plants

Review
An Overview of Soil and Soilless Cultivation
Techniques—Chances, Challenges and the Neglected Question
of Sustainability
Andre Fussy * and Jutta Papenbrock *

Institute of Botany, Leibniz University Hannover, Herrenhäuserstr. 2, D-30419 Hannover, Germany

* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.F.); [email protected] (J.P.)

Abstract: Resources such as fertile soil and clean water are already limited in many parts of the world.
Additionally, the conventional use of arable land is becoming increasingly difficult, which is further
exacerbated by climate change. Soilless cultivation systems do not only offer the opportunity to
save water and cultivate without soil but also the chance to open up urban areas such as residential
rooftops for food production in close proximity to consumers. In this review, applications of soilless
farming systems are identified and compared to conventional agriculture. Furthermore, aspects of
economic viability, sustainability and current developments are investigated. An insight into the most
important soilless farming systems—hydroponics, aquaponics and vertical farming—is provided.
The systems are then differentiated from each other and, as far as possible, evaluated in terms
of their environmental impact and compared with conventional cultivation methods. Comparing
published data analyzing the yield of hydroponic cultivation systems in comparison to soil-based
cultivation methods enables a basic overview of the profitability of both methods and, thus, lays
the foundation for future research and practical applications. The most important inert substrates
for hydroponic applications are presented, and their degree of sustainability is compared in order
Citation: Fussy, A.; Papenbrock, J. An to emphasize environmental impacts and affect substrate selections of future projects. Based on an
Overview of Soil and Soilless
assessment of the most important soilless cultivation systems, the challenges and developments of
Cultivation Techniques—Chances,
current techniques are highlighted and discussed.
Challenges and the Neglected
Question of Sustainability. Plants
Keywords: aquaponics; hydroponics; nutrients; sustainability; vertical farming
2022, 11, 1153. https://doi.org/
10.3390/plants11091153

Academic Editors: Francesco Serio

and Rui Manuel Almeida Machado 1. Introduction
Received: 4 February 2022 Biocapacity describes the ability of our planet’s ecosystems to regenerate. This capacity
Accepted: 21 April 2022 can be defined as the basic currency of all living systems on Earth. The ecological footprint
Published: 24 April 2022 measures both the available biocapacity and the demand that humans determine through all
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
their activities [1–7]. Advances in technology and land management have increased global
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
biocapacity by about 28% over the last 60 years [8,9]. However, this may be overestimated
published maps and institutional affil- because the UN statistics did not include losses such as soil erosion, groundwater depletion
iations. and deforestation. In any case, this increase has not kept pace with the growth in overall
consumption; Humanity’s Ecological Footprint, also estimated using UN statistics, has
increased by about 173% over the same period [3,7–9] and now exceeds the planet’s
biocapacity by 56%. This means that human activity is currently 1.56 times more than what
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. the Earth can regenerate [9]. As with the 2008 economic crash, COVID-19 has also reduced
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. human demand by almost 10% since 2020 [9]. It is unlikely that this will last, as the effect
This article is an open access article is not due to structural changes. In some circumstances, the global pandemic may even
distributed under the terms and delay efforts to combat climate change and biodiversity loss [10,11]. Climate change in
conditions of the Creative Commons particular exacerbates the problem in that, for example, natural disasters and rising sea
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
levels increasingly endanger aquatic products [12–15]. In addition, water and soil losses,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
desertification and salinization threaten our agricultural crops [16].
4.0/).

Plants 2022, 11, 1153. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091153 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/plants

