- Email: [email protected]
marine aquaculture recirculation systems: A review” [J. Environ. Manag. 131 (2013) 44–54]
Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 394e395
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “Potentials and limitations of biomethane and phosphorus recovery from sludges of brackish/marine aquaculture recirculation systems: A review” [J. Environ. Manag. 131 (2013) 44e54] Xuedong Zhang*, Henri Spanjers, Jules B. van Lier Section Sanitary Engineering, Department of Water Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
a b s t r a c t This corrigendum is an erratum for a paper, titled “Potentials and limitations of biomethane and phosphorus recovery from sludges of brackish/marine aquaculture recirculation systems: A review” in Journal of Environmental Management. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Discussion The authors regret that the printed version of this abovementioned review paper contained a few errors. The corrections are as followed. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused to the readers of this paper. Upon careful evaluation of our paper, we recognized some errors following an incorrect pre-assumption on inocula used in the work of Mirzoyan et al., in 2008. Therefore, we would like to draw the editor's attention to this issue and request some corrections. While describing the effect of inocula on methanogenic activity, our paper states: “In the other two studies (Mirzoyan et al., 2008, 2010) and the study conducted by Luo et al. (2013), cow manure and digestate of a municipal sewage sludge digester were used as inocula to seed UASB reactors for the treatment of sludges from brackish RAS and to inoculate the ASBRs (Table 3), respectively. Obviously the inocula were not cultured
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.016. * Corresponding author. Present address: P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. Tel.: þ31 (0)15 27 81615. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (X. Zhang), H.L.F. [email protected] (H. Spanjers), [email protected] (J.B. van Lier). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.024 0301-4797/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
under conditions with high salinity levels. Furthermore, the operation duration was only 120 days (Mirzoyan et al., 2008), which likely is too short for proper adaptation to saline conditions.” And “Hence, the type of the inoculum and the used short adaptation times might be partially responsible for the rather low methane productions in AD of sludges with salinity levels, ranging between 6.4 and 12.7 g/L (Mirzoyan et al., 2008) (recalculated on the basis of electrical conductivity), 15e17 g/L (Tal et al., 2009), and 0e10.6 g/L (Luo et al., 2013)”. The error, as explained by Mirzoyan (personal communication, March 2014) is the following: Cow manure was never used as inocula and was not reported in either of the cited publications (2008, 2010), nor are any remarks on this topic found in any publication by Mirozyan. On the contrary, the manuscript by Mirzoyan et al. (2008), described preliminary data on methane production from brackish aquaculture sludge using a UASB reactor to support the sludge characterization data and to demonstrate the feasibility of anaerobic digestion to treat brackish aquaculture sludge. In personal communication, Mirzoyan explained that the reactors were started with brackish aquaculture sludge with no inocula additions, and a 4 month period was given to achieve acclimatization of methanogenic community and
X. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 394e395
stabilization of operation before the 120 day operational data was collected and reported. In the cited papers (Mirzoyan et al., 2008, 2010), no mention is made on cow manure use as inocula.
395
ranging from 15 to 17 g/L (Tal et al., 2009), and 0e10.6 g/L (Luo et al., 2013).” Erratum 3:
Table 3 Inoculum adopted in the studies on the disposal of sludge from brackish/marine RAS. Inoculum source
Biological reactor type
Experimental period (day)
Reference
An anaerobic digester originally seeded with a mixture of digested municipal sludge and cow manure An anaerobic digester fed with saline fish farming sludge with salinity of 35 g/L and operated for 4 months (Gebauer, 2004) 4 months incubation of brackish aquaculture sludge without addition of inoculuma e Sludge from a UASB running for 120 days (Mirzoyan et al., 2008) Digestate of a municipal sewage plant
CSTR
440
Gebauer (2004)
CSTR
155
Gebauer and Eikebrokk (2006)
UASB UASB UASB ASBR
120 131 335 165
Mirzoyan et al. (2008) Tal et al. (2009) Mirzoyan and Gross (2013) Luo et al. (2013)
e Not available. a This information was obtained via personal communication with the author (Mirzoyan, 2014) about the original study (Mirzoyan et al., 2008). The characteristics of the brackish aquaculture sludge are described in Table 1 of Mirzoyan et al. (2008).
