Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646

DOI 10.1007/s10499-015-9954-z

Implementation of an experimental nutrient film

technique-type aquaponic system

D. Castillo-Castellanos1 • I. Zavala-Leal1 • J. M. J. Ruiz-Velazco1 •

A. Radilla-Garcı́a1 • J. T. Nieto-Navarro1 • C. A. Romero-Bañuelos1 •

J. González-Hernández1

Received: 4 March 2015 / Accepted: 19 October 2015 / Published online: 26 October 2015
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Abstract Aquaponics has been considered as having great potential as an organic pro-
duction method of aquatic organisms and vegetables, because the nutrient-rich water from
aquatic organisms is utilized for plant growth. The essential elements of an aquaponic
system consist of the following five: a tank to maintain aquatic organisms; a clarifier or
sedimentation; a biofilter; a hydroponic component; and a sump pump. In this paper, we
propose the design and implementation of a nutrient film technique-type aquaponic system,
which does not include the sump pump. Aquaponic systems were tested during one pro-
duction cycle of the Carolina cucumber (Cucumis sativus) and Parris Island lettuce
(Lactuca sativa). The aquatic organism employed was tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).
Nine systems were utilized with the aquaponic technique, and the remaining three were
utilized with only the hydroponic technique as controls in plant production. The proposed
aquaponic system worked efficiently during the entire crop cycle without any problems or
deficiencies from lack sump. No changes were made in the flow of water in the aquaponic
system during the growing season. Tilapia survival was 97.2 ± 2.4 %. Specific growth and
food conversion ratios were 4.95 and 0.99, respectively. In plant survival, there were no
significant differences (p [ 0.05) between both production techniques. In lettuce, foliar
wet weight, foliar dry weight, and yield were higher (p \ 0.05) in hydroponics. In
cucumber, fruit number and yield were higher (p \ 0.05) in the hydroponic system. Fruit
length, width, and weight exhibited no differences (p [ 0.05).

Keywords Aquaponic  Cucumber  Greenhouse  Hydroponic  Lettuce  Tilapia

& I. Zavala-Leal
ziram28@hotmail.com
1
Escuela Nacional de Ingenierı́a Pesquera, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit (UAN), Carretera a
Los Cocos Km. 12, Bahı́a de Matanchén, San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico

123
638 Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646

Introduction

Aquaponic systems are defined as the integration of aquaculture and hydroponic techniques
(Muñoz-Gutiérrez 2012). Aquaponics has been considered to possess great potential within
the industry in economic terms (Savidov 2005), as well as an organic production method of
aquatic organisms and vegetables, and has become more important in the last decade
(Mateus 2009). This is based on that nutrient-rich fish water is employed for plant growth
(Diver 2006; Kotsen and Appelbaum 2010), while the plants are used as biofilter for water
reuse (Mateus 2009). Recently, the incorporation of recirculation systems with fish and
plants has become an interesting model for scientists, for the aquaculture industry, and for
the environmentalist. These recirculation aquaponic systems are of great importance in
terms of maximizing the production of plants and recovery nutrients, for exchanging or
minimizing water losses, and in terms of environmental impacts due to the accumulation of
nutrients for releasing the medium (Endut et al. 2009). The species that can be cultivated in
aquaponic systems (aquatic organisms and plants) are varied. The combination of both
should be selected with care when developing the crop. Both species should have similar
requirements in terms of temperature and pH for optimal crop development. In this regard,
a variety of plants have been grown in experimentally based integrated systems (Rakocy
et al. 1992), such as lettuce, spinach, chives, and basil, among other fruit-producing plants,
such as tomatoes, bell peppers, and cucumbers (Diver 1996; Masser 2002). Additional
aquatic organisms utilized in recirculation of aquaponic systems include tilapia (Ore-
ochromis niloticus), hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis urolepis hornorum 9 Oreochromis
mosambicus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), hybrid carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella 9 Aris-
tichthys nobilis), goldfish (Carassius spp.) (Selock 2003), and rainbow trout (On-
corhynchus mykiss) (Adler et al. 1996). In addition, the use has been reported of some
species of crustaceans, such as Cherax quadricarinatus (Diver 2006). In general, aqua-
ponic systems are composed of three modules as follows: the aquaculture module; the
hydroponics module; and the intermediate or filter module. The essential elements of an
aquaponic system are the following five: (1) a tank to maintain aquatic organisms; (2) a
clarifier, or sedimentation, to remove small particles originated from fish waste, algae, and
uneaten food; (3) a biofilter (to nitrify bacteria, substrate for adhesion of bacteria, and
oxygenation) to convert the toxic ammonia released by the fish into a harmless nitrate, a
good plant food; (4) a hydroponic component, where plants float in a water culture; and (5)
a sump pump, where water may be collected for direction back to the fish-farming tank
(Rivara 2000; Lennard and Leonard 2006). Operation of the aquaponic system is based on
organic waste produced by an aquatic organism that is converted by bacterial action into
nitrites and nitrates, which serve as a food source for plants, these accomplished by taking
in nitrogen, with clean water for fish acting as a biological filter (Nelson 2007).
Due to the potential offered by aquaponic techniques in quality food production, it is of
great importance to conduct research on the implementation of aquaponic systems. In this
paper, we proposed the design and implementation of a nutrient film technique (NTF)-type
aquaponic system that will employ only four of the system’s five basic elements:
Specifically, it will dispense with the sump pump, thereby reducing costs and space, and
will work with the same efficiency.

