Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0738-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Anaerobic digestion of fish waste and seagrass/macroalgae: potential

sustainable waste management for tropical Small Island Developing
States
Nadeem Nazurally1

Received: 19 October 2017 / Accepted: 18 April 2018

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
This study presents the preliminary investigation of the biogas production potential from fish wastes (FW) and seagrass
(SG) mixed with macroalgae (MA). Substrates were prepared for total solids of 10–12% and were analysed in Biochemical
Methane Potential (BMP) assays. The inoculum used in all BMPs was acclimated sludge in a ratio of 1:3 for inoculum to
substrate on a mass basis. There were effectively four vessel reactors (VRs) with different compositions: VR1 100% fish
wastes, VR2 60% fish wastes and 40% seagrass/macroalgae, VR3 40% fish wastes and 60% seagrass/macroalgae, and VR4
100% seagrass/macroalgae. VR5 acted as control with 100% inoculum. The maximum cumulative biogas productions (CBPs)
reached 8288 ml for VR1, 8410 ml for VR2, 4236 ml for VR3 and 2746 ml for VR4 with a concentration of methane gas of
61.1, 65.07, 68.07, and 53.28%, respectively. One-way ANOVA test results (p < 0.05) indicated that there was significant
difference in the variations in VS, salinity, COD, soluble COD and cumulative biogas production amongst the test vessel
reactors. This potential for biogas production represents a clean source of cheap fuel for sustainable development in Small
Island Developing States having aquaculture and seafood industries along coastal regions.

Keywords  Fish waste · Macroalgae · Seagrass · Anaerobic digestion · Biogas

Introduction
The Republic of Mauritius is a tropical Small Island Develop-
ing State (SIDS) occupying a lagoonal area of almost 245 km2
in the southwest Indian Ocean. The Republic of Mauritius
is subject to leaching of pollutant [1] into the lagoon which
results in seagrasses and macroalgae blooms affecting our
seashores [2]. Yet, rotting seagrass and macroalgae are potent
source of hydrogen sulphide [3]. In some places in Mauritius,
excessive nutrient input by agricultural activities has triggered
seagrasses and macroalgae overgrowths causing nuisance upon
decomposition and accumulation on seashores. Hence, sea-
grasses/macroalgae pose an environmental nuisance on coastal
zones when left unused or untreated [4] as Mauritius is known
for its touristic destination and allocates large sum of money
* Nadeem Nazurally
n.nazurally@uom.ac.mu
1 of aquaculture and seafood industry sector in Mauritius, fish
Department of Agricultural and Food Science, Faculty
of Agriculture, University of Mauritius, Reduit 80837,
Mauritius
for beach clean-up as well as the removal of the decaying sea-
grasses and macroalgae. In 2014, the Government embarked
on a new sector for the economy, namely the ocean. Marine
aquaculture and Seafood Industry is a key among the vari-
ous activities identified for future development contributing
to national food security [5]. Marine aquaculture and Seafood
Industry is a tremendous potential, but it has also its draw-
backs in terms of waste generations. Currently, Mauritius has
only one operational floating cage fish farm with an output of
around 1000 tons of fish per year in 2016 and increasing to
3000 tons in the coming next 2 years. Intensive aquaculture
and processing of fish creates a lot of fish wastes in terms of
dead fish, fish intestines, skins and other unused parts [6]. Up
to 12% (about 120 g of waste per kg of fish) is considered as
waste [7] and usually not preferred for human consumption.
Similar to other types of food-processing industries, fish-pro-
cessing operations also produce vast amount of solid waste
(fish carcasses, viscera, skin and heads) or liquid waste such
as bloodwater used for cleaning. With the rapid development
wastes can be a major concern and could negatively impact the
marine environment if illegal dumping is practiced or dumping

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

Table 1  Mass of substrate used Vessel reactors Solid content Moisture content (%) Mass (g)
for mixing
Substrate (%) Substrate Inoculum Substrate Inoculum Water Total

