acquisition
are decreased.

B. Delaide (*)
Developonics asbl, Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
H. Monsees
Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Gross
Department of Environmental Hydrology and Microbiology, Zuckerberg Institute for Water
Research, Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
Beersheba, Israel
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Goddek
Mathematical and Statistical Methods (Biometris), Wageningen University, Wageningen,
The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© The Author(s) 2019 247

S. Goddek et al. (eds.), Aquaponics Food Production Systems,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15943-6_10
248 B. Delaide et al.

Keywords Sludge recycling · Phosphorus · Microbial sludge conversion · Mass

balance · Nutrient recycling

10.1 Introduction

The concept of aquaponics is associated with being a sustainable production system,

as it re-utilises recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) wastewater enriched in
macronutrients (i.e. nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca),
magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S)) and micronutrients (i.e. iron (Fe), manganese
(Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (B) and molybdenum (Mo)) to fertilise the
plants (Graber and Junge 2009; Licamele 2009; Nichols and Savidov 2012; Turcios
and Papenbrock 2014). A much debated question is whether this concept can match
its own ambition of being a quasi-closed-loop system, as high amounts of the
nutrients that enter the system are wasted by discharging the nutrient-rich fish sludge
(Endut et al. 2010; Naylor et al. 1999; Neto and Ostrensky 2013). Indeed, to
maintain a good water quality in a RAS and aquaponic systems, the water has to
be constantly filtrated for solid removal. The two main techniques for solid filtration
are to retain the particles in a mesh (i.e. mesh filtration as drum filters) and to allow
the particles to decant in clarifiers. In most conventional plants, sludge is recovered
out of these mechanical filtration devices and is discharged as sewage. In the best
cases, the sludge is dried and applied as fertiliser on land fields (Brod et al. 2017).
Notably, up to 50% (in dry matter) of the feed ingested is excreted as solids by fish
(Chen et al. 1997), and most of the nutrients that enter aquaponic systems via fish
feed accumulate in these solids and so in the sludge (Neto and Ostrensky 2013;
Schneider et al. 2005). Hence, effective solid filtration removes, for example, more
than 80% of the valuable P (Monsees et al. 2017) that could otherwise be used for
plant production. Therefore, recycling these valuable nutrients for aquaponic appli-
cations is of major importance. Developing an appropriate sludge treatment able to
mineralise the nutrients contained in sludge for re-using them in the hydroponic unit
seems to be a necessary process for contributing to close the nutrient loop to a higher
degree and thus lowering the environmental impact of aquaponic systems (Goddek
et al. 2015; Goddek and Keesman 2018; Goddek and Körner 2019).
It has been shown in experimental studies that complemented aquaponic nutrient
solution (i.e. after addition of lacking nutrients) promotes plant growth compared to
hydroponics (Delaide et al. 2016; Ru et al. 2017; Saha et al. 2016). Hence, sludge
mineralisation is also a promising way to improve the aquaponic system performance
as the nutrients recovered are used to complement the aquaponic solution. In addition,
on-site mineralisation units can also increase the self-sufficiency of aquaponic facili-
ties, especially with respect to finite resources as P which is essential for plant growth.
P is produced by mining activities, whereby the deposits are not equally distributed
around the world. In addition, its price has risen by up to 800% within the last decade
(McGill 2012). Thus, mineralisation units applied in aquaponic systems are also likely
to increase its future economic success and stability.
10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 249

Sludge treatment in aquaponics needs to be approached differently than has been

done in the past. Indeed, in conventional wastewater treatment, the main objective is
to obtain a decontaminated and clean effluent. The treatment performances are
expressed in terms of removal of contaminants (e.g. solids, nitrogen (N), phosphorus
(P), etc.) out of the wastewater and by quantifying the effluents with respect to the
achieved quality (Techobanoglous et al. 2014). Using this conventional approach,
several studies have provided quantitative evidence that a consistent proportion of
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total suspended solids (TSS) can be removed
by digesting the RAS wastewater under aerobic, anaerobic and sequential aerobic–
anaerobic conditions (Goddek et al. 2018; Chowdhury et al. 2010; Mirzoyan et al.
2010; Van Rijn 2013). However, in aquaponic systems, the wastewater from fish is
considered to be a valuable fertiliser source. Within a closed-loop approach, the solid
part discharged needs to be minimised (i.e. organic reduction maximised), and the
nutrient content in the effluents needs to be maximised (i.e. nutrient mineralisation
maximised). Therefore, the wastewater treatment performance in aquaponics no
longer needs to be expressed in terms of contaminants removal but in terms of its
contaminant reduction and nutrient mineralisation ability.
A few studies have demonstrated the functional capability of digesting fish sludge
with aerobic and anaerobic treatments for organic reduction purposes (Goddek et al.
2018; van Rijn et al. 1995). With anaerobic treatment in bioreactor, high dry matter
(i.e. TSS) reduction performance (e.g. higher than 90%) can be achieved while
methane can also be produced (van Lier et al. 2008; Mirzoyan and Gross 2013;
Yogev et al. 2016).
The aerobic treatment of sludge is also a very effective way to reduce organic
matter, which is oxidised to CO2 during respiration (see Eq. 10.1). For example,
reduction rates of 90% (here determined as suspended solids, COD and BOD
reduction) were reported from a water resource recovery facility (Seo et al. 2017).
Aerobic processes are faster than anaerobic, but they can be more expensive (Chen
et al. 1997) as a constant aeration of the sludge–water mixture requires energy-
intensive pumps or motors. Moreover, significant fractions of the nutrients are
converted to microbial biomass and do not stay dissolved in the water.
Although these studies have shown the organic reduction potential of fish sludge,
only a few authors have examined the release of specific nutrients (e.g. for N and P)
from fish sludge. Most of these studies were for short in vitro batch experiments
(Conroy and Couturier 2010; Monsees et al. 2017; Stewart et al. 2006) and from an
operating RAS (Yogev et al. 2016), rather than an aquaponic setup. While discussed
to some extent in theory (Goddek et al. 2016; Yogev et al. 2017), the research has to
start now to systematically investigate the organic reduction and nutrient
mineralisation performance of fish sludge for both aerobic and anaerobic reactors
and its effect on the water composition and plant growth. Therefore, this chapter
aims to give an overview on the diverse fish sludge treatments that can be integrated
into aquaponic setups to achieve organic reduction and nutrient mineralisation.
Some design approaches will be highlighted. The nutrient mass balance approach
in the context of aquaponic sludge treatment will be discussed, and specific meth-
odology to quantify the sludge treatment performance will be developed.
250 B. Delaide et al.

