Impact of biofilm support media on microbial dynamics, rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa) growth, and antioxidative content in aquaponics
Metadata
- Cite key: ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: A. Ben Ahmed, M. Rezgui, M. Dauelbait, G.A. El-Shaboury, A.M. Salamatullah, U.B. Algopishi, M. Ruzieva, F. Mahmoudi, A. Jaouani, C. Cheffei-Haouari, W. Ben Ammar
- Affiliation: University of Tunis El Manar (Tunisia); University of Juba (South Sudan); King Khalid University (Saudi Arabia); Mamun University (Uzbekistan); King Saud University (Saudi Arabia)
- Journal: BMC Plant Biology 26 (2026) p.575
- Date: 02/2026
- Date added: 2026-07-29
- DOI: 10.1186/s12870-025-07953-1
- Funding: Ongoing Research Funding Program (ORF-2026-437), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-07953-1
- PDF:
Ahmed et al. - 2026 - Impact of biofilm support media on microbial dynamics, rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa) growth.pdf
Opinion
A genuinely useful head-to-head substrate comparison (biochar vs clay pebbles) with a clean trade-off finding (biochar = yield, clay = antioxidants) that would be citable — but the manuscript itself is unusually sloppy. Re-reading it fully for this pass turned up seven internal numerical/statistical contradictions: an abstract nitrate figure that is actually a nitrite figure, a results paragraph that attributes one treatment’s table values to the other, an EC number that matches neither treatment’s table cell, a stated significance threshold that disagrees with every table/figure caption, and a body-text claim about E. coli that the paper’s own table contradicts. None of these individually overturn the paper’s headline conclusion (biochar improves nitrification/yield, clay favors secondary metabolites), which is corroborated by directionally consistent data across multiple independent measurements — but every absolute number pulled from this paper should be re-verified against Table 1/Table 2 before citing, not taken from prose.
Abstract
Aquaponics integrates aquaculture and hydroponics into a recirculating system where fish-derived nutrients sustain plant growth. The efficiency of this process relies heavily on the biofilm support media that facilitate microbial activity and nutrient transformation. This study evaluated the performance of biochar and clay pebbles as biofilm substrates in a Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) aquaponic system cultivating rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa) with tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Over a two-month trial, biochar significantly enhanced nitrogen mineralization, increasing nitrate concentrations from 0.24 to 0.34 mg·L⁻¹. Microbiological assessments confirmed the absence of pathogenic bacteria in both systems, while biochar promoted higher populations of nitrifying microorganisms. Plant physiological and biochemical traits were strongly influenced by the substrate type: biochar increased dry biomass, nitrogen content, photosynthetic pigments, soluble proteins, and sugars, whereas clay pebbles favored the accumulation of carotenoids and secondary metabolites including phenolics, flavonoids, and tannins. Overall, biochar improved water quality and nutrient availability, resulting in enhanced rocket productivity, while clay pebbles contributed to superior nutritional and antioxidant properties. These findings highlight the importance of biofilter media selection for optimizing both yield and nutritional quality in aquaponic production systems.
Summary
Two NFT aquaponic systems, identical except for biofilter substrate (biochar from pyrolyzed cork granules vs. commercial clay pebbles), each ran a 500-L tilapia tank feeding rocket over a two-month period. The study compared water chemistry, nitrifying/pathogenic bacterial counts, and rocket growth/biochemistry between substrates, with no fish feeding, growth, or survival data reported at all — the fish side of the system is essentially a black box here. Biochar consistently produced higher dissolved oxygen, higher nitrate and mineral (P, Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe) concentrations, and larger populations of nitrifying bacteria (Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter), while both systems were free of pathogenic bacteria. Rocket grown on biochar had ~35% more shoot biomass, higher chlorophyll a/b/total, and higher soluble protein/sugar, but lower carotenoids and lower secondary metabolites (phenols, flavonoids, tannins) than rocket grown on clay pebbles — a classic growth-vs-defense metabolic trade-off. No hydroponic (non-fish) control arm exists in this paper; the comparison is entirely between two aquaponic substrate treatments.
Experiment data
- Location: Higher Institute of Applied Biological Sciences of Tunis, Tunisia
- Design: Two NFT aquaponic systems, biofilter substrate as the sole manipulated factor (biochar vs. clay pebbles); no hydroponic-only control
- Replicates / n: 3 (stated as “means of three replications” in all figure captions; biochemical assays “performed in triplicate”)
- Duration: ~2 months (“two-month trial”, abstract; rocket “harvested two months after transplantation”, p.4) — no exact day count given
- Organisms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa), cv. Sais
- Statistics: ANOVA (one-way) + Duncan’s multiple range test, XLSTAT 2018. ⚠️MATERIAL: Methods states significance at p<0.005, but every table and figure caption states p<0.05 — p<0.05 treated as the applied threshold (see Extraction notes).
- Nitrate (NO3): Plant-tank N-NO3⁻ 16±0.32 mg/L (biochar) vs 15±0.29 mg/L (clay), Table 1, p.6 — biofilter compartment much higher (28 biochar vs 18 clay)
- Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): [not reported] — no feed, fish growth, or survival data reported anywhere in the paper
- Chlorophyll content: Chl a 3.34 (biochar) vs 2.48 (clay) mg/g FW; Chl b 1.90 vs 1.64; Chl Total 5.24 vs 4.12 mg/g FW — all “significantly increased” by biochar per text, p.7
- Shoot biomass: biochar ~35% higher than clay (relative figure only — absolute value shown only in Fig. 3a bar chart, no text/table number, so recorded as NR per the figure-source rule)
Nitrification and water quality
This paper: Biochar biofilter supported markedly higher nitrifying bacteria counts (Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter ~20-40% higher than clay, Table 2, p.6) and higher nitrate accumulation, especially in the biofilter compartment (28 vs 18 mg N-NO3⁻/L, Table 1). Plant-tank (the value taken into trials.csv per current schema) NO3-N was much closer between treatments: 16±0.32 (biochar) vs 15±0.29 (clay).