VR 1 0.51 0.49 0.92 296.06 98.69 1205.25 1600

VR 2 0.36 0.64 0.92 413.93 137.98 1048.09 1600
VR 3 0.28 0.72 0.92 516.81 172.27 910.92 1600
VR 4 0.13 0.87 0.92 1027.62 342.54 229.84 1600
VR 5 – – 0.92 – 1600 – 1600

is done near shores. Even though they are natural pollutants,
they can cause major algal bloom with addition of nutrients
[8] resulting in diseases and fish stock decrease. Worldwide,
the majority of fish waste is turned into fish meal or fish oil
which may not apply to Mauritius in investing large amount of
capital due to competitiveness of the international market and
low price of fish meal and fish oil. Thus, alternatives such as
aerobic digestion to produce fertilizers and anaerobic digestion
to produce biogas could become potential treatment routes for
fish wastes.
Anaerobic digestion
The organic fraction of solid wastes generated in Mauri-
tius from municipal solid wastes (MSW) represents about
70–80% of the waste [9]. Currently, Mauritius has only one
sanitary landfill at Mare Chicose [10] where a large portion
of the wastes generated around the Island are dumped. Alter-
native to landfilling is crucial for the proper management of
the only landfill as space is limited and is also near satura-
tion. The disadvantage pertaining to landfilling is that there
is the release of harmful gases [11, 12] which contributes
significantly to global climate change. Anaerobic digestion
offers a route for remediating high-pollution-load organic
wastes such as sewage sludge [13], MSW [14], livestock
effluents [15], food wastes [16] and fish wastes [6]. Further-
more, anaerobic digestion offers a clean source of energy
which can be harnessed whereby suitable organic wastes
are available. The aim of this study was to characterize the
wastes from a fish farm and mixed seagrass/macroalgae
washed along the eastern seashores in Mauritius in view to
assess the biogas production potential from anaerobic diges-
tion in different mass weighted mixtures.
of the island. Moisture content (MC), total solids (TS)
and volatile solids (VS) were analysed prior to mixing
the substrates in the test ratios. pH, salinity and electrical
conductivity were analysed for these samples as shown
in Table 2.
Substrates for BMP tests and setups
All the Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) assays were
carried out with similar quality and quantity of solids and
within the same tolerable, starting and operating condi-
tions. 5 plastic bottles of 2000 ml capacity were used as
digester reactors (anaerobic digester) for the BMP. The
digesters were kept under dark conditions to promote dark
fermentative processes and assist the methanogenic pro-
cess [17]. The five vessel reactors (VR1, VR2, VR3, VR4
and VR5) each had the following mass-weighted ratios
of substrates: VR 1 (fish waste 100%), VR 2 (fish waste
3:2 seagrass/macroalgae), VR 3 (fish waste 2:3 seagrass/
macroalgae), VR 4 (seagrass/macroalgae 100%) and VR
5 (100% inoculum) as detailed in Table 1. A headspace
of 20% by volume was kept at the start of the anaero-
bic digestion processes in each digester. Biogas from the
digesters was collected in airtight Tedlar bags and was
analysed in a Geotech Gas Analyzer model GA10754 for
methane and carbon dioxide.
Table 2  Initial parameters for each bulk crushed waste
Property Units of Substrate
measure-
ment Fish wastes Seagrass/macroalgae

Moisture content % 48.6 ± 0.3 87.1 ± 0.7

Materials and methods (wet)
Volatile solids % 96.2 ± 0.5 55.8 ± 0.9
Sampling Total solids % 51.4 ± 0.1 12.9 ± 0.2
Ash content % 3.8 ± 0.4 44.2 ± 0.1
Fresh seagrasses/macroalgae washed along the eastern pH _ 7.2 ± 0.01 7.8 ± 0.01
coast of Mauritius were collected. Fresh fish wastes which Electrical conduc- mS/cm 4.1 ± 0.1 7.1 ± 0.1
tivity
consisted of fish intestines, gills and skins were collected
Salinity ‰ 0.6 ± 0.02 2.1 ± 0.01
from the only operational fish farm in the eastern region

