Nutrient film technique systems for coriander production: A comparison of aquaponics and hydroponics in UAE

Metadata

Cite key: aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026
Item type: Journal Article
Authors: A. Al Jenaid, M. El Mahi, A.S. Bathaqili, A.K. Alalawi, C.S. Nair, D. Nishanth, R. Subramanian, R. Manoharan, A. Jaleel
Affiliation: Department of Integrative Agriculture, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Journal: PLOS One 21(1) (2026) e0340364
Date: 01/2026
Date added: 2026-07-13
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0340364
Funding: “This research received funding from the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) under the Summer Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) Plus Program (Grant Code: G00003955).” Competing interests: none declared.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340364
PDF: Al Jenaid et al. - 2026 - Nutrient film technique systems for coriander production A comparison of aquaponics and hydroponics.pdf

Opinion

A clean, well-instrumented single-treatment AP-vs-HYD comparison (proper t-tests, Shapiro-Wilk/Levene checks, n=3 system replicates) that is undermined by one basic reporting gap: the headline “total weight” yield figure (657.34 g AP / 309.34 g HYD) is never defined as per-plant, per-sample, or per-system, and 657 g for a single 60-day-old coriander plant is not biologically plausible — this needs the underlying dataset (the paper states one is deposited as Supporting Information) before citing the yield numbers at face value. The biochemical and elemental panels are more solid (chlorophyll, phenolics, antioxidant activity, minerals all reported as plain means with clear directions) but never carry SDs or explicit significance labels except for a handful of variables, so most differences described as “higher/lower” in the text are not verifiable as statistically real from the paper alone. Useful as one more UAE/arid-climate NFT data point and a plausible primary study for a future coriander-specific comparison, but the yield numbers specifically should be flagged for anyone downstream.

Abstract

As global populations rise, the need for sustainable agricultural practices becomes increasingly urgent, especially in regions facing water scarcity and harsh environmental conditions. Traditional farming methods are often unsuitable for arid areas, leading to the exploration of alternative techniques like hydroponics and aquaponics. These soilless systems offer efficient water use and nutrient management, making them ideal for regions where conventional farming is challenging. This study compares the efficiency of Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) systems in aquaponics and hydroponics for coriander production. Both systems provide controlled environments for plant growth but differ in their nutrient sources—aquaponics integrates fish farming, while hydroponics relies on synthetic nutrient solutions. The aquaponic system incorporated Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), which provided nutrients through fish waste, while the hydroponic system used a commercially prepared nutrient solution. Coriander, as a leafy herb, can perform well in aquaponic systems because nitrogen, phosphorus, and some micronutrients from fish waste support growth. Nutrient availability depends on fish stocking density, feed quality, and system maturity, with well-fed fish and a mature system enhancing nutrient release. However, long-term or high-yield production may still require supplementation of elements like calcium, magnesium, or iron, as fish effluent alone may not fully meet crop nutrient demands. Key parameters like plant growth (total weight, shoot length, root length), water quality (pH, nitrate, phosphate), and biochemical attributes (chlorophyll, phenol content, antioxidant activity) were assessed. Results indicated that the aquaponics system outperformed hydroponics in plant growth parameters, with coriander grown in aquaponics showing greater total weight, shoot length, and root length. Aquaponics-grown plants also exhibited higher chlorophyll content and antioxidant activity, suggesting improved photosynthesis and nutritional quality. While hydroponic plants had slightly higher phenolic content, aquaponics facilitated better mineral accumulation, particularly for calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc. The findings demonstrate that aquaponics offers a more sustainable and efficient approach to coriander production, providing higher yield and superior nutritional quality compared to hydroponics. This highlights the potential of aquaponics for enhancing food security in water-scarce regions.

Summary

Researchers at UAE University ran six identical vertical PVC-pipe NFT systems (presumably three aquaponic with Nile tilapia, three hydroponic with a commercial nutrient solution) side by side in a greenhouse in Al Ain for one coriander crop cycle, harvesting 60 days after transplant and repeating the whole comparison three times. They measured plant growth (fresh weight, shoot/root/total length), weekly water chemistry (temperature, DO, EC, pH, nitrate, phosphate) over eight weeks, and a battery of biochemical, proximate, and elemental analyses on the harvested tissue, comparing the two systems with independent t-tests. Aquaponics-grown coriander came out ahead on every growth measure reported and on most (but not all) biochemical and mineral measures — notably chlorophyll, carotene, antioxidant activity, protein, fat, fiber, and several minerals (Ca, Mg, P, Zn) were higher in aquaponics, while phenolic content and potassium were higher in hydroponics. The paper is useful as a same-institution, same-climate data point for NFT aquaponics in an arid region, and for its mineral/biochemical panel, but the core yield number is reported only as an ambiguous “total weight” without stating whether it is a per-plant, per-sample, or per-system quantity, and no fish-side data (feed totals, growth, survival, FCR) are given at all.

