The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Shells from aquaculture: a valuable biomaterial, not a nuisance waste product
Abstract
Mollusc aquaculture is advocated as a highly sustainable food source and may play an important role in future food security globally. With production increasing worldwide, it is timely to appraise all aspects of aquaculture when considering its expanding role as a food source. In this regard, one regularly overlooked aspect of mollusc aquaculture is waste generation: namely the production of calcareous shells. Shells from the aquaculture industry are widely regarded as a nuisance waste product, yet at the same time, calcium carbonate is mined in the form of limestone and viewed as a valuable commodity. In a time of increased awareness of the need for a circular economy, the aquaculture and seafood industry should consider shells as a valuable biomaterial that can be reused for both environmental and economic benefit. This review discusses the current waste shell issue and identifies large‐scale shell applications that are already in place. Further, it highlights proposed applications that have the potential to be scaled up to address the problem of waste shell accumulations and reduce our reliance on environmentally damaging incineration and landfill disposal. Of the plethora of shell valorisation techniques proposed in the scientific literature, this review will focus only on those that can incorporate large‐scale shell utilisation, and do not require high‐energy processing, and are thus; simple, sustainable and potentially economically viable. Further, this review questions whether, in many cases, shells can provide more inherent value being returned to the marine environment rather than being used in land‐based applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: A review
Czemiel Berndtsson, J. (2010) · Ecological Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.12.014 · Cited by 1,047 · cited 1×
“…effects (Santamouris 2014), providing building insulation (Niachou et al. 2001), providing rainwater absorption and improved wastewater management (Berndtsson 2010), as well as potentially providing a stress-reducing and atten-tion-increasing environment for those in proximity (Lee et al. 2015).”
Background40-second green roof views sustain attention: the role of micro-breaks in attention restoration
Lee, K. E., Williams, K. J. H., Sargent, L. D., Williams, N. S. G., & Johnson, K. A. (2015) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.003 · Cited by 386
Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.52-0868 · Cited by 135
Cited by
A global review of the ecosystem services provided by bivalve aquaculture
van der Schatte Olivier, A., Jones, L., Vay, L. L., Christie, M., Wilson, J., & Malham, S. K. (2020) · Reviews in Aquaculture · doi:10.1111/raq.12301 · Cited by 451
Maulu, S., Hasimuna, O. J., Haambiya, L. H., Monde, C., Musuka, C. G., Makorwa, T. H., Munganga, B. P., Phiri, K. J., & Nsekanabo, J. D. (2021) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.609097 · Cited by 423
Altintzoglou, T., Honkanen, P., & Whitaker, R. D. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125487 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Morris, J. P., Backeljau, T., & Chapelle, G.
- Venue
- Reviews in Aquaculture
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-01-19
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 42-57
- ISSN
- 1753-5123 (ISSN-L)
- 1753-5131
- OpenAlex
- W2790944836
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.