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Low‑solid (LS) BMP
A low solid (LS)—TS < 15%—was used for the experiments.
‘Low-solid’ mixtures are mostly used because of the rela-
tively high biodegradable rates and faster biogas production
[15]. The inoculum used in all the BMPs was a sludge that
had been acclimatized for 10 days under thermophilic condi-
tions by feeding this inoculum with small quantities of fish
wastes and seagrass/macroalgae every 3 days. The initial
total solids in the BMPs ranged from 10 to 12%.
The head space was then purged with nitrogen gas to
remove the air (oxygen) inside, thereby attaining anaero-
bic conditions. The vessel reactors were then immediately
closed with rubber-tight bungs and sealed with silicon glue
and fixed with tape to prevent any loss of gas. A leakage
test was done so as to ensure that there was no leakage. This
was done by placing the digester in a large water basin and
nitrogen gas was passed. No leakage was detected.
Analytical methods
All analytical tests for MC, TS and VS were carried out once
weekly. COD was evaluated once weekly and biogas gen-
eration was monitored daily. All analytical tests were per-
formed in triplicates. TS were determined based on the final
constant mass method using a hot-air drying oven (Mem-
mert, model 800, Schwabach, Germany). VS content was
determined by the loss on ignition BS 1377 method in an
air-muffle furnace (Fisher Model 750-58, Fisher Scientific,
Pittsburgh, PA). All masses were recorded using Mettler
PM3000 top pan balance (± 0.1 g). pH was measured using
a soil pH meter (Hanna Instruments, Direct soil pH meter
model 08921, Romania) by applying the probe into the sub-
strate and results were automatically displayed. Conductivity
was also used by the same principle of pH analysis using
a probe (Conductivity/Salinity meter Hach CO150, CAM-
LAB). Salinity (conductivity/salinity meter, Hach CO150,
CAMLAB) was taken using the same principle, while tem-
perature was measured using a mercury thermometer. For
the VFA analysis, a raw sample from the vessel reactors
was diluted and then filtered for solid removal. The filtrate
was then processed for five pH titration points. When all the
titrant volumes reached the different pH points, the pH and
titrant values were processed in the TITGRAM software,
which then reported the VFAs’ content. Chemical oxygen
demand (COD) and soluble COD were evaluated following
the standard potassium dichromate (VI)/ferrous ammonium
sulphate titration method as per APHA (2005).
Statistical analysis
SPSS 16.0 was used for conducting ANOVA parametric
tests (Post hoc analysis and Tukey’s HSD) at p = 0.05 to
determine if the variable mixing ratios were treatments
giving significantly different variations in the parameters
monitored. One-way ANOVA tests were performed on
pH, salinity, TS, VS, COD, sCOD, VFAs and biogas gen-
eration data.
Results and discussion
Substrate characteristics
All samples were collected the same day and processed
accordingly. The fish wastes consisted of mainly fish intes-
tines, liver and skin while the seagrass to macroalgae was in
the percentage of 80% seagrass:20% macroalgae.
The physical parameters differ significantly for fish
wastes to seagrass/macroalgae as shown in Table 2. Fish
wastes had lower moisture contents at 48.6 ± 0.3% because
of the high fat and oil contents [18] while seagrass/macroal-
gae had higher moisture content as they comprise mainly
water [19]. Consequently, the volatile solids were also higher
in fish wastes due to the fat and oil contents as compared to
seagrass/macroalgae.
pH and VFAs
Anaerobic digestion is generally conducted under neutral
pH conditions 6.4–7.6 [20–22]. All samples had a start-
ing pH at 6.4–7.4 after grinding and mixing as shown in
Fig. 1. Hence, pH adjustments were not necessary at the
start of experiment. However, pH adjustments were done
(after 5 days) using ammonium bicarbonate (< 2 g) in the
BMP assays as pH continued to decrease until stability was
reached. After adaptation within the system due to ability
to resist pH change, pH started to increase to the desired
range (6.4–7.6) of what Chugh et al. [20] and Buffiere et al.
[21] suggested as an optimum; pH 6.3 will inhibit biogas
production [22]. VFA values were calculated in meq/l using
TITGRAM software. The components formed during the
hydrolysis steps [17, 23] are further solubilized in the aci-
dogenic reactions and yield volatile fatty acids (VFAs),
and ammonia [24], ­CO2 and H ­ 2S [25, 26]. Basically, VFA
concentration is reported to increase in the cases of ammo-
nia toxicity [22, 27]. pH is directly related to VFA produc-
tion [28, 29], as VFA production increased, pH eventually
decreased due to high content of undissociated volatile fatty
acid formation [29]. With the right pH, VR 1, 2 and 3 had
the highest VFA production due to high organic contents in
terms of fatty acids from the fish wastes while sample 4 had
a low VFA content as no fish waste was present. There was
a general increase of VFA in all vessel reactors as shown in
Fig. 1. VR 1 had the highest VFA content attributed to the
13
 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