10.2 Wastewater Treatment Implementation in Aquaponics

In aquaponics, the wastewater charged with solids (i.e. the sludge) is a valuable
source of nutrients, and appropriate treatments need to be carried out. The treatment
goals differ from conventional wastewater treatment because in aquaponics solids
and water conservation is of interest. Moreover, regardless of the wastewater
treatment applied, its aim should be to reduce solids and at the same time mineralise
its nutrients. In other words, the aim is to obtain a solid-free effluent but rich in
solubilised nutrients (i.e. anions and cations) that can be reinserted into the water
loop in a coupled setup (Fig. 10.1a) or directly into the hydroponic grow beds in a
decoupled setup (Fig. 10.1b). Fish sludge solids are mainly composed of degradable
organic matter so that the solid reduction can be called organic reduction. Indeed, the
complex organic molecules (e.g. proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, etc.) are principally
composed of carbon and will be successively reduced to lower molecular weight
compounds until the ultimate gaseous forms of CO2 and CH4 (in the case of
anaerobic fermentation). During this degradation process, the macronutrients
(i.e. N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S) and micronutrients (i.e. Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and Mo)
that were bound to the organic molecules are released into the water in their ionic
forms. This phenomenon is called nutrient leaching or nutrient mineralisation. It can
be assumed that when high organic reduction is achieved, high nutrient
mineralisation would also be achieved. On the one hand, sludge contains a propor-
tion of undissolved minerals, and on the other hand, some macro- and micronutrients
are released during the mineralisation process. These can quickly precipitate together
and form insoluble minerals. The state between ions and precipitated minerals of
most of the macro- and micronutrients is pH dependent. The most well-known
minerals that precipitate in bioreactors are calcium phosphate, calcium sulphate,
calcium carbonate, pyrite and struvite (Peng et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2016). Conroy
and Couturier (2010) observed that Ca and P were released in anaerobic reactor
when the pH dropped under 6. They showed that the release corresponded exactly to
the mineralisation of calcium phosphate. Goddek et al. (2018) also observed the
solubilisation of P, Ca and other macronutrients in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor (UASB) that turned acidic. Jung and Lovitt (2011) reported a 90% nutrient
mobilisation of aquaculture-derived sludge at a very low pH value of 4. In this
condition, all the macro- and micronutrients were solubilised. There is thus an
antagonism between organic reduction and nutrient mineralisation. Indeed, organic
reduction is maximal when the microorganisms are active for degrading the organic
compounds, and this happens at pH in a range of 6–8. Because nutrient leaching
occurs at pH below 6, for optimal organic reduction and nutrient mineralisation, the
most effective would be to divide the process in two steps, i.e. an organic reduction
step at pH close to neutral and a nutrient leaching step under acidic conditions. To
our knowledge, no operation using this two-step approach has been yet reported.
This opens a new field in wastewater treatment and more research for implementa-
tion in aquaponics is needed.
10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 251

(a)
Biofilter
Biogas and
Stabilised Sludge

Sludge Sludge Reduction

Hydroponic Solids
and
Beds Removal
Mineralisation

Nutrient Rich Effluent

Fish Tank
Water Loop

(b)
Biofilter
Biogas and
Stabilised Sludge

Hydroponic
Beds

Solids Sludge Sludge Reduction

Removal and Mineralisation

RAS
Water Loop
HP
Water Loop

Fish Tank Sump

Nutrient Rich
Effluent

Fig. 10.1 Schematic implementation of sludge treatment in one loop aquaponic system (a) and in
decoupled aquaponic system (b)

The choice of feed is also important in this context. In animal-based feeds where a
major ingredient fraction is still based on animal sources (e.g. fishmeal, bone meal),
bound phosphate, e.g. as apatite (derived from bone meal), is easily available under
acidic conditions, whereas plant-based feeds contain phytate as a major phosphate
source. Phytate in contrast to, e.g. apatite requires enzymatic (phytase) conversion
(Kumar et al. 2012), and so the phosphate is not as easily available.
252 B. Delaide et al.

10.3 Aerobic Treatments

Aerobic treatment enhances the oxidation of the sludge by supporting its contact
with oxygen. In this case, the oxidation of the organic matter is driven mainly by the
respiration of heterotrophic microorganisms. CO2, the end product of respiration, is
released as is shown in Eq. (10.1).

