Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater by vegetable production in aquaponics recirculation system
Metadata
- Cite key: endutaNutrientRemovalAquaculture2011
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: A. Enduta, A. Jusoh, N. Ali, W.B. Wan Nik
- Affiliation: Faculty of Innovative Design and Technology, University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia (A. Endut, corresponding author); Faculty of Science and Technology, University Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia (A. Jusoh, N. Ali); Faculty of Maritime Studies and Marine Science, University Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia (W.B. Wan Nik) (p.1)
- Journal: Desalination and Water Treatment 32 (2011) 422–430
- Date: 08/2011
- Date added: 2019-07-03
- DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2011.2761
- Funding: [not reported]
- URL: https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2011.2761
- PDF:
Enduta et al. - 2011 - Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater by ve.pdf
Opinion
Cannot be meaningfully evaluated on method or rigour: the PDF held in this vault contains only page 1 of the published article (a 9-page paper, pp. 422–430). No Materials & Methods, Results tables, Figures, Discussion, or References are available to read. The abstract alone reports two vegetable treatments (water spinach, mustard green) with plausible, internally consistent removal-efficiency ranges for four nutrient species, which is a reasonable design for this kind of nutrient-removal study, but none of it can be verified or extended without the full text. This note should be re-extracted once a complete copy of the PDF (all 9 pages) is obtained from Zotero/the publisher.
Abstract
Nutrient removal is essential for aquaculture wastewater treatment to protect receiving water from eutrophication and for potential reuse of the treated water. The integration of aquaculture with agriculture appears to be an excellent way of saving water, disposing aquaculture wastewater and providing fertilizer to the agricultural crop. The study was conducted to evaluate aquaponics recirculation system (ARS) performance in removing inorganic nitrogen and phosphate from aquaculture wastewater using water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) and mustard green (Brassica juncea). The results showed that water spinach was able to significantly reduce the total ammonia nitrogen, nitrite-N, nitrate-N and orthophosphate with efficiencies of 78.32–85.48%, 82.93–92.22%, 79.17–87.10%, and 75.36–84.94%, respectively, compared to mustard green that removed the nutrients in the range of 69.0–75.85% for total ammonia nitrogen, 72.49–79.34% for nitrite-N, 66.67–80.65% for nitrate-N, and 66.79–77.87% for orthophosphate. Overall results suggest that water spinach is better than mustard green in nutrient removal in the aquaponics system used due to its root structures provided more microbial attachment sites, sufficient wastewater residence time, trapping and settlement of suspended particles, surface area for pollutant adsorption, uptake, and assimilation in plant tissues.
Summary
The authors ran an aquaponics recirculation system (ARS) treating aquaculture wastewater and grew two vegetable species — water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) and mustard green (Brassica juncea) — to see how well each removed total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrite-N, nitrate-N, and orthophosphate from the water. Water spinach removed all four nutrients more effectively than mustard green across every measured range (roughly 75–92% vs 67–81% depending on the nutrient), and the authors attribute this to water spinach’s root structure providing more surface area for microbial attachment, better trapping of suspended particles, and greater pollutant uptake capacity. The comparison is reported as statistically significant for water spinach’s reductions. Because only the title/abstract page of this paper is available in this vault (see Extraction notes), the system design, fish species, stocking details, trial duration, replication, water-quality trial means, and statistical methodology cannot be extracted — everything beyond the abstract’s own text is unknown to this note.
Experiment data
- Location: [not reported] (full text unavailable; author affiliations are Malaysian universities, see Extraction notes)
- Design: Two vegetable treatments compared for nutrient-removal efficiency in the same aquaponics recirculation system (ARS); [unclear] whether replicated across independent system units or across repeated sampling events within one system (methods unavailable)
- Replicates / n: [not reported]
- Duration: [not reported]
- Organisms: Ipomoea aquatica (water spinach) / Brassica juncea (mustard green); fish species [not reported]
- Statistics: abstract states water spinach “significantly” reduced nutrient concentrations; test name, software, and significance level [not reported]
- Nitrate-N removal: water spinach 79.17–87.10% vs mustard green 66.67–80.65% (p.1, abstract)
- Total ammonia nitrogen removal: water spinach 78.32–85.48% vs mustard green 69.0–75.85% (p.1, abstract)
- Nitrite-N removal: water spinach 82.93–92.22% vs mustard green 72.49–79.34% (p.1, abstract)
- Orthophosphate removal: water spinach 75.36–84.94% vs mustard green 66.79–77.87% (p.1, abstract)
Nutrient removal efficiency
This paper: Water spinach outperformed mustard green on every nutrient measured: TAN 78.32–85.48% vs 69.0–75.85%; nitrite-N 82.93–92.22% vs 72.49–79.34%; nitrate-N 79.17–87.10% vs 66.67–80.65%; orthophosphate 75.36–84.94% vs 66.79–77.87% (p.1, abstract). The authors attribute the difference to water spinach’s root architecture (more microbial attachment sites, better suspended-solid trapping, greater adsorption surface area, and higher uptake/assimilation capacity) rather than to any reported water-quality or system-design difference between the two treatments.