123
Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646 639

Materials and methods

For the implementation of NFT-type aquaponic systems, we designed and installed a

greenhouse (Fig. 1) to protect these and the three major components or modules that
constitute it: the aquaculture module (Fig. 2); the intermediate module (Fig. 2); and
hydroponic module (Fig. 3). In total, 12 aquaponic system modules were designed and
built with the same characteristics. The aquaponic systems were tested by culturing tilapia,
cucumber, and lettuce. The details of the aquaponic systems implemented and experi-
mental culture conditions are described later in this article.

Aquaponic systems

Greenhouse

A greenhouse (130 m2 in area, 8.10 9 16 m) was built (Fig. 1). The floor of the green-
house consisted of concrete slab. The greenhouse’s main structures comprised three walls
or concrete square side columns 8 9 800 , a cylindrical central structure 600 in diameter at
each extreme, and a horizontal concrete row manufactured of the same material, 8 9 1600 .
The roof was built on six metal-based PTR 1–00 triangular-shaped (gabled) of 2 9 1-00
frames along the greenhouse structures. The cover utilized on the roof is manufactured by a
semitransparent plastic 720-gauge polyethylene commonly used for greenhouses. Vertical
metal columns were placed between the vertical concrete columns, while horizontal metal
columns were placed as follows: one at the top; one on the horizontal column; the second
in the intermediate zone; and the third at the bottom of the concrete slab making up the
floor. The greenhouse side roof consisted of white antiaphid mesh (caliber, 0.009). This
was attached to the upper and lower horizontal columns.

Aquaculture module

Each module consisted of a circular tank with diameter of 1.10 m and same height (Fig. 2).
These tanks were made of high molecular weight (HMW), high-density (HD) PET and
high resistance to ultraviolet (UV) rays. Tanks were drilled at the central part of the

Fig. 1 Greenhouse structures and components

123
640 Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646

Fig. 2 Design of aquaculture and intermediate modules of aquaponic system

Fig. 3 Design of hydroponic module of the aquaponic system

bottom, which functions as drainage. The tanks in these modules were installed on a 1-00
square metal base made of PRT. The water outlet was connected to the clarifier or sedi-
mentation (intermediate module) through 2-00 hydraulic PVC pipe (RD 26). In addition, we
designed and installed an aeration system for the aquaculture module. This system con-
sisted of a 1-Hp blower aeration (Pioneer RS-0750) and a 1‘-00 hydraulic PVC pipe (RD
26). The PVC circuit was perforated, and valves threaded at 3/800 and 1/800 of the output
were set in place. Silicone hoses were placed at the outputs, and cylindrical air stones ‘00 in
diameter 9100 in length were set in place to generate medium-sized bubbles.

