J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 Journal of the Nigerian Society of Physical Sciences Methods for the Detection and Remediation of Ammonia from Aquaculture Effluent: A Review K. O. Sodeinde∗, S. A. Animashaun, H. O. Adubiaro Department of Chemistry, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, P.M.B. 373, Oye-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria Abstract Aquaculture practice is growing at an alarming rate in the world due to rising human population and improved agricultural activities. It is a very important sector that is contributing to the food security of various nations, generating employment and foreign exchange earnings for economic development. However, this practice produces large amount of ammonia based effluent thus threatening environmental sustainability. This review focused on the critical assessment of various physicochemical and biological treatments applied in the remediation of ammonia from aquaculture effluent. The physicochemical methods include mainly adsorption, photocatalytic and electrochemical degradation by different materials while the biological methods involve the use of plant biomass, animals and microorganisms. In addition, different detection methods of ammonia and environmental impact of climate change on aquaculture management system were discussed. DOI:10.46481/jnsps.2023.854 Keywords: Ammonia, Remediation, Biological and chemical methods, Aquaculture effluent Article History : Received: 07 June 2022 Received in revised form: 08 September 2022 Accepted for publication: 14 October 2022 Published: 08 December 2022 c© 2022 The Author(s). Published by the Nigerian Society of Physical Sciences under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Communicated by: N. A. A. Babarinde 1. Introduction Aquaculture is a systemic rearing of fish in a confined body of water such as tanks and ponds, where its development can be monitored and controlled [1]. It is the fastest growing food processing sector across the globe [2].With the projected world population estimates of 9.3 billion by the year 2050, it con- stitutes a critical agricultural sub-sector that can contribute to the food security of the world [2]. It also serves as a means of employment generation and foreign exchange earnings for economic development. However, aquaculture practices have ∗Corresponding author tel. no: +234 8147773137 Email address: kehinde.sodeinde@fuoye.edu.ng (K. O. Sodeinde) led to pollution of the environment, as some of the fish produc- ing factories and industries in Nigeria and other developing na- tions do release varying degrees of untreated wastewater from ponds into different water bodies which have therefore led to water pollution problem. Treatment of aquaculture wastewater is necessary for environmental protection, water. Conservation (via recirculation), human health, etc[3]. Aquaculture effluent can also serve as an important source of natural fertilizers, irri- gation, energy generation for domestic and industrial purposes [4-7]. Ammonia is one of the major constituents of aquaculture wastes, being the main product of excretion in fish. According to Lazzari and Baldisserotto [8], ammonia originates from the organic matter decomposition, excessive use of organic and in- organic fertilizers and death of phytoplankton. Ammonia pres- ence in the aquatic environment is always in two forms; ionized 1 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 2 and unionized forms. The increase in the level of un-ionized form of ammonia in water bodies leads to decrease in the rate of release of the compound in most aquatic organisms leading to prolonged accumulation in the blood tissues [9]. Furthermore, the increment in the presence of ammonia leads to defects in the aquatic organisms’ physiology and thus affect the osmoregula- tion, growth, oxygen transportation, excretion, and disease re- sistance in fish [9-10]. In order to increase the quality of water in aquaculture system, different detection and treatment meth- ods of ammonia in effluents needs to be fully understood.[11- 12]. Hence, this study aims at reviewing different methods for the detection and remediation of ammonia from aquaculture ef- fluents. It also assesses the environmental impact of climate change on aquaculture management system. 2. Environmental impacts of ammonia Ammonia is a colourless gaseous compound with elemental composition of nitrogen (N) and hydrogen (H) in the ratio 1:3. It usually serves as a precursor to some food additives and fer- tilizers. Ammonia dissolution in water formed ionized species called ammonium ion [13] i.e. N H3+ H2O→N H+4 + OH − 2.1. Effect on aquatic organisms Toxicity of ammonia results in severe losses in fish hatcheries. This can be due to the different tolerance levels among fish species [13]. Ammonia in its unionized form is harmful to some species of fish even at concentration as low as 0.05 mg/L which can cause poor feed conversion and growth rates, infertility, sus- ceptibility to diseases and bacterial infections [14]. In addition, exposure of fish to high concentration of am- monia may lead to hyperstability, equilibrium loss, uptake of oxygen, increased heart rate and other respiratory activity [13]. It also causes damage to tissue and gill, inactivity, convulsion, coma and finally death at concentration exceeding 2.0mg/L [15- 19]. Ionic imbalance is also an effect associated with high am- monium concentration in the fish blood [20]. 2.2. Eutrophication Eutrophication usually arises when a water body becomes too enriched with minerals and Nutrients (commonly ammo- nia and phosphorous) and thus inducing excessive algae growth and depletion of oxygen in the waterbody [21]. The processes involved can be broken down as follows: 1. excess nutrients accompanied the discharge of waste into the soil 2. nutrients leached to the soil, which is later drained to the waterbodies 3. the nutrients lead to excessive algal formation 4. the excessive algae formed inhibits the solar light from reaching the underground of the waterbody 5. the plants under the algae died due to their inability to photosynthesise 6. the algae also died and sinks into the underground part of the water 7. bacteria decompose the remains by consuming the avail- able oxygen through respiration 8. the decomposition leads to the depletion of oxygen in the water 9. the waterbodies can no longer support life again and thus fish and other larger organisms suffocate and die. Globally, countries have started proposing policies and pro- gramme to prevent and mitigate the effects of eutrophication in their aquatic environment. For instance, in Europe and Asia, efforts undertaken between 2010–2020 have resulted in the for- mulation of baseline guidelines on the urban wastewater treat- ment [22]. 2.3. Formation of toxins Continuous release of aquaculture effluents containing am- monia and some other pollutants into water bodies has been found to enhance the formation of certain harmful microorgan- isms like algae [23].The produced toxins can stay inside algal cells for long or released into the aquatic environment. Thus, animals present in such environment may be affected by ingest- ing the algal cells via drinking or feeding. The toxins could also be bioaccumulated and biomagnified through the food chains till it reaches toxic levels in some organisms and later consumed by man [24]. 