Plants 2022, 11, 1153 2 of 32

Soil is the most available growth medium (GM) for plants. It provides anchorage,
nutrients, air, water, etc. for successful plant growth. However, different soil types some-
times also pose serious constraints to plant growth. Inappropriate soil pH, unfavorable soil
compaction, poor drainage, degradation due to erosion, presence of pathogenic organisms
and nematodes, etc. are some of them. Moreover, the conventional cultivation of crops,
as open-field cultivation, requires resources such as space, (often) irrigation and (large)
technical equipment and is weather-dependent. In some places, such as in or close to big
cities, space for growing crops is limited, or in some areas, there is little fertile arable land
due to unfavorable geographical or topographical conditions.
Conventional farming practices mainly involve such soil-bound methods and can
cause a variety of negative effects on the environment. “Conventional” has historically
been defined as the practice of growing crops in the ground, outdoors, often with irrigation
and the active application of nutrients. The negative impacts of conventional agriculture
relate not only to the growth conditions of the crops but in particular to the impact on
natural ecosystems, including high and inefficient water demand, large land requirements,
fertilizer use, soil degradation and loss of biodiversity [17,18]. With rising world hunger,
the increase in food production has to keep pace. In particular, the rational use of water and
land resources justifies the development of technologies that achieve optimized crop yields.
Within greenhouse systems, the knowledge of plant water and nutrient uptake is crucial
for the development of sustainable strategies that optimally support plant growth [19].
Compared to some alternative strategies, conventional agriculture consumes large amounts
of irrigation with fresh water and fertilizers, with comparably low yields [9]. Hydropon-
ics, aeroponics and aquaponics are agricultural systems that combine nutrient solutions,
sometimes with inert substrates, instead of using soil for plant nutrition [20]. The need
to develop fertile soils to obtain new sites for food production can be reduced with these
approaches. Equally advantageous is the possibility of further increasing the yield per
unit area with vertical farming approaches [21]. Furthermore, in a controlled environment,
continuous production can be implemented throughout the year [22].
Protected cropping is defined as growing within, under or sheltered by structures
such as cover material, shade cloths, plastic tunnels or greenhouses. These structures or
materials help to optimize conditions for plant growth by being able to protect plants from
pests or adverse weather conditions. The level of protection and control can range from
an inexpensive canopy (e.g., fabric/cloth) in a field to greenhouses or complete controlled
environment horticulture (CEH) systems [23].
Soilless plant cultivation in an almost completely controlled environment is a relatively
modern cultivation technology and is used almost exclusively in greenhouses. Over a long
period of time, attempts have been made to eliminate problems associated with the soil
in greenhouses. These include soil-borne diseases as well as low soil fertility or high salt
levels, as mentioned before. In particular, the development of suitable growing media with
optimal physical and chemical properties over the past 30–40 years has led to hydroponic
cultivation in greenhouses taking a leading role within cultivation technologies. Advances
in plant nutrition and irrigation through modern fertilization approaches and automation
technologies also have favored this development [24].
When soilless agricultural production systems are mentioned, it is mainly referred to
as the techniques of “hydroponics”. The term hydroponics was derived from the Greek
words hydro, meaning water, and ponos, meaning work. It is a method of growing plants
using mineral nutrient solutions without soil [25]. Terrestrial plants can be grown only
in the mineral nutrient solution or in an inert medium such as perlite, gravel or mineral
wool. Hydroponics is, therefore, the technique of growing plants in soilless conditions with
inert substrates or with their roots immersed in a nutrient solution without the use of any
aggregate [26].
This article presents different hydroponic and related approaches and compares them
with each other with regard to conventional, soil-based systems. One of the novelties of this
article is the evaluation of a large amount of up-to-date available scientific data displaying
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 3 of 32

the yield of soilless cultivation methods. This provides a preliminary assessment of the
profitability of hydroponic cultivation of many globally used plant species compared to soil-
based cultivation, which should support future research and practical applications. Such an
assessment has not been performed so far. Likewise, the most important inert substrates for
hydroponic applications are presented and compared in terms of their sustainability. Based
on a comparison of the most important soilless cultivation systems, which also takes aspects
of sustainability into account, the challenges and developments of current techniques are
highlighted and put into context with the current scientific approaches. This way, an
overview of new soilless cultivation systems is created, combining aspects of sustainability
and economic viability. At the same time, it becomes apparent that sustainability, especially
with regard to energy balancing, is a field of research that has hardly been investigated
so far. The discrepancy between expectations regarding technologies and the high energy
costs, mostly generated by fossil fuels, further underlines this problem.

2. Classification of Soilless Systems

The term soilless culture originally referred only to nutrient solution cultures without a
support medium like soil. It now also includes growing plants with a nutrient solution with
solid support media for anchoring. This technique is called a solid media, substrate culture
or aggregate system. Hydroponic systems are further categorized into open (i.e., once the
nutrient solution has been delivered to the plant roots, it is not reused) or closed (i.e., excess
solution is recovered, replenished and recycled). In closed systems, the use of growing
media is usually refrained from as they can complicate the recirculation process. Such
systems that use growing media (container plants) can still be both closed and open. The
closer classification is according to the techniques for distributing the nutrient solution to
the plant roots [27,28].
By definition, hydroponics are soilless culture systems with inert substrates or without
any aggregates, with plants whose roots reach into an aerated nutrient solution, which can
be either flowing or static. Within the liquid or solution culture techniques represented in
Table A1, two basic principles can be distinguished from each other. The first principle can
be considered a circulating method (closed system) or continuous-flow solution culture,
including, for example, the nutrient film technique (NFT) and the deep flow technique
(DFT). Flow solution culture systems such as the DFT can provide a constant nutrient
environment for roots. They are very well suited to automatic control but are subject
to the rapid dehydration of plants if the flow of the solution stops for any reason. The
second hydroponic principle can be called a non-circulating method (open systems) or
static solution culture and can be further divided into three system techniques: the root
dipping technique, the floating technique and the capillary action technique [27]. The main
advantage of closed hydroponic systems compared to open systems is their water efficiency
and nutrient consumption [28].
The techniques of solid media culture can again be divided into the hanging bag
technique, the grow bag technique, the trench or trough technique and the pot technique,
which are shown in Table A2. These techniques assume solid substrates. The selected
medium must be flexible, friable, capable of retaining water and air and easy to drain. It
must also be free of toxic substances, pests, pathogenic microorganisms and nematodes [27].
Substrate-based hydroponic systems dominate over water culture systems because the
water-holding capacity of the substrate can provide a safety reserve in case, for example,
a pump fails. In addition, the most common substrates provide better root aeration than
water culture systems due to their porous nature, with the exception of aeroponics [29].
The containers for substrates can be bags, pots, other types of containers or troughs, and
they determine the structure of the system [30]. Although the cost of the substrate is
higher when it is packed in bags, bag culture is the most widely used type of cultivation
on substrates. This is also because the bags can be standardized and are easy to handle,
reducing labor costs and the risk of errors during installation. The bags are made of
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 4 of 32

UV-resistant polyethylene film, white on the outside to reflect radiation and thus, avoid
possible overheating, and black on the inside to prevent algae development [31].

3. Soilless Cultivation
3.1. Suitable Plant Species for Soilless Cultivation Applications
The basic requirement for the high productivity of crops is a suitable environment. A
suitable environment for improved crop production is sheltered cultivation or hydroponic
greenhouse cultivation. It is possible to grow cereals, vegetables, fruits, fodder crops,
flowers, spices and medicinal plants in hydroponic greenhouses [32]. An overview of
the crops that can be grown in hydroponic greenhouses and the state of research to date
on the question of whether a crop-specific increase in yield can be expected compared
to conventional agriculture is given in Table A3. The difference in yield sometimes was
unexpectedly large and was due to the controlled environment, in the case of hydroponic
greenhouse cultivation, as well as to the reuse of the nutrient solution. Overall, the quality
of the hydroponic products, as well as their taste and nutrient composition, often were
better than those in conventional soil-based cultivation. Various experimental findings
show that leafy vegetables (lettuce, spinach, parsley, celery and Atriplex, etc.) can be
grown comparatively easily and successfully using hydroponic systems [33]. So far, various
vegetables have been grown in hydroponic systems. Examples are lettuce and chives
in Trinidad [34], blueberries in Taiwan [35] and several crops in the greater Gaborone
area in Botswana [36]. In countries with limited drinking water supplies, such as the
Gulf States, the water-saving practice of hydroponics has been used to successfully grow
various vegetables [37]. Lettuce and spinach are promising species for cultivation in
integrated hydroponic and aquaculture systems. This is due to their fast growth and
high nutrient uptake capacity. In hydroponic systems, the life cycle of lettuce can be
significantly shortened compared to traditional growing methods. The NFT is particularly
suitable for the cultivation of lettuce and allows for more than eight harvests per year.
Horizontal and vertical hydroponic approaches have also been successfully tested for the
yield optimization of lettuce crops [38]. There are significant differences in the productivity
and nutrient contents of lettuce between soilless culture and conventional soil culture.
Interestingly, the yield of soil-grown lettuce was actually higher in this case, and the
nitrate content in the leaves was correspondingly higher, too [39]. Spinach has also been
extensively tested in hydroponic systems in recent times. Spinach yields in a hydroponic
system with peat moss compared to an aquaponic system with perlite and a traditional
system led to similar results [40]. It was observed that the yield of aquaponically cultivated
spinach was slightly higher than that of hydroponically cultivated spinach. Additionally,
high mineral contents were found in hydroponically cultivated chard, lettuce and sweet
basil as well as a high root/shoot ratio with a low nitrate content compared to plant material
derived from conventional culture conditions [41]. However, in some observations, nutrient
uptake and yield were lower in the hydroponic cultures.
Plants like tomatoes and peppers grow tall, and some platforms cannot hold them
because of their weight, whereas drip systems provide enough stability. Nevertheless,
various hydroponic systems are available for growing tomatoes, with the NFT being the
most commonly used system. Regarding different substrates for hydroponically grown
peppers, peat, in combination with perlite, might have the greatest positive influence on
the growth characteristics and yield [42].
Cucumbers are also best grown with drip system irrigation. Celery, on the other hand,
has shallow roots and responds well to ebb and flow systems. Radish is suitable for water
culture. For fruit crops such as strawberries, blueberries and melons, the NFT provides
an optimal environment. It meets the special requirements of the plants, e.g., regarding
moisture. For melons, the ebb and flow system can also be used. Herbs such as chives
are susceptible to drought stress and can, therefore, be cultivated well with the NFT [43].
Aside from vegetable products, strawberries and various cut flowers are, nowadays, grown
commercially in diverse hydroponic systems [33]. Additionally, hydroponic systems can be
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 5 of 32

used to produce very clean, high-quality herb and root crops [44]. The yield of basil seems to
be affected more by cultivar selection than by the choice of a hydroponic production system.
Therefore, hydroponic basil producers should select basil cultivars based on flavor and
yield, while hydroponic systems should be selected based on operational preferences [45].

3.2. Inert Substrates for Soilless Cultivation

3.2.1. General Aspects
Substrates or growth media (GM) include materials that, alone or in mixtures, can
ensure better plant growth conditions than agricultural soil in at least one aspect [46]. So
far, substrates could be used for the production of high-quality vegetables and ornamentals
as well as for plant propagation. Table A4 gives an overview of substrates that can be used
hydroponically. Generally, a mixture of substrate components and additives is used in
the horticultural industry. These additives include fertilizers, liming agents and biological
control or wetting agents. Substrate components, again, include combinations of different
substances. These can be organic as well as inorganic [46]. In the commercial hydroponic
production of vegetables and cut flowers, substrates such as rockwool, perlite or coconut
coir are used. All inorganic substrates come from natural sources and are partly industrially
pre-processed. Rockwool is suitable due to its light weight and easy handling. Until
20 years ago, mainly rockwool sheets were used as hydroponic substrates. Since then, a lot
of knowledge has been gained about the use and comparison of different substrates. Perlite
was found to be the most suitable substrate for hydroponic use in cucumber cultivation [47].
Recycled polyurethane-ether foam was also suitable for increasing yields, although it
also increased water consumption. Perlite quickly became a well-established substrate
throughout Europe for hydroponic applications and is used, in particular, due to its low
cost [48]. Gravel and sand have been used in older production systems but are less
efficient due to their porosity. In addition to rockwool and perlite, various inorganic
GM, such as pumice, zeolite, tuff, volcanic porous rock, expanded clay granules and
vermiculite have been used in substrate cultures [49]. Organic substrates can be synthetic,
such as polyurethane, or consist of natural organic substances, such as peat or wood-based
substrates. Peat [50], composts [51], bark [52], wood residues [53] and coconut coir [54] are
the most commonly used. Peat is still the most popular substrate component in horticulture.
Peat is mainly used in tree nurseries and ornamental plant farms, while other substrates
are preferred for vegetable and cut flower crops. Peat is popular due to its relatively low
cost and excellent chemical, biological and physical properties, with low nutrient content,
low pH, high water-holding capacity, high air space and low weight [49]. The current trend
towards the use of biochar and hydrochar, a solid product formed during hydrothermal
carbonization, is interesting to observe. Biochar has advantageous properties of low bulk
density, high cation exchange capacity (CEC) and high nutrient-holding capacity. Thus,
it reduces nutrient leaching [55]. On the other hand, the properties of biochar are not
homogeneous, while the pH value and the production costs are relatively high. It can be
seen that both inorganic and organic materials have their advantages and disadvantages as
substrate components.

3.2.2. Chemical Properties

When assessing the chemical properties of growing media, the most important criteria
are pH, CEC and nutrient concentrations [46,49]. For most plant species, the pH in the root
environment for optimal nutrient availability is between 5.5 and 6.0. In general, a lower
pH and lower nutrient and salt concentrations are preferable for crop production.

3.2.3. Biological Properties

A substrate needs to be free of pests, pathogens and weeds and be biologically sta-
ble and non-toxic. The use of forestry products as well as immature compost is partly
problematic with regard to the associated phytotoxicity. For example, high potassium and
manganese content [52] or the presence of phenolic compounds [56], terpenes, organic acids
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 6 of 32

and fatty acids [57] can cause such toxicity problems [58]. Methods such as composting,
aging, leaching, washing and mixing have been used to reduce or eliminate phytotoxic
substrate properties [46,56,59]. Furthermore, different structures and stabilities can be
attributed to mineral and organic substrates, which in turn, influence the functionality of
the bacterial community [60].

3.2.4. Environmental Perspective

The increasing environmental awareness of consumers, the continuous destruction of
ecologically important peatlands and a pervasive waste problem have forced the horticul-
tural industry to initiate changes in its practices. In particular, the search for alternatives to
the limited availability of peat has been driven in recent years [46,54]. This has included
concerns about removing peat from peatland ecosystems, which are unique habitats for
wildlife and equally important for water quality and the hydrological cycle as well as
carbon sequestration. As a result, the use of peatlands has been reconsidered towards less
exploitation, and extensive research has been conducted [49]. There are also difficulties with
other substrates such as mineral wool, including the existing disposal problems and the
high energy consumption during production. The international trend in GM development
relies on the use of local, natural resources and renewable raw materials. Especially in
industrialized countries, the reuse of waste has become highly desirable [61].
Nowadays, coconut fiber as a substrate has a high value in open cultivation. The waste
product from the husk of coconut fruits is light and has good aeration and water retention
properties. Despite this, the long transport distances from the cultivation areas in Indonesia,
Sri Lanka, India, the Philippines and Latin America can be criticized [54]. Nevertheless,
coconut fiber is now the most popular substrate in many areas, ahead of rockwool [62].
Perlite is the most impactful substrate, as highlighted by its life cycle assessment
(LCA), followed by rockwool and vermiculite [63]. The most sustainable ones, instead,
are sand and bark. Sand has a low carbon footprint. In addition, bark, in the total impact
analysis, seems to be highly sustainable. For perlite, the two results are in disagreement: it
has a high total impact, but a very low carbon footprint compared to the other substrates.
In another life cycle costing analysis, it appears that peat is the most expensive substrate,
while sand is the cheapest one. In addition, the use of peat substitutes, such as compost or
biochar, can significantly reduce the carbon footprint in hydroponic systems [64,65].

3.2.5. Choice of Growing Medium

The choice of material to be used as substrate depends on the plant species to be
grown. Therefore, the properties of growing media have to meet the requirements of plant
production, which in turn, are determined by plant biology and the cultivation method.
Of course, costs also play an important role. However, the development currently goes
beyond the production-driven decision criteria. In order to generate sustainable future
prospects, substrates should also be environmentally friendly and consumer-oriented [54].
Overall, LCA is coming to the fore for the classification of substrate ingredients, based on
their environmental impact, sustainability, environmental protection aspects and the use
of “green technologies” for their production. Judging by this, sand is the most sustainable
substrate for hydroponic cultures, followed by bark. Biochar can also minimize the nega-
tive effects on our environment caused by the use of substrates and, additionally, brings
physically advantageous properties.