Experiment data

Location: Falaj Hazza Experimental Farm, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, UAEU, Al Ain, UAE (24.2191° N, 55.7146° E)

Design: Six NFT systems (vertical PVC-pipe design) in a polycarbonate greenhouse; one aquaponic treatment (Nile tilapia) vs. one hydroponic treatment (commercial nutrient solution), each replicated three times; independent t-test comparison

Replicates / n: 3 system-level replicates per treatment (Section 2.8); n=5 plants sub-sampled per treatment per replicate for growth measurements (Section 2.4)

Duration: November 2022 – January 2023; coriander harvested 60 days after transplant (2-week germination period preceded transplant)

Organisms: Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) / Coriander (Coriandrum sativum)

Statistics: Independent t-test, IBM SPSS Statistics v29; Shapiro-Wilk normality test; Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance

Plant fresh weight: 657.34 g (AP) vs 309.34 g (HYD), “total weight” — basis (per plant / per sample / per system) not stated, see Extraction notes

Chlorophyll content: Total chlorophyll 0.39 (AP) vs 0.28 (HYD) mg/g FW — not statistically significant per text

Feed Conversion Rate (FCR): [not reported] — no fish growth, feed total, or survival data reported anywhere in the paper

Water quality

This paper: Weekly-monitored over 8 weeks in both systems (Fig 2, p.8); no trial mean given anywhere, only week-1 and week-8 endpoints, so recorded as ranges (see Extraction notes). Aquaponics: temperature 23.5→22.1°C, DO 7.015→5.883 mg/L, EC 1.48→0.696 mS/cm (=dS/m), pH 7.15→6.75, nitrate 11.984→19.158 mg/L. Hydroponics tracked closely: temperature 23.4→22.0°C, DO 7.002→5.982 mg/L, EC 1.36→0.671 mS/cm, pH 7.15→6.58 (slightly larger drop than AP), nitrate 11.995→19.132 mg/L. Phosphate (no trials.csv column) rose in both systems: AP 2.065→2.795 mg/L, HYD 2.168→2.673 mg/L. TAN/NH3 and NO2 were listed as measured parameters (Section 2.3) but never reported with any value, chart, or table anywhere in the paper.

Compared with:

todo Pantanella et al. 2010 — aquaponics vs hydroponics lettuce production and quality, cited for EC/yield comparison (ref [53], p.12)
todo Endut et al. 2014 — nitrogen budget in aquaponic recirculation systems, 39.4% N recovered as fish biomass (ref [59], p.13, secondary figure)

Growth parameters

This paper: Aquaponics-grown coriander reported higher on every growth metric at 60 days after transplant (p.9, Section 3.2, described as “significantly higher”): total weight 657.34 g (AP) vs 309.34 g (HYD); total length 117.80 vs 102.90 cm; shoot length 59.58 vs 53.40 cm; root length 48.36 vs 45.90 cm. The basis of “total weight” (per plant, per 5-plant sample, or per system) is not stated — see Extraction notes; this is treated as the paper’s own reported “estimated yield” figure but its plausibility as a true per-plant mass is doubtful.

Compared with:

todo Valdez-Sandoval et al. 2020 — survival and productivity of culinary herbs (incl. NFT aquaponics with Nile tilapia), directly comparable system type (ref [28], p.3)
todo Lennard & Ward 2019 — NFT hydroponic vs NFT aquaponic plant growth rates, coriander included among tested species (ref [64], p.14; already in zotero-export.csv but not yet extracted into this vault)
todo Delaide et al. 2016 — lettuce growth in complemented aquaponic solution outperforming hydroponics (ref [65], p.14)

Biochemical attributes

This paper: Total chlorophyll higher in AP (0.39 vs 0.28 mg/g FW, chlorophyll a 0.29 vs 0.24, chlorophyll b 0.09 vs 0.07), described as not statistically significant for the total. Carotene higher in AP (0.45 vs 0.40 mg/g FW), no significance stated. Total phenolic content HIGHER in hydroponics (6.28 vs 5.38 mg GAEq/g FW), explicitly not statistically significant (p.10). Antioxidant activity (DPPH) higher in AP (22.97 vs 20.82 μmol TE/g FW), explicitly not statistically significant (p.10-11). ABTS assay is fully described in Methods (2.5.3) but no ABTS results are reported anywhere in Results.