Fig. 1  Variation in the physical parameters of the pretreatments over 26 days. a pH; b volatile fatty acids; c salinity; d conductivity; e total sol-
ids; f volatile solids

relatively high fatty acid content (920) from the fish waste
and it increased to 948 in the following 8 days and dropped
to 121 over the next 18 days.
Salinity and conductivity
Figure  1 shows that salinity was significantly different
amongst the digesters (p < 0.05). Following the Tukey’s
HSD test, VR1, VR2 and VR3 differed from VR4 (p < 0.05).
The seagrasses/macroalgae contributed greatly to high

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
Fig. 1  (continued)
salinity of VR4 as the latter used substrates that had not
been washed with freshwater. Eventually, salinity decreased
over the BMP course due to nutrient usage and other reac-
tions occurring in the systems. At start of the experiment,
salinity decreased, then started to rise after 5 days for VR1, 2
and 3; vessel reactor 1 contained only fish wastes with lower
salinity content (0.7) as it decreased for 12 days (0.4) after
which an increase was noted for 3 days onward (+ 22%) and
a gradual decrease till 26 days. Presence of certain ions such
as ­Na+, ­Ca+ and C
­ l− in seawater contributes to high-saline
13

Fig. 1  (continued)
seawater. However, the role of the anions is more associ-
ated with pH changes [30]. High concentrations of sodium
are normally produced in the food-processing industry [31]
including fish-processing plants [32]. Conductivity in vessel
reactor 1 was also much higher (7.1 mS/cm) compared to
vessel reactors 1, 2 and 3 due to the presence of high salinity
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
and no fish waste content. Conductivity in vessel reactor 4
decreased (− 15%) over the 26 days whereas in vessel reac-
tors 1, 2 and 3 it decreased at startup of BMP and gradually
increased over the 26 days [VR1 (+ 12.5%), VR2 (+ 2%) and
VR3 (+ 8.5%)], respectively. Salinity is positively correlated
to conductivity due to the presence of chloride ions. A P
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
value of 0.00 was obtained following the descriptive statistic
for each vessel reactor implying that they were significantly
different.
Total solids and volatile solids
A decrease in TS and VS for all samples was noted in the
BMPs as shown in Fig. 1. TS and VS for vessel reactor 1
and 2 were greater than samples from vessel reactors 3 and
4 because of the high content of fish wastes compared to
seagrasses/macroalgae. Significance test revealed TS to be
roughly equal (p < 0.05) in all vessel reactors with VS dif-
ferent in each vessel reactor (p < 0.05). Reductions in solid
contents have equally been reported by Meynell [33] and
Uzodinma and Ofoefule [34]. Coskuner and Curtis [26]
showed that the decomposition rate of organic substances is
affected by the slow growth of microorganisms. In this study,
the TS started on average of 12.30–13.50% and decreased
to 8.50–10.70%, while the percentage VS was around
55.80–96.70% and decreased to 37.10–80.30%.
From Fig. 2, it is noticed that COD was significantly
different in all vessel reactors (p < 0.05). In vessel reactors
(VR) 1 and 3, the COD values were very high while in VR 4
the values were low. The high values of COD indicated that
they had a high content of organic matter [6, 13]. The main
reason behind the high organic content was that in VR 1, VR
2 and VR 3, there were fish wastes which had a high con-
tent of fatty acids which corresponds to the high total solid
Fig. 2  Variation in chemical oxygen demand
content while in VR 3 there were organics but very little
fatty acid molecules. Initially, degradation in VR 3 was slow
as the cell wall of the plant materials need to be destroyed by
microorganisms [35,] and reaction rates normally take place
very slowly. The reduction of COD is a measure of biodeg-
radation occurring in the digester [36]. From Fig. 2, it is
noticed that VR 1 and VR 2 had a decreasing trend in COD
and this could be accounted for the removal of organic mat-
ter in the systems through AD process [18] while VR 3 and
VR 4 had a slow increase on the final days probably coming
from some organics settled below the vessel reactors. This
increase was also probably due to the hydrolysis stage which
involved the breaking down of the cells of the seagrasses/
macroalgae wastes. In inference, it may be deduced that most
of degradation of organic matter occurred approximately on
the 11th day, indicating that most of the easily degraded
organic molecules had almost degraded [37].
Soluble COD was significantly different in all vessel
reactors (p < 0.05) as shown in Fig. 3. There was a gen-
eral increased in soluble COD for both VR 1 and VR 2 at
start. VR1 had a decrease in soluble COD but gradually
after 8 days, there is a steep growth and attains its peak
(13,138 ± 1000  mg/L) after 17 days, it then gradually
decreased (3649 ± 100 mg/L). There was a steady growth
in amount of soluble COD for VR 2 and attains its peak
(13,200 ± 1000 mg/L) after 20 days after that it decreased
gradually (8759 ± 100 mg/L). VR 3 also decreased in sol-
uble COD content after setup but increases in a constant
13

Fig. 3  Variation in soluble chemical oxygen demand over 25 days
flow after 8 days and attains its peak (8760–200  mg/L)
after 13 days after which it also decreases gradually
(7299 ± 300 mg/L). VR 4 had a very low soluble COD con-
tent at start (584 ± 0.00) and increases after 8 days arriving
at peak (2920 ± 100 mg/L) while maintaining a low level of
soluble COD throughout the experiment with final level of
(1460 ± 100 mg/L). VR 1, 2 and 3’s high contents can be
attributed to the fact that the samples contained large amount
of fatty acids from the fish liver and other waste content.
VR 4’s very low soluble content is related to the very low
organic content (TS of initial seagrasses/macroalgae sam-
ples < 12.9 ± 0.2 mg/L) and high moisture content. The solu-
ble COD to total COD ratios in this study increased for VR
1, 2 and 4 at start while VR 3 had a decrease in sCOD/COD
ratio but increased over time. sCOD to TCOD ratios gener-
ally give an indication of the extent of hydrolysis [38, 39].
Efficiency of vessel reactors for production of biogas
Biogas production increased in all vessel reactors, clean
energy recovery from organic wastes is one of the most
important attributes of anaerobic digestion [40]. The first
week as shown in Fig. 4 saw a rapid biogas production
due to the highly degradable wastes present within the
samples. The control VR5 had a zero production for the
first 4 days and consequently very few amounts of biogas
were detected all over the 26 days as shown in Table 3.
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
This was indicative of the biogas being formed from the
fish wastes and seagrasses/macroalgae.
Following a one-way ANOVA and grouping by Duncan
test (Table 4), the 4-vessel reactors were grouped into 2
categories with significant differences (Anova, p < 0.05).
Group 1 consisting of lower production vessel reactors 3
and 4, while Group 2 higher production vessel reactors
3 and 4 (Table 4). The amount of biogas produced by a
system directly depends on the VS content [17], thus VRs
1, 2 and 3 had the highest volatile solid content which
in turn produced the highest biogas compared to VR4.
Biogas production was significantly different in each ves-
sel reactor (p < 0.05). The maximum cumulative biogas
productions (CBPs) reached 8288 ml for VR1, 8410 ml
for VR2, 4236  ml for VR3 and 2746  ml for VR4. The
maximum CBP for the control was only 158 ml. The high
biogas production correlates with the greatest destruc-
tion of volatile solids [13, 25, 41]. Overall, following the
Tukey’s HSD test, VR1 with p > 0.05 to VR2 suggest the
similarity in biogas production as the mixing ratio of 3
fish wastes:2 seagrasses/macroalgae and 2 fish wastes:3
seagrasses/macroalgae had nearly the same composition.
VR4 had no fish wastes but only seagrasses/macroalgae,
its biogas production started as from day 4 and it had the
lowest production as compared to the other vessel reactors
deducing that the high salinity played a negative role in
biogas generation on the overall process.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

Fig. 4  Cumulative biogas pro-

duction over 26 days

Table 3  Average production Biogas production

of biogas from the four-vessel
reactors Vessel reactor N Mean Std. deviation Std. error Minimum Maximum

1 26.0 4163.8 3060.5 600.2 30.0 8324.0

2 26.0 4172.6 3148.5 617.5 24.0 8412.0
3 26.0 2114.3 1520.8 298.3 18.0 4236.0
4 26.0 1207.7 998.8 195.9 0.0 2746.0
Total 104.0 2914.6 2678.4 262.6 0.0 8412.0

Vessel reactors 1 and 2 showed higher production reaching a maximum of 8412. While vessel reactors 3
and 4 show lower productivity

13
 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

Table 4  Duncan test
Duncan All vessel reactors had generated methane with variable
amount in each different component as shown in Fig. 5. In
Vessel N Subset for
reactor
this study, we considered only methane to carbon dioxide
alpha = 0.05
enrichment ratios while the other gases formed were not
1 2 assessed. VR1 had the highest amount of biogas production
4 26 1207.70 with methane enrichment of 61.10% C ­ H4 (36.70% C­ O2 and
3 26 2114.30 2.2% unknown gases), VR2 had 65.07% C ­ H4 (30.17% C­ O2
1 26 4163.80 and 4.76% unknown gases), VR3 had 68.07% C ­ H4 (30.11%
2 26 4172.60 ­CO2 and 1.82% other gases) while VR4 had the lowest meth-
ane content with 53.28% C ­ H4 (34.09% C ­ O2 and 12.63%
unknown gases). The highest methane enrichment was from
vessel reactors 2 and 3 as they had a mixture of fish wastes
and seagrasses/macroalgae. The high methane enrichment