Compared with:
- todo Khiari et al. 2020 — biochar reduces turbidity, improves water clarity in aquaponics (cited in Introduction, p.2)
- todo Doricka et al. 2023 — substrate comparison for biofilm density, nylon liner highest (cited in Introduction, p.2)
Plant growth and biochemistry trade-off
This paper: Biochar favored primary metabolism/growth (biomass, chlorophyll, protein, sugar); clay pebbles favored secondary/defense metabolism (phenols, flavonoids, tannins, carotenoids), consistent with the nitrogen-availability vs. secondary-metabolite trade-off hypothesis. All absolute biochemistry values in Figs 5-7 are given in text only as percentage differences, not absolute numbers — recorded as NR for the absolute value in plant_measurements.csv, with the percentage preserved in Notes.
Compared with:
- todo Yang et al. 2018 — plant secondary metabolite response to environmental factors (cited in Discussion, p.12)
- todo Ibrahim et al. 2010 — nitrogen levels suppress phenolics/flavonoids (cited in Discussion, p.12)
Microbiology and food safety
This paper: Neither system showed Staphylococcus spp., E. coli, or fecal enterococci contamination in any compartment (Table 2). Only Pseudomonas aeruginosa and total coliforms were detected, at low levels, mainly in the fish tank. See ⚠️MATERIAL flag below regarding the E. coli claim in the results text, which the table itself does not support.
Linked claims
- Biochar improves nitrification in aquaponic biofilters
- Higher nitrogen availability suppresses secondary plant metabolites
- Bacteria can decrease vegetable quality
Citations to chase
- todo Khiari, Z. et al. (2020) — biochar filtration in aquaponics, particle size/turbidity effects
- todo Doricka, J.M. et al. (2023) — substrate comparison for Aeromonas hydrophila biofilm formation
- todo Palm, H.W. et al. (2018) — commercial aquaponics review, up to 50% of plant nutrients from fish excretion (cited as basis for nutrient-cycling argument, p.12)
Extraction notes
Paper type: Confirmed experiment on full read — controlled two-treatment comparison (biochar vs clay pebbles), n=3 replicates, one-way ANOVA + Duncan’s test. No prior-type contradiction found.
Trial structure: Confirmed 2 rows: T1 = biochar, T2 = clay pebbles. No hydroponic-only arm exists in this paper; HYD-specific columns are NA.
Fish data: This paper reports NO fish feeding, growth, survival, or biometric data beyond a single stated initial stocking (30 Nile tilapia, avg. 100±5 g, 500-L tank, p.2). FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, and Fish weight gain are all [not reported].
Contradictions found on this pass (severity-tagged, re-derived from scratch under the new rules):
-
⚠️MATERIAL Abstract nitrate/nitrite mixup. Abstract (p.1): “increasing nitrate concentrations from 0.24 to 0.34 mg·L⁻¹.” These exact figures match Table 1’s N-NO2⁻ (nitrite) biofilter row (clay biofilter 0.24, biochar biofilter 0.34, p.6) — not any N-NO3⁻ (nitrate) value, which ranges 10-28 mg/L across compartments. Table 1 taken as authoritative; NO3-N columns use Table 1 plant-tank values (15 clay / 16 biochar). The abstract’s “nitrate” claim is almost certainly a mislabeled nitrite finding.
-
⚠️MATERIAL Biofilter macronutrient paragraph misattributed to wrong treatment. Results text (p.5-6): “Biochar also supported higher concentrations of key macro- and micronutrients, particularly in the biofilter compartment, with values reaching 5.9 mg·L⁻¹ for phosphorus, 68 mg·L⁻¹ for calcium, 43 mg·L⁻¹ for magnesium, and 18 mg·L⁻¹ for nitrate.” These four numbers exactly match Table 1’s Clay Balls biofilter row, not Biochar’s own biofilter row (9, 84, 54, 28 respectively). The surrounding argument (biochar > clay) is only true using the Biochar column’s actual values. Table 1 taken as authoritative for
plant_measurements.csv. -
⚠️CHECK (reclassified from ⚠️BLOCK) Electrical conductivity. Results text (p.5): “elevated electrical conductivity observed in the biochar biofilter (up to 1.27 dS·m⁻¹).” Table 1 (p.6) biochar biofilter EC = 0.97±0.01 (unit printed as “µs, cm⁻¹”). This is the CHECK case, not BLOCK — nothing is necessarily wrong, the paper just never states which statistic each figure represents. Cell affected: the biofilter-compartment EC entry in
plant_measurements.csv, recorded0.97; does not affect the trials.csv EC column (undisputed plant-tank value).RESOLVED BY USER (2026-08-05, via REVIEW.md), not by this extraction. This extraction originally guessed the table’s printed unit was a typo for “mS,cm⁻¹” (numerically equal to dS/m) so the two figures could be reconciled as the same unit. That guess was checked against the source PDF and confirmed wrong — the printed character is genuinely µ (U+00B5, micro sign), not m: it really is µS/cm. The user reviewed the item and directed:
0.97is the Table 1 trial mean (as printed, in µS/cm), and1.27 dS·m⁻¹is the peak value stated in the Results text — both recorded as the paper’s own reported figures, not reconciled by any unit conversion. Worth flagging even though resolved: at face value the two are ~6 orders of magnitude apart (0.97 µS/cm vs 1.27 dS/m = 1,270,000 µS/cm) — this is the paper’s own unresolved inconsistency, not something this vault is asserting to be numerically consistent. -
⚠️MATERIAL Significance threshold disagreement. Methods (p.4): “Statistical significance was established at p<0.005.” Every table and figure caption instead (Table 1, Table 2, Figs 3-7 — seven instances) states results are “significantly (˂0.05) different.” p<0.05 treated as the actually-applied threshold; p<0.005 in Methods is almost certainly a typo (extra digit).