Intermediate module

Each module consisted of a clarifier or sedimentation tank, a biofilter, and a water pump
(Fig. 2). The system we are proposing lacks a sink as commonly aquaponic systems are
built. The clarifier was a cylindrical plastic tank 0.85 m in height and 0.48 m in diameter.
The total volume of the clarifier was 119.5 L. Through this, it was connected to one side to
the output of the aquaculture tank (aquaculture module) and the other to the biological

123
Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646 641

filter. Inside the clarifier was placed a type of cloth bag to trap sediments. The biofilter was
a plastic tank with the same features as the clarifier. The biofilter capacity was 105 L.
Inside the biofilter, we set in place pieces of corrugated plastic hose 2 cm in length and 00
in diameter that functioned as a physical substrate for nitrifying the bacteria employed for
nitrification. For pumping the water to the hydroponic module, we coupled a Quiet OneÒ
model 3000 0.12 L s-1 external pump. The sump pump’s water outlet is threaded through
’-00 hoses. The hose was coupled at one end to a hose connector screwed into the outlet of
the pump and, at the other end, was coupled to a ’–‘-00 reducer. With this hose diameter,
water was let into the hydroponic module.

Hydroponic module

Each hydroponic module (Fig. 3) contained six channels. The channels were constructed of
4-00 hydraulic PVC pipe (RD-26), each 400 in diameter and 3 m in length. Each channel was
performed with 10 perforations (200 in diameter each). Total capacity was 10 plants per
channel and 60 per hydroponic module. The channels were suspended 2.5 m above a 1-00
PTR rectangular metal base. The base surrounded the aquaculture tank and the interme-
diate module. Thus, the system requires less space and therefore optimizes use of green-
house. The hose was connected to a 2-00 pipe that was elevated 30 cm above the channels.
In the pipe were placed six 1- to ‘-00 reducers that connected the hoses that supply water to
each of the channels. The water outlet operated by gravity through the channels. The water
inlet was placed on the top and outer half of the channel, and in addition, a 1-cm slope was
allowed. For the hydroponic-to-the-aquaculture module water return, a 1-00 PVC hydraulic
pipe system was installed. This was connected to each channel and joined to a common
outlet on the tank for organic organisms for discharge.

Experimental aquaponic and hydroponic culture

Aquaponic systems were tested during a production cycle of cucumber Carolina (Cucumis
sativus) and Parris Island romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa). The aquatic organism
employed was tilapia (O. niloticus var. Spring). Nine of the 12 systems were utilized with
the aquaponic technique, while the remaining three (same characteristics) employed only
the hydroponic technique as controls in plant production. The system used in hydroponics
was operated on the same way aquaponic systems except that the clarifier and biofilter did
not contain anything inside, only the water flowed there. The systems used were ran-
domized in the greenhouse. In hydroponic technique, we poured Steiner universal nutrient
solution (1984) in the 1-m-3 tanks. The concentration of the Steiner solution was 50 % the
first 4 weeks and 75 % within 3 weeks. It is replaced weekly.
The experiment lasted 7 weeks for both treatments (aquaponic and hydroponic tech-
niques). Water recirculation in each tank was about 800 % daily. To replenish the water
lost through evaporation and consumption by plants, they supplied about 30 L every third
day. Registered physicochemical parameters: temperature, dissolved oxygen, electric
conductivity (YSI pro2030, USA), pH (HANNA HI98129), and ammonia (Multiparameter
HANNA HI83200) during experimental culture are depicted in Table 1.
In aquaponic systems, tilapias weighing 78.1 ± 1.9 g were placed in the tanks at a
density of 90 organisms per cubic meter. These were fed with NutripecÒ (Purina, México)
commercial fish feed with 3.5-mm pellets with 38 % protein and 08 % lipids at 3.5 % of
total biomass (TB) per tank, four times a day. Tilapia length (ictiometer) and weight
(Balance OHAUS SP2001) were recorded weekly. At the end of the experiment, specific