C6 H12 O6 þ 6 O2 ! 6 CO2 þ 6 H2 O þ energy ð10:1Þ

This process in aerobic reactors is mainly achieved by injecting air into the
sludge–water mixture with air blowers connected to diffusers and propellers. Air
injection also ensures a proper mixing of the sludge.
During this oxidative process, the macro- and micronutrients bound to the organic
matter are released. This process is called aerobic mineralisation. Therefore, further
nutrients can be recycled during the mineralisation process, whereas some nutrients,
e.g. sodium and chloride, can also exceed their threshold for hydroponic application
and must be monitored carefully before application (Rakocy et al. 2007). Aerobic
mineralisation of organic matter, derived from the solid removal unit (e.g. clarifier or
drum filter) in RAS, is an easy way to recycle nutrients for subsequent aquaponic
application.
Moreover, during the aerobic digestion process, the pH drops and promotes the
mineralisation of bound minerals trapped in the sludge. For example, Monsees et al.
(2017) showed that P was released from RAS sludge due to this pH shift. This
decrease in pH is mainly driven by respiration and to a lower extent probably by
nitrification.
Due to a constant supply of oxygen via aeration of the mineralisation chamber
and the abundance of organic matter, heterotrophic microorganisms find ideal
conditions to grow. This results in an increase of respiration and the release of
CO2 that dissolves in water. CO2 forms carbonic acid which dissociates and thereby
lowers the pH of the process water as illustrated in the following equation:

CO2ðgÞ þ 2 H2 O ! H3 Oþ þ HCO3  ð10:2Þ

RAS-derived wastewater often contains NH4+ and additionally is characterised

by a neutral pH of around 7, because the pH in RAS needs to be kept at that level to
ensure optimal microbial conversion of NH4+ to NO3 within the biofilter
(i.e. nitrification). The nitrification process can contribute to the decrease in pH in
aerobic reactors in the starting phase by releasing protons to the process water as can
been seen in the following equation:

NH4 þ þ 2 O2 ! NO3  þ 2 Hþ þ H2 O þ energy ð10:3Þ

10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 253

This is at least valid for the starting phase where the pH is still above 6. At a
pH  6, nitrification might significantly slow down or even cease (Ebeling et al.
2006). However, this does not represent a problem for the mineralisation unit.
The general decrease of the pH in the aerobic mineralisation unit in the ongoing
process is the main driver of the release of nutrients present under the form of
precipitated minerals as calcium phosphates. Monsees et al. (2017) noted that around
50% of the phosphate in the sludge was acid soluble, derived from a tilapia RAS
where a standard feed containing fishmeal was applied. Here, around 80% of the
phosphate within the RAS was lost by the cleaning of the decanter and the discarding
of the sludge–water mixture. Considering this fact, the big potential of
mineralisation units for aquaponic applications becomes clears.
The advantages of aerobic mineralisation are the low maintenance with no need
for skilled personnel and no subsequent reoxygenation. The enriched water can be
used directly for plant fertilisation, ideally managed by an online system for the
adequate preparation of the nutrient solution. A disadvantage compared to anaerobic
mineralisation is that no methane is produced (Chen et al. 1997) and, as already
mentioned, the higher energy demand due to the need for constant aeration.

10.3.1 Aerobic Mineralisation Units

A design example of an aerobic mineralisation unit is presented in Fig. 10.2. The

inlet is connected to the solid removal unit via a valve, which allows discontinuous
refilling of the mineralisation chamber with a mixture of sludge and water. The

Sieve Plate
pore size: 50-100 µm
Inlet

Outlet

Air Diffuser
Vertical movement of
water-sludge mixture by air bubbles

Fig. 10.2 Schematic example of an aerobic mineralisation unit operated in a batch mode.
Mineralisation chamber (brown) is separated from the outlet chamber (blue) by a sieve plate that
is covered by a solid cover plate during the mineralisation process (strong aeration) to prevent
clogging and formation of fine particles. Organic-rich water from a clarifier or drum filter enters the
mineralisation unit via the inlet. After a mineralisation cycle is completed, nutrient-rich, solid-free
water exits the mineralisation unit via the outlet and is either directly transferred to the hydroponic
unit or kept in a storage tank until needed
254 B. Delaide et al.

mineralisation chamber is aerated via compressed air to promote the respiration of

heterotrophic bacteria and to keep anaerobic denitrification processes as minimal
as possible. To prevent organic material from leaving the mineralisation chamber,
a sieve plate could serve as a barrier. Ideally, a second, impermeable cover plate
should be used to cover the sieve during the mineralisation process (during
aeration). This should prevent the sieve plate from clogging as during the heavy
aeration the organic material would be constantly moved against the sieve plate.
Before transferring the nutrient-rich water from the mineralisation chamber to the
hydroponic unit, aeration is stopped to allow the particles to settle. Subsequently,
the cover plate is removed, and the nutrient-enriched water can pass through the
sieve plate and leave the mineralisation chamber via the outlet as suggested in
Fig. 10.2. Finally, the cover plate is put in place again, mineralisation chamber is
refilled with RAS-derived sludge–water mixture, and the mineralisation process
starts again (i.e. batch process).
The mineralisation unit should have at least twice the volume of the clarifier to
allow for a continuous mineralisation. One mineralisation cycle can last for up to
5–30 days depending on the system, organic load and required nutrient profile and
has to be elaborated for each individual system. For systems including a drum filter,
as it is the case in most modern RAS, the mineralisation unit size has to be adjusted
according to the daily or weekly sludge outflow of the drum filter. Since that has not
been tested in an experimental setup so far, specific recommendations are not
currently possible.