Compared with:

todo Braglia et al. 2022 — phytochemicals and food-plant quality in aquaponics vs soil, incl. basil/parsley phenolics (ref [73], p.14)
todo Albadwawi et al. 2022 — aquaponic vs soil basil yield and antioxidant levels (ref [75], p.14-15)

Proximate composition

This paper: Aquaponics higher on protein (3.10% vs 2.17%), fat (3.80% vs 3.50%), fiber (6.13% vs 5.87%), and ash (1.67% vs 1.60%). Moisture content is mentioned in the section’s topic sentence as one of the parameters that differed between systems but no numeric value is given anywhere for either treatment. None of these comparisons carry an explicit significance label in the Results text.

Compared with:

todo Yang & Kim 2020 — nutrient composition of tomato-, basil-, and lettuce-based aquaponic vs hydroponic systems, incl. ash comparison (ref [77], p.15)

Elemental (mineral) analysis

This paper: Aquaponics higher on calcium (16.80 vs 13.61 mg/g DW), magnesium (5.22 vs 3.68 mg/g DW), phosphorus (7.09 vs 5.83 mg/g DW), zinc (10.97 vs 9.56 mg/100g DW), sodium (137.55 vs 78 mg/100g DW), and iron (15.8 vs 15 mg/100g DW, “relatively similar”). Hydroponics higher on potassium (23.22 vs 9.22 mg/g DW, the only mineral explicitly called “significantly lower” in aquaponics) and copper (2.29 vs 1.86 mg/100g DW). Manganese differences are described only as “minimal” with no numeric value reported anywhere except a Fig 6 bar chart.

Compared with:

todo Blidariu et al. 2013 — phosphorus level comparison, lettuce conventional vs aquaponic (ref [87], p.16)
todo Delaide 2017 — mineral elements in aquaponics and their impact on lettuce productivity, 39% fresh-mass increase in aquaponics (ref [93], p.16)
todo Nishanth et al. 2024 — aquaponics as climate-smart technology vs conventional production, same UAE research group (ref [10], p.2)
todo Subramanian & Belal 2022 — cucumber and tilapia aquaponics under UAE climatic conditions, same institution/farm (ref [36], p.4)

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Paper type: Confirmed experiment on full read — single aquaponic treatment vs single hydroponic control, three system-level replicates, independent t-tests with Shapiro-Wilk/Levene pre-checks (Section 2.8). Not a review or modelling paper despite the extensive literature discussion in Introduction/Discussion.

Trial structure: One aquaponic treatment level exists (Nile tilapia NFT vs commercial-solution NFT), so one trial row (-T1). Six NFT systems are described (Section 2.1) with “the experiment was replicated three times” (Section 2.8), most plausibly 3 aquaponic + 3 hydroponic systems, though the paper never explicitly states the AP/HYD split of the six units.

Fish data: Only a stocking weight (52 g fingerlings) and feed regime (35% protein floating pellets, ARASCO, 2% body weight/day, updated monthly, fed once daily) are given. No FCR, SGR, final weight, survival, total feed mass, or fish-specific trial duration are reported anywhere — all left NR, not derived.

Contradictions found (severity-tagged):