123
642 Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646

Table 1 Physicochemical
Parameters Range
parameters during aquaponic
experimental culture
Temperature (°C) 26.6–31.6
Oxygen (mg L-1) 3.1–6.1
Ph 7.5–8.5
Electric conductivity (mS/cm-1) 0.5–0.9
Ammonia (mg L-1) 0.5–4.8

growth per day (SG), food conversion ratio (FCR), and survival rate (S) were calculated.
Specific growth per day was obtained: SG = (ln wt - ln w0)/t, where w0 = initial wet
weight; wt = final wet weight; t = number of days. Food conversion rate was calculated:
FCR = wf/wb, where wf = dry weight of feed fed; wb = body fresh weight gain; and
survival S = (Nt/N0) 9 100, where Nt = total number of fish at harvest; N0 = initial
number of fish stocked).
Lettuce and cucumber were seeded in hydroponic module in both techniques
(aquaponics and hydroponics). Thirty-six lettuces and 24 cucumbers per hydroponic
module were seeded. For lettuce, survival (%), height (cm), foliar wet weight (FWW),
foliar dry weight (FDW) (g), and yield (g m-2) were recorded. In cucumber, plant survival
(%) was recorded, and for fruits, length (cm), width (cm), and weight (g) were registered.
For crop of cucumbers, it was established cut those which to reach a length equal or greater
than 12 cm, which are considered of commercial size in this variety.
All data were tested for normality (Shapiro–Wilk test) and homogeneity of variance
(Cochran outlying variance C test). Survival data were arcs-in-transformation. Data were
analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Means were compared a poste-
riori with the Tukey’s test. Significance was set at p \ 0.05.

Results

The proposed aquaponic system (no sump) worked efficiently during the entire crop cycle
without any problems or deficiencies from lack of sump. No changes were made in the flow
of water in the aquaponic system during the growing season and the plants developed
normally.

Fish

Tilapia survival was 97.2 ± 2.4 % in the total experiment after 7 weeks. Final weight
(FW) was 242.9 ± 8.9 g fish-1, and specific growth (SG) and food conversion ratio (FCR)
were 4.95 and 0.99, respectively (Table 2).

Plants

In lettuce survival, there were no significant differences (p [ 0.05) between both pro-
duction techniques. In aquaponics, survival was 54.6 %, while hydroponic survival was
59.2 % (Table 3). Height, FWW, FDW, and yield were higher (p \ 0.05) in hydroponic
than in aquaponic systems (Table 3). In cucumber plants, survival did not exhibit signif-
icant differences (p [ 0.05) (Table 3). However, fruit number and yield were higher

123
Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646 643

Table 2 Growth performance of

Parameter Value
tilapia (O. niloticus var. Spring)
cultured in aquaponic systems for
7 weeks (a) Stocking
Density (fish m3) 90
Total no. of fish 810
Mean weight (g fish-1) 78.1 ± 1.9
Total weight (kg) 63.7
(b) Harvest
Mean weight (g fish-1) 242.9 ± 8.9
Total weight (kg) 191.2
Survival rate (%) 97.2
Culture period (days) 49
(c) Gain
Specific growth (g day-1) 4.95
Food conversion ratio 0.99
Yield (kg m3 crop-1) 21.2

Table 3 Growth response of

Parameters Aquaponic Hydroponic
lettuce and cucumber in aqua-
ponic and hydroponic systems
Lettuce
Plants seeded (m-2) 10 10
Plant survival (%) 54.6a 59.2a
Wet weight (g plant-1) 18.8a 123.2b
-1 a
Dry weight (g plant ) 1.5 9.1b
-1 a
Height (cm plant ) 18.7 42.2b
-2 a
Yield (g m ) 47.9 726.8b
Cucumber
Plants seeded (m-2) 6.6 6.6
Plant survival (%) 100a 100a
Fruit length (cm) 11.8a 12.8a
a
Fruit width (cm) 4.1 4.2a
a
Values showed are means Fruit weight (g) 127.6 150.4a
-2 a
Different letters in row denoted Fruit number (m ) 1.76 8.5b
significant difference (p \ 0.05; Yield (g m ) -2
78.7 a
421.6b
n = 3)

(p \ 0.05) in the hydroponic system. There were no significant (p [ 0.05) differences in

fruit length, width, and weight in both techniques (Table 3).

Discussion

Aquaponic systems are considered to possess great potential in the food production
industry in economics terms (Savidov 2005) as well as in being an organic production
method for aquatic organisms and vegetables (Mateus 2009). In aquaponic systems, there
is a wide variety. However, the most frequently employed is the nutrient flow technique

123
644 Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646

(NFT), because it is considered to possess, among its best qualities, the operating pro-
duction of a NFT system, because in this system, long-cycle crops can be installed, or there
may not be a high intake of nutrient solution in a different type of system, such as tomato,
pepper, and melon. Another quality that makes NFT one of the top systems is that fish are
separated from plants. This avoids the problem encountered in other systems where the fish
can eat plant roots because they are housed in the same tank with plants (Gilsanz 2007). In
general, aquaponics is a special form of recirculation aquaculture system (RAS) that has a
sump reservoir where the water may be collected for later being directed back to the fish-
farming tank (Rakocy 2007; Graber and Junge 2009; Muñoz-Gutiérrez 2012). One of the
main problematics that could be faced with an aquaponic RAS that lacks sump is the water
flow loss or variation in the system. However, this did not occur in our system, allowing
normal crop development. Additionally, lack of sump permits the use of a system with a
lower investment cost, reduced water consumption, and space for installation (Castillo-
Castellanos 2015).
In fish production, it was noted that environmental conditions were adequate for the
culture. Survival was [95 %, as has been reported in another work on O. niloticus under
similar handling conditions in aquaponic farming (Rakocy et al. 2004; Al-Hafedh et al.
2008; Danaher et al. 2011). However, works have been reported in which tilapia survival
does not even reach 85 % (Danaher et al. 2013). Likewise, SG for this species is similar to
that reported by other authors (Rakocy et al. 2004). However, FCR is lower in our study
(0.99) than that reported by these same authors (1.7) in the same species, which renders it a
more profitable crop in economic terms. This can be attributed to feeding management
under culture.
In terms of number of plant produced, we observed that survival demonstrated no
significant difference between aqua- and hydroponics. This suggests that our system is
functional. Concerning production, we observed lower production in aquaponic than in
hydroponic systems, as has been reported by Quillere et al. (1995), because in hydroponic
systems, nutrients are supplied in ideal amounts. The lower production in aquaponic
systems can be attributed to poor nutrients, because it was observed that growth and yield
were low compared with other aquaponic systems. In this work, an average lettuce weight
of 18.8 g plant-1 and yield 47.9 g m-2 were observed in the aquaponic system, whereas in
hydroponic systems, average weight was 123.2 g plant-1 and yield was 726.8 g m-2,
while Quillere et al. (1995) reported a weight of 166 ± 58 g plant-1 in the same variety. In
a leaf lettuce variety, Al-Hafedh et al. (2008) reported plants with average weights of 157,
212, and 289 g, and of up to 6060 g m-2, in floating hydroponic systems (on Styrofoam
rafts). These authors reported an FCR of 1.4 and an SG rate of 1.5 g day-1 in the same
tilapia species. Fish-rearing tanks were stocked at a density of 160 fish m-3. Some tanks
had fish weighing 42.5, 74.8, 138, and 248 g; this represents a greater organic matter
burden of than that of our system, thus increased production of nutrients.
In cucumber fruits, there were no significant differences in length, width, and weight.
Perhaps because we have established the minimum size for harvesting cucumbers and
recorded only that reached that size. This illustrates that the fruits developed in a normal
manner. However, fruit number and yield did show significant differences. In aquaponic
systems, fruit number was 1.76 m-2 and yield was 78.7 g m-2, while in hydroponic systems,
these were 8.5 m-2 and 421 g m-2, respectively. As mentioned previously, the amount of
nutrients in a hydroponic system supplied ideal amounts, while an aquaponic system is
dependent on effluent culture tanks loaded with nutrients, and plants yielding fruit such as
tomatoes, bell peppers, and cucumbers have a higher nutritional demand (Diver 2006). For
example, Ulloa et al. (2005) reported 112.5 g of fruit plant-1, and in this work, we observed

123
Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646 645

33.7 g of fruit plant-1. This difference is attributed to the increased tilapia BM in aquaculture
tanks. These authors managed an initial BM of 54 kg m-3 (300 fishes weighing 90 g each in a
500-L tank), in contrast to 7 kg m-3 (90 fishes weighing 78 g each in 1-m-3 tank) that we
managed. In that sense, we consider that the production of nutrients for plants from the fish
waste is few and not the desired balance is achieved for a good vegetables production.
However, achieving that balance is something that could be achieved in this system as has
been achieved in other different systems under different conditions (Wilson 2005).
In this work, we evaluated the performance of two plants simultaneously in a hydro-
ponic module. We noted that the major differences between the performance of aquaponic
and hydroponic systems were found in lettuce. Bugarı́n-Montoya et al. (2011) reported that
leafy vegetables such as lettuce have higher and steadier absorption of nitrogen during its
production cycle, while in fruit plants such as cucumber and tomato, this is lower. In this
respect, it is considered that the amount of nitrogen, considered the most limiting nutrient
for plant growth (Jönsson and Vinnerås 2004), may not have been sufficient for good
performance in lettuce.
In general, aquaponic systems have a problematic to balance the production of nutrients
and vegetables, resulting in a lower production of plants compared to hydroponic systems.
Even so, it can consider that it could be more profitable the aquaponics by fish production,
which represents real additional bonus (Wilson 2005). However, more research must be
done on this technique in these systems production.

Acknowledgments This project was supported by Programa para el Mejoramiento al Profesorado PRO-
MEP-SEP and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a (CONACYT).

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was funded by the Teacher Improvement Program (PROMEP) of the Ministry of Public Edu-
cation (SEP) with the project ‘‘Propuesta y evaluación de tres sistemas de recirculación agroacuı́colas
ecoeficientes protegidos para el cultivo de tilapia, camarón y lechuga’’ Grant Number SIP12-178.

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Adler PR, Takeda F, Glenn DM, Summerfelt ST (1996) Enhance aquaculture sustainability utilizing by
products. World Aquac 27(2):24–26
Al-Hafedh YS, Alam A, Beltagi MS (2008) Food production and water conservation in a recirculating
aquaponic system in Saudi Arabia at different ratios of fish feed to plants. J World Aquac Soc
39(4):510–520
Bugarı́n-Montoya R, Virgen-Ponce M, Galavis-Spinola A, Garcı́a-Paredes D, Hernández-Mendoza T,
Bojórquez-Serrano I, Madueño-Molina A (2011) Extracción de nitrógeno en seis especies olerı́colas
durante su ciclo de crecimiento. Bioagro 23(2):93–98
Castillo-Castellanos D (2015) Implementación de un sistema de recirculación agroacuı́cola ecoeficiente
protegido. Tesis de Licenciatura. Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, México
Danaher JJ, Shultz RC, Rakocy JE, Bailey DS (2011) Effect of a parabolic screen filter on water quality and
production of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) in a recir-
culating raft aquaponic system. Int J Recirc Aquac 12:35–53
Danaher JJ, Shultz RC, Rakocy JE, Bailey DS (2013) Alternative solids removal for warm water recircu-
lating raft aquaponic systems. J World Aquac Soc 44(3):374–383
Diver S (1996) Aquaponics-integration of hydroponics with aquaculture. Publication no. IP163. ATTRA
(Sustainable Agriculture Information Service) and National Center for Appropriate Technology,
pp 1–20
Diver S (2006) Aquaponics-integration of ATTRA hydroponics with aquaculture. Publication no. IP163.
ATTRA Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, pp 1–28