10.3.2 Implementation

An example of the implementation of an aerobic mineralisation unit into a decoupled

aquaponic system is presented in Fig. 10.3. Since no pre- and post-treatment
(e.g. re-oxygenation) is required, the mineralisation unit can be directly placed
between the solid removal unit and the hydroponic beds. By installing a valve before
and after the mineralisation unit, a discontinuous operation and nutrient delivery to the
hydroponic unit on-demand are possible, but in many cases, an additional storage tank
would be required. Ideally, after directing nutrient-rich water to the hydroponic unit,
the displaced water is replaced with new sludge and water from the solid removal unit.
Depending on the volume of the mineralisation unit, it is important to note that refilling
with new sludge–water mixture can lead to an increase in pH again, and thus the
mineralisation process could be interrupted. By increasing the size of the
mineralisation unit, this effect would be buffered. In the study by Rakocy et al.
(2007) investigating liquid organic waste from two aquaculture systems, a retention
time of 29 days for aerobic mineralisation resulted in a substantial mineralisation
success. Nevertheless, this also depends on the TS content within the mineralisation
chamber, on the feed applied to the RAS, on the temperature and on the nutrient
requirements of the plants that are produced within the hydroponic unit.
10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 255

RAS Hydroponics

Fish Tank

Fish Tank

Fish Tank

Fish Tank

Clarifier Mineralisation
Unit

Biofilter Nutrient
Reservoir

Fig. 10.3 Schematic picture of a decoupled aquaponic system including an aerobic mineralisation
unit. Water can be transferred to the nutrient reservoir either from the RAS water loop or directly
from the mineralisation unit

10.4 Anaerobic Treatments

Anaerobic digestion (AD) has long been used for the stabilisation and reduction of
sludge mass process, mainly because of the simplicity of operation, relatively low
costs and production of biogas as potential energy source. General stoichiometric
representation of anaerobic digestion can be described as follows:
256 B. Delaide et al.

CnHaOb þ ðn  a=4  b=2Þ  H2 O ! ðn=2  a=8 þ b=4Þ  CO2

þ ðn=2 þ a=8  b=4Þ  CH4 ð10:4Þ

Equation 10.4 Biogas general mass balance (Marchaim 1992).

And the theoretical methane concentration can be calculated as follows:

½CH4  ¼ 0:5 þ ð a=4 þ b=2 Þ=2n ð10:5Þ

Equation 10.5 Theoretical expected methane concentration in the biogas (Marchaim

1992).
The ultimate products from AD are mostly inorganic material (e.g. minerals),
slightly degraded organic compounds and biogas which is typically composed of
>55% methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), with only small levels (<1%) of
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and total ammonia nitrogen (NH3+/NH4+) (Appels et al.
2008).
During the process of AD, the organic sludge undergoes considerable changes in
its physical, chemical and biological properties and schematically can be divided
into four stages (Fig. 10.4). The first stage is hydrolysis, where complex organic
matter such as lipids, polysaccharides, proteins and nucleic acids degrade into
soluble organic substances (sugars, amino acids and fatty acids). This step is
generally considered rate-limiting (Deublein and Steinhauser 2010). In the second
acidogenesis step, the monomers formed in the first step split further, and volatile
fatty acids (VFA) are produced by acidogenic (fermentative) bacteria along with
ammonia, CO2, H2S and other by-products. The third step is acetogenesis, where the
VFA and alcohols are further digested by acetogens to produce mainly acetic acid as
well as CO2 and H2. This conversion is controlled to a large extent by the partial
pressure of H2 in the mixture. The last step is methanogenesis where methane is
mainly produced by two groups of methanogenic bacteria: acetotrophic archaea,
which split acetate into methane and CO2, and hydrogenotrophic archaea, which use
hydrogen as an electron donor and carbon dioxide as electron acceptor to produce
methane (Appels et al. 2008).
Various factors such as sludge pH, salinity, mineral composition, temperature,
loading rate, hydraulic retention time (HRT), carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio and
volatile fatty acid content influence the digestibility of the sludge and the biogas
production (Khalid et al. 2011).
Anaerobic sludge treatment from RAS began about 30 years ago with reports on
sludge from freshwater RAS (Lanari and Franci 1998) followed by reports on marine
(Arbiv and van Rijn 1995; Klas et al. 2006; McDermott et al. 2001) and brackish
water operations (Gebauer and Eikebrokk 2006; Mirzoyan et al. 2008). Recently, the
use of UASB (Fig. 10.5) for AD of RAS sludge followed by biogas production as an
alternative source of energy was suggested (Mirzoyan et al. 2010). The reactor is
made of a tank, part of which is filled with an anaerobic granular sludge blanket
containing the active microorganism species. Sludge flows upwards through a
‘microbial blanket’ where it is degraded by the anaerobic microorganisms and
10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 257

Acetogenesis
Hydrolysis Acidogenesis Methanogenesis

H2
CO2
Formate
Acetate

Organic Monomeric
1 2 3 4 CH4
Matter Compound

Aceton
Butanol
Propannol
Ethanol
Butyrat
Propionate
Lactate

Fig. 10.4 Schematic diagram showing anaerobic degradation of organic matter based on Garcia
et al. (2000)

Fig. 10.5 Scheme of Gas

an upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor (UASB)