⚠️CHECK Plant fresh weight / AP / HYD basis unclear. Results (p.9, Section 3.2): “the total weight of plants in the aquaponics system was 657.34g … more than double the average weight of 309.34g observed in the hydroponics system.” Methods (p.5, Section 2.4): “Plant samples (n=5) were randomly selected and gently harvested for each treatment per replicate … Fresh weight will be recorded for each treatment as estimated yield” — it is never stated whether the 5-plant sample was weighed individually and averaged, or pooled/summed before weighing, or whether “total weight” instead means a whole-system/whole-line yield. A single coriander plant fresh weight of ~650g at 60 days is not biologically plausible (typical whole-plant coriander fresh weight is on the order of single-digit to low tens of grams), so 657.34g almost certainly is NOT a true per-plant value, despite the trials.csv Plant fresh weight column being defined as g/plant. Recorded as reported (657.34 AP / 309.34 HYD) in Plant fresh weight, AP, and HYD cells because that is literally the number the paper states as its total-weight/yield figure, but the g/plant basis is unconfirmed. Added to REVIEW.md. Affects: any downstream per-plant vs per-system yield comparison.
⚠️CHECK NO3-N species unclear. Section 2.3 (p.5) states nitrate was measured as “NO3⁻” via HACH Multiparameter Colorimeter DR900; Results (3.1.5, p.7) and Discussion (4.1, p.13) report “nitrate concentration” in mg/L without stating whether this is NO3 (nitrate ion) or NO3-N (nitrate-nitrogen) — a factor-of-4.43 difference. Recorded the reported mg/L figures as-is in the NO3-N column (11.984–19.158 AP; 11.995–19.132 HYD range) since that is literally what is printed, but the true species is unconfirmed. Added to REVIEW.md.
⚠️MATERIAL Phosphorus significance claim inconsistency. Results (p.11-12, Section 3.5) reports P with no significance descriptor at all (“aquaponics-grown plants showing an average of 7.09mg/g DW, while hydroponically grown plants had 5.83mg/g DW”), unlike potassium in the same section which IS explicitly called “significantly lower.” Discussion (p.16, Section 4.5) nonetheless states “the findings of this study indicate that aquaponics-grown coriander contained significantly higher phosphorus levels” — introducing a significance claim absent from Results. Recorded Significance = NR for P in plant.csv (Results, the primary data location, is silent); Discussion’s stronger claim is not adopted into the cell.
⚠️MINOR Feed protein nominal vs measured. Methods (p.5, Section 2.1.2) states feed is “35% protein”; Table 1 (p.5) proximate composition gives Protein (%) = 35.21±0.30. Table 1’s more precise measured value used in the trials.csv Protein column; the “35%” in Methods is a nominal rounding, not a conflict.
⚠️MINOR Copper value restated. Section 4.5 (p.16) states the AP/HYD copper comparison (1.86 vs 2.29 mg/100g DW) twice in adjacent sentences with identical values — redundant phrasing, not a numeric discrepancy. No cell affected.
⚠️MINOR Total length vs shoot+root sum. Results (p.9): total length AP=117.80cm vs shoot 59.58 + root 48.36 = 107.94cm (9.86cm short); HYD total=102.90cm vs shoot 53.40 + root 45.90 = 99.30cm (3.6cm short). The paper never explicitly claims total length = shoot + root, so this is a recomputed plausibility check, not a stated contradiction; no dedicated “Total length” column exists in trials.csv regardless (see NO COLUMN below).

Severity tally: 0 BLOCK, 1 MATERIAL, 2 CHECK, 3 MINOR. Per SCHEMA.md scoring (CHECK/MINOR never count), 0 BLOCK and ≤2 MATERIAL → quality: ok.

UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC reported by the paper in mS/cm is numerically identical to dS/m (1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m); EC cell values carried over unchanged (1.48→0.696 AP; 1.36→0.671 HYD).

Water quality — range only, no trial mean reported (per SCHEMA.md): Temperature, DO, EC, pH, and NO3-N are all reported only as week-1 vs week-8 endpoints of an 8-week weekly-monitoring series (Fig 2, p.8), never as a single trial mean ± SD. Recorded as ranges in the respective trials.csv cells rather than averaged.

NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (52g fingerling weight given, but no fish count or tank volume specific to the AP unit, and no density in kg/m³ stated); FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (paper gives only the overall study window “November 2022–January 2023” and a 60-day post-transplant plant harvest interval, never a fish-specific rearing duration); Total Feed kg (only a %-of-body-weight ration rate given, no total feed mass); Water recycle L/min (pump rated in hp, no flow rate given); Plants/m² (18 holes total across the whole PVC system, no per-system area given); ABTS radical scavenging results (method fully described in 2.5.3 but no ABTS values ever reported in Results, only DPPH); total carbohydrate and nutritive value (kcal/100g) (formulas given in Methods 2.6 but never computed/reported); moisture % (mentioned qualitatively as differing in 3.4’s topic sentence but no numeric value given anywhere for either system).

[not reported] / [unclear] fields grouped by column: Fish Category, Initial Stock density, N, P, K (feed), Fish size final, Total Feed, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration, Water recycle, Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, FUE AP, FUE HYD, WUE, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, Leaf count, Plants/m², SPAD, Plant dry matter, Tissue nitrate AP, Tissue nitrate HYD, Biological system already in use, pH Buffers, Climate control.