-
⚠️MATERIAL E. coli vs. coliforms conflation. Results text (p.6-7): “Only trace amounts of E. coli and total coliforms were detected in the fish tanks (≤11.7 CFU·100 mL⁻¹).” Table 2 shows the E. coli row as ”-” (not detected) in every compartment of both systems; 11.7 belongs only to the Coliforms row (biochar fish tank). Table 2 taken as authoritative — E. coli recorded as not detected throughout.
-
⚠️MINOR Clay pebble diameter. First given as “8 mm diameter” (p.3), then in the same paragraph as “an average diameter of 8-16 mm” (p.3). Does not affect any extracted cell; both recorded in Media Details.
-
⚠️MINOR Potassium mentioned but never measured. Discussion (p.11) lists “potassium” among elevated biochar-system minerals, but Methods (p.3) lists only Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Zn as analyzed elements, and Table 1 has no potassium row. No cell affected (no K data exists to extract either way).
-
Not a contradiction (re-graded under the new figure rule): Fig. 3 vs. body text on shoot biomass/water content direction. On visual inspection Fig. 3a’s bars appear taller for Clay Pebbles than Biochar for “Productivity,” which would seem to run opposite to the text’s explicit claim that biochar increased shoot biomass ~35% over clay (p.7). Under the new rule, a bar chart is not a valid data source at all — there is nothing legitimate to compare the text’s percentage against, since the figure itself cannot be read for a value or even a direction. This is not carried forward as a flag of any severity; only the text’s stated ~35% (biomass, relative only) and 81.8%/88.7% (water content, explicit absolute values in text, p.7) are recorded.
Contradiction count and severity tally (updated after CHECK-tier reclassification): 0 BLOCK, 4 MATERIAL, 2 MINOR, 1 CHECK (the EC item above, moved from BLOCK; the Fig. 3 item is explicitly not counted, having been reclassified as moot under the new figure-source rule). Per SCHEMA.md’s scoring table (CHECK and MINOR never affect the score), 0 BLOCK + 4 MATERIAL falls in the caution band (3-4 MATERIAL) rather than suspect (which needs 2+ BLOCK or 5+ MATERIAL or misattribution) — quality: caution set in frontmatter.
Figure-only values, now NR per the new rule (no absolute number in text or table):
- Shoot biomass / productivity (Fig. 3a) — only “~35% increase” given in text, no g/m² number
- Soluble protein content (Fig. 5a) — only “~26% increase” given
- Soluble sugar content (Fig. 5b) — only “~30% increase” given
- MDA content (Fig. 6a) — only “140% increase” (clay vs biochar) given
- DPPH IC₅₀ (Fig. 6b) — no numeric value or percentage given at all, only direction (“lower IC50… biochar”)
- Flavonoid content (Fig. 7a) — only “132% increase” (clay vs biochar) given
- Total phenols (Fig. 7b) — only “20% increase” given
- Tannins (Fig. 7c) — only “25% increase” given
NOT figure-only (absolute values stated directly in body text, kept): Chlorophyll a/b/Total, carotenoids (all four, p.7); water content % (p.7, 81.8% biochar / 88.7% clay).
[not reported] fields grouped by field:
- Fish: FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Feed routine, Feed regime, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Initial Stock density (fish count and tank volume given, but no kg/m³ stated), Fish Category
- Plant: SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight (figure-only), Plant dry matter (only water content % given, not DM%; converting one to the other would be derivation), Plants/m²
- Location: Lat/Long (institute name given, no coordinates stated anywhere)
- Other: Water classification, pHOptimal (only a cited literature ideal range for nitrifiers, 7.2-8.2, appears in Discussion p.11 — not this trial’s own stated target), Average room Temperature (during the aquaponic trial itself; only the 10-day pre-cultivation greenhouse phase has a stated temperature, 25±2°C)
Scanned/OCR quality: PDF has a clean extractable text layer throughout; no NEEDS_OCR.md entry needed.
New tags introduced: Meta/Fish/Tilapia, Meta/Plant/Rocket (vault’s notes/ folder was empty prior to this extraction — no existing spellings to check against; flagging for consistency on future papers).
New wikilink targets introduced: A. Ben Ahmed through W. Ben Ammar (all 11 authors, no existing author notes in vault to match against), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa), Biochar improves nitrification in aquaponic biofilters, Higher nitrogen availability suppresses secondary plant metabolites.