Effluent

Deflector

Sludge Blanket

Influent

biogas is produced. An inverted cone settler at the top of the digester allows gas–
liquid separation. When the biogas is released from the floc, it is oriented into the
cone by the deflectors to be collected. A slow mixing in the reactor results from the
upwards flow coupled with the natural movement of the microbial flocs that are
attached to biogas bubbles. At some point, the floc leaves the gas bubble and settles
back down allowing for the effluent to be free from TSS, which can then be recycled
258 B. Delaide et al.

back to the system or released. The main advantages of the UASB are the low
operational costs and simplicity of operation while providing high (>92%) solid-
removal efficiency for wastes with low (1–3%) TSS content (Marchaim 1992;
Yogev et al. 2017).
Two recent case studies demonstrated the use of UASB as a treatment for solids in
pilot scale marine and saline RAS, which provide an example of the potential
advantages of this unit in aquaponics (Tal et al. 2009; Yogev et al. 2017). A detailed
look at the carbon balance suggested that about 50% of the introduced carbon (from
feed) was removed by fish assimilation and respiration, 10% was removed by
aerobic biodegradation in the nitrification bioreactor and 10% was removed in the
denitrification reactor (Yogev et al. 2017). Therefore, overall about 25% carbon was
introduced into the UASB reactor of which 12.5% was converted to methane, 7.5%
to CO2 and the rest (~5%) remained as nondegradable carbon in the UASB. In
summary, it was demonstrated that the use of UASB allowed better water
recirculation (>99%), smaller (<8%) production of sludge when compared with
typical RAS that do not have on-site solid treatment, and recovery of energy that
can account for 12% of the overall energy demand of the RAS. It should be noted
that using UASB in aquaponics will also allow significant recovery of up to 50%
more nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium since they are released
into the water as a result of solid biodegradation (Goddek et al. 2018).
The anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) is a more advanced technology.
The main process consists of using a special membrane to separate the solids from
the liquid instead of using a decanting process as in UASB. The sludge fermentation
occurs in a simple anaerobic tank and the effluents leave it through the membrane.
Depending on the membrane pore size (going down to 0.1–0.5 μm) even microor-
ganisms can be retained. There are two types of membrane bioreactor design: one
uses a side-stream mode outside the tank, and the other has the membrane unit
submerged into the tank (Fig. 10.6), the latter being more favourable in AnMBR
application due to its more compact configuration and lower energy consumption
(Chang 2014). Membranes of different materials such as ceramic or polymeric
(e.g. polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene, polyethersulfone (PES), poly-
vinyl chloride (PVC)) may be configured as plate and frame, hollow fibre or tubular
units (Gander et al. 2000; Huang et al. 2010). AnMBR has several significant
advantages over typical biological reactors such as the UASB, namely, decoupling
of (long) sludge retention time (SRT) and (short) hydraulic residence time (HRT),
hence enabling the problem of the AD process’s slow kinetics to be overcome; very
high effluent quality in which most nutrients remain; and removal of pathogens and a
small footprint (Judd and Judd 2008). In addition, efficient biogas production in the
AnMBR can possibly result in a net energy balance.
While this technology deserves a lot of attention and research, it should be noted
that since it is a fairly new technology, there are still several significant drawbacks
that must be addressed before AnMBR would be adopted by the aquaculture
industry. These are the high operational costs due to membrane maintenance to
prevent biofouling, regular membrane exchange and high CO2 fraction (30–50%) in
the biogas which limits its utilisation and contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG)
10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 259

(a) (b)

Influent Influent Retentate Recycle

Permeate Permeate

Waste Sludge

Waste Sludge

Bioreactor Bioreactor
Fig. 10.6 (a) Side-stream MBR with a separate filtration unit with the retained fluid recycled back
to the bioreactor; (b) submerged MBR: filtration unit integrated into the bioreactor. (Gander et al.
2000)

emission (Cui et al. 2003). On a positive note, in the near future, new biofouling
prevention techniques will be developed while the membrane cost will certainly drop
with the broader use of this technology. The combination of a UASB with a
membrane reactor to filter the UASB effluent has been successfully studied to
remove organic carbon and nitrogen (An et al. 2009). This combination seems a
promising option for aquaponics for safe and sanitary use of UASB effluents.

10.4.1 Implementation

One possible solution of implementing anaerobic reactors is in a sequential manner

(see also Chap. 8). A ‘high pH–low pH’ combination allows for harvesting methane
(and thus reducing carbon) in the first high pH step and mobilising nutrients in the
decarbonised sludge in a subsequent low pH environment. The advantage of this
method is that the carbon reduction under high pH conditions results in less VFAs,
which can occur during the low pH second step (Fig. 10.7). This approach also
allows for co-digestion of green vegetative matter (i.e. from any harvesting of plants,
there will be waste vegetative matter which could be put through such a digester) to
increase both biogas production and nutrient recovery from the overall scheme.
Another technical integration possibility has been presented by Ayre et al. (2017).
They propose to discharge the effluent of a high-pH anaerobic digester to an algal
culture pond. Within that pond, algae are grown, whose biomass can be used for
animal–aquaculture feed or biofertilisation (Fig. 10.8). More detailed information on
this approach can be found in Chap. 11.
260 B. Delaide et al.