In this corrigendum the amendments include: 1) rephrasing the aforementioned sentences and 2) rephrasing the second mentioned citations above, and 3) modification of Table 3. These amendments are based on the personal communication with Mirzoyan in March 2014. Erratum 1: “In the study (Mirzoyan et al., 2008), the reactors were started with brackish aquaculture sludge with no inocula additions and a 4 month period was given to achieve acclimatization of methanogenic community and stabilization of operation before the 120 day operational data was collected and reported (additional personal communication). Luo et al. (2013) used digestate of a municipal sewage plant as the inoculum of ASBRs, which was not cultured under condition with high salinity levels.” Erratum 2: “Hence, the type of the inoculum and the used short adaptation times might be partially responsible for the rather low methane productions in AD of sludges with salinity levels
References Gebauer, R., 2004. Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from saline fish farm effluents with biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 93 (2), 155e167. Gebauer, R., Eikebrokk, B., 2006. Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from salmon smolt hatching. Bioresour. Technol. 97 (18), 2389e2401. Luo, G., Li, P., Tan, H., Du, J., Liang, W., 2013. The start-up and saline adaptation of mesophilic anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treating sludge from recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacult. Eng. 54, 9e15. Mirzoyan, N., Tal, Y., Gross, A., 2010. Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive recirculating aquaculture systems: review. Aquaculture 306 (1e4), 10, 1e6. Mirzoyan, N., Parnes, S., Singer, A., Tal, Y., Sowers, K., Gross, A., 2008. Quality of brackish aquaculture sludge and its suitability for anaerobic digestion and methane production in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Aquaculture 279 (1e4), 35e41. Mirzoyan, N., Gross, A., 2013. Use of UASB reactors for brackish aquaculture sludge digestion under different conditions. Water Res. 47 (8), 2843e2850. Mirzoyan, N., 2014. Personal Communication. Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., Sowers, K.R., Stubblefield, J.D., Place, A.R., Zohar, Y., 2009. Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 286 (1e2), 28e35.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “Potentials and limitations of biomethane and phosphorus recovery from sludges of brackish/marine aquaculture recirculation systems: A review” [J. Environ. Manag. 131 (2013) 44e54] Xuedong Zhang*, Henri Spanjers, Jules B. van Lier Section Sanitary Engineering, Department of Water Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
a b s t r a c t This corrigendum is an erratum for a paper, titled “Potentials and limitations of biomethane and phosphorus recovery from sludges of brackish/marine aquaculture recirculation systems: A review” in Journal of Environmental Management. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Discussion The authors regret that the printed version of this abovementioned review paper contained a few errors. The corrections are as followed. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused to the readers of this paper. Upon careful evaluation of our paper, we recognized some errors following an incorrect pre-assumption on inocula used in the work of Mirzoyan et al., in 2008. Therefore, we would like to draw the editor's attention to this issue and request some corrections. While describing the effect of inocula on methanogenic activity, our paper states: “In the other two studies (Mirzoyan et al., 2008, 2010) and the study conducted by Luo et al. (2013), cow manure and digestate of a municipal sewage sludge digester were used as inocula to seed UASB reactors for the treatment of sludges from brackish RAS and to inoculate the ASBRs (Table 3), respectively. Obviously the inocula were not cultured
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.016. * Corresponding author. Present address: P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. Tel.: þ31 (0)15 27 81615. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (X. Zhang), H.L.F. [email protected] (H. Spanjers), [email protected] (J.B. van Lier). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.024 0301-4797/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
under conditions with high salinity levels. Furthermore, the operation duration was only 120 days (Mirzoyan et al., 2008), which likely is too short for proper adaptation to saline conditions.” And “Hence, the type of the inoculum and the used short adaptation times might be partially responsible for the rather low methane productions in AD of sludges with salinity levels, ranging between 6.4 and 12.7 g/L (Mirzoyan et al., 2008) (recalculated on the basis of electrical conductivity), 15e17 g/L (Tal et al., 2009), and 0e10.6 g/L (Luo et al., 2013)”. The error, as explained by Mirzoyan (personal communication, March 2014) is the following: Cow manure was never used as inocula and was not reported in either of the cited publications (2008, 2010), nor are any remarks on this topic found in any publication by Mirozyan. On the contrary, the manuscript by Mirzoyan et al. (2008), described preliminary data on methane production from brackish aquaculture sludge using a UASB reactor to support the sludge characterization data and to demonstrate the feasibility of anaerobic digestion to treat brackish aquaculture sludge. In personal communication, Mirzoyan explained that the reactors were started with brackish aquaculture sludge with no inocula additions, and a 4 month period was given to achieve acclimatization of methanogenic community and
X. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 145 (2014) 394e395
stabilization of operation before the 120 day operational data was collected and reported. In the cited papers (Mirzoyan et al., 2008, 2010), no mention is made on cow manure use as inocula.