Fig. 5  Percentage variation of methane and carbon dioxide

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
in VR2 although having lesser amount of fish wastes (fatty
acids) could have been that seagrasses/macroalgae provided
a less dense mixture with more surface area for microorgan-
isms to degrade more efficiently while a pure fish waste ves-
sel reactor made the fish waste more compact as they have
very high fatty acid content while making it stickier. The
highly degradable contents in terms of volatile solids from
seagrasses/macroalgae coupled with the fish wastes which
eventually decreased it salinity content as a major inhibitor
gave the most methane and overall performed better. Addi-
tionally, the high fat contents from the vessel reactors 1, 2
and 3 also played a major role in higher amount of biogas
and a greater methane yield over the course of the experi-
ment [42]. Vessel reactor 4 may have been the lowest biogas
and lowest methane generation system but several studies
have investigated the anaerobic digestion of marine algae
[43–46] with promising results but only after washing with
freshwater to remove the seawater and decreasing the salin-
ity level. They also concluded to mix the marine algae with
another high-carbon-rich feedstock. Tyagi [47] concluded
that marine algae are important source of combustible fuel,
especially for coastal regions [35] as the value of biogas as
fuel obtained from macroalgae is two times more than that
of cow dung with higher methane content. Some coastal
regions of Mauritius have large amount of these wastes
(Eastern Coast) and the local community is poor, thus this
can be a mean to generate a good source of clean energy for
household use.
Conclusions
Biogas was produced from the batch anaerobic digestion of
fish wastes, seagrasses/macroalgae and also from anaerobic
co-digestion of fish wastes and seagrasses/macroalgae. The
results indicated that anaerobic co-digestion of fish waste
standalone and co-digestion of seagrasses/macroalgae with
fish wastes gave high biogas yields. Hence, the anaerobic
digestion technique is an effective way for fish wastes and
seagrasses/macroalgae management. The aquaculture and
seafood sector can hence potentially benefit from the anaero-
bic digestion of these renewable energy biomass sources and
aspire to generate clean energy in Small Island Developing
States (SIDS).
Acknowledgements  The author is thankful to his supervisor Mr Ack-
mez Mudhoo for his guidance and la Ferme Marine de Mahebourg Ltd
for provision of fresh samples. This study was completed in partial
fulfilment of the requirements of a postgraduate dissertation work at the
University of Mauritius. Laboratory facilities were gratefully provided
by the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Mauritius and the
author is equally thankful to the University of Mauritius for all other
resources provided in the undertaking of this work.
References
1. Daby D, Turner J, Jago C (2002) Microbial and nutrient pol-
lution of coastal bathing waters in Mauritius. Environ Int
27:555–566
2. Wilkinson C (2008) Status of coral reefs of the world. In: Global
coral reef monitoring network and reef and rainforest research
centre (ed). Townsville, Australia
3. Smith GM (1944) Marine Algae of the Monterey Peninsula,
California (ed). Stanford University, Stanford
4. Leatherman SP (1997) Beach rating: a methodological
approach. ‎J Coast Res 13:253–258
5. Ashley PJ (2006) Fish welfare: current issues in aquaculture.
Appl Anim Behav Sci 104:1–37
6. Sakar S, Yetilmezsoy K, Kocak E (2009) Anaerobic digestion
technology in poultry and livestock waste treatment—a litera-
ture review. Waste Manag Resh 27:13–18
7. FAO© (2005–2013) Fisheries and Aquaculture topics. Waste
management of fish and fish products. Topics Fact Sheets. Text
by Lahsen Ababouch. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Depart-
ment [online]. Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishe​r y/topic​/12326​/
en. Accessed 17 Apr 2016
8. Garcia SM, Zerbi A, Aliaume C, Do CHIT., Lasserre G (2003)
The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology, prin-
ciples, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook.
FAO Fish Tech Paper 443:1–71
9. Mohee R (1998) Composting potential of bagasse and boiler
litter and process simulation using a dynamic model. Thesis
(PhD). University of Mauritius
10. Mudhoo A, Mohee R (2010) Sludge composting, sludge pre-
treatment and radiation technology: a review. Int J Environ Tech
Manag 13:372–399
11. Bogner J, Meadows M, Czepiel P (1997) Fluxes of methane
between landfills and the atmosphere: natural and engineered
controls. Soil Use Manage 13:268–277
12. Bila DM, Montalvão AF, Silva AC, Dezotti M (2005) Ozona-
tion of a landfill leachate: evaluation of toxicity removal and
biodegradability improvement. J Hazard Mater 117:235–242
13. Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R (2008) Principles and
potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 34:755–781
14. Ismail ZK, Abderrezaq SK (2007) Employment of anaerobic
digestion process of municipal solid waste for energy. Energy
Sourc A, Recovery Util Environ Effects 29:657–668
15. Cantrell KB, Ducey T, Ro KS, Hunt PG (2008) Livestock
waste to bioenergy generation opportunities. Bioresour Technol
99:7941–7953
16. Kim H, Shin H, Han S, Oh S (2007) Response surface optimiza-
tion of substrate for thermophilic anaerobic codigestion of sewage
sludge and food waste. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 57:309–318
17. Parawira W, Murto M, Zvauya R, Mattiasson B (2004) Anaero-
bic batch digestion of solid potato waste alone and in combina-
tion with sugar beet leaves. Renew Energ 29:1811–1823
18. Rubia MA, Perez M, Romero LI, Sales D (2006) Effect of sol-
ids retention time (SRT) on pilot scale anaerobic thermophilic
sludge digestion. Process Biochem 41:79–86
19. Davis TA, Volesky B, Vieira RHSF. (2000) Sargassum seaweed
as biosorbent for heavy metals. Water Res 34:4270–4278
20. Chugh S, Chynoweth DP, Clarke W, Pullammanappallil P,
Rudolph V (1999) Degradation of unsorted municipal solid
waste by a leach-bed process. Bioresour Technol 69:103–115
21. Buffiere P, Frederic S, Marty B, Delgenes JP (2008) A com-
prehensive method for organic matter characterization in solid
wastes in view of assessing their anaerobic biodegradability
context sensitive links. Wat Sci Tech 58:1783–1788
13

22. Leitao RC, Van Haandel AC, Zeeman G, Lettinga G (2006) The
effects of operational and environmental variations on anaero-
bic wastewater treatment systems: A review. Bioresour Technol
97:1105–1118
23. Sanders WTM, Geerink M, Zeeman G, Lettinga G (2000) Anaer-
obic hydrolysis kinetics of particulate substrates. Wat Sci Tech
14:17–24
24. Kayhanian M (1999) Ammonia inhibition in high-solids biogasi-
fication: an overview and practical solutions. Environ Technol
20:355–365
25. Cheong DY, Hansen CL (2007) Feasibility of hydrogen produc-
tion in thermophilic mixed fermentation by natural anaerobes.
Bioresour Technol 98:2229–2239
26. Coskuner G, Curtis TP (2002) In situ characterization of nitrifiers
in an activated sludge plant: detection of Nitrobacter Spp. J Appl
Microbiol 93:431–437
27. Gallert C, Bauer S, Winter J (1998) Effect of ammonia on the
anaerobic degradation of protein by a mesophilic and thermophilic
biowaste population. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 50:495–501
28. Veeken A, Kalyuzhnyi S, Scharff H, Hamelers B (2000) Effect of
pH and VFA on hydrolysis of organic solid waste. J Environ Eng
ASCE 126:1076–1081
29. Vanlier JB, Tilche A, Ahring BK, Acarie H, Moletta R, Dohanyos
M, Hulshoff POLLW., Lens P, Verstraete W (2001) New perspec-
tives in anaerobic digestion. Wat Sci Tech 43:1–18
30. Mccarty PL, Mckinney RE (1961) Salt toxicity in anaerobic diges-
tion. J Water Pollut Control Fed 33:399–415
31. Soto M, Mende´z R, Lema JM (1992) Characterization and com-
parison of biomass from mesophilic and thermophilic fixed bed
anaerobic digesters. Wat Sci Tech 25:203–212
32. Soto M, Mende´z R, Lema JM (1991) Biodegradability and toxic-
ity in the anaerobic treatment of fish canning wastewaters. Environ
Technol 12:669–677
33. Meynell PJ (1982) Methane: planning a Digester, vol 19. Prism
Press, Dorset, pp 23–25
34. Uzodinma EO, Ofoefule AU (2004) Biogas production from
blends of cassava peels with some animal wastes. Int J Phys Sci
4:398–402
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management
35. Chynoweth DP, Isaacson R (1987) Anaerobic digestion of bio-
mass. Elsevier science publishing co. INC, New York
36. Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos JL,
Guwy AJ, Kalyuzhnyi S, Jenicek P, Van Lier JB (2009) Defin-
ing the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and
energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Wat Sci Tech
59:927–934
37. Mshandete A, Kivaisi A, Rubindamayugi M, Mattiasson B (2004)
Anaerobic batch co-digestion of sisal pulp and fish wastes. Biore-
sourc Technol 95:19–24
38. Park WJ, Ahn JH, Hwang S, Lee C (2010) Effect of output power,
target temperature, and solid concentration on the solubilization
of waste activated sludge using microwave irradiation. Bioresour
Technol 101:13–16
39. Mudhoo A, Moorateeah PR, Mohee R (2012) Effects of micro-
wave heating on biogas production, chemical oxygen demand and
volatile solids solubilization of food residues. World Acad Sci Eng
Technol 69:1–6
40. Vieitez ER, Ghosh S (1999) Biogasification of solid waste by two-
phase anaerobic fermentation. Biomass Bioenergy 16:299–309
41. Kennedy KJ, Thibault G, Droste RL (2007) Microwave enhanced
digestion of aerobic SBR sludge. ‎Water Sci Technol 33:261–270
42. Neves L, Ribeiro R, Oliveira R, Alves MM (2006) Enhancement
of methane production from barley waste. Biomass Bioenergy
30:599–603
43. Habig C, DeBusk T, Ryther J (1984) The effect of nitrogen content
on methane production by the marine algae Gracilaria tikvahiae
and Ulva sp. Biomass 4(4):239–251
44. Ahring B, Sandberg M, Angelidaki I (1995) Volatile fatty acids
as indicators of process imbalance in anaerobic digestors. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 43(3):559–565
45. Hansson G (1983) Methane production from marine, green macro-
algae. Resourc Conserv 8(3):185–194
46. Bird KT, Chynoweth DP, Jerger DE (1990) Effects of marine
algal proximate composition on methane yields. J Appl Phycol
2(3):207–213
47. TYAGI PD (1989) Fuel from wastes and weeds. Batra Book Ser-
vice, New Delhi