Biogas Acids

Supernatant Fertilizer

pH ~7 pH ~4

RAS-derived Sludge Decarbonized Sludge Demineralized Sludge

Inflow Transfer Discharge

Fig. 10.7 Two-stage anaerobic system. In the first stage (high pH), the carbon will be removed
from the sludge as biogas, whereas the low pH in the second stage allows nutrients that are trapped
in the sludge do dissolve in the water. Usually, volatile fatty acids (VFA) would form in low pH
environments. The removal of the carbon source in the first stage, however, limits VFA production
in such a sequential setup

10.5 Methodology to Quantify the Sludge Reduction

and Mineralisation Performance

To determine the digestion of aquaponic sludge treatment in aerobic and anaerobic

bioreactors, a specific methodology needs to be followed. A methodology adapted
for aquaponic sludge treatment purposes is presented in this chapter. Specific
equations have been developed to precisely quantify their performance (Delaide
et al. 2018), and these should be used to evaluate the performance of the treatment
applied in a specific aquaponic plant.
In order to evaluate the treatment’s performance, a mass balance approach needs
to be achieved. It requires that TSS, COD and nutrient masses are determined for the
all reactor inputs (i.e. fresh sludge) and outputs (i.e. effluents). The reactor content
also needs to be sampled at the beginning and at the end of the studied period. The
input, output and content of the reactors have to be perfectly mixed for sampling.
Reactor input and output should basically be sampled every time the reactors are fed
with fresh sludge.
Then, reactor sludge reduction performance (η) can be formulated as follows:


ηS ¼ 100%ð1  ðΔS þ Sout Þ=Sin Þ ð10:6Þ
10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 261

Integrated Aqua- / Agriculture System

Organic Waste
Anaerobic Heat and
(e.g. piggeries, Methane
Digestion Electricity
abattoir etc.)

An. Digestion
CO2
Effluent

Extensive
Algal Aquaculture
Animal
Culture Waste Water
Production

Aquaculture
Clean Water
Biomass (Fish, Prawn,
(irrigation etc.)
Pearl etc.)

Bio-Char/ Aquaculture
Animal Feed
Biofertiliser Feed

Fig. 10.8 Anaerobic digestion system integrated with aquaculture and algal culture based on Ayre
et al. (2017)

where ΔS is the sludge inside the reactor at the end of the studied period minus the
one at the beginning of the period, Sout is the total sludge that left the reactor in the
outflow, and Sin is the total sludge that entered the reactor via inflow.
For organic reduction, the sludge (i.e. the term S) can be characterised by the dry
mass of sludge (i.e. TSS) or the mass of oxygen needed to oxidise the sludge
(i.e. COD). Thus, for COD and TSS reduction performances, the smaller the
accumulation and the smaller the quantity in the outflow, the higher the reduction
performance (i.e. high percentage) and so the less solids discharged out of the loop.
Based on the same mass balance, the nutrient mineralisation performance of the
treatment (ζ), i.e. the conversion into soluble ions of the macro- and micronutrients
present in the sludge under undissolved forms, the following formula can be used:

ζN ¼ 100%ððDNout  DNin Þ=ðTNin  DNin ÞÞ ð10:7Þ

where ζ is the recovery of N nutrient at the end of the studied period in percent,
DNout is the total mass of dissolved nutrient in the outflow, DNin is the total mass of
dissolved nutrient in the inflow and TNin is the total mass of dissolved plus
undissolved nutrients in the inflow.
262 B. Delaide et al.

Thus, similar to the organic reduction performances, the smaller the accumulation
inside the reactor and undissolved nutrient content in the outflow, the higher the
mineralisation performance (i.e. high percentage) and so the dissolved nutrient
recovered in the effluent (or outflow) for aquaponic crop fertilisation (see Example
10.1). The presented mass balance equations are used in the example box.

Example 10.1
The digestion performance of a 250-L anaerobic bioreactor has been evaluated
for an 8-week period. It was fed once a day with 25 L of fresh sludge coming
from a tilapia RAS system, and the equivalent supernatant volume (or output)
was removed from the bioreactor. The fresh sludge (input) had a TSS of 10 g
dry mass (DM) per litre or 1%, and the supernatant (output) had a TSS of
1 gDM/L or 0.1%. The TSS inside the bioreactor at the beginning and at the
end of the period was 20 gDM/L. Consequently, the total DM inputs, outputs
and inside the bioreactor during the evaluated period are calculated as follows:
DM in ¼ 0.01 kg/Ld  25 L  7 days  8 weeks ¼ 14 kg
DM out ¼ 0.001 kg/Ld  25 L  7 days  8 weeks ¼ 1.4 kg
DM to ¼ DM tf ¼ 250 L  0.02 kg/L ¼ 5 kg
The TSS reduction performance (ηTSS) of the bioreactor can then be calculated
as follows:


ηTSS ¼ 100%ð1  ðð5  5Þ þ 1:4Þ=14Þ ¼ 90%

The bioreactor P mineralisation performance can be evaluated knowing that

the fresh sludge (input) had a concentration of dissolved P of 15 mg/L and a
total P content of 90 mg/L. The concentration of dissolved P in the supernatant
(output) was 20 mg/L. Consequently, the total P content in the input, the total
dissolved P in the inputs and outputs during the evaluated period are calculated
as follows:
TP in ¼ 0.090 g/Ld  25 L  7 days  8 weeks ¼ 126 g
DP in ¼ 0.015 g/Ld  25 L  7 days  8 weeks ¼ 21 g
DP out ¼ 0.020 g/Ld  25 L  7 days  8 weeks ¼ 28 g
The P mineralisation performance (ζP) of the bioreactor can then be calculated
as follows:

ζ P ¼ 100%ðð28  21Þ=ð 126  21ÞÞ ¼ 6:67%

10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 263

10.6 Conclusions

Fish sludge treatment for reduction and nutrient recovery is in an early phase of
implementation. Further research and improvements are needed and will see the day
with the increased concern of circular economy. Indeed, fish sludge needs to be
considered more as a valuable source instead of a disposable waste.

References

An Y, Yang F, Wong FS, Chua HC (2009) Effect of recirculation ratio on simultaneous

methanogenesis and nitrogen removal using a combined up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket–
membrane bioreactor. Environ Eng Sci 26:1047–1053. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2007.0317
Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R (2008) Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion
of waste-activated sludge. Prog Energy Combust Sci 34:755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.
2008.06.002
Arbiv R, van Rijn J (1995) Performance of a treatment system for inorganic nitrogen removal in
intensive aquaculture systems. Aquac Eng 14:189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8609(94)
P4435-E
Ayre JM, Moheimani NR, Borowitzka MA (2017) Growth of microalgae on undiluted anaerobic
digestate of piggery effluent with high ammonium concentrations. Algal Res 24:218–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.03.023
Brod E, Oppen J, Kristoffersen AØ, Haraldsen TK, Krogstad T (2017) Drying or anaerobic
digestion of fish sludge: nitrogen fertilisation effects and logistics. Ambio 46:852. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-017-0927-5
Chang S (2014) Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) for wastewater treatment. Adv Chem
Eng Sci 4:56. https://doi.org/10.4236/aces.2014.41008
Chen SL, Coffin DE, Malone RF (1997) Sludge production and management for recirculating
aquacultural systems. J World Aquac Soc 28:303–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.
1997.tb00278.x
Chowdhury P, Viraraghavan T, Srinivasan A (2010) Biological treatment processes for fish
processing wastewater–a review. Bioresour Technol 101:439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2009.08.065
Conroy J, Couturier M (2010) Dissolution of minerals during hydrolysis of fish waste solids.
Aquaculture 298:220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.11.013
Cui ZF, Chang S, Fane AG (2003) The use of gas bubbling to enhance membrane processes. J
Memb Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-7388(03)00246-1
Delaide B, Goddek S, Gott J, Soyeurt H, Jijakli MH (2016) Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Sucrine)
growth performance in complemented aquaponic solution outperforms hydroponics. Water
(Switzerland) 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100467
Delaide B, Goddek S, Keesman KJ, Jijakli MH (2018) A methodology to quantify the aerobic and
anaerobic sludge digestion performance for nutrient recycling in aquaponics. Biotechnol Agron
Soc Environ 22
Deublein D, Steinhauser A (2010) Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an introduction. In:
Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an introduction, 2nd edn. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9783527632794
Ebeling JM, Timmons MB, Bisogni JJ (2006) Engineering analysis of the stoichiometry of
photoautotrophic, autotrophic, and heterotrophic removal of ammonia-nitrogen in aquaculture
systems. Aquaculture 257:346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.03.019
264 B. Delaide et al.

Endut A, Jusoh A, Ali N, Wan Nik WB, Hassan A (2010) A study on the optimal hydraulic loading
rate and plant ratios in recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresour Technol 101:1511–1517.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.040
Gander M, Je B, Judd S (2000) Aerobic MBRs for domestic wastewater treatment: a review with
cost considerations. Sep Purif Technol 18:119–130
Garcia J-L, Patel BKC, Ollivier B (2000) Taxonomic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of
methanogenic archaea. Anaerobe 6:205. https://doi.org/10.1006/anae.2000.0345
Gebauer R, Eikebrokk B (2006) Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from salmon smolt
hatching. Bioresour Technol 97:2389–2401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.10.008
Goddek S, Keesman KJ (2018) The necessity of desalination technology for designing and sizing
multi-loop aquaponics systems. Desalination 428:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.
11.024
Goddek S, Körner O (2019) A fully integrated simulation model of multi-loop aquaponics: a case
study for system sizing in different environments. Agric Syst 171:143
Goddek S, Delaide B, Mankasingh U, Ragnarsdottir K, Jijakli H, Thorarinsdottir R (2015)
Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability 7:4199–4224. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su7044199
Goddek S, Espinal CA, Delaide B, Jijakli MH, Schmautz Z, Wuertz S, Keesman KJ (2016)
Navigating towards decoupled aquaponic systems: a system dynamics design approach.
Water (Switzerland) 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/W8070303
Goddek S, Delaide B, Oyce A, Wuertz S, Jijakli MH, Gross A, Eding EH, Bläser I, Keizer LCP,
Morgenstern R, Körner O, Verreth J, Keesman KJ (2018) Nutrient mineralisation and organic
matter reduction performance of RAS-based sludge in sequential UASB-EGSB reactors. Aquac
Eng 83:10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AQUAENG.2018.07.003
Graber A, Junge R (2009) Aquaponic systems: nutrient recycling from fish wastewater by vegetable
production. Desalination 246:147–156
Huang X, Xiao K, Shen Y (2010) Recent advances in membrane bioreactor technology for
wastewater treatment in China. Front Environ Sci Eng China 4:245. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11783-010-0240-z
Judd S, Judd C (2008) The MBR book: principles and applications of membrane bioreactors in
water and wastewater treatment. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-185617481-7/50005-2
Jung IS, Lovitt RW (2011) Leaching techniques to remove metals and potentially hazardous
nutrients from trout farm sludge. Water Res 45:5977–5986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.
2011.08.062
Khalid A, Arshad M, Anjum M, Mahmood T, Dawson L (2011) The anaerobic digestion of solid
organic waste. Waste Manag 31:1737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.021
Klas S, Mozes N, Lahav O (2006) Development of a single-sludge denitrification method for nitrate
removal from RAS effluents: lab-scale results vs. model prediction. Aquaculture 259:342.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.05.049
Kumar V, Sinha AK, Makkar HPS, De Boeck G, Becker K (2012) Phytate and phytase in fish
nutrition. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl) 96:335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.
01169.x
Lanari D, Franci C (1998) Biogas production from solid wastes removed from fish farm effluents.
Aquat Living Resour 11:289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0990-7440(98)80014-4
Licamele JD (2009) Biomass production and nutrient dynamics in an aquaponics system. The
University of Arizona
Marchaim U (1992) Biogas processes for sustainable development. FAO Agricultural Services
Bulletin 95. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
McDermott BL, Chalmers AD, Goodwin JAS (2001) Ultrasonication as a pre-treatment method for
the enhancement of the psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of aquaculture effluents. Environ
Technol (United Kingdom) 22:823. https://doi.org/10.1080/095933322086180317
McGill SM (2012) ‘Peak’ phosphorus? The implications of phosphate scarcity for sustainable
investors. J Sustain Financ Invest. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2012.742635
10 Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatments for Aquaponic Sludge Reduction and. . . 265

Mirzoyan N, Gross A (2013) Use of UASB reactors for brackish aquaculture sludge digestion under
different conditions. Water Res 47:2843–2850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.02.050
Mirzoyan N, Parnes S, Singer A, Tal Y, Sowers K, Gross A (2008) Quality of brackish aquaculture
sludge and its suitability for anaerobic digestion and methane production in an upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Aquaculture 279:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.
2008.04.008
Mirzoyan N, Tal Y, Gross A (2010) Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive recirculating
aquaculture systems: review. Aquaculture 306:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.
05.028
Monsees H, Keitel J, Paul M, Kloas W, Wuertz S (2017) Potential of aquacultural sludge treatment
for aquaponics: evaluation of nutrient mobilization under aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Aquac Environ Interact 9:9–18. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00205
Naylor SJ, Moccia RD, Durant GM (1999) The chemical composition of settleable solid fish waste
(manure) from commercial rainbow trout farms in Ontario, Canada. North Am J Aquac
61:21–26
Neto RM, Ostrensky A (2013) Nutrient load estimation in the waste of Nile tilapia
Oreochromisniloticus (L.) reared in cages in tropical climate conditions. Aquac Res
46:1309–1322. https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12280
Nichols MA, Savidov NA (2012) Aquaponics: a nutrient and water efficient production system.
Acta Hortic:129–132
Peng L, Dai H, Wu Y, Peng Y, Lu X (2018) A comprehensive review of phosphorus recovery from
wastewater by crystallization processes. Chemosphere 197:768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2018.01.098
Rakocy JE, Bailey DS, Shultz RC, Danaher JJ (2007) Preliminary evaluation of organic waste from
two aquaculture systems as a source of inorganic nutrients for hydroponics. Acta Hortic
742:201–208
Ru D, Liu J, Hu Z, Zou Y, Jiang L, Cheng X, Lv Z (2017) Improvement of aquaponic performance
through micro- and macro-nutrient addition. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:16328. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11356-017-9273-1
Saha S, Monroe A, Day MR (2016) Growth, yield, plant quality and nutrition of basil
(Ocimumbasilicum L.) under soilless agricultural systems. Ann Agric Sci 61:181–186. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2016.10.001
Schneider O, Sereti V, Eding EH, Verreth JAJ (2005) Analysis of nutrient flows in integrated
intensive aquaculture systems. Aquac Eng 32:379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2004.
09.001
Seo KW, Choi YS, Gu MB, Kwon EE, Tsang YF, Rinklebe J, Park C (2017) Pilot-scale investi-
gation of sludge reduction in aerobic digestion system with endospore-forming bacteria.
Chemosphere 186:202–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.07.150
Stewart NT, Boardman GD, Helfrich LA (2006) Characterization of nutrient leaching rates from
settled rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sludge. Aquac Eng 35:191–198. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aquaeng.2006.01.004
Tal Y, Schreier HJ, Sowers KR, Stubblefield JD, Place AR, Zohar Y (2009) Environmentally
sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 286:28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2008.08.043
Techobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel HD (2014) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse,
5th edn. Metcalf and Eddy. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(80)90067-6
Turcios AE, Papenbrock J (2014) Sustainable treatment of aquaculture effluents-what can we learn
from the past for the future? Sustain 6:836–856
Van Lier JB, Mahmoud N, Zeeman G (2008) Anaerobic wastewater treatment, Biological waste-
water treatment: principles, modelling and design. https://doi.org/10.1021/es00154a002
Van Rijn J (2013) Waste treatment in recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquac Eng 53:49–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2012.11.010
 266 B. Delaide et al.

van Rijn J, Fonarev N, Berkowitz B (1995) Anaerobic treatment of intensive fish culture effluents:
digestion of fish feed and release of volatile fatty acids. Aquaculture 133:9–20. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0044-8486(94)00385-2
Yogev U, Barnes A, Gross A (2016) Nutrients and energy balance analysis for a conceptual model
of a three loops off grid, Aquaponics. Water 8:589. https://doi.org/10.3390/W8120589
Yogev U, Sowers KR, Mozes N, Gross A (2017) Nitrogen and carbon balance in a novel near-zero
water exchange saline recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture 467:118–126. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.04.029
Zhang X, Hu J, Spanjers H, van Lier JB (2016) Struvite crystallization under a marine/brackish
aquaculture condition. Bioresour Technol 218:1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2016.07.088

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

View publication stats