2.4. Reduction in aesthetic value of the environment Discharge of aquaculture effluents into soils and surround- ing water lowers the aesthetic value of the environment. For in- stance, Akinrotimi et al. [25] reported the release ofn unpleas- ant odour caused by the presence of ammonia in the wastewa- ter from selected catfish farms within Port Harcourt metropo- lis, Nigeria. It was opined that the continuous release of such untreated effluents could result in major outbreak of epidemic diseases in the future if not abated. 3. Detection of ammonia in water and wastewater Over the years, several methods have been developed by researchers for the detection and quantitation of ammonia and ammonium ion in water and wastewater. These include nessler- ization, phenate, electrochemical, fluorometric methods, etc. 3.1. Nesslerization method This involves the reaction of alkaline solution of mercuric potassium iodide–K2HgI4 (Nessler’s reagent) with ammonia to give a coloured complex with concentration determined by UV/Vis spectrophotometry. Researchers have continued to improve on 2 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 3 this method with some modifications. Typical example was re- ported by Phansi et al. [26] wherein Nessler’s reagent was com- bined with a paper-based analytical device to determine lev- els of ammonia in fertilizers and wastewater by capturing the colour intensities and colour image through the camera and us- ing the Image-J program. Also, a computer camera could be used to detect the variation in colour of the wastewater upon the reaction of Nessler’s reagent and ammonia concentration could be calculated from the available data [27]. The advan- tages of this method are low cost and relative simplicity since it involves only one reagent. However, researchers have raised concern on the toxicity of the reagents and possible interference of the process by the presence of cations [28]. 3.2. Phenate method The phenate method is based on the reaction of phenol and hypochlorite with ammonium salt in a sample to form a blue coloured compound known as indophenol via addition of a cat- alyst (such as nitroprusside) and further analysis by UV-Visible spectrophotometer [29]. The phenate and modified phenate methods are the commonest spectrophotometric methods de- ployed in the determination of ammonium level [30-32]. The major challenge of this method is that phenol is odorous and toxic in nature. In the modified phenate method, phenol is re- placed with more environment friendly compounds such as sal- icylate, o-phenylphenol (OPP), etc [33-38]. However, the use of salicylate has not been satisfactory due to low sensitivity [39- 41]. 3.3. Ammonia Probe method This method involves the transfer of ammonia across a gas permeable membrane until the partial pressure in the thin film of the solution between the probe and the glass electrode mem- brane equals that of the sample solution. According to Evans and Partidge [42], a precision of 4% was achieved from the recoveries of repeated calibrations and added ammonia in the probe. The detection limit of 0·03mg/L was reported for am- monia levels above than 0·4mg/L. This method has been em- ployed to measure ammonia concentrations in different water samples. Its disadvantages include low detection limit, rela- tively high cost, etc. 3.4. Gas diffusion method In gas diffusion method, ammonium salt is converted to ammonia in a gas diffusion unit under alkaline conditions for removal of interferences in the samples. This is followed by the diffusion of ammonia gas into an acid-base indicator so- lution (such as Bromothymolblue) across a membrane whose absorbance can be determined spectrophotometrically [43-46]. Other pollutants such as nitrate, nitrite and phosphate can also be measured with this method [43]. Some of the merits of the method include moderate sensitivity, short analysis time, etc. 3.5. Fluorometric method Fluorometry is a rapid, simple and sensitive emission spec- troscopic method. It is based on the absorption of radiation at one wavelength and its emission at longer wavelength by flu- orophores. Fluorophores largely contain aromatic rings, con- jugated double bonds, etc. Fluorometric method was first re- ported by Roth [47] for amino acid determination. This pro- cess involved the reaction of amino acids in the sample with o- phthaldialdehyde (OPA) usually with the aid of a catalyst such as 2-mercaptoethanol in a basic medium to produce a strongly fluorescent compound. The modified procedure involved the use of sulphite instead of 2-mercaptoethanol which formed OPA- sulfite-ammonia which is more sensitive for the determination of ammonia than amino acids [48]. Furthermore, a modified OPA-based method involving integrated system of sequential injection analysis to ascertain ammonium levels has been uti- lized [49]. The method was enhanced by combining with an au- tomated micro-extraction template for pre-treatment [50]. Greater sensitivity was achieved when the system was incorporated with two independent microsyringe pumps in a gas-liquid extraction procedure which generated gaseous ammonia in the headspace of the first microsyringe while there is movement into the headspace of the second microsyringe [49]. The limit of detection (LOD) was 2.8 nM. Also, a pre-treatment method was used to trap am- monia present in sea water samples [51]. In this method, alkaline sample was introduced into purified argon to eject the ammonia from the solution into the gaseous phase and analysed with the OPA method. Recently, Cao and co-workers introduced a new approach by reacting benzylchlo- ride with ammonium and sodiumbicarbonate, where a new flu- orescent derivative was produced upon excitation and emission at 258 nm and 284 nm respectively [52]. The advantages of this method include low cost, high sensitivity, selectivity, relatively short analysis time, etc [53]. 3.6. Electrochemical methods Electrochemical methods depend on the measurement of the variations in the electrical properties (such as current, volt- age, conductance, resistance, etc) as a result of chemical in- teraction (redox) occurring at the electrode surface in the pres- ence of the analytes in a given matrix. Advantages of elec- trochemical methods are short analysis time, high efficiency, relatively low cost, etc [54-57]. Electrochemical methods that have been applied for ammonium determination include poten- tiometric, amperometric, voltammetric and conductivity meth- ods [57].The most widely utilized electrodes are the ammonium ion-selective (AIS) and nanomaterial-modified electrodes. AIS electrode involves a sensitive membrane comprising polyvinylchlo- ride (PVC) which can selectively respond to ammonium ions. A potential is developed by the membrane as the electrode is placed in an aqueous medium and thus selectively detect am- monium [58]. The last two decades have witnessed a paradigm shift towards the use of nanomaterials-modified electrodes due to their unique, tailorable electrical properties, large surface area to volume ratio, improved sensitivity, specificity and selec- tivity for the determination of analytes [59]. In nanomaterial- modified electrodes, modifications can be imparted through the 3 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 4 Figure 1. Schematic representation of methods for analyzing ammonia in water and wastewater designation of nano-functional materials with specific chemical properties on the electrode surface. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are one of such nanomaterials with the capacity to completely enhance the electrode response to ammonia. CNTs possess a high surface area and their composites could serve as suitable templates for advanced sensor design. Baciu et al [59] uti- lized silver-modified CNT (Ag-CNT) for electrochemical sens- ing of ammonium and nitrite ions in aqueous solution. Zhang et al [60] carried out electrode position of platinum nanoparti- cles on the surface of Ag/PPy-polypyrrole-Ni foam for the sen- sitive and selective detection of ammonia (LOD value of 37 nM).The result showed a significant left shift by the oxidation potential. The biosensor was found to be relatively stable and displayed reliable percentage recovery compared to Nessler’s method. The list of detection methods for ammonia in water and wastewater is shown in Figure 1. 4. Remediation of ammonia from aquaculture effluents The recirculation of wastewater depends on an effective and efficient means of treatment due to the various impacts of am- monia in the ecosystem. To maintain the quality of water, meth- ods such as biological, chemical, physical or combination of any two are applied for sustainable production of fish and other aquatic organisms [61].Important parameters usually consid- ered during the various treatment methods include temperature, pH, dosage, etc [62]. 4.1. Physical and chemical treatment In recent years, adsorption, photocatalytic degradation and electrochemical treatments have been the main physico-chemical methods employed for ammonia remediation in aquaculture ef- fluents. Adsorption is a surface phenomenon which involves the attachment of pollutants to the surface of the adsorbent. It is very important that the material to be used for adsorption should possess certain desirable properties such as inertness, cheap cost, eco-friendly, superficial area elevation and basic centres dispersed on the surface for adsorption of pollutants [9, 12]. Different materials that have been applied recently include clay, biochar, chitin, chitosan, composites, nanoparticles, etc (Figure 2). 4.1.1. Adsorption with clay Several clay materials have been studied for the adsorption of toxic substances from aquaculture wastewater. Examples in- Figure 2. Schematic representation of materials used for chemical treatment of ammonia from aquaculture effluent clude clinoptilolite, bentonite, zeolite, smectite, etc. For in- stance, Zadinelo et al. [9] studied the application of smectite clay for the adsorption of NH4+ from aquaculture effluent. The contact time of the smectite clay in the effluent did not lead to an appreciable increment on the adsorption of NH4+ within 1min to 3 h range. 94% ammonia removal with little concen- tration of dry clay was achieved [9]. Dryden and Weatherley [63] applied clinoptilolite and natural dry clay for the adsorp- tion of NH4+ from aquaculture effluent. The removal efficiency of 98% and 92% respectively were obtained. Furthermore, the presence of other cations is also a major factor influencing the removal of NH4+. The selectivity of clinoptilolite for differ- ent cations is in the sequence: K+>NH4+>Ca2+>Mg2+ [64,65]. Thus, from literature survey, the presence of K+ affected the ex- change of NH4+ in clinoptilolite with remarkable reduction in the exchange capacity of zeolites in a synthetic effluent exper- iments of NH4+: K+in1:1 [66]. Also, Sarioglu [67] observed the selectivity of zeolites for different cations according to this sequence: K+>NH4+>Na+>Ca2+>Fe3+>Al3+>Mg2+. Similar pattern was reported by Dontsova et al.[68] using bentonite clays. The parameters influencing the removal of NH4+ ion with clay in the wastewater included dosage, other cations in the solution, etc. 4.1.2. Adsorption with biochar Biochar synthesized from rice straw was examined for its potential use for ammonium adsorption from aquaculture ef- fluent [69]. Removal efficiency was strongly affected by pH, adsorbent concentration, modification methods of rice straw. Maximum ammonium removal efficiency was achieved at neu- tral pH. 4.1.3. Adsorption with chitin and chitosan Chitin is one of the most abundant polymers in nature which is the building material for exoskeletons of insects, crustaceans and can be converted to chitosan through chemical deacety- lation process [70]. Bernardi et al. [70] studied the adsorp- tion efficiency of chitin and chitosan from various sources for the treatment of ammonia from natural aquaculture and syn- thetic effluents. Chitosan sources include freshwater and ma- rine shrimps, three different commercial chitosan and labora- 4 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 5 tory synthesized chitosan. Commercial chitosan1and 2 gave 100% efficiency for ammonia removal from synthetic effluent whereas none of chitin sources were efficient in ammonia treat- ment from synthetic effluent. 4.1.4. Electrochemical treatment Electrochemical wastewater treatment involves the applica- tion of electric field between electrodes to decontaminate tox- icants found in effluents via redox processes. Monica et al. [71] pioneered the application of electrochemical treatment for the removal of ammonium and organic pollutants in effluents mixed with seawater. Its advantages include high efficiency, versatility, little sludge generation, etc [72-73]. Electrochemi- cal oxidation of ammonium and organic substrates can be car- ried out via direct or indirect anodic oxidation methods. In the former, adsorbed hydroxyl radicals are involved in the oxida- tion of organic compounds [74-75]. Marinerc et al. [76] con- ducted a direct electro-oxidation of ammonium on a platinum plated anode and a titanium-plated anode. The direct electro- oxidation of nammonium was reported to be more favourable. In the case of the in direct method, anodically-generated oxidiz- ing agents were added into the wastewater to degrade organic and inorganic pollutant [77-78]. The in-situ electro-generation enhanced the degradation efficiency. Mao et al. [79] devel- oped a chlorine mediated reactive barrier comprising inert elec- trodes for ammonia contaminated groundwater remediation ex- periment in a batch scale. Findings revealed that ammonia in the groundwater could be readily converted into a more desirable nitrogen. Higher am- monia removal efficiency was achieved at higher current densi- ties and bicarbonate concentrations. In general, the overall effi- ciency of the electrochemical treatment is influenced by param- eters such as pH, current density, electric voltage applied and the nature of electrode material used [80-83]. The nature of the anodic material and electric voltage applied are the most critical parameters determining the overall cost and optimum removal efficiency of an electrochemical treatment process. Some of the drawbacks of this method include high cost, high energy con- sumption, instability and poor electrocatalytic activities in the long term, etc [84]. 4.1.5. Photocatalytic degradation through nanocomposites Photocatalysis; one of the forms of advanced oxidation pro- cesses (AOPs), involves the interaction between radiation and a solid semiconductor in an aqueous medium. Nanomateri- als have been reported as excellent photocatalysts for degrada- tion of toxicants [85]. Nanocomposites exhibit excellent ther- mal, electrical, mechanical properties. Also, they possess large surface area, efficient charge transportation and separation, etc [86]. Nanocomposites involve the fabrication or synthesis of ma- terials from two or more different constituent materials on a nanoscale to enhance their properties and functionality. Due to low efficiency of chitin towards the remediation of ammo- nia from aquaculture effluents [70], chitin/ZnO nanocomposite photocatalyst powder was fabricated by Lin et al [56] through sol-gel method for treatment of ammonia from aquaculture ef- fluent under ultraviolet irradiation. Factors affecting the degradation process include dosage, temperature of calcination, mass ratio rate, initial concentration of ammonia and conditions of illumination. 88.64% removal efficiency was achieved using 0.5g/L chitin/ZnO(2:3) photocat- alyst at irradiation time of 2 h and 500 ◦C calcinations tem- perature. Yu et al. [87] synthesized and treated ammonia with TiO2/carbonfibre (CF) nanocomposite, TiO2 and carbon fibre photocatalysts from aquaculture wastewater. Parameters such as dosage, calcination temperature of the adsorbent, etc, were studied. The best conditions for ammonia treatment were 2.0g/L dosage for TiO2/CF, calcinations temperature of 600◦C, initial ammonia concentration was 30 mg/L at illumination time of 1 h and H2O2 concentration of 0.8g/L. The results showed that the composite (TiO2/CF) was most effective compared with CF or TiO2 alone for ammonia treatment. 4.2. Removal of ammonia through biological treatment Treatment of wastewater through biological processes usu- ally involves the conversion of ammonia and nitrate by mi- crobes to nitrogen gas. This is a modern, cost effective method for ammonia treatment which readily converts it into nitrogen gas [62] i.e NH4+ + NO3− → N2+ 2H2O However, biological treatment is usually time consuming as some of the process involves longer period of time spanning weeks and months before the treatment can be achieved. The schematic representation for the various biological methods is shown in Figure 3. 4.2.1. Natural biodegradation in anaerobic continuous flow sys- tem Ching and Redzwan [88] studied the effect of concentration of salt (NaCl) in natural biodegradation of ammonia in aqua- culture effluent in an aerobic continuous flow system. The am- monia removal efficiency reduced as the dilution fold of the aquaculture effluent increased. Optimum % ammonia removal efficiency was obtained af- ter 10 days. This procedure is suitable for small scale aqua- culture wastewater treatment. The treatment method produced an odourless effluent which can be reused as an eco-friendly fertilizer because the main constituents are known organic sub- stances which are non-toxic or carcinogenic. Further experi- ments should involve the impacts on the plants, soil, the dif- ferent yields of the crops through irrigation with different salt content and application in a large scale fish processing indus- tries [88]. 4.2.2. Remediation with microorganisms Studies have shown that microalgae are excellent bioreme- diators for effluents treatment with high nutrient concentrations [89]. Lananan and co-workers [89] reported the remediation of ammonia and phosphorous from aquaculture effluent through symbiotic process by using Effective Microorganism (EM) and 5 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 6 Figure 3. Schematic representation of various biological methods for the treat- ment of ammonia microalgae of Chlorella specie. The treatment of aquaculture effluent was performed in batch scale comprising working vol- ume of 2 L and treatment period of 14 days.Total ammonia present was almost removed from the aquaculture after the ini- tial 7 days. Batch scale experimental data yielded varying in- oculation concentrations of bioremediators and retention time which can be used in the advancement of aquaculture effluent treatment in a continuous process for real effluent application. Omitoyin et al. [90] studied the application of duckweed and microorganism (Bacillus species) in the removal of cer- tain pollutants in aquaculture effluent. The measured total sus- pended solid, biochemical oxygen demand, total ammonia ni- trogen (TAN) and phosphate were above the permissible limits of wastewater discharge into surface water according to WHO standard [91]. The result of the remediation process showed that the Bacillus sp. has the highest removal efficiency for am- monia. The duckweed is effective for toxic organic waste re- moval for aquaculture effluent. The duckweed technology is simpler and more cost effective than Bacillus specie which re- quired expertise for its isolation, identification, mass produc- tion, application and only effective in ammonia, nitrite and phos- phate removal from wastewater. 4.2.3. Filters Trickling filter is the main type of filter that has been em- ployed for ammonia remediation. It consists of a fixed bed from which filtered effluents flow down over anaerobic biofilm. Im- portant factors considered during filter selection include water- flow, surface area, etc [92]. Lekang and Kleppe [93] investi- gated different filter media such as Kaldnes rings, Norton rings and a rolled mat of Finturf artificial grass in the treatment of ammonia. The Leca filter gave the highest denitrification rate of 100% because it has longer retention times and larger surface area. The specific surface area indicates the surface required in homogenous water flow and biofilm growth. Disadvantages of this method include clogging and biofilm shedding, high pro- duction cost, etc [94-96]. 4.2.4. Fluidized bed reactor Fluidized bed reactor is known to be a solution to clogging problems peculiar to trickling filters. It is an efficient method to remove dissolved solids and wastes from aquaculture recircu- lating systems when compared to bed and trickling filters [97]. The size of the particle is an important factor influencing the treatment process [98].The performance of this system is being affected by the type of medium. Davidson et al. [99] studied the removal of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and other pol- lutants from effluent using two sand sizes. 88% efficiency for TAN removal was obtained from 0.11mm sand size. Schnel et al. [100] investigated the use of different filters comprising polyvinylchloride strips and fixed particle sand for TAN removal. The efficiency of the whole process for total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) was 65.21%. Recently, much atten- tion has been focused on the integration of fungal bioreactors into the wastewater treatment plants [101-102]. In particular, a microbial membrane bioreactor was designed to study the removal efficiency of ammonia and some other pollutants in marine aquaculture wastewater. 85% ammoniacal nitrogen re- moval efficiency was achieved after 40days [103]. Dalecka et al. [104] conducted a batch scale experiments and compared it with bioreactor with the use of T. versicolor and A. luchuen- sis for non-sterile municipal wastewater and the effect of pH on NH4-N. The results in the fluidized bed bioreactor gave con- trasting performance regarding ammonia removal relative to a batch experiment where no major change on NH4-N reduction was observed. The fluidized bed bioreactor and batch scale ex- periments revealed a good starting point towards the optimiza- tion of fungal treatment application in wastewater. However, further development and optimization of fluidized bioreactor using fungi and other microorganisms should be studied [104]. 4.2.5. Wetlands Wetlands can be categorized into natural and constructed wetlands. Natural wetlands have been applied to remove mi- croorganisms, phosphorous, nitrogen, trace elements and sus- pended. Solids contained in effluents [105]. Constructed wet- lands which are also referred to as artificial wetlands have re- placed the loss of natural wetlands in the treatment of agricul- tural, municipal and industrial effluents. Generally, major types of constructed waste water wetlands viz: surface flow (SF), and sub-surface flow (SSF) systems [106-108] have been applied for effluent treatment to minimise pollution. Lin et al.[109] re- ported a combination of subsurface and surface wetlands for the treatment of phosphorus and nitrate from aquaculture effluents. The removal efficiency of 82-99% was achieved for nitrate. Currently, hybrid reed bed constructed wetlands (HRBCW) is gaining more recognition due to their higher removal effi- ciencies as secondary and tertiary treatment of domestic waste waters [110]. Jehawi and co-workers [111] constructed a Scir- pus grossus-planted HRBCWsystem to treat some pollutants in a domestic waste water. The result showed that significant higher performance was observed with 84.7% ammoniacal ni- trogen removal efficiency while the unplanted system recorded 74.8% efficiency. The advantages of constructed wetlands are 6 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 7 in its cost and removal effectiveness, lesser skilled labour but required large surface area land for construction [96]. 4.3. Importance of waste water remediation towards environ- mental sustainability Waste water treatment, reuse, and safe disposal have gotten application for industrial, agricultural, recreational purposes, drinking water supplies, energy generation and thus becoming crucial in mitigating the effects of climate change and envi- ronmental sustainability. Climate change mitigation which is geared towards environmental sustainability involves actions to be taken to minimize the effects of global warming by reduc- ing human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) [112]. The combustion of fossil fuel is responsible for most carbondioxide and GHG emissions [112]. It is therefore necessary to reduce or stop the use of constituents from petroleum and coal by re- placing them with eco-friendly energy sources. One of the best ways to achieving this is proper utilization of water resources for power generation. Furthermore, urbanization and intensive agricultural prac- tices have led to an increase in abandoned farmland [113-114]. Desertification can be described as the major environmental challenge of our time. It has led to temporary or permanent reduction in quality of soil, vegetation, water resources, live- stock and wildlife and therefore threatening food security and livelihood of man. This usually arises from inadequate potable water for grazing purpose and thus, cattle are made to move outside their ranches in search of food which usually result in the destruction of vegetation. All efforts are therefore needed to ensure generation of good water and recycling of wastewater towards environmental sustainability. 5. Future outlook and conclusion Several chemical pollutants are found in a typical aquacul- ture effluent, ammonia being the major pollutant with high en- vironmental impacts. Various detection techniques as well as remediation methods are reported for ammonia in effluents. Bi- ological methods are highly recommended for ammonia treat- ment in terms of cost effectiveness and environmental concerns. However, the biological methods are relatively slower compared to the chemical treatments. Generally, technologies have been recently developed towards the use of chemical methods that are cheap and environment friendly to overcome the challenges inherent in the biological treatment methods. Among the vari- ous chemical methods, application of micro and nanomaterials for wastewater treatment is increasing due to very high global demand for freshwater. Nanotechnology has proven to be a re- markable success in the detection and remediation of ammo- nia due to relatively larger surface area and improved physico- chemical properties. However, nanomaterials might have the potential risk of leaching into the treated water mainly during application, thereby leading to penetration of the living system through endothelial and epithelial barriers into the blood, lymph and ultimately to various tissues and organs where severe dam- age could be done. Therefore, future emphasis should be placed on the investi- gation of the safety of nanomaterials applied for ammonia de- tection and remediation. Also, greener and economically sus- tainable synthesis routes for nanomaterials should be explored to reduce cost and improve accessibility. References [1] A. A. Adewumi, “Aquaculture in Nigeria: Sustainability issues and chal- lenges. Prospects and Problems”, African Journal of Agricultural Re- search,(2015) 1281. [2] M. Clark & D. Tilman, “Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency and food choice”, Environ Res Lett 12 (2017) 064016. [3] H. M. Amir, A. Vali & R. Leila, “Atmospheric moisture condensation to water recovery by home airconditioners”, Am. J. Appl.Sci.10 (2013) 917. [4] K. Manickavelan, S. Ahmed, K. Mithun, P. Sathish, R. Rajasekaran & N. Sellappan, “A review on transforming plastic wastes into fuel”, J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 4 (2022) 64. [5] E. O. Igbinosa & A. I. Okoh, “Impact of discharge wastewater effluents on the physicochemical qualities of a receiving watershed in a typical rural community”, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 6 (2009) 175. [6] M. Abbasi, G. Moussavi & A. Azhdarpoor, “Degradation of organic matter of municipal sewage sludge using ultrasound treatment in Shiraz wastewater treatment plant”, Health Scope 4 (2015) e23507. [7] N. A. Andreas & A. S. Shane, “Wastewater treatment and reuse: past, present,and future”, Water 7 (2015) 4887. [8] R. Lazzari & B. Baldisserotto, “Nitrogen and phosphorus waste in fish farming”, B. Inst Pesca 34 (2008) 591. [9] I. V. Zadinelo, H. J. Alves, A. Moesch, L. M. S. Colpini, L. C. Rosa da Silva & L. D. Santos, :”Influence of the chemical composition of smec- tites on the removal of ammonium ion from aquaculture effluents”, J. Mater Sci. 50 (2015) 1865. [10] R. P. Trussel, “The percent un-ionized ammonia in aqueous ammonia so- lutions at different pH levels and temperatures” J. Fish Res Board Can. 29 (1972) 10. [11] S. Sharma, “Bioremediation features, strategies and applications”, Asian Journal of pharmacy and Life Science 2(2012) 202. [12] K. O. Sodeinde, S. O. Olusanya, D. U. Momodu, V. F. Enogheghase & O. S. Lawal, “Waste glass: An excellent adsorbent for crystal violet dye, Pb2+ and Cd2+ heavy metal ions decontamination from wastewater”, J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 3 (2021) 414. [13] E. Hendriarianti, K. Kustamar, S. Sudiro & A. Wulandari, “Self purifica- tion performance of Brantas riverine east Java from ammonia deoxygera- tion rate”, Int. J. of Civil Eng and Tech 9 (2018) 95. [14] R. P. Trussel, “The percent unionized ammonia in aqueous ammonia so- lution at different pH levels and temperature”, J. Fish Res. Board Can. 29 (1972) 1505. [15] C.Sergeant, “The management of ammonia levels in an aquaculture envi- ronment”, Water/Wastewater 2014 www.pollution.solutions-online.com [16] D. J. Randall & T. K. N. Tsui, “Ammonia toxicity in fish”, Mar. Pollut Bull. 45 (2002) 17. [17] J. Green, R. Handy and E. Brannon, “Effects of dietary phosphorous and lipid levels on utilization and excretion of phosphorus and nitrogen by rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss)”, Aquaculture Nutrition 8 (2002) 291. [18] A. Brinker, “Improving the mechanical characteristics of faecal waste in rainbow trout: the influence of fish size and treatment with a non-starch polysaccharide”, Aquaculture Nutrition 15 (2009) 229. [19] C. Wang, T. Wang, Z. Li, X. Xu, X. Zhang & D. Li, “An electrochemical enzyme Biosensor for ammonium detection in aquaculture using screen- printed electrode modified by gold nanoparticle/polymethylene blue”, Biosensors 11 (2022) 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios11090335 [20] I. D. Twitches & E. B. Eddy, “Sublethal effects of ammonia on freshwa- ter fish” (ed by R. Muller and R. Lloyd), fishing News Book. Blackwell Science, Oxford, London, (1994) 135. [21] D. D. Loch, J. L. West & D. G. Pealmuttes, “The effect of trout farm effluent on the taxa richness of benthic macro invertebrates”, Aquaculture 147 (1996) 37. 7 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 8 [22] EEA https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/exposure-of- ecosystems-To acidification-14/assessment-2 (2020). [23] D. P. Burea & K. Hua, “Towards effective nutritional management of waste outputs in aquaculture with particular reference to salmonid aqua- culture operations”, Aquaculture Research 41 (2010) 777. [24] J. A. Camargo & A. Alonso, “Ecological and toxicological effects of in- organic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystem: a global assessment”, Environment International 21 (2006) 110. [25] O. A. Akinrotimi, O. M. G. Abu, I. F. Ibemere & C. A. Opara, “Economic viability and marketing strategies of periwinkle Tympanotonus fuscatus in Rivers State, Nigeria”, International Journal of Tropical Agriculture and Food systems 3 (2009) 238. [26] P. Phansi, S. Sumantakul, T. Wongpakdee, N. Fukana, N. Ratanawimarn- wong, J. Sitanurak & D. Nacapricha, “Membraneless gas-separation mi- crofluidic paper-based analytical devices for direct quantitation of volatile and non-volatile compounds”, Anal. Chem. 88 (2016) 8749. [27] X. Bao, S. Liu, W. Song & H. Gao, “Using a PC camera to determine the concentration of nitrite, ammonia nitrogen, sulfide, phosphate, and copper in water”, Anal.Methods 10 (2018) 2096. [28] L. Zhou & C. E. Boyd, “Comparison of Nessler, phenate, salicylate and ion selective electrode procedures for determination of total ammonia ni- trogen in aquaculture”, Aquaculture 450 (2016) 187. [29] P. L. Searle,“ The Berthelot or indophenol reaction and its use in the ana- lytical chemistry of nitrogen”, Analyst 109 (1984) 549. [30] A. Aminot, D. S. Kirkwood & R. Kérouel, “Determination of ammo- nia in seawater by the indophenol-blue method: Evaluation of the ICES- NUTSI/C5questionnaire”, Mar. Chem. 56 (1997) 59. [31] Y. Zhu, D. Yuan, Y. Huang, J. Ma, S. Feng & K. Lin, “A modified method for on-line determination of trace ammonium in seawater with along-path liquid waveguide capillary cell and spectrophotometric detection”, Mar. Chem. 162 (2014) 114. [32] T. Kodama, T. Ichikawa, K. Hidaka, K. Furuya, “A highly sensitive and large concentration range colorimetric continuous flow analysis for am- monium concentration”, J. Oceanography 71 (2015) 65. [33] D. Cogan, J. Cleary, C. Fay, A. Rickard, K. Jankowski, T. Phelan, M. Bowkett & D. Diamond, “The development of an autonomous sensing platform for the monitoring of ammonia in water using a simplified Berth- elot method”, Anal. Methods 19 (2014) 7606. [34] N. Kaewwonglom & J. Jakmunee,“Sequential injection system with multi-parameter analysis capability for water quality measurement”, Ta- lanta 144 (2015) 755. [35] K. Inui, H. Yoshida, M. Takeuchi & H. Tanaka, “Application of air sege- mentedamplitude modulated multiplexed flow analysis with software- based phase recognition to the determination of ammonium ion in water samples”, J. Flow Injection Anal. 32 (2015) 5. [36] H. S. Ruppersberg, M. R. Goebel, S. I. Kleinert, D. Wünsch, K. Trautwein & R. Rabus, “Photometric detrermination of ammonium and phosphate in seawater medium using a microplate reader”, J. Mol. Microb. Biotech. 27 (2017) 73. [37] Y. B. Cho, S. H. Jeong, H. Chun & Y. S. Kim, “Selective colorimet- ric detection of dissolved ammonia in water via modified Berthelot’s re- action on porous paper”, Sens. Actuators B 256 (2018) 167– 175. doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2017.10.069 [38] W. Khongpet, S. Pencharee, C. Puangpila, S. K. Hartwell, S. La- panantnoppakhun & J. Jakmunee, “A compact hydrodynamic sequential injection system for consecutive on-line determination of phosphate and ammonium”, Microchem. J. 147 (2019) 403. [39] F. Hashihama, J. Kanda, A.Tauchi,T. Kodama, H. Saito & K. Fu- ruya,“Liquid waveguide spectrophotometric measurement of nanomo- lar ammonium in seawater based on the indophenol reaction with o- phenylphenol (OPP)”,Talanta 143 (2015) 374. [40] K. Lin, P. Li, Q. Wu, S. Feng, J. Ma & D. Yuan, “Automated determina- tion of ammonium in natural waters with reverse flow injection analysis based on the indophenols blue method with o-phenylphenol”,Microchem. J. 138 (2018) 519. [41] J. Ma, P. Li, K. Lin, Z. Chen, N. Chen, K. Liao & D. Yuan, “Optimiza- tion of a salinity-interference-free indophenols method for the determina- tion of ammonium in natural waters using o-phenylphenol”, Talanta 179 (2018) 608. [42] W. H. Evans & B. F. Partridge, “Determination of ammonia levels in water and wastewater with an ammonia probe”,,Analyst 99 (1974) 367. [43] R. B. R. Mesquita, A. Machado, I. C. Santos, A. A. Bordalo & A.O.S. Rangel, “Seasonal monitoring of inland bathing waters using a sequential injection method as a fast and effective tool for nutrient quantification (N:P)”, Anal.Methods 8 (2016) 1973 [44] Z. Zhu, J. J. Lu, M. I. G. Almeida, Q. Pu, S. D. Kolev & S. Liu, “A mi- crofabricated electro-osmotic pump coupled to a gas-diffusion microchip for flow injection analysis of ammonia”, Microchimica Acta 182 (2015) 1063. [45] L. O. Šraj, M. I. G. Almeida, I. D. McKelvie & S.D. Kolev, “De- termination of trace levels of ammonia in marine waters using a sim- ple environmentally-friendly ammonia (SEA) analyser”, Mar.Chem. 194 (2017) 133. [46] T. Sukaram, P. Sirisakwisut, J. Sirirak, D. Nacapricha & S. Chaneam, “Environmentally friendly method for determination of ammonia nitrogen in fertilizers and wastewaters based on flow injection- spectrophotometric detection using natural reagent from orchid flower”, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 98 (2018) 907. [47] M. Roth, “Fluorescence reaction for amino acids”, Anal. Chem. 43 (1971) 880. [48] Z. Genfa & P. K. Dasgupta, “Fluorometric measurement of aqueous am- monium ion in a flow injection system”, Anal. Chem. 61 (1989) 408198. [49] G. Giakisikli, E.Trikas, M. Petala, T. Karapantsios, G. Zachariadis & A. Anthemidis, “An integrated sequential injection analysis system for am- monium determination in recycled hygiene and potable water samples for future use in manned space missions”, Microchem. J. 133 (2017) 490. [50] G. Giakisikli & A. N. Anthemidis, “Automatic pressure-assisted dual- headspace gas-liquid microextraction.Lab-in-syringe platform for mem- braneless gas separation of ammonia coupled with fluorometric sequen- tial injection analysis”, Anal. Chim. Acta 1033 (2018) 73. [51] Y. Zhu, D. Yuan, H. Lin &T. Zhou, “Determination of ammonium in sea water by purge-and-trap and flow injection with fluorescence detection”, Anal. Lett. 49 (2016) 665. [52] G. Cao, Y. Su, Y. Zhuang & J. Lu, “A new fluorescence method for deter- mination of ammonium nitrogen in aquatic environment using derivatiza- tion with benzyl chloride”, J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 27(2016) 950. [53] A. Bose, I. Thomas, G. Kavitha & E. Abraham, “Fluorescence spec- troscopy and its applications”, International Journal of Advances in Phar- maceutical Analysis 8 (2018) 1. [54] J. Ping, J. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Ying, “Simultaneous determination of ascor- bic acid, Dopamine and uric acid Using high-performance screen-printed grapheme electrode”, Biosens. Bioelectron 34 (2012) 70. [55] Y. Yao, H. Wu & J. Ping, “Simultaneous determination of Cd(II) and Pb(II) ions in honey and milk samples using a single-walled carbon nanohorns modified screen-printed electrochemical sensor”, FoodChem. 274 (2019) 8. [56] K. Lin, Y. Zhu, Y. Zhang & H. Lin, “Determination of ammonia nitrogen in natural waters:Recent advances and applications”, Trends in Environ- mental Analytical Chemistry 24 (2019) e00073. [57] D. Li., T. Wang, Z. Li, X. Xu, C. Wang & Y. Duan, “Application of graphene-based materials for detection of nitrate and nitrite in water— A review”.Sensors 20 (2020) 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20010054 [58] D. Li, X. Xu, Z. Li, T. Wang & C. Wang,“Detection methods of ammonia nitrogen in water: A review”, Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 115890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2020.11589010.1016/j.trac.2020.115890 [59] A. Baciu, F. Manea, A.Pop, R. Pode & J. Schoonman, “Si- multaneous voltammetric Detection of ammonium and nitrite from ground water at silver electrode corated Carbon nanotube electrode”, Process Saf. Environ. Protect.108 (2017) 18e25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2016.05.006. [60] L. Zhang, J. Liu, X. Peng, Q. Cui, D. He, C. Zhao & H. Suo, “Fabri- cation of a Ni foam-supported platinum nanoparticles-silver/polypyrrole electrode for aqueous ammonia sensing”, Synth.Met .259 (2020) 116257. [61] F. Kubitza, “Sistemas de recirculacion: sistemas fechados comtratamen- toe reusodaagua”, Panorama da Aquicultura 16 (2006) 15. [62] B. Sheela & S. K. Khasim Beebi, “Bioremediation of ammonia from pol- luted waste waters: a review”, American Journal of Microbiological Re- search 26 (2014) 201. [63] H. T. Dryden & L. R. Weatherley, “Aquaculture water treatment by ion exchange: continuous ammonium ion removal with clinoptilolite”.Rev Aquac Eng 8 (2015) 109. [64] A. Alshameri, C. Yan, Y. Al-Ani, A. S. Dawood, A. Ibrahim, C. Zhou 8 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 9 & H. Wang, “An Investigation into the adsorption removal of ammonium by salt activated Chinese (Hulaodu) natural zeolite: kinetics, isotherms and thermodynamics”. J. Tawainian Inst Chem Eng. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jtice.2013.05.008 [65] M. M. Higarashi, A. Kunz & R. M.Mattei, “Adsorption applied to the re- moval of ammonia from pre-treated piggery wastewater”, Quimica Nova 31 (2008) 1156. [66] A. Farkas, M. Rozic & Z. Barbaric-Mikocevic, “Ammonium exchange in leakage waters of waste dumps using natural zeolite from the Krapina region”, Croat J. Hazard Mater .117 (2005) 25. [67] M. Sarioglu, “Removal of ammonium from municipal wastewater using natural Turkish (Dogantepe) zeolite”, Sep. Purif. Technol. 41(2005) 1. [68] K. M. Dontsova, D. Norton & C. T. Johnston, “Calcium and magnesium effects on ammonia adsorption by soil”, Soil Sci Soc Am J. 69(2005) 1225–1232. [69] A. Khalil, N. Sergeevich & V. Borisova, “Removal of ammonium from fish farms by biochar obtained from rice straw: Isotherm and kinetic stud- ies for ammonium adsorption”, Adsorption Science & Technology (2018) 1. [70] F. Bernardi, I.V. Zadinelo, H. JoséAlves, F. Meurera & L.D. Santos, “Chitins and chitosans for the removal of total ammonia of aquaculture effluents”, Aquaculture 483 (2018) 203. [71] D. M. Monica, A. Agostiano & A. J. Ceglie, “An electrochemical sewage treatment process”, Appl. Electrochem. 10 (1980) 527. [72] L. Li & Y. J. Liu, “Ammonia removal in electrochemical oxidation: Mechanism and pseudo-kinetics”, Hazard.Mater. 161 (2009) 1010. [73] B. P. Dash & S. Chaudhari, “Electrochemical denitrification of simulated groundwater”, WaterRes. 39 (2005) 4065. [74] C. A. Martinez-Huitle & S. Ferro, “Electrochemical oxidation of organic pollutants for the wastewater treatment: direct and indirect processes” Chem. Soc. Rev. 35 (2006) 1324. [75] C. Comninellis, “Electrocatalysis in the electrochemical conver- sion/combustion of Organic pollutants for wastewater treatment”, Elec- trochim. Acta 39 (1994) 1857. [76] L. Marinec & F. B. Leitz, “Electro-oxidation of ammonia in wastewater”, J. Appl. Electrochem. 8 (1978) 333 [77] J. W. Schultze & S. Trasatti, Electrodes of conductive metallic oxides, S (Ed), Part A, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [78] E. A. Bryant, G. P. Fulton & G. C. Budd, Disinfection alternatives for safe drinking water, VanNostrand Reinhold: NewYork, NY, USA, 1992; ISBN0442318413. [79] X. Mao, L. Xiong, X. Hu, Z. Yan, L. Wang & G. Xu, “Remediation of ammonia-contaminated ground water inland fill sites with electrochemi- cal reactive barriers: A bench scale study”, Waste Management 78 (2018) 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.015 [80] M. A. Q. Alfaro, S. Ferro & C. A. Martı́nez-Huitle, Y. M. Vong, “Boron doped diamond electrode for the wastewater treatment”, J. Braz. Chem.Soc. 17 (2006) 17227. [81] Y. Liu, L. Li & R. Goel, “Kinetic study of electrolytic ammonia removal using Ti/IrO2 as anode under different experimental conditions”, J. Haz- ard. Mater. 167 (2009) 959. [82] F. Bouhezila, M. Hariti, H. Lounici & N. Mameri, “Treatment of the OUEDSMAR town Landfill leachate by an electrochemical reactor”, De- salination 280 (2011) 347. [83] W. L. Chou, C.T. Wang & S. Y. Chang, “Study of COD and turbid- ity removal from real oxide-CMP wastewater by iron electrocoagulation and the evaluation of specific energy consumption”, J. Hazard.Mater. 168 (2009) 1200. [84] P. Canizares, P. Rubén, C.Sáez & M. A. Rodrigo, “Costs of the elec- trochemical oxidation of wastewaters: a comparison with ozonation and Fenton oxidation processes”, J. Environ. Mgt. 90 (2009) 410. [85] K. O. Sodeinde, S. O. Olusanya, V. F. Enogheghase & O. S. Lawal, ”Photocatalytic degradation of Janus Green Blue dye in wastewater by green synthesized reduced graphene oxide-silver nanocomposite”, Inter- national Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 102 (2022) 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2021.2002309 [86] S. Song, A. Meng, S. Jiang & B. Cheng, “Three-dimensional hollow graphene efficiently promotes electron transfer of Ag3PO4 for photocat- alytically eliminating phenol”, Appl. Surf. Sci 442 (2018) 224. [87] R. Yu, X. Yu, J. Fu, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Zhang & S. Wu, “Re- moval of ammonia Nitrogen in aquaculture wastewater by compos- ite photocatalyst TiO2/carbonfibre”, Water and Environmental Journal, https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.126862021 [88] Y. C. Ching & G. Redzwan, “Biological treatment of fish processing saline wastewater for reuse as liquid fertilizer”, Sustainability 9 (2017) 1062. [89] F. Lananan, S. H. AbdulHamid, W. N. Din, N. Ali, H. Khatoon, A. Ju- soh & A. Endut, “Symbiotic bioremediation of aquaculture wastewater in reducing ammonia and phosphorus utilizing Effective Microorganism (EM-1) and microalgae (Chlorella sp.)”, International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 95 (2014) 127. [90] B. O. Omitoyin, E. K. Ajani, O. I. Okeleye, B. U. Akpoilih & A. A. Ogun- jobi, “Biological Treatments of fish farm effluent and its reuse in the cul- ture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)”, J. Aquac Res Development 8 (2017) 2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9546.1000469 [91] World Health Organization 2004 Guidelines for drinking water qual- ity.(3rd edn) Recommendation, WHO: Geneva, Switzerland (2004). [92] W. T. Mook, M. H. Chakrabarti, M. K. Aroua, G. M. A. Khan, B. S. Ali, M. S. Islam & M. A. Abu-Hassan, “Removal of total ammonia nitrogen (TAN),nitrate and total organic carbon (TOC) from aquaculture wastewa- ter using electrochemical technology: A review”, Desalination 285 (2012) 13. [93] O. I. Lekang & H. Kleppe, “Efficiency of nitrification in trickling filters using different filter media”, Aquac. Eng. 21 (2000) 181. [94] E. H. Eding, A. Kamstra, J. A. J. Verreth, E. A. Huisman & A. Klap- wijk, “Design and Operation of nitrifying trickling filters in recirculating aquaculture:a review”, Aquac. Eng 34 (2006) 234. [95] R. Crab,Y. Avnimelech, T. Defoirdt, P. Bossier & W.Verstraete, “Nitrogen removal techniques in aquaculture for a sustainable production”, Aqua- culture 270 (2007) 1. [96] L. G. Obeti, J. Wanyama, N. Banadda, A. Candia, S. Onep, R . Walozi & A. Ebic, “Bio-filtration technologies for filtering ammonia in Fish tank effluent for reuse–A review”, Journal of Environmental Science and En- gineering B8 (2019) 205. [97] S. T. Summerfelt, “Design and management of conventional fluidized- sand biofilters”, Aquac. Eng. 32 (2006) 275. [98] R. Moore, J. Quarmby & T. Stephenson, “The effect of media size on the performance of biological aerated filters”, Water Res. 35 (2001) 514. [99] J. Davidson, N. Helwig & S. T. Summerfelt, “Fluidized sand biofilters used to remove ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, total coliform bacteria, and suspended solids from an intensive aquaculture effluent”, Aquac. Eng 39 (2008) 6. [100] N. Schnel, Y. Barak, T. Ezer, Z. Dafni & V. J. Rijn, “Design and perfor- mance of a zero discharge tilapia recirculating system”, Aquac. Eng. 26 (2002) 191. [101] J. A. Mir-Tutusaus, E. Parlade, M. Villagrasa, D. Barcelo, S. Rodrı́guez-Mozaz, S., M. Martı́nez-Alonso, N. Gaju & M. Sarr‘a, G. Caminal, “Long-term continuous treatment of non-sterile real hospi- tal wastewater by Trametes versicolor”, J. Biol. Eng. 13 (2019) 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13036-019-0179-y. [102] B. B. Negi, A. Sinharoy & K. Pakshirajan, “Selenite removal from wastewater using fungal pelleted airlift bioreactor” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (2020) 992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06946-6 [103] Y. Ding, Z. Guo, J. Mei, Z. Liang, Z. Li & X. Hou, “Investigation into the novel Micro algae membrane bioreactor with internal circulating fluidized bed for marine aquaculture wastewater treatment”, Membranes 10 (2020) 353. [104] B. Dalecka, M. Strods, T. Juhna & G. K. Rajarao, “Removal of total phosphorus, Ammonia nitrogen and organic carbon from non-sterile mu- nicipal wastewater with Trametes versicolor and Aspergillus luchuensis”, Microbiological Research 241 (2020) 126586. [105] D. A. Hammer, Creating freshwater Wetlands, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, (1997). [106] J. Vymazal & T. Brezinova, “Accumulation of heavy metals in above ground biomass of phragmites australis in horizontal flow constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: A review”, Chem. Eng. J. 290 (2016) 232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.12.108. [107] B. Jawecki, K. Paweska & M. Sobota, “Operating household wastewater treatment Plants in the light of binding quality standards for wastewater discharged to water bodies or to soil”, Water Land Develop 32 (2017) 31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jwld-2017-0004. 9 Sodeinde et al. / J. Nig. Soc. Phys. Sci. 5 (2023) 854 10 [108] R. H. Kadlec & S. D. Wallace, Treatment Wetlands, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida (2009). [109] Y. F. Lin, S. R. Jing, D.Y. Lee & T. W.Wang, “Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater using a constructed wetlands system”, Aquacul- ture 209 (2002) 169. [110] F. Masi, S. Caffaz & A. Ghrabi, “Multi-stage constructed wetland sys- tems for municipal wastewater treatment”, Water Sci. Technol. 67 (2013) 1590. [111] O. H. Jehawi, S. R. S. Abdullah & S. B. Kurniawan, “Performance of pilot hybrid reed bed constructed wetland with aeration system on nutri- ent removal for domestic wastewater treatment”, Environmental Technol- ogy& Innovation 19 (2020) 100891. [112] T. A. Verhoeven & A. F. M. Meuleman, “Wetlands for wastewater treat- ment: opportunities and limitations”, Ecol. Eng. 12 (1999) 5. [113] S. Naylor, J. Brisson, M. A. Labelle & Y. Comeau, “Treatment of fresh- water fish farm effluent using constructed wetlands: the role of plants and substrate”, Water Sci. Technol. 48 (2003) 215. [114] J. G. J. Olivier & J. A. H. W. Peters, “Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions: 2018 report The Hague, Netherlands”, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2018) 53. 10