395
ranging from 15 to 17 g/L (Tal et al., 2009), and 0e10.6 g/L (Luo et al., 2013).” Erratum 3:
Table 3 Inoculum adopted in the studies on the disposal of sludge from brackish/marine RAS. Inoculum source
Biological reactor type
Experimental period (day)
Reference
An anaerobic digester originally seeded with a mixture of digested municipal sludge and cow manure An anaerobic digester fed with saline fish farming sludge with salinity of 35 g/L and operated for 4 months (Gebauer, 2004) 4 months incubation of brackish aquaculture sludge without addition of inoculuma e Sludge from a UASB running for 120 days (Mirzoyan et al., 2008) Digestate of a municipal sewage plant
CSTR
440
Gebauer (2004)
CSTR
155
Gebauer and Eikebrokk (2006)
UASB UASB UASB ASBR
120 131 335 165
Mirzoyan et al. (2008) Tal et al. (2009) Mirzoyan and Gross (2013) Luo et al. (2013)
e Not available. a This information was obtained via personal communication with the author (Mirzoyan, 2014) about the original study (Mirzoyan et al., 2008). The characteristics of the brackish aquaculture sludge are described in Table 1 of Mirzoyan et al. (2008).
In this corrigendum the amendments include: 1) rephrasing the aforementioned sentences and 2) rephrasing the second mentioned citations above, and 3) modification of Table 3. These amendments are based on the personal communication with Mirzoyan in March 2014. Erratum 1: “In the study (Mirzoyan et al., 2008), the reactors were started with brackish aquaculture sludge with no inocula additions and a 4 month period was given to achieve acclimatization of methanogenic community and stabilization of operation before the 120 day operational data was collected and reported (additional personal communication). Luo et al. (2013) used digestate of a municipal sewage plant as the inoculum of ASBRs, which was not cultured under condition with high salinity levels.” Erratum 2: “Hence, the type of the inoculum and the used short adaptation times might be partially responsible for the rather low methane productions in AD of sludges with salinity levels
References Gebauer, R., 2004. Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from saline fish farm effluents with biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 93 (2), 155e167. Gebauer, R., Eikebrokk, B., 2006. Mesophilic anaerobic treatment of sludge from salmon smolt hatching. Bioresour. Technol. 97 (18), 2389e2401. Luo, G., Li, P., Tan, H., Du, J., Liang, W., 2013. The start-up and saline adaptation of mesophilic anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treating sludge from recirculating aquaculture systems. Aquacult. Eng. 54, 9e15. Mirzoyan, N., Tal, Y., Gross, A., 2010. Anaerobic digestion of sludge from intensive recirculating aquaculture systems: review. Aquaculture 306 (1e4), 10, 1e6. Mirzoyan, N., Parnes, S., Singer, A., Tal, Y., Sowers, K., Gross, A., 2008. Quality of brackish aquaculture sludge and its suitability for anaerobic digestion and methane production in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Aquaculture 279 (1e4), 35e41. Mirzoyan, N., Gross, A., 2013. Use of UASB reactors for brackish aquaculture sludge digestion under different conditions. Water Res. 47 (8), 2843e2850. Mirzoyan, N., 2014. Personal Communication. Tal, Y., Schreier, H.J., Sowers, K.R., Stubblefield, J.D., Place, A.R., Zohar, Y., 2009. Environmentally sustainable land-based marine aquaculture. Aquaculture 286 (1e2), 28e35.