NO COLUMN items: Phosphate concentration (water) — AP 2.065±0.33 to 2.795±1.10 mg/L, HYD 2.168±0.85 to 2.673±2.58 mg/L (range, weeks 1-8, p.7) — no trials.csv column exists for water phosphate. Total length (whole-plant, shoot+root combined) — AP 117.80cm, HYD 102.90cm (p.9) — no dedicated column, distinct from the shoot-length value used for Plant height. Root length — AP 48.36cm, HYD 45.90cm (p.9) — no dedicated column. Fish feed proximate composition beyond protein (Table 1, p.5): Moisture 4.78±0.10%, Fiber 3.41±0.10%, Fat 3.25±0.18%, Ash 10.07±0.30%, NFE 43.06±0.19% — no columns exist for feed moisture/fiber/fat/ash/NFE.

Plant height basis: The trials.csv Plant height cell (59.58) is the paper’s shoot-length value (p.9), used as the closest analog since the paper never reports a metric explicitly named “plant height”; HYD’s equivalent shoot length is 53.40cm (recorded in this note’s remarks, not a separate trials.csv cell, since Plant height is a single column without an AP/HYD split).

Water volume: The 135 L system volume recorded is the TOTAL (100L reservoir tank + 25L NFT channel [half of the 50L planting-area volume] + 10L biofilter, all summed explicitly by the paper, p.4, Section 2.1). The paper does not separately state a fish-tank-only volume for the aquaponic configuration — Section 2.1.2 only says “a design similar to the hydroponics unit was used for aquaponics facility,” without clarifying whether the 100L tank doubles as the fish tank.

Mineral/biochemistry/proximate analyte values (chlorophyll a/b/total, carotene, total phenol, antioxidant activity, ash, protein, fat, fiber, moisture, Ca, Mg, P, K, Zn, Na, Cu, Fe, Mn) recorded in plant.csv, not trials.csv, per SCHEMA.md.

Scanned/OCR quality: PDF has a clean extractable text layer throughout; no NEEDS_OCR.md entry needed.

New tags introduced: Meta/Plant/Coriander (new — no existing coriander facet in the vault; checked against Meta/Plant/Rocket, Meta/Plant/Chicory, Meta/Plant/Basil, Meta/Plant/Lettuce, Meta/Plant/Indian-Spinach). Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Region/Middle-East, Meta/Fish/Tilapia all reused from existing vault entries (abusinSustainableFoodProduction2020 for Middle-East; lenzCommonChicoryProduction2021/ahmedImpactBiofilmSupport2026/others for Tilapia).

New wikilink targets introduced: A. Al Jenaid, M. El Mahi, A.S. Bathaqili, A.K. Alalawi, C.S. Nair, D. Nishanth, R. Subramanian, R. Manoharan, A. Jaleel (no existing author notes in vault to match against), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), Coriander (Coriandrum sativum), Aquaponics can match or exceed hydroponic plant growth, Aquaponic nutrient cycling improves mineral accumulation in leafy crops, Hydroponic nutrient solutions can outperform fish waste on individual minerals like potassium.

Source: Al Jenaid et al. - 2026 - Nutrient film technique systems for coriander production A comparison of aquaponics and hydroponics.pdf

Data Tables

Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's trials.csv / plant_measurements.csv datasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).

Trial Parameters

aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1

Fish

Field	Value
Fish	Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), fingerlings
Protein	35.21 +/- 0.30
% of body weight	2
Fish size initial	52
Feed routine	Once daily
Feed regime	35% protein floating pellet feed (ARASCO), 2% of body weight, rate updated monthly

Water

Field	Value
Water volume in the system	135 (total)
Aq pH	7.15 +/- 0.05 (week1) to 6.75 +/- 0.08 (week8) [range only, no trial mean reported]
Dissolved Oxigen	7.015 +/- 0.06 (week1) to 5.883 +/- 0.05 mg/L (week8) [range only, no trial mean reported]
EC	1.48 +/- 0.02 (week1) to 0.696 +/- 0.04 dS/m (week8) [range only, no trial mean reported]
Water temperature	23.5 +/- 0.06 (week1) to 22.1 +/- 0.15 degC (week8) [range only, no trial mean reported]
NO3-N	11.984 +/- 1.25 (week1) to 19.158 +/- 2.83 mg/L (week8) [range only, no trial mean reported; species NO3 vs NO3-N unclear, see remarks]