Compared with:
- todo Endut et al. 2010 — same author group’s earlier HRT-optimisation work pairing Ipomoea aquatica with Clarias gariepinus (African catfish) in Malaysia; already flagged as a citation to chase in other notes in this vault (
buzbyScalingAquaponicSystems2014.md,camargocastellanosSystemManagementLemna2022.md) (secondary reference — not confirmed whether this 2011 paper cites it, since the reference list is unavailable) - todo Endut et al. 2014 — same author group’s nitrogen-budget paper, already flagged as a citation to chase in
aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026.md
Linked claims
- Water spinach removes nutrients from aquaculture wastewater more effectively than mustard green
- Root structure influences nutrient removal efficiency in aquaponics
Citations to chase
- todo Endut et al. (2010) — HRT optimisation for Ipomoea aquatica with Clarias gariepinus, likely by the same author group; already sought by other notes in this vault
- todo Endut et al. (2014) — nitrogen budget in aquaponic recirculation systems, likely by the same author group; already sought by another note in this vault
Extraction notes
CRITICAL — incomplete source PDF: Enduta et al. - 2011 - Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater by ve.pdf contains only page 1 of the published article. The journal record (Desalination and Water Treatment 32 (2011), pp. 422–430) confirms this is a 9-page paper; pypdf confirms the file itself has exactly 1 page object, not a text-extraction failure on a longer file. This means Materials & Methods, Results (tables/figures), Discussion, Conclusion, and References are entirely absent from what could be extracted — this note is built from the title page and abstract only. Every field below marked [not reported] is not reported in the available page; it may well be present in the full paper. Recommend re-exporting the full PDF from Zotero (or the publisher) and re-running this extraction.
Type classification: experiment. The abstract states original data collection (“The study was conducted to evaluate aquaponics recirculation system (ARS) performance…”) with two defined treatments (water spinach vs mustard green), quantitative results with ranges (suggesting either replication or repeated sampling), and a stated significance claim. This satisfies SCHEMA.md’s primary-research test even though methods detail confirming replication/randomisation is unavailable. Per SCHEMA.md rule 5, “mixed”/uncertain typing does not apply here — nothing in the abstract suggests review or modelling framing.
Author surname discrepancy [unclear], not corrected: the PDF’s title page prints “A. Enduta*” — this is almost certainly the surname “Endut” with the superscript affiliation marker “a” concatenated onto it by PDF text extraction (compare “A. Jusohb”, “N. Alib”, “W.B. Wan Nikc” — every author name has its affiliation superscript letter fused on). However, both zotero-export.csv (Author: “Enduta, A.; Jusoh, A.; Ali, N.; Wan Nik, W.B.”) and the CrossRef record for this DOI (family name “Enduta”) independently give the same “Enduta” spelling. Per CLAUDE.md’s instruction to trust CrossRef/Zotero over the PDF, “Enduta” was used for the citekey and author field, even though other notes already in this vault cite this author group’s other papers as “Endut et al. 2010” / “Endut et al. 2014” (buzbyScalingAquaponicSystems2014.md, camargocastellanosSystemManagementLemna2022.md, aljenaidNutrientFilmTechnique2026.md, altawahaOptimizingNutrientAvailability2025.md). This is a ⚠️MINOR inconsistency risk for author-note linking (not a data contradiction) — flagging for manual harmonisation rather than silently “fixing” the metadata against two independent authoritative sources.
[not reported] fields (grouped):
- Fish species, fish stocking density, feed, survival, and all fish-performance metrics — not stated anywhere in the available page.
- All water-quality trial means (pH, DO, EC, temperature, TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N as concentrations) — the abstract reports only percent-removal efficiencies, never absolute concentrations.
- System design details: tank/bed volumes, water recycle rate, exchange rate, replication, trial duration, plant density, harvest timing, statistical test name.
- Location/site of the experiment — author affiliations (p.1) are Malaysian universities (University Sultan Zainal Abidin; University Malaysia Terengganu), but the paper’s own text does not state where the ARS itself was physically operated.
Meta/Region/Southeast-Asiatag applied on the basis of affiliation only; treat as a best-effort placeholder, not a confirmed trial location.