Source: Ahmed et al. - 2026 - Impact of biofilm support media on microbial dynamics, rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa) growth.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Fish size initial | 100 +/- 5 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | ~60 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 33.3 |
| Water volume in the system | 1100 +/- 100 |
| Water type | City water (implied, p.6) |
| Aq pH | 6.8 +/- 0.04 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 6.9 +/- 0.06 |
| EC | 0.93 +/- 0.02 |
| Water temperature | 27 +/- 0.11 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.12 +/- 0.02 |
| NO2-N | 0.27 +/- 0.04 |
| NO3-N | 16 +/- 0.32 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa, cv. Sais) |
| Details | Pre-cultivated 10 d in half-strength Hoagland solution, then transplanted into NFT aquaponic system; harvested ~2 months after transplant |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | ~60 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) |
| Media Details | Biochar produced from cork granules via pyrolysis at 550 degC for 30 min under oxygen-limited conditions; used as biofilter substrate in the 500-L biological filter |
| Biological system already in use | Y (500-L biological filter housing nitrifying bacteria (Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter) between the 100-L mechanical filter and the NFT plant channels) |
| Air supplement | Y (60 L/min compressor with diffusers in fish tank and biofilter) |
| Climate control | Y (Shading net over the system to reduce excess radiation and protect from birds (p.3); pre-cultivation seedlings raised in greenhouse at 25 +/- 2 degC, 60-70% RH, 14 h photoperiod before transplant) |
| Equipment | 500-L fish tank; 100-L mechanical filter; 500-L biological filter; perforated PVC NFT channels; 2 m3/h recirculation pump; 60 L/min compressor; SensoDirect 150 multiparameter probe; SpectrAA 220 AAS (Varian); Specord 210 Plus spectrophotometer (Analytik Jena); IRAffinity-1 FTIR (Shimadzu); XLSTAT 2018 |
| Control Parameters | Weekly water quality monitoring (pH, EC, T, DO); mineral analysis (Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Zn) by AAS; N-forms and P colorimetric; all biochemical assays in triplicate; microbiology per AFNOR NF V08-010 / ISO 6887-1 |
| Combination | Nile tilapia + rocket; biochar vs clay pebbles biofilter substrate comparison in NFT aquaponics; no hydroponic-only arm |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Africa |
| Country | Tunisia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | mg/L (water chemistry); mg/g FW (pigments); mg CE or GAE/g DW (phenolics); CFU/mL, CFU/100mL (microbiology); % FW (water content) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, XLSTAT 2018; significance letters at p<0.05 used in all tables/figures (Methods text states p<0.005, contradicts every table/figure caption - MATERIAL, see remarks) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = biochar biofilter substrate treatment (cork-derived biochar, pyrolyzed 550 degC/30 min). Paired comparison = T2 (clay pebbles) in this same table; no hydroponic-only control exists in this paper (HYD columns = NA). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: water recycle 2 m3/h -> 33.3 L/min; trial duration ‘two months’ (abstract p.1; ‘harvested two months after transplantation’ p.4) -> ~60 d, approximate (no exact day count given), applied to both Fish trial duration and Days Plant after transplant since no separate fish-specific duration is stated. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (30 tilapia in a 500 L tank, no kg/m3 given, p.2); FCR, SGR, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish size final - paper reports NO feed or fish-growth data anywhere; SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter - dry weight was measured (p.4) but never reported as an absolute value or %DM, only used internally to compute ‘water content’ %; deriving DM% from water content would be derivation, not done. | Fish Category, Water classification NR - paper does not categorise. | Lat/Long NR - paper states only ‘Higher Institute of Applied Biological Sciences of Tunis’ with no coordinates; not filled from background knowledge per prime directive. | Average room Temperature NR for the aquaponic trial itself - the only stated temperature (25 +/- 2 degC, 60-70% RH) is for the 10-day PRE-CULTIVATION greenhouse phase before transplant (p.2), not the aquaponic trial proper. | Tissue nitrate AP NR - paper measures WATER nitrate (N-NO3-, Table 1) but never measures plant leaf/tissue nitrate; Tissue nitrate HYD = NA (no hydroponic arm). | pHOptimal NR - Discussion (p.11) cites a literature ideal range for nitrifiers (7.2-8.2, ref. 43) as context, not this trial’s own stated target. | Water quality values in Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N are the PLANT TANK compartment from Table 1 (p.6) per current schema rule; Fish tank and Biofilter compartment values for all Table 1 parameters, plus Table 2 microbiology and all plant biochemistry, are in plant_measurements.csv. | WARN-MATERIAL Abstract nitrate: Abstract (p.1) states nitrate rising ‘from 0.24 to 0.34 mg.L-1’ - these figures exactly match Table 1’s N-NO2- (NITRITE) biofilter row (clay 0.24, biochar 0.34, p.6), not any N-NO3- value (range 10-28 mg/L). Table 1 taken as authoritative; NO3-N column here uses Table 1 plant-tank values (15 clay / 16 biochar), not the abstract figures. | WARN-MATERIAL Biofilter macronutrient paragraph: Results text (p.5-6) attributes ‘reaching 5.9 mg/L phosphorus, 68 mg/L calcium, 43 mg/L magnesium, 18 mg/L nitrate’ to the BIOCHAR biofilter, but these four numbers exactly match Table 1’s CLAY BALLS biofilter row; biochar’s own biofilter row is 9/84/54/28 respectively. Table 1 taken as authoritative for plant_measurements.csv attribution. | RESOLVED BY USER (2026-08-05, via REVIEW.md): Electrical conductivity. Results text (p.5) states biochar biofilter EC ‘up to 1.27 dS.m-1’; Table 1 (p.6) biochar biofilter EC = 0.97 +/- 0.01. Extraction had guessed the table’s printed unit (‘us,cm-1’) was a typo for mS,cm-1 (=dS/m) to reconcile the two figures — CONFIRMED WRONG by checking the source PDF directly: the printed unit is genuinely µs,cm-1 (proper micro sign, not m), i.e. microsiemens/cm, not a typo. The user reviewed this and directed: 0.97 is the trial mean (Table 1, as printed) and 1.27 dS.m-1 is the peak/maximum value stated in the Results text — both recorded as the paper’s own reported figures, kept as separate statistics (mean vs peak) rather than reconciled by any unit conversion. Note the two values are ~6 orders of magnitude apart taken at face value (0.97 microS/cm vs 1.27 dS/m = 1,270,000 microS/cm); this is the paper’s own unresolved unit inconsistency, not something this extraction is asserting to be numerically consistent. This is the user’s editorial resolution, not a value stated or derivable from the paper itself. | WARN-MATERIAL Significance threshold: Methods (p.4) states p<0.005; every table/figure caption (7 instances) states p<0.05. p<0.05 treated as the applied threshold; p<0.005 treated as a Methods typo. | WARN-MATERIAL E. coli vs coliforms: Results text (p.6-7) claims E. coli detected in fish tanks ’<=11.7 CFU.100mL-1’; Table 2 shows the E. coli row as ’-’ (not detected) in every compartment/system; 11.7 belongs only to the Coliforms row. Table 2 taken as authoritative. | WARN-MINOR Clay pebble diameter given as both ‘8 mm’ and ‘8-16 mm’ in the same paragraph (p.3) - no cell affected. | WARN-MINOR Discussion (p.11) mentions elevated ‘potassium’ in water but Methods/Table 1 never measured K - no cell affected (no K data exists). | NOT A CONTRADICTION under new figure rule: Fig. 3 bars visually appear to run opposite to the text’s stated +35% biochar biomass advantage, but a bar chart is not a valid data source under the current rules, so there is nothing legitimate to compare the text figure against; not flagged. | Plant fresh weight/height/leaf count/SPAD = NR - shoot biomass shown only in Fig. 3a with no absolute number in text (only the 35% relative difference stated, p.7).
ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) |
| Fish size initial | 100 +/- 5 |
| Fish trial duration (days) | ~60 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 33.3 |
| Water volume in the system | 1100 +/- 100 |
| Water type | City water (implied, p.6) |
| Aq pH | 7.4 +/- 0.03 |
| Dissolved Oxigen | 6.6 +/- 0.09 |
| EC | 0.9 +/- 0.01 |
| Water temperature | 27.2 +/- 0.12 |
| TAN / NH4-N | 0.15 +/- 0.02 |
| NO2-N | 0.22 +/- 0.06 |
| NO3-N | 15 +/- 0.29 |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa, cv. Sais) |
| Details | Pre-cultivated 10 d in half-strength Hoagland solution, then transplanted into NFT aquaponic system; harvested ~2 months after transplant |
| Plant Category | Leafy vegetables (p.2) |
| Days Plant after transplant | ~60 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) |
| Media Details | Commercial clay pebbles: nominal ‘8 mm diameter’ per first mention (p.3), but ‘average diameter of 8-16 mm’ stated in the same paragraph (MINOR contradiction, see remarks); specific surface area 250 m2/m3; bulk density ~0.35-0.40 g/cm3; porosity ~75-85%; used as biofilter substrate in the 500-L biological filter |
| Biological system already in use | Y (500-L biological filter housing nitrifying bacteria (Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter) between the 100-L mechanical filter and the NFT plant channels) |
| Air supplement | Y (60 L/min compressor with diffusers in fish tank and biofilter) |
| Climate control | Y (Shading net over the system to reduce excess radiation and protect from birds (p.3); pre-cultivation seedlings raised in greenhouse at 25 +/- 2 degC, 60-70% RH, 14 h photoperiod before transplant) |
| Equipment | 500-L fish tank; 100-L mechanical filter; 500-L biological filter; perforated PVC NFT channels; 2 m3/h recirculation pump; 60 L/min compressor; SensoDirect 150 multiparameter probe; SpectrAA 220 AAS (Varian); Specord 210 Plus spectrophotometer (Analytik Jena); IRAffinity-1 FTIR (Shimadzu); XLSTAT 2018 |
| Control Parameters | Weekly water quality monitoring (pH, EC, T, DO); mineral analysis (Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Zn) by AAS; N-forms and P colorimetric; all biochemical assays in triplicate; microbiology per AFNOR NF V08-010 / ISO 6887-1 |
| Combination | Nile tilapia + rocket; biochar vs clay pebbles biofilter substrate comparison in NFT aquaponics; no hydroponic-only arm |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Africa |
| Country | Tunisia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | mg/L (water chemistry); mg/g FW (pigments); mg CE or GAE/g DW (phenolics); CFU/mL, CFU/100mL (microbiology); % FW (water content) |
| Statistic Details | One-way ANOVA + Duncan’s multiple range test, XLSTAT 2018; significance letters at p<0.05 used in all tables/figures (Methods text states p<0.005, contradicts every table/figure caption - MATERIAL, see remarks) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = clay pebbles biofilter substrate treatment (commercial clay pebbles). Paired comparison = T1 (biochar) in this same table; no hydroponic-only control exists in this paper (HYD columns = NA). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: water recycle 2 m3/h -> 33.3 L/min; trial duration ‘two months’ (abstract p.1; ‘harvested two months after transplantation’ p.4) -> ~60 d, approximate (no exact day count given), applied to both Fish trial duration and Days Plant after transplant since no separate fish-specific duration is stated. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (30 tilapia in a 500 L tank, no kg/m3 given, p.2); FCR, SGR, Feed routine/regime, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish size final - paper reports NO feed or fish-growth data anywhere; SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant dry matter - dry weight was measured (p.4) but never reported as an absolute value or %DM, only used internally to compute ‘water content’ %; deriving DM% from water content would be derivation, not done. | Fish Category, Water classification NR - paper does not categorise. | Lat/Long NR - paper states only ‘Higher Institute of Applied Biological Sciences of Tunis’ with no coordinates; not filled from background knowledge per prime directive. | Average room Temperature NR for the aquaponic trial itself - the only stated temperature (25 +/- 2 degC, 60-70% RH) is for the 10-day PRE-CULTIVATION greenhouse phase before transplant (p.2), not the aquaponic trial proper. | Tissue nitrate AP NR - paper measures WATER nitrate (N-NO3-, Table 1) but never measures plant leaf/tissue nitrate; Tissue nitrate HYD = NA (no hydroponic arm). | pHOptimal NR - Discussion (p.11) cites a literature ideal range for nitrifiers (7.2-8.2, ref. 43) as context, not this trial’s own stated target. | Water quality values in Aq pH/DO/EC/Water temperature/TAN/NO2-N/NO3-N are the PLANT TANK compartment from Table 1 (p.6) per current schema rule; Fish tank and Biofilter compartment values for all Table 1 parameters, plus Table 2 microbiology and all plant biochemistry, are in plant_measurements.csv. | WARN-MATERIAL Abstract nitrate: Abstract (p.1) states nitrate rising ‘from 0.24 to 0.34 mg.L-1’ - these figures exactly match Table 1’s N-NO2- (NITRITE) biofilter row (clay 0.24, biochar 0.34, p.6), not any N-NO3- value (range 10-28 mg/L). Table 1 taken as authoritative; NO3-N column here uses Table 1 plant-tank values (15 clay / 16 biochar), not the abstract figures. | WARN-MATERIAL Biofilter macronutrient paragraph: Results text (p.5-6) attributes ‘reaching 5.9 mg/L phosphorus, 68 mg/L calcium, 43 mg/L magnesium, 18 mg/L nitrate’ to the BIOCHAR biofilter, but these four numbers exactly match Table 1’s CLAY BALLS biofilter row (this trial’s own substrate); biochar’s biofilter row is 9/84/54/28 respectively. Table 1 taken as authoritative for plant_measurements.csv attribution. | RESOLVED BY USER (2026-08-05, via REVIEW.md): see T1 remarks — 0.97 (Table 1 mean) and 1.27 dS.m-1 (Results text peak) recorded as the paper’s own two reported figures for the biochar biofilter, not unit-reconciled (printed table unit confirmed as genuine microS/cm, not a typo, by checking the source PDF). Does not concern this (clay) row’s own EC values, which are internally consistent. | WARN-MATERIAL Significance threshold: Methods (p.4) states p<0.005; every table/figure caption (7 instances) states p<0.05. p<0.05 treated as the applied threshold; p<0.005 treated as a Methods typo. | WARN-MATERIAL E. coli vs coliforms: Results text (p.6-7) claims E. coli detected in fish tanks ’<=11.7 CFU.100mL-1’; Table 2 shows the E. coli row as ’-’ (not detected) in every compartment/system, including this clay system; 11.7 belongs only to the Coliforms row (biochar fish tank). Table 2 taken as authoritative. | WARN-MINOR Clay pebble diameter given as both ‘8 mm’ and ‘8-16 mm’ in the same paragraph (p.3), directly describing this trial’s substrate - recorded both in Media Details, no cell affected beyond that. | WARN-MINOR Discussion (p.11) mentions elevated ‘potassium’ in water but Methods/Table 1 never measured K - no cell affected (no K data exists). | NOT A CONTRADICTION under new figure rule: Fig. 3 bars visually appear to run opposite to the text’s stated +35% biochar biomass advantage over clay, but a bar chart is not a valid data source under the current rules, so there is nothing legitimate to compare the text figure against; not flagged. | Plant fresh weight/height/leaf count/SPAD = NR - shoot biomass shown only in Fig. 3a with no absolute number in text (only the 35% relative difference stated, p.7).