Plant

Field	Value
Plant	Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)
Details	Seeds sown in Rockwool cubes (2.0x2.0cm), transplanted to NFT growing cups after 2-week germination; harvested 60 days after transplanting; n=5 plants sampled per treatment per replicate
Plant Category	Leafy herb (p.1)
Days Plant after transplant	60
Plant height	59.58
Plant fresh weight	657.34

System & Setup

Field	Value
System type	Nutrient film technique (NFT), vertical PVC pipe design (p.4)
Media Details	4-inch PVC pipes, vertical model, 4 lines x 2 rows, 2m pipe per line (16m total), 18 plant cultivation holes of 5cm diameter, growing cups; Rockwool cubes (2x2cm) for germination
Air supplement	Y (Pneumatic air compressor, 60 L/min, oxygenates the system (p.4, Section 2.1); described in the shared system setup for both hydroponic and aquaponic units)
Iron supplemented	N (‘No external mineral supplementation was provided. Nutrients were derived exclusively from fish waste and microbial mineralization processes’ (p.5, Section 2.1.2) - explicit for the aquaponic system; hydroponic control’s commercial nutrient solution (Solution A) separately contains 17.4% Fe, see Experimental Remarks)
Remineralization	N (Same explicit statement as Iron supplemented (p.5, Section 2.1.2): no external mineral inputs to the aquaponic system)
Artificial Lighting	N (‘with ambient lighting’ explicitly stated as the greenhouse growing condition (p.4, Section 2.1); no supplemental lighting mentioned)
Nutrient supplemented	N (‘No external mineral supplementation was provided’ (p.5, Section 2.1.2), explicit for aquaponic treatment)
Equipment	0.5 hp water pump; pneumatic air compressor (60 L/min); HACH HQD portable meter (Model HQ40d) for pH/temp/TDS/EC; HACH Multiparameter Colorimeter DR900 for NH3/NO3/NO2/PO4; ICP-OES for elemental analysis; spectrophotometer for chlorophyll/carotenoid/phenol; muffle furnace (550C) for ash
Control Parameters	No stated setpoints for pH/temperature/nutrient dosing; system run as passive recirculating NFT with weekly water-quality monitoring only (Section 2.3)
Combination	Nile tilapia and coriander; single NFT aquaponic treatment vs single NFT hydroponic control, 3 replicate systems per method

Site

Field	Value
Region	Middle East
Country	United Arab Emirates
Lat	24.2191
Long	55.7146
Average room Temperature	20.5-28.8 (range; ambient greenhouse air temp, not water temp)

Results & Statistics

Field	Value
Measured Unit	g (fresh weight, basis uncertain - see remarks); cm (lengths); mg/g FW (pigments); mg GAEq/g FW (phenol); umol TE/g FW (antioxidant); % (proximate); mg/g DW or mg/100g DW (minerals)
Statistic Details	Independent t-test; IBM SPSS Statistics v29; Shapiro-Wilk normality test; Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance (p.7, Section 2.8)
Statistically analysed	Y
Replicates (n)	3
AP	657.34
HYD	309.34

Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = the aquaponic NFT treatment (coriander grown on Nile tilapia wastewater, no external mineral inputs). Paired control = the hydroponic NFT treatment (commercial nutrient solution, Max Grow Company), recorded in HYD columns. Six NFT systems were built (Section 2.1), most plausibly 3 aquaponic + 3 hydroponic given ‘the experiment was replicated three times’ (Section 2.8); only one aquaponic treatment level exists, so one row. | WARN-CHECK Plant fresh weight/AP/HYD: Results (p.9, Section 3.2) states ‘the total weight of plants in the aquaponics system was 657.34g … more than double the average weight of 309.34g observed in the hydroponics system.’ Methods (p.5, Section 2.4) states ‘Plant samples (n=5) were randomly selected and gently harvested for each treatment per replicate … Fresh weight will be recorded for each treatment as estimated yield’ - it is not stated whether the 5-plant sample was weighed individually and averaged, or pooled/summed before weighing. A single coriander plant fresh weight of ~650g at 60 days is implausible (typical coriander fresh weight is on the order of grams to tens of grams per plant), suggesting ‘657.34g’ is more likely a per-sample (5-plant) or per-replicate aggregate than a true per-plant value, but the paper’s own label (‘Fresh weight (g)’, Fig 3A) offers no further resolution. Recorded as reported (657.34 AP / 309.34 HYD) because that is literally what the paper states as ‘the total weight’, but the g/plant basis required by this column’s definition is NOT confirmed. Added to REVIEW.md. Affects: interpretation of yield magnitude and any downstream per-plant vs per-system comparison. | WARN-CHECK NO3-N species: Section 2.3 (p.5) states nitrate was measured as ‘NO3-’ via HACH Multiparameter Colorimeter DR900; Results (3.1.5, p.7) and Discussion (4.1, p.13) report ‘nitrate concentration’ in mg/L without specifying whether the instrument/paper means NO3 (nitrate ion) or NO3-N (nitrate-nitrogen), which differ by a factor of 4.43. Recorded the reported mg/L figures as-is in the NO3-N column (11.984-19.158 AP; 11.995-19.132 HYD) since that is literally what is printed, but the true species is unconfirmed. Added to REVIEW.md. | WARN-MATERIAL Phosphorus significance: Results (p.11-12, Section 3.5) reports P as ‘aquaponics-grown plants showing an average of 7.09mg/g DW, while hydroponically grown plants had 5.83mg/g DW’ with no significance descriptor, unlike Potassium in the same section which is explicitly called ‘significantly lower.’ Discussion (p.16, Section 4.5) nonetheless states ‘the findings of this study indicate that aquaponics-grown coriander contained significantly higher phosphorus levels’ - introducing a significance claim not present in the Results section itself. Recorded Significance = NR for P in plant.csv (Results, the primary data location, is silent); Discussion’s stronger claim noted here rather than adopted into the cell. Does not affect the trials.csv Plant fresh weight/AP/HYD cells (mineral data lives in plant.csv only). | WARN-MINOR Feed protein: Methods (p.5, Section 2.1.2) states feed is ‘35% protein’; Table 1 (p.5) proximate composition gives Protein (%) = 35.21+/-0.30. Table 1’s more precise measured value used in the Protein column; the 35% in Methods is a nominal rounding, not a conflict. | WARN-MINOR Copper restated: Section 4.5 (p.16) states the aquaponics/hydroponics copper comparison (1.86 vs 2.29 mg/100g DW) twice in adjacent sentences with identical values - redundant phrasing, not a numeric discrepancy, no cell affected. | WARN-MINOR Total length vs shoot+root sum: Results (p.9) gives total length AP=117.80cm vs shoot 59.58 + root 48.36 = 107.94cm (9.86cm short); HYD total=102.90cm vs shoot 53.40 + root 45.90 = 99.30cm (3.6cm short). The paper never explicitly states total length = shoot + root, so this is a plausibility check (recomputed here, not entered as a cell) rather than a stated contradiction; no dedicated ‘Total length’ column exists in trials.csv regardless (NO COLUMN, see below). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: EC values reported by the paper in mS/cm are numerically identical to dS/m (1 mS/cm = 1 dS/m), so the EC cell values are carried over unchanged (1.48-0.696 AP; 1.36-0.671 HYD). | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (fingerling avg weight given, 52g, but no fish count or tank volume for the AP unit specifically, and density in kg/m3 never stated); FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Fish trial duration (paper gives only the overall study window ‘November 2022-January 2023’ and a 60-day post-transplant plant harvest interval, never a fish-specific rearing duration); Total Feed kg (only a percent-of-body-weight ration rate given, no total feed mass); Water recycle L/min (pump rated in hp, no flow rate given); Plants/m2 (18 holes total across the whole PVC system, no per-system area given to compute density, and doing so would be derivation); ABTS radical scavenging results (method fully described in 2.5.3 but no ABTS values ever reported in Results, only DPPH); total carbohydrate and nutritive value (kcal/100g) (formulas given in 2.6 but never computed/reported); moisture % (mentioned qualitatively as differing between systems in 3.4’s topic sentence but no numeric value given anywhere). | Fish Category, Water type, Water classification, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, Biological system already in use, Climate control, pH Buffers left NR - the paper does not state these. | Water volume 135 L is the TOTAL system volume (100L reservoir tank + 25L NFT channel [half of the 50L planting-area volume] + 10L biofilter, all summed explicitly by the paper, p.4, Section 2.1); the paper does not separately break out a fish-tank-only volume for the aquaponic configuration - Section 2.1.2 only says ‘a design similar to the hydroponics unit was used for aquaponics facility,’ without clarifying whether the 100L tank doubles as the fish tank. | NO COLUMN: Phosphate concentration (water) - AP 2.065+/-0.33 to 2.795+/-1.10 mg/L, HYD 2.168+/-0.85 to 2.673+/-2.58 mg/L (range only, weeks 1-8, p.7) - no trials.csv column exists for water phosphate. Total length (whole-plant, shoot+root combined) - AP 117.80cm, HYD 102.90cm (p.9) - no dedicated column, distinct from the shoot-length value used for Plant height. Root length - AP 48.36cm, HYD 45.90cm (p.9) - no dedicated column. Fish feed proximate composition beyond protein (Table 1, p.5): Moisture 4.78+/-0.10%, Fiber 3.41+/-0.10%, Fat 3.25+/-0.18%, Ash 10.07+/-0.30%, NFE 43.06+/-0.19% - no columns exist for feed moisture/fiber/fat/ash/NFE. | Plant height cell (59.58) is the SHOOT LENGTH (p.9), used as the closest analog to ‘Plant height’ since the paper never reports a metric explicitly called plant height; HYD shoot length = 53.40cm, recorded only in this remark since the trials.csv Plant height column has no separate AP/HYD split. | Mineral/biochemistry/proximate analyte values (chlorophyll, carotene, phenol, antioxidant, ash, protein, fat, fiber, Ca, Mg, P, K, Zn, Na, Cu, Fe, Mn) recorded separately in plant.csv, not here.