No ⚠️BLOCK / ⚠️MATERIAL / ⚠️CHECK contradictions found within the available text — there is only one page, and its own figures are internally consistent (each nutrient’s water-spinach range is uniformly higher than the corresponding mustard-green range, matching the abstract’s stated conclusion). quality: ok reflects zero contradictions found on the one page available, not a confidence rating on completeness — completeness is severely limited by the missing pages 2–9, as detailed above.
New tags introduced: Meta/Plant/Water-Spinach, Meta/Plant/Mustard-Green (new leaves; not to be confused with the existing Meta/Plant/Indian-Spinach tag used elsewhere in this vault, which refers to a different species, Basella alba). Meta/Region/Southeast-Asia (new leaf; existing region leaves are Africa, Europe, North-America, South-America, South-Asia, Middle-East, China, Global — none covers Malaysia).
No Meta/Fish/ tag applied — no fish species is named anywhere in the available text.
CSV rows: 2 rows produced in out/endutaNutrientRemovalAquaculture2011.trials.csv (T1 = water spinach, T2 = mustard green), since this is an experiment per SCHEMA.md. Nearly every column other than Plant, Author/Year/Paper ID/DOI/URL, Water type, System type, and the nutrient-removal remarks is NR, for the reasons above.
NO COLUMN items: percent nutrient-removal efficiencies for TAN, nitrite-N, nitrate-N, and orthophosphate (both treatments) have no dedicated column in trials.csv per SCHEMA.md (”% nutrient-removal figures with no dedicated column go to NO COLUMN”) and are recorded in each row’s Experimental Remarks.
plant.csv: 0 rows. The only quantitative results in the available text are water-chemistry nutrient-removal percentages, which SCHEMA.md explicitly routes to trials.csv, not plant.csv (“No water chemistry — route to trials.csv”). No plant-tissue biochemistry, mineral, microbiology, or proximate analyte was reported in the available page.
Source: Enduta et al. - 2011 - Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater by ve.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
endutaNutrientRemovalAquaculture2011-T1
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Aquaculture wastewater (p.1, abstract) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Aquaponics recirculation system (ARS) (p.1) |
| Combination | Aquaculture wastewater (fish species NR) and water spinach in aquaponics recirculation system (ARS); no hydroponic control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Southeast Asia |
| Country | Malaysia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Statistic Details | NR (abstract states results are “significant” but names no test) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T1 = water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) treatment in the same aquaponics recirculation system (ARS), compared against the paper’s other vegetable treatment (no hydroponic control in this design). | CRITICAL: source PDF in this vault contains only page 1 of a 9-page article (Desalination and Water Treatment 32(2011) pp.422-430); Methods, Results tables, Figures, Discussion, References are unavailable, so nearly every field below is NR for lack of source text, not because the paper itself omits it — re-extract once the full PDF is obtained. | NO COLUMN: percent nutrient-removal efficiencies (p.1, abstract) — TAN 78.32-85.48%, nitrite-N 82.93-92.22%, nitrate-N 79.17-87.10%, orthophosphate 75.36-84.94% (p.1, abstract) | Region/Country recorded from author affiliations on p.1 (University Sultan Zainal Abidin; University Malaysia Terengganu, both Malaysia) — the paper’s own text does not state where the ARS was physically operated (methods unavailable); treat as best-effort, not confirmed trial location.
endutaNutrientRemovalAquaculture2011-T2
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water type | Aquaculture wastewater (p.1, abstract) |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Mustard green (Brassica juncea) |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Aquaponics recirculation system (ARS) (p.1) |
| Combination | Aquaculture wastewater (fish species NR) and mustard green in aquaponics recirculation system (ARS); no hydroponic control |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Southeast Asia |
| Country | Malaysia |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Statistic Details | NR (abstract states results are “significant” but names no test) |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: T2 = mustard green (Brassica juncea) treatment in the same aquaponics recirculation system (ARS), compared against the paper’s other vegetable treatment (no hydroponic control in this design). | CRITICAL: source PDF in this vault contains only page 1 of a 9-page article (Desalination and Water Treatment 32(2011) pp.422-430); Methods, Results tables, Figures, Discussion, References are unavailable, so nearly every field below is NR for lack of source text, not because the paper itself omits it — re-extract once the full PDF is obtained. | NO COLUMN: percent nutrient-removal efficiencies (p.1, abstract) — TAN 69.0-75.85%, nitrite-N 72.49-79.34%, nitrate-N 66.67-80.65%, orthophosphate 66.79-77.87% (p.1, abstract) | Region/Country recorded from author affiliations on p.1 (University Sultan Zainal Abidin; University Malaysia Terengganu, both Malaysia) — the paper’s own text does not state where the ARS was physically operated (methods unavailable); treat as best-effort, not confirmed trial location.