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | Temperature | 27.3 ± 0.15 | degC | ns (same letter c vs c… see note) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | Temperature | 27 ± 0.17 | degC | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | Temperature | 27 ± 0.11 | degC | ns (letters c vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | Temperature | 29 ± 0.19 | degC | significant (letters a vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | Temperature | 28 ± 0.16 | degC | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | Temperature | 27.2 ± 0.12 | degC | ns (letters c vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | pH | 7.2 ± 0.06 | pH units | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | pH | 6.9 ± 0.02 | pH units | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | pH | 6.8 ± 0.04 | pH units | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | pH | 7.4 ± 0.04 | pH units | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | pH | 7.4 ± 0.07 | pH units | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | pH | 7.4 ± 0.03 | pH units | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | EC | 0.92 ± 0.07 | uS/cm as printed in Table 1 (schema unit dS/m; see Notes) | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | EC | 0.97 | uS/cm as printed vs dS/m in text | significant (letters a vs d) | Table 1 p.6 vs Results text p.5 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | EC | 0.93 ± 0.02 | uS/cm as printed in Table 1 (schema unit dS/m; see Notes) | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | EC | 0.9 ± 0.03 | uS/cm as printed in Table 1 (schema unit dS/m; see Notes) | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | EC | 0.8 ± 0.06 | uS/cm as printed in Table 1 (schema unit dS/m; see Notes) | significant (letters a vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | EC | 0.9 ± 0.01 | uS/cm as printed in Table 1 (schema unit dS/m; see Notes) | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | Dissolved oxygen | 7.6 ± 0.02 | mg/L | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | Dissolved oxygen | 6.9 ± 0.08 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | Dissolved oxygen | 6.9 ± 0.06 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | Dissolved oxygen | 7.4 ± 0.5 | mg/L | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | Dissolved oxygen | 6.6 ± 0.11 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | Dissolved oxygen | 6.6 ± 0.09 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NH4+ | 0.23 ± 0.03 | mg N/L | significant (letters c vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NH4+ | 0.13 ± 0.01 | mg N/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NH4+ | 0.12 ± 0.02 | mg N/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NH4+ | 0.26 ± 0.04 | mg N/L | significant (letters c vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NH4+ | 0.16 ± 0.02 | mg N/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NH4+ | 0.15 ± 0.02 | mg N/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NO2- | 0.26 ± 0.04 | mg N/L | significant (letters c vs e) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NO2- | 0.34 ± 0.03 | mg N/L | significant (letters d vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NO2- | 0.27 ± 0.04 | mg N/L | significant (letters a vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NO2- | 0.38 ± 0.05 | mg N/L | significant (letters e vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NO2- | 0.24 ± 0.03 | mg N/L | significant (letters b vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NO2- | 0.22 ± 0.06 | mg N/L | significant (letters a vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NO3- | 10 ± 0.12 | mg N/L | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NO3- | 28 ± 0.1 | mg N/L | significant (letters d vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | N-NO3- | 16 ± 0.32 | mg N/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NO3- | 10 ± 0.53 | mg N/L | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NO3- | 18 ± 0.22 | mg N/L | significant (letters c vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | N-NO3- | 15 ± 0.29 | mg N/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | P-PO4 | 7 ± 0.05 | mg P/L | significant (letters a vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | P-PO4 | 9 ± 0.04 | mg P/L | significant (letters b vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | water-quality | P-PO4 | 6 ± 0.03 | mg P/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | P-PO4 | 5.4 ± 0.11 | mg P/L | significant (letters a vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | P-PO4 | 5.9 ± 0.6 | mg P/L | significant (letters b vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | water-quality | P-PO4 | 5.2 ± 0.8 | mg P/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Ca2+ | 28 ± 0.13 | mg/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Ca2+ | 84 ± 0.07 | mg/L | significant (letters d vs f) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Ca2+ | 55 ± 0.08 | mg/L | significant (letters e vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Ca2+ | 22 ± 0.18 | mg/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Ca2+ | 68 ± 0.11 | mg/L | significant (letters d vs f) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Ca2+ | 44 ± 0.15 | mg/L | significant (letters e vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Mg2+ | 18 ± 0.15 | mg/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Mg2+ | 54 ± 0.08 | mg/L | significant (letters d vs e) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Mg2+ | 40 ± 0.13 | mg/L | significant (letters c vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Mg2+ | 17 ± 0.09 | mg/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Mg2+ | 43 ± 0.17 | mg/L | significant (letters d vs e) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Mg2+ | 32 ± 0.03 | mg/L | significant (letters c vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Fe2+ | 0.6 ± 0.17 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Fe2+ | 0.8 ± 0.11 | mg/L | significant (letters c vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Fe2+ | 0.6 ± 0.13 | mg/L | significant (letters b vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Fe2+ | 0.6 ± 0.04 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Fe2+ | 0.6 ± 0.03 | mg/L | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Fe2+ | 0.4 ± 0.11 | mg/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Cu2+ | 0.25 ± 0.08 | mg/L | significant (letters e vs d) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Cu2+ | 0.27 ± 0.04 | mg/L | significant (letters e vs c) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Cu2+ | 0.16 ± 0.07 | mg/L | significant (letters b vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Cu2+ | 0.2 ± 0.02 | mg/L | significant (letters d vs e) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Cu2+ | 0.19 ± 0.05 | mg/L | significant (letters c vs e) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Cu2+ | 0.12 ± 0.02 | mg/L | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Zn2+ | 0.4 ± 0.02 | mg/L | UNCLEAR - no superscript letter printed for this cell | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Zn2+ | 0.39 ± 0.01 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | mineral | Zn2+ | 0.3 ± 0.02 | mg/L | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Zn2+ | 0.4 ± 0.01 | mg/L | UNCLEAR - see T1 fish tank note | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Zn2+ | 0.39 ± 0.02 | mg/L | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | mineral | Zn2+ | 0.3 ± 0.07 | mg/L | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 1 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Nitrosomonas sp. | 11 ± 0.17 | CFU/mL | significant (letters c vs b) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Nitrosomonas sp. | 35 ± 0.19 | CFU/mL | significant (letters e vs d) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Nitrosomonas sp. | 8 ± 0.14 | CFU/mL | significant (letters c vs a) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Nitrosomonas sp. | 3 ± 0.08 | CFU/mL | significant (letters b vs c) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Nitrosomonas sp. | 11 ± 0.11 | CFU/mL | significant (letters d vs e) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Nitrosomonas sp. | 2 ± 0.05 | CFU/mL | significant (letters a vs c) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Nitrobacter sp. | 67 ± 0.25 | CFU/mL | significant (letters d vs b) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Nitrobacter sp. | 110 ± 0.25 | CFU/mL | significant (letters e vs d) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Nitrobacter sp. | 46 ± 0.05 | CFU/mL | significant (letters d vs a) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Nitrobacter sp. | 32 ± 0.02 | CFU/mL | significant (letters b vs d) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Nitrobacter sp. | 62 ± 0.15 | CFU/mL | significant (letters d vs e) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Nitrobacter sp. | 21 ± 0.08 | CFU/mL | significant (letters a vs d) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Staphylococcus spp. | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Staphylococcus spp. | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Staphylococcus spp. | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Staphylococcus spp. | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Staphylococcus spp. | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Staphylococcus spp. | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 10 ± 0.12 | CFU/100mL | significant (letters a vs c) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 10 ± 0.09 | CFU/100mL | significant (letters a vs b) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 20 ± 0.18 | CFU/100mL | significant (letters c vs a) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 15 ± 0.03 | CFU/100mL | significant (letters b vs a) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 15 ± 0.07 | CFU/100mL | NR (biochar plant tank is ND, not comparable) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Coliforms | 11.7 ± 0.06 | CFU/100mL | significant (letters d vs c) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Coliforms | 6.1 ± 0.03 | CFU/100mL | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Coliforms | 3.2 ± 0.08 | CFU/100mL | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Coliforms | 8.2 ± 0.01 | CFU/100mL | significant (letters c vs d) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Coliforms | 5.3 ± 0.07 | CFU/100mL | ns (letters b vs b) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Coliforms | 4.1 ± 0.05 | CFU/100mL | ns (letters a vs a) | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | E. coli | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | E. coli | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | E. coli | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | E. coli | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | E. coli | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | E. coli | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Fecal enterococcus | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Fecal enterococcus | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | microbiology | Fecal enterococcus | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Fecal enterococcus | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Fecal enterococcus | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | microbiology | Fecal enterococcus | ND | CFU/100mL | NR | Table 2 p.6 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll a | 3.34 | mg/g FW | significant (text: “biochar significantly increased the levels of Chl a…) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll a | 2.48 | mg/g FW | significant (text: “biochar significantly increased the levels of Chl a…) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll b | 1.9 | mg/g FW | significant (text: ”…Chl b, and Chl T”) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Chlorophyll b | 1.64 | mg/g FW | significant (text: ”…Chl b, and Chl T”) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Total chlorophyll | 5.24 | mg/g FW | significant (text: ”…Chl T”) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Total chlorophyll | 4.12 | mg/g FW | significant (text: ”…Chl T”) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Carotenoids | 0.304 | mg/g FW | NR (text gives direction only, no explicit “significant” wording for this analyte) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Carotenoids | 0.516 | mg/g FW | NR (text gives direction only, no explicit “significant” wording for this analyte) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 4) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | proximate | Water content | 81.8 | %FW | NR (text states averages without the word “significant”) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 3b) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | proximate | Water content | 88.7 | %FW | NR (text states averages without the word “significant”) | Results text p.7 (Fig. 3b) |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | proximate | Shoot biomass (productivity) | NR | g/m2 (unit as shown on Fig. 3a axis - figure not used as source) | significant (text: “exhibited significantly enhanced growth performance”) | Fig. 3a (chart only) / Results text p.7 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | proximate | Shoot biomass (productivity) | NR | g/m2 (unit as shown on Fig. 3a axis - figure not used as source) | significant (text: “exhibited significantly enhanced growth performance”) | Fig. 3a (chart only) / Results text p.7 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble protein | NR | mg/g FW (unit as shown on Fig. 5a axis - figure not used as source) | significant (text: “resulted in significantly higher protein and sugar contents”) | Fig. 5a (chart only) / Results text p.8 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble protein | NR | mg/g FW (unit as shown on Fig. 5a axis - figure not used as source) | significant (text: “resulted in significantly higher protein and sugar contents”) | Fig. 5a (chart only) / Results text p.8 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble sugar | NR | mg/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 5b axis - figure not used as source) | significant (text: “resulted in significantly higher protein and sugar contents”) | Fig. 5b (chart only) / Results text p.8 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Soluble sugar | NR | mg/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 5b axis - figure not used as source) | significant (text: “resulted in significantly higher protein and sugar contents”) | Fig. 5b (chart only) / Results text p.8 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | MDA | NR | umol/g FW (unit as shown on Fig. 6a axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text does not use the word “significant” for this comparison) | Fig. 6a (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | MDA | NR | umol/g FW (unit as shown on Fig. 6a axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text does not use the word “significant” for this comparison) | Fig. 6a (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | DPPH IC50 | NR | ug/mL (unit as shown on Fig. 6b axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text gives direction only, no percentage or “significant” wording) | Fig. 6b (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | DPPH IC50 | NR | ug/mL (unit as shown on Fig. 6b axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text gives direction only, no percentage or “significant” wording) | Fig. 6b (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Flavonoids | NR | mg CE/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 7a axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text says “notably higher”, not “significantly”) | Fig. 7a (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Flavonoids | NR | mg CE/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 7a axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text says “notably higher”, not “significantly”) | Fig. 7a (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenols | NR | mg GAE/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 7b axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text says “notably higher”, not “significantly”) | Fig. 7b (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Total phenols | NR | mg GAE/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 7b axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text says “notably higher”, not “significantly”) | Fig. 7b (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T1 | AP | biochemistry | Tannins | NR | mg CE/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 7c axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text says “notably higher”, not “significantly”) | Fig. 7c (chart only) / Results text p.9 |
| ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026-T2 | AP | biochemistry | Tannins | NR | mg CE/g DW (unit as shown on Fig. 7c axis - figure not used as source) | NR (text says “notably higher”, not “significantly”) | Fig. 7c (chart only) / Results text p.9 |