Plant Measurements

Trial	System	Category	Analyte	Value	Unit	Sig.	Location
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	biochemistry	Total chlorophyll	0.39	mg/g FW	ns	p.9-10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Total chlorophyll	0.28	mg/g FW	ns	p.9-10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	0.29	mg/g FW	NR	p.10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll a	0.24	mg/g FW	NR	p.10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	0.09	mg/g FW	NR	p.10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Chlorophyll b	0.07	mg/g FW	NR	p.10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	biochemistry	Carotene	0.45	mg/g FW	NR	p.10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Carotene	0.40	mg/g FW	NR	p.10 (Section 3.3.1)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	biochemistry	Total phenol content	5.38	mg GAEq/g FW	ns	p.10 (Section 3.3.2)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Total phenol content	6.28	mg GAEq/g FW	ns	p.10 (Section 3.3.2)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	biochemistry	Antioxidant activity (DPPH)	22.97	umol TE/g FW	ns	p.10-11 (Section 3.3.3)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	biochemistry	Antioxidant activity (DPPH)	20.82	umol TE/g FW	ns	p.10-11 (Section 3.3.3)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	proximate	Ash	1.67	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	proximate	Ash	1.60	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	proximate	Protein	3.10	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	proximate	Protein	2.17	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	proximate	Fat	3.80	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	proximate	Fat	3.50	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	proximate	Fiber	6.13	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	proximate	Fiber	5.87	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	proximate	Moisture	NR	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	proximate	Moisture	NR	%	NR	p.11 (Section 3.4)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Calcium (Ca)	16.80	mg/g DW	NR	p.11 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Calcium (Ca)	13.61	mg/g DW	NR	p.11 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Magnesium (Mg)	5.22	mg/g DW	NR	p.11 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Magnesium (Mg)	3.68	mg/g DW	NR	p.11 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Phosphorus (P)	7.09	mg/g DW	NR	p.11-12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Phosphorus (P)	5.83	mg/g DW	NR	p.11-12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Potassium (K)	9.22	mg/g DW	significant	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Potassium (K)	23.22	mg/g DW	significant	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	10.97	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Zinc (Zn)	9.56	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Sodium (Na)	137.55	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Sodium (Na)	78	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Copper (Cu)	1.86	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Copper (Cu)	2.29	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Iron (Fe)	15.8	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Iron (Fe)	15	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	AP	mineral	Manganese (Mn)	NR	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5; Fig 6)
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1	HYD	mineral	Manganese (Mn)	NR	mg/100g DW	NR	p.12 (Section 3.5; Fig 6)

Quartz 5

Explorer

Nutrient film technique systems for coriander production: A comparison of aquaponics and hydroponics in UAE

Nutrient film technique systems for coriander production: A comparison of aquaponics and hydroponics in UAE

Metadata

Abstract

Summary

Water quality

Growth parameters

Biochemical attributes

Proximate composition

Elemental (mineral) analysis

Linked claims

Citations to chase

Extraction notes

Data Tables

Trial Parameters

aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026-T1

Plant Measurements

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks