JOURNAL OF THE WORLD AQUACULTURE SOCIETY

Vol. 43, No. 2 April, 2012

Anaerobic Treatment of Brackishwater Aquaculture Sludge: An Alternative to Waste Stabilization Ponds

Natella Mirzoyan
Department of Environmental Hydrology and Microbiology, Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research, Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion 84990, Israel

Ryan Christopher McDonald

Department of Biological Sciences, Towson University, Towson, Maryland 21252, USA

Amit Gross1
Department of Environmental Hydrology and Microbiology, Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research, Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben-Gurion 84990, Israel

Abstract
Environmental pressure, land utilization, and economic feasibility have resulted in the development of recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). For many RAS, sludge is collected and washed from the system to waste stabilization ponds (WSPs). However, disposal of brackishwater aquaculture sludge into WSP is often prohibited because the high salinity can interfere with treatment. Moreover, there are problems associated with WSPs because of elevated salt content, such as the common practice of reusing treated water and land application of stabilized sludge. We tested and compared the treatment of brackishwater aquaculture sludge in an upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor as an alternative to a WSP. In UASB, wastewater ows upward through a blanket of granular sludge and is treated by anaerobic micro-organisms. Reduction in organic matter and 5-d biochemical oxygen demand by 97 and 91%, respectively, was achieved in a UASB as compared to corresponding reductions of 22 and 41% in a WSP. During the UASB digestion process, methane is produced and recovered. Overall, a reduction in potential environmentally harmful factors such as salinization, land requirements, greenhouse gas emissions, as well as transportation costs are achieved, making the UASB reactor an attractive possible alternative for saline aquaculture sludge management.

Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors, with an average annual growth rate of more than 8% in the last few decades. Traditionally, inshore aquaculture was conducted in ponds or raceways and sh-based mariculture in nearshore cages. In the last three decades, increasing environmental pressure, land utilization, and economic feasibility, among other factors, has provided impetus to develop alternatives to the traditional methods, such as highly controlled recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). In RAS, water from the
1

Corresponding author.

growing tank is pumped through several treatment units and then partly recirculated back to the growing tanks (Van Rijn 1996; Timmons and Ebeling 2007). Daily water exchange rates ranging from 5 to 30% are often used to maintain suitable water quality in the rearing tank (Losordo and Timmons 1994; Timmons and Ebeling 2007). Up to 2550% of the sh feed ends up as organic waste (Beveridge et al. 1991; Van Rijn 1996; Timmons and Ebeling 2007). Solids removal is an essential component in RAS and often requires large quantities of water to wash out the accumulated waste (Timmons and Ebeling 2007).

Copyright by the World Aquaculture Society 2012

238

UASB & WSP FOR AQUACULTURE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT

239

Although most RAS provide efcient means of treating the water to satisfy environmental regulations, the generated sludge is typically subjected to very basic, if any, treatment (Timmons and Ebeling 2007). Generally, thickening and dewatering is a major postcollection step. Concentrated solids are discharged into the local sewer system, or to a decentralized treatment unit, most commonly waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) (Timmons and Ebeling 2007). Aquaculture production in brackishwater RAS has shown the highest growth in terms of quantity since 2000 (FAO 2008), suggesting an increase of sludge production and strong need for its treatment. Brackishwater aquaculture sludge is a high-strength waste containing approximately 5687% (dry weight) organic matter (OM) (Gebauer and Eikebrokk 2006; Mirzoyan et al. 2008; Mirzoyan et al. 2010). Total solids concentration varies according to solid separation method and can achieve up to 10% (Sharrer et al. 2010). Different sludge treatment practices have been suggested for municipal and industrial sludge. The preferred method depends on sludge type and characteristics, as well as economic, social, and climatic conditions onsite. In developed countries, critical factors for sludgetreatment choice are efciency and reliability of the operation, sludge disposal aspects, and land requirements. In developing countries, construction and operational costs, and sustainability and simplicity of operation may be the main decisive factors (Von Sperling 1996). WSPs are considered the preferred technology for providing efuents for reuse in agriculture and aquaculture, particularly in warm climates and where land is available at reasonable costs (Helmer and Hespanhol 1997). Simplicity, low cost, and low maintenance are the major reasons for WSP popularity (Nelson et al. 2004). Yet disposal of brackishwater sludge into stabilization ponds that treat sludge from freshwater operations is often prohibited, as the salinity may interfere with the treatment. Even when designated ponds are built for the brackishwater aquaculture facility, inherent problems with the technology, that is, methane emission, pond aging, solids accumulation, and

production of odors, may make its use less desirable. Moreover, land application as a posttreatment, commonly used for freshwater aquaculture sludge, cannot be practiced because of potential soil salinization (Naylor et al. 1998). As there is growing interest in inland culture of marine shrimp and nsh in RAS, attention to salt conservation and release of saline efuent into environment is needed. Reducing discharge volume is probably the most feasible approach to address this problem. Therefore, feasible treatment methods for sludge produced in RAS (specically from brackishwater operations) have been identied as crucial and were the subject of several recent reports (Gebauer 2004; Gebauer and Eikebrokk 2006; Sharrer et al. 2007; Tal et al. 2009). Recently, use of an upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor was suggested as a new conceptual approach for brackishwater/marine aquaculture sludge management, as well as an alternative source of energy (Mirzoyan et al. 2008; Tal et al. 2009; Mirzoyan et al. 2010). The UASB reactor is a cylindrical tank, lled in the bottom with an anaerobic sludge blanket (moderately consolidated OM) composed mainly of anaerobic/methanogenic microbial ocks (granules) (Fig. 1). Wastewater ows upward through the blanket and is degraded by

Figure 1. Schematic representation of upow anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) reactor.

240

MIRZOYAN ET AL.

anaerobic micro-organisms. An inverted cone settler at the top of the digester allows efcient solidliquid separation. Thus, parallel to sludge introduction into the reactor, an equal volume of treated water is discharged, while solids settle and remain in the reactor. The UASB is a closed-loop operation with low risk of failure or environmental pollution (Von Sperling 1996) because high sludge digestion efciencies are accompanied by production of biogas that can be collected and used. Furthermore, economic requirements such as land and energy usage and construction costs are considered low. In addition, the treated supernatant from the UASB may be recycled to the RAS if found to be of adequate quality, a practice that can save water, salts, and reduce energy costs (e.g., heating). Despite its apparent attractiveness, the efciency of UASB for brackishwater aquaculture sludge treatment compared to WSP has not been evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the dynamics and efciency of brackishwater aquaculture sludge digestion in a WSP and a UASB reactor. Materials and Methods Sludge Source The source of sludge for this study was R.A.M. sh farm (located 50 km south of Beer Sheva, Israel, N30 58 N, E34 43 E) in which more than 200 tons of striped bass were grown annually in 40,000 m3 RAS. Geothermal brackish water with salinity of 2.5 ppt was used (Mirzoyan et al. 2008). Solids were separated by a drum lter (60 m mesh size), and the resulting 50 m3 /d sludge with an average total suspended solids (TSS) of 1.2 g/L was pumped into a approximately 2000 m2 intermittently aerated WSP. Daily loading rate was 4.6 g 5-d biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 )/m2 . In order to validate that the WSP was adequately sized to treat the sludge load from the farm, its theoretically required area was estimated based on the BOD5 load and the average minimum winter temperature (Reynolds and Richards 1996). The actual area of the pond was about 25% larger than the calculated required area, suggesting adequate performance.

The brackishwater discharge from the WSP was used to partially irrigate olive trees following sedimentation. The pond was dried every 23 yr for maintenance and solids removal and replaced by an alternate pond. Sludge Digestion The efciency of sludge digestion was checked both in WSP and UASB for a year. The UASB reactor was 18 cm in diameter and 45 cm in height with an operating volume of about 8 L. The UASB reactor was operated under the following conditions: 8-d hydraulic retention time (HRT), feed sludge C/N ratio of 15.4 (for the details of calculation, please refer to Mirzoyan et al. 2008), and ambient temperature. Sludge was concentrated to 0.4% TSS and batch lled into the reactor once a day. The average ambient temperature uctuated between 11 and 27 C in winter (DecemberMarch), 12 and 30 C in spring (MarchJune), 21 and 33 C in summer (JuneSeptember), and 17 and 28 C in fall (SeptemberDecember), based on onsite continuous temperature monitoring by data-logging thermometer (Cole Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL, USA). The sludge volume in the UASB reactor was monitored periodically as an indication of sludge-mass accumulation or reduction. No solids were discharged other than for sampling. A quantitative sludge mass balance was conducted at the end of the experiment by measurement of remaining sludge volume and weight. Sludge digestion was calculated as differences in BOD5 and OM content between the total raw sludge introduced into the UASB during the 12-mo period and the digested sludge remaining at the end of the experiment. The efciency of WSP for the digestion of brackishwater sludge was tested with same sludge and similar ambient temperature. Average HRT in the WSP was 5060 d. Sludge digestion in the WSP was calculated differently, as the difference in BOD5 and OM of feed sludge and sludge from the WSP edges, where it is assumed to be in its most stabilized state (corresponding to the digestion after entire period of operation in UASB). In a preliminary study that compared sludge from the working

UASB & WSP FOR AQUACULTURE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT

241

WSP and completely digested sludge from a nearby resting WSP demonstrated that sludge physicochemical properties from the working WSP edges were similar to sludge from the resting one (data not shown). Sludge and Efuent Quality Sludge samples were collected two to three times a month during the experiment from the WSP inlet pipe (raw), the edges of the WSP, and the UASB reactor. Analyses consisted of the following parameters: pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and redox potential (ORP) by corresponding meters; OM by the gravimetric method; BOD5 by standard method; total nitrogen (TN) by persulfate digestion and UV analysis; and TSS by gravimetric method. All methods followed standard procedures (APHA 2005); more details can be found in Mirzoyan et al. (2008). The UASB-treated efuent (discharged from the upper port whenever a new batch of sludge was introduced at the bottom of the UASB) was collected and analyzed for water quality parameters to assess the potential for reuse in RAS. The samples were analyzed once a month for total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrite, nitrate, TSS, BOD5 , pH, and EC. Analyses followed standard procedures (APHA 2005). The Kinetics of Sludge Digestion The comparison between sludge digestion efciencies in WSP and UASB reactor may be biased due to different factors (e.g., scale, solids mixing, and sampling); therefore, the dynamics of sludge digestibility in these systems was also tested in a more controlled Dacron bag study. The bags allow free ow of liquid but prevent leaching of solids, hence the digestion efciency can be measured by the changes between the initial and nal sludge quality. Raw sludge from R.A.M. farm was collected and dried at 65 C. Approximately 5 g of sludge was measured into a preweighed Dacron bag (Van Rijn and Nussinovitch 1997). Twelve bags with sludge were closed: six were placed into the UASB reactor and the other six into the

WSP. A bag from each treatment was withdrawn every 10 d and dried at 65 C for weight determination. Subsamples were characterized for BOD5 and OM content as described above. Estimation of BOD5 using dry samples allowed normalizing and comparing the data of the two systems (Posmanik et al. 2011). The differences between initial and nal values for BOD5 and OM were used for the calculation of digestion efciency. Archaeal/Methanogenic Consortium Analysis The Archaeal/methanogenic consortium in both WSP and UASB reactor were investigated by molecular tools in order to identify and compare the potential methanogenic pathways in these systems. DNA was isolated from sludge samples from the UASB reactor and WSP using an UltraClean Soil DNA Isolation Kit (MoBio Laboratories, Solana Beach, CA, USA) according to the manufacturers instructions. The extracted DNA samples were maintained at 20 C until use. PCR amplication of Archaeal 16S rRNA genes was performed with the Archaea-specic primer combination Ar109f and Ar912rt (Schwarz et al. 2007). PCR products were visualized by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and cloned using the StrataClone kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA, USA) according to the manufacturers instructions. Blue/white screening was performed on LB plates supplemented with ampicillin (Sigma, Haifa, Israel) at 100 g/mL. Plasmid DNA from approximately 50 of the selected colonies was isolated, and the cloned 16S rRNA-encoding gene was sequenced using the plasmid-specic primer M13F (High-Throughput Genomics Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA). Sequences (600720 bp in length) were compared to the 16S rRNA GenBank using the BLAST (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast) program to identify putative close phylogenetic relatives. Sequences were aligned with the automated alignment tool ClustalW2 (http://www. ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/clustalw2/). A neighborjoining tree was constructed using the Jukes and Cantor distance model with 1000 bootstrap resamplings. The tree was edited using FigTree

242

MIRZOYAN ET AL.

Table 1. Characteristics of brackishwater aquaculture sludge, treated brackishwater aquaculture sludge from waste stabilization pond (WSP) and upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), the resulting UASB efuent, and the removal efciency of the organic fraction in these reactors. Parameters pH Electrical conductivity (mS/cm) Redox potential (mV) Total suspended solids (g/L) OM (% dry m) BOD5 (g/kg) Total nitrogen (g/kg) NO2 N (mg/kg) TAN (mg/kg) NO3 N (mg/kg) BOD5 removal (%) (reactors)b OM removal (%) (reactors)b BOD5 removal (%) (bags)c OM removal (%) (bags)c Raw (sludge) 7.21 0.07 4.1 0.04 120 30 1 . 2 0. 2 73 3 156 30 102 9 0.10 0.05 1 . 3 0. 4 3.2 0.15 UASB (sludge) 7.40 0.06 4.6 0.09 240 18 7 . 9 1. 1 50 2 40 3.0 24 3.3 NM NM NM 91 97 62 5.3 WSP (sludge) 7.09 0.07 5.3 0.23 152 49 19.2 2.4 65 5 92 10 37 3.7 NM NM NM 41 22 45 3.6 UASB (efuent) 7 . 6 0. 0 4 . 8 0. 1 NM 200 20a NM 146 15a NM 0. 3 0. 2 a 17.7 1.4a 0. 2 0. 1 a

BOD5 = 5-d biochemical oxygen demand; NM = not measured; OM = organic matter; TAN = total ammonia nitrogen. a Presented as mg/L. b UASB and WSP (reactor) indicate digestion of sludge. For the UASB, digestion was calculated as the difference between mass ow into the treatment system and mass recovered after 1 yr of operation, and for WSP, digestion was calculated as the difference in BOD5 and OM of the feed sludge and the sludge from the edges of WSP. c UASB and WSP (bags) indicate the digestion of sludge samples digested in Dacron bags for 40 d.

automated software (version 1.3.1) (Rambaut 2009). Statistical Analysis The differences in sludge-quality parameters between treatments were compared by repeated-measurement analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) followed by post hoc test

(KruskalWallis) where needed, using the Sigma Stat 3.1 package (SPSS 1997).

Results and Discussion Raw Sludge Quality The raw sludge had neutral pH and an average EC of 4.1 mS/cm (Table 1). The BOD5

Table 2. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 ) and organic matter (OM) contents of raw aquaculture sludge from different aquaculture systems. Author Current study Chen et al. (1997)a Gebauer (2004) Gebauer and Eikebrokk (2006) Kugelman and Van Gorder (1991) Lanari and Franci (1998) McDermott et al. (2001) Mirzoyan et al. (2008) Mirzoyan et al. (2008) Mirzoyan et al. (2008) Mudrak (1981) Ning (1996)b Westerman et al. (1993)
a b

BOD5 (g/kg) 126186 200 412 192286 78122 118164 135

OM (%) 6476 5054 7987 8792 6471 7279 6070 5359 2575 7188 7475

Culture Striped bass Catsh Salmon Salmon Striped bass Trout Salmon Striped bass Tilapia Prawn Trout Tilapia Trout

BOD5 was recalculated based on the presented average total solids content of 1.0 g/L. BOD5 was recalculated based on the presented average total solids content of 20 g/L.

UASB & WSP FOR AQUACULTURE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT

243

varied over time, averaging 156 g/kg, similar to previous ndings for aquaculture sludge (Table 2). The OM content averaged 73% of the total solids and was in the range reported elsewhere for aquaculture sludge (Table 2). Treated Sludge Quality and Digestion Qualities of treated sludge from the UASB and WSP are presented in Table 1. Signicant biodegradation of TN in both systems was observed with higher efciency in the UASB reactor. Sludge EC in the WSP increased by 29% (from 4.1 to 5.3 mS/cm) compared to the feed sludge, due to evaporation (Green et al. 1995; Volkman 2003). This is particularly important in arid regions such as the Middle East. The EC in UASB reactor did not signicantly differ from the EC of feed sludge (Table 1). Increased salt concentration in WSP-digested sludge limits its use for land application or composting, the two most common post-treatment sludge disposal methods used for freshwater aquaculture sludge. Removal of BOD5 in municipal and industrial sludge during digestion in WSP and UASB varies from 50 to 90% (Von Sperling 1996; Seghezzo et al. 1998; Pena et al. 2000; Oliveira and Von Sperling 2008). A study examining domestic waste digestion indicated greater removal of BOD5 in a UASB (78%) than in a WSP (59%) (Pena et al. 2000). Similarly, in this study, the BOD5 removal in the WSP after a year of operation was 41%, as compared to 91% in the UASB reactor (Table 1). The higher digestion rate in the UASB reactor (as indicated by BOD5 ) resulted from better contact between sludge and microorganisms, enhanced by mixing of the sludge blanket caused by frequent introduction of fresh sludge into the reactor and vertical movement of bacterial oc granules (Seghezzo et al. 1998). Similar to BOD5 , OM was digested more efciently in the UASB reactor (97%) compared to the WSP (22%) (Table 1). The lower rate of OM removal in the WSP is a result of higher microbial and algal biomass growth

favored by more aerated conditions and exposure to light. Reynolds and Richards (1996) suggest that a signicant amount of the organic C, ranging from 30 to more than 50%, is assimilated into microbial and algal cells that remain in the pond water. In another study, as much as 610 g C/m2 was shown to be assimilated daily by microalgae in integrated wastewater pond systems (Green et al. 1995). Removal of TSS in the UASB reactor was 93% during 12 mo of operation. These results coincide with the reduction in OM as most of the TSS is organic. Assuming a full-scale UASB at R.A.M. farm, an annual reduction in TSS from 21.9 to 1.5 tons would be expected. The lower volume of salty sludge can simplify its further handling and management followed by reduced environmental impact. Overall, in contrast to the UASB, there is accumulation of solids in the ponds, leading to their aging, and the production of odors. Consequently, there is a need to remove sludge periodically (Von Sperling 1996). On the basis of sludge volume generated in R.A.M. in this study, replacing a WSP with a UASB under similar operational conditions would require a 400 m3 reactor. However, a sludge thickening stage to 2% TSS content (optimal for UASB; Marchaim 1992), which is commonly used in RAS, would proportionally decrease the needed reactor volume to 80 m3 . Nevertheless, in both cases, the land requirements would be signicantly smaller than for a WSP. Efuent Quality Concentrations of BOD5 , TSS, and TAN in treated efuent are higher than acceptable for direct use in rearing tanks. Therefore, efuent should be recycled into the nitrication reactor and not directly return to the rearing tank. Considering that the efuent will be diluted 104 -fold by system water, together with enhanced oxidation and nitrication, it can be safely recycled. This approach was conrmed in a separate study on zero discharge RAS in which UASB efuent was recycled into the RAS nitrication unit for over a year (data not shown).

244
A

MIRZOYAN ET AL.

0.1 0.0
WSP

Log C/C0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 10 20

UASB

y = 0.006x 0.02 R2 = 0.96

y = 0.010x + 0.01 R2 = 0.98

30

40

50

0.04
WSP

y = 0.005x + 0.01 2 R = 0.69

by 3.6% (Table 1) most likely because of a greater net yield of cell biomass due to the mere aerated conditions in this pond, as suggested by Von Sperling (1996). In contrast, OM concentration in the bags located in the UASB reactor decreased by 5.3% (Table 1 and Fig. 2B). WSP are more aerated than UASB reactors because of their direct contact with air and the presence of photosynthetic organisms. This was also reected by a greater and more uctuating ORP in the WSP (152 mV) than in the UASB reactor (240 mV) (Table 1). The Archaeal/Methanogenic Community Structure of UASB and WSP

0.02

Log C/C0

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 10 20 30 40 50

UASB y = 0.008x 10 2 R = 0.79
4

Time (d)

Figure 2. Normalized change in 5-d biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 ) (A) and organic matter (OM) (B) in brackishwater aquaculture sludge in a waste stabilization pond (WSP) and an upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor over time. C represents the measured concentration at a specic time and C0 represents the initial concentration.

Kinetics of Sludge Digestion We monitored characteristics of sludge conned to Dacron bags in the UASB reactor and WSP over time to estimate the dynamics of sludge digestion (Van Rijn and Nussinovitch 1997). The BOD5 digestion efciency after 40 d was greater for bags incubated in the UASB reactor than in the WSP (Table 1). These results were similar to ndings in the 12-mo case study. BOD5 removal in both systems followed a logarithmic curve, with the greatest rate of degradation in the UASB reactor (Fig. 2A). The initial BOD5 reduction rate (rst 10 d) was about 2.2% per day for UASB and WSP. However, this rate decreased noticeably in the WSP, reaching an average of 0.5% per day in the last 10 d as compared to 1.2% per day in the UASB reactor. During the 40-d experimental period, OM content in bags located in the WSP increased

Cloned 16S rRNA sequences were used as search queries in GenBank. Sequences with the greatest percent identity were recovered and included in the phylogenetic analysis (Fig. 3). The Archaeal/methanogenic community in UASB reactor and WSP was represented by two phyla: Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota. Members of Crenarchaeota identied in the current study belonged to Desulfurococcales order. These organisms participate in sulfur cycling (Chaban et al. 2006) and accounted for 15% of the total species in the WSP as compared to 5% in the UASB (Fig. 4). Interestingly, the Euryarchaeota from the WSP were represented only by methanogens, whereas the UASB reactor also contained nonmethanogenic Euryarchaeota (Fig. 3). The richness of methanogenic micro-organisms in the UASB reactor was represented by 16 species belonging to 9 genera, compared to 9 species belonging to 7 genera in the WSP (Fig. 3). Despite the prevalence of hydrogenotrophs in both systems, the methane production pathways differed between systems, mainly as a result of the presence of methylotrophic Methanosarcinaceae-related spp. in the WSP (Garcia et al. 2000). In the WSP, methanogens were represented by all three known trophic groups/pathways (hydrogenotrophs, aceticlastics and methylotrophs), while in the UASB reactor, only hydrogenotrophs and aceticlastics were found (Fig. 3).

UASB & WSP FOR AQUACULTURE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT

245

Figure 3. Phylogenetic tree of Archaeal/methanogenic community in brackishwater aquaculture sludge treated in a waste stabilization pond and an upow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. A neighbor-joining tree was constructed using the Jukes and Cantor distance model with 1000 bootstrap resamplings.

246

MIRZOYAN ET AL.

Figure 4. Archaeal/methanogenic community structure in waste stabilization pond (WSP) and upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) (methanogens are grouped by methane production pathways).

As expected, the composition of Archaeal/ methanogenic consortia and their relative abundance varied according to substrate composition, temperature, HRT, bioreactor type, and seed material (McHugh et al. 2003; Leclerc et al. 2004; Akarsubasi et al. 2005; Keyser et al. 2006). These parameters act as selective forces (McHugh et al. 2003) shaping the microbial community structure and, therefore, bioreactor performance (Casserly and Erijman 2003; McHugh et al. 2003; Keyser et al. 2006). The presence of methanogens representing all three known methanogenic pathways in the WSP suggests that under a wide range of environmental conditions, methane is likely produced. Methane produced in the WSP is released to the atmosphere, whereas in the UASB reactor, biogas can be collected and used. This also reduces pollution, as methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Summary and Conclusions The use of a UASB for brackishwater aquaculture sludge treatment has several distinct advantages over a WSP. These include higher digestion efciency and lower nal sludge volume, methane recovery (greenhouse gas and potential energy source), smaller land requirements, and smaller environmental footprint. Evolving from these is the benet of lower water exchange rates that can be practiced in RAS if UASB-treated water is recycled to the

rearing tanks (Mirzoyan et al. 2008). This in turn results in energy savings (e.g., heating) as well as water and salt savings for the farmer. Approximately 1730% of inuent organic carbon entering a WSP is released to the atmosphere as methane (Green et al. 1995). Collecting methane from large surfaces is expensive, impractical, or inefcient (Green et al. 1995). However, biogas produced in a UASB reactor is generally collected and can be used for heating in the RAS, reducing the grid electricity demand and, therefore, energy cost. It also reduces atmospheric pollution (Wong et al. 2009). Moreover, better digestion efciency and consequently lower nal sludge volume result in less salt discharge into the environment. It also reduces costs of sludge transport from the facility to another point of disposal or reuse, a major factor in the cost of sludge management (Reed et al. 1995). Attention must be given to the design and optimization of UASB for successful application. For example, dewatering sludge to 10% solids with a gravity thickening settler or inclined belt lter would reduce the required reactor volume by a factor of 10100 (assuming 8-d HRT) (Sharrer et al. 2010). Similarly, optimization of the HRT would affect the reactor size. Despite the reported advantages, in certain conditions (e.g., lack of professional employees or economic constraints), WSPs may be the favorable choice for sludge treatment. Finally, optimization, economic evaluation, and installation of large-scale UASB reactors in intensive RAS are needed to validate their feasibility for brackishwater RAS. Acknowledgments This study was funded by the United StatesIsrael Binational Agricultural Research and Development fund, the University of Maryland (MB-8707-04), the RozenzweigeCoopersmith foundation (RCF), and the Rosinger-Barcza Fund. We are especially grateful to Yulia Rafaelov, Anya Mamontov, Ofer Guy, Michael Mischurow, Micheal Travis, and

UASB & WSP FOR AQUACULTURE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT

247

Doron Shainer for their technical assistance and laboratory analyses. Finally, we sincerely thank Nir Calif from the R.A.M. sh farm for his assistance with the sludge sources. Literature Cited
Akarsubasi, A. T., O. Ince, B. Kirdar, N. A. Oz, D. Orhon, T. P. Curtis, I. M. Head, and B. K. Ince. 2005. Effect of wastewater composition on Archaeal population diversity. Water Research 39:15761584. APHA (American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation). 2005. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA. Beveridge, M. C., M. J. Phillips, and R. M. Clark. 1991. A quantitative and qualitative assessment of waste from aquatic animal production. Pages 506533 in D. E. Brune and R. Tomasso, editors. Aquaculture and water quality. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. Casserly, C. and L. Erijman. 2003. Molecular monitoring of microbial diversity in an UASB reactor. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 52:712. Chaban, B., S. Y. M. Ng, and K. F. Jarrell. 2006. Archaeal habitats from the extreme to the ordinary. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 52:73116. Chen, S., D. E. Cofn, and R. F. Malone. 1997. Sludge production and management for recirculating aquacultural systems. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 28:303315. FAO. 2008. The state of world sheries and aquaculture. Pages 365 in FAO, editor. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Garcia, J., B. K. C. Patel, and B. Ollivier. 2000. Taxonomic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of methanogenic Archaea. Anaerobe 6:205226. Gebauer, R. 2004. Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from brackishwater sh farm efuents with biogas production. Bioresource Technology 93:155167. Gebauer, R. and B. Eikebrokk. 2006. Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from salmon smolt hatching. Bioresource Technology 97:23892401. Green, F. B., L. Bernstone, T. J. Lundquist, J. Muir, R. B. Tresan, and W. J. Oswald. 1995. Methane fermentation, submerged gas collection, and the fate of carbon in advanced integrated wastewater pond systems. Water Science and Technology 31:5565. Helmer, R. and I. Hespanhol. 1997. Water pollution control a guide to the use of water quality management principles.. United Nations Environment Programme, the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council and the World Health Organization, London, UK. Keyser, M. R. C., Witthuhn, C. Lamprecht, M. P. A. Coetzee, and T. J. Britz. 2006. PCR-based DGGE ngerprinting and identication of methanogens detected

in three different types of UASB granules. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 29:7784. Kugelman, I. J., S. Van Gorder. 1991. Water and energy recycling in closed aquaculture systems. Pages 8087 in Engineering Aspects of Intensive Aquaculture. Proceedings of the Aquaculture Symposium, Cornell University, 46 April 1991, Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service (NRAES), Ithaca, New York, USA. Lanari, D. and C. Franci. 1998. Biogas production from solid wastes removed from sh farm efuents. Aquatic Living Resources 11:289295. Leclerc, M., J. Delg` enes, and J. Godon. 2004. Diversity of the Archaeal community in 44 anaerobic digesters as determined by single strand conformation polymorphism analysis and 16S rDNA sequencing. Environmental Microbiology 6:809819. Losordo, T. and M. Timmons. 1994. An introduction to water reuse systems. Pages 17 in M. Timmons and T. Losordo. Aquaculture water reuse systems: engineering design and management. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Marchaim, U. 1992. Biogas processes for sustainable development. FAO, Rome, Italy. McDermott, B. L., A. D. Chalmers, and J. A. S. Goodwin. 2001. Ultrasonication as a pre-treatment method for the enhancement of the psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of aquaculture efuents. Environmental Technology 22:823830. McHugh, S., M. Carton, T. Mahony, and V. OFlaherty. 2003. Methanogenic population structure in a variety of anaerobic bioreactors. FEMS Microbiology Letters 219:297304. Mirzoyan, N., S. Parnes, A. Singer, Y. Tal, K. Sowers, and A. Gross. 2008. Quality of brackishwater aquaculture sludge and its suitability for anaerobic digestion and methane production in an upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Aquaculture 279:3541. Mirzoyan, N., Y. Tal, and A. Gross. 2010. Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive recirculating aquaculture systems: review. Aquaculture 306:16. Mudrak, V. A. 1981. Guidelines for economical commercial sh hatchery wastewater treatment systems. Pages 174182 in L. J. Allen and E. C. Kinney, editors. Bio-engineering symposium for sh culture. FCS Publications, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Naylor, R. L., R. J. Goldburg, H. Mooney, M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N. Kautsky, J. Lubchenco, J. Primavera, and M. Williams. 1998. Ecology: natures subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming. Science 282:883884. Nelson, K. L., B. J. Cisneros, G. Tchobanoglous, and J. L. Darby. 2004. Sludge accumulation, characteristics, and pathogen inactivation in four primary waste stabilization ponds in central Mexico. Water Research 38:111127.

248

MIRZOYAN ET AL.

Ning, Z. 1996. Characteristics and digestibility of aquacultural sludge. Masters thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. Oliveira, S. C. and M. Von Sperling. 2008. Reliability analysis of wastewater treatment plants. Water Research 42:11821194. Pena, M. R., J. Rodriguez, D. D. Mara, and M. Sepulveda. 2000. UASBs or anaerobic ponds in warm climates? A preliminary answer from Colombia. Water Science and Technology 42:5965. Posmanik, R., B. B. Sinay, R. Golan, A. Nejidat, and A. Gross. 2011. Reuse of stabilized fowl manure as soil amendment and its implication on organic agriculture nutrition management. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 216:537545. Rambaut, A. 2009. FigTree version 1.3.1. Available from: http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/gtree/. Reed, S. C., R. W. Crites, and E. J. Middlebrooks. 1995. Natural systems for waste management and treatment. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USA. Reynolds, T. D. and P. A. Richards. 1996. Unit operations and processes in environmental engineering. PWS Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Sharrer, M. J., Y. Tal, D. Ferrier, J. Hankins, and S. T. Summerfelt. 2007. Membrane biological reactor treatment of a saline backwash ow from a recirculating aquaculture system. Aquaculture Engineering 36:159176. Sharrer, M. J., K. Rishel, A. Taylor, B. J. Vinci and S. T. Summerfelt. 2010. The cost and effectiveness of solids thickening technologies for treating backwash and recovering nutrients from intensive aquaculture systems. Bioresource Technologies 101:66306641. Schwarz, J. I. K., W. Eckert, and R. Conrad. 2007. Community structure of Archaea and Bacteria in a profundal lake sediment lake Kinneret (Israel). Systematic and Applied Microbiology 30:239254.

Seghezzo, L., G. Zeeman, J. B. van Lier, H. V. M. Hamelers, and G. Lettinga. 1998. A review: the anaerobic treatment of sewage in UASB and EGSB reactors. Bioresource Technology 65:175190. SPSS. 1997. SigmaStat statistical software. SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Tal, Y., H. J. Schreier, K. R. Sowers, J. D. Stubbleeld, A. R. Place, and Y. Zohar. 2009. Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 286:2835. Timmons, M. B. and J. M. Ebeling. 2007. Recirculating aquaculture. Cayuga Aqua Ventures, LLC, Ithaca, New York, USA. Van Rijn J. 1996. The potential for integrated biological treatment systems in recirculating sh culture a review. Aquaculture 139:181201. Van Rijn, J. and A. Nussinovitch. 1997. An empirical model for predicting degradation of organic solids in sh culture systems based on short-term observations. Aquaculture 154:173179. Volkman, S. 2003. Sustainable wastewater treatment and reuse in urban areas of the developing world. For the requirements of the course of eld engineering in the developing world. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA. Von Sperling, M. 1996. Comparison among the most frequently used systems for wastewater treatment in developing countries. Water Science and Technology 33:5972. Westerman, P. W., J. M. Hinshaw, and J. C. Barker. 1993. Trout manure characterization and nitrogen mineralization rate. Pages 3543 in J. K. Wang, editor. Techniques for modern aquaculture. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA. Wong, B., K. Y. Show, D. J. Lee, and J. Y. Lai. 2009. Carbon balance of anaerobic granulation process: carbon credit Bioresource Technology 100:17341739.