123
646 Aquacult Int (2016) 24:637–646

Endut A, Jusoh A, Ali N, Wan Nik WB, Hassan A (2009) A study on the optimal hydraulic loading rate and
plant ratios in recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresour Technol 101(1):1511–1517
Gilsanz JC (2007) Hidroponia. Programa Nacional de Producción Hortı́cola Estación Experimental Las
Brujas. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA). Editado por la Unidad de Comuni-
cación y Transferencia de Tecnologı́a. Uruguay
Graber A, Junge R (2009) Aquaponic systems: nutrient recycling from fish wastewater by vegetable pro-
duction. Desalination 246:147–156
Jönsson H, Vinnerås B (2004) Adapting the nutrient content of urine and faeces in different countries using
FAO and Swedish data. In: Ecosan–Closing the Loop. Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium
on ecological sanitation, incorporating the 1st IWA specialist group conference on sustainable sani-
tation, 7–11 April 2003 Lübeck, Germany
Kotsen B, Appelbaum S (2010) An investigation of aquaponics using brackish water resources in the Negev
Desert. J Appl Aquac 22:297–320
Lennard WA, Leonard BV (2006) A comparison of three different hydroponic sub-systems (gravel bed,
floating and nutrient film technique) in an Aquaponic test system. Aquac Int 14:539–550
Masser M (2002) Hydroponics integration with aquaculture, 1st edn. AL, USA
Mateus J (2009) Acuaponı́a: hidroponı́a y acuacultura, sistema integrado de producción de alimentos. RED
Hidroponia 44:7–10
Muñoz-Gutiérrez M (2012) Sistemas de recirculación acuapónicos. Inf Téc (Colombia) 76:123–129
Nelson RL (2007) Acuaponı́a. Nelson & pade multi-media. Montillo. http://aquaponics.com/
Quillere I, Marie D, Roux L, Gosse F, Morot-Gaudry JF (1995) An artificial productive ecosystem based on
a fish/bacteria/plant association. Agric Ecosyst Environ 53(1):19–30
Rakocy JE (2007) Aquaponics: integrating fish and plant culture. In: Timmons MB, Ebeling JM (eds)
Recirculating aquaculture. Cayuga aqua ventures, chapter 19
Rakocy JE, Losordo TM, Masser MP (1992) Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: integrating
fish and plant culture. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC) Publication, vol 454, pp 1–8
Rakocy JE, Bailey DS, Shultz RC, Thoman ES (2004) Update on tilapia and vegetable production in the
UVI aquaponic system. In: New dimensions on farmed tilapia: proceedings of the sixth international
symposium on tilapia in aquaculture, Manila, Philippines. September 12–16, 2004
Rivara G (2000) Small scale aquaculture: Aquaponics. Alternative Aquaculture Association, Inc.,
Breinigsville
Savidov N (2005) Evaluation of aquaponics technology in Alberta, Canada. Aquaponics J 37:1–6
Selock D (2003) An introduction to aquaponics: the symbiotic culture of fish and plants. Rural enterprise
and alternative agricultural development initiative report no. 20. Southern Illinois University, IL, USA
Ulloa M, León C, Hernández F, Chávez R (2005) Evaluación de un sistema experimental de acuaponia. Av
Investig Agropecu 9(1):1–5
Wilson G (2005) Greenhouse aquaponics proves superior inorganic hydroponics. Aquaponics J 39:14–17

123