3.3. Plant Population Management in Hydroponics

3.3.1. Control of Pathogens
The application of pesticides is generally reduced in hydroponic systems. With fewer
pest problems and the constant feeding of nutrients to the roots, productivity in hydroponics
is high, despite the limited plant growth that could occur due to low levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere or limited light supply in closed and sub-optimally ventilated
environments. To increase yield further, some greenhouses inject carbon dioxide into their
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 7 of 32

environment to help growth (CO2 enrichment), prolong the light period or increase the
light supply to control vegetative growth, etc. [32].
Maintaining a non-pathogenic environment in the root zone is critical for good plant
vigor under soilless crops. It is extremely difficult to achieve this and crucial to minimize
the population of plant pathogens in the root zone [66]. A common disease in hydroponic
solutions is wilt caused by Fusarium spp. and Verticillium spp. Species of Pythium spp.
and Phytophthora spp. destroy everything except the main roots. There are no effective
fungicides that can be safely used in hydroponics [67]. Only metalaxyl has been shown to
be highly effective in controlling Pythium spp. on vegetable crops, but it is not registered
for use. In addition to environmental regulations that restrict the discharge of pesticides
into the environment, there are no appropriate agents against many diseases, and often
disease-causing pathogens develop resistance to pesticides over time [68].
In general, non-chemical methods can be distinguished from chemical methods for
the disinfection of nutrient solutions. In the case of non-chemical methods, the nutrient
solution is not chemically changed during disinfection so that no residues can be found
afterwards. Non-chemical methods include heat treatment, filtration, and the use of UV
radiation. Heat treatment of the nutrient solution has been shown to be effective in keeping
the root zone free of pathogens [66]. Root death of tomato caused by Pythium spp. was
overcome by heating the nutrient solution up to 20–22 ◦ C. In aeroponic systems with heated
nutrient solution, the roots of ginger plants matured even faster and produced slightly
higher fresh rhizome yields than plants in the same medium without bottom heating [32].
Different species are neutralized by different temperatures in this process. In general, a
temperature set point of 95 ◦ C and an exposure time of at least 10 s are sufficient to kill
most undesirable organisms. It should be borne in mind that energy can be saved with
the aid of heat exchangers. Nevertheless, the origin of the energy is a determinant for the
sustainability of this method [68].
Another method to maintain a non-pathogenic environment is filtering the nutrient so-
lution. There are different types of filters depending on the particle size of the undissolved
material. Fast sand filters, for example, are suitable for filtering out large particles. Smaller,
synthetic filters are often used after nutrient enrichment to remove undissolved fertilizer
salts or precipitates that might otherwise cause clogging. These filters are commonly also
used prior to disinfection by heat treatment, UV irradiation or ozone treatment. With
smaller pore sizes of the filters, the resistance for the aqueous solution also increases. In
addition to the very small-pore filters suitable for this purpose, this also requires corre-
spondingly high pressure. In addition, the filters must be cleaned frequently [68].
UV radiation with a wavelength range between 200 and 280 nm (UV-C) and an
optimum at 254 nm can also be used to kill microorganisms by damaging their DNA.
Recommended for the disinfection of organic components is treatment at 185 and 254
nm [69]. The use of UV radiation is also suitable for aquaponic systems and efficiently
inactivates coliforms [70].
Moving on to chemical disinfection methods, ozone is generated from dry air and
electricity using ozone generators according to the following formula:

3O2 ↔ 2O3 . (1)

When the air is enriched with ozone, it is injected into the water to be disinfected and
should be exposed for one hour. The method can, by now, be used to reliably neutralize
viruses as well as all other pathogens without any safety problems [71]. Ozone treatment
affects the microbial populations in plant cultures [72]. Humans should not come into
contact with ozone, as even small amounts can cause irritation of the mucous membranes.
Like UV rays, ozone treatment affects iron chelates. Consequently, the addition of iron
must be increased and iron deposits in the system counteracted.
The use of hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ) as a strong, unstable oxidant with the reactive
formation of water and a free oxygen radical is now considered inefficient, even though it
is inexpensive. It is still used to clean systems but has been replaced by other methods for
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 8 of 32

active disinfection in running systems. To kill viruses, concentrations of about 0.05% are
needed, which also damage plant roots [73].
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is commonly used as an inexpensive compound in
swimming pools for water treatment. It reacts as follows:

NaOCl + H2 O ↔ HOCl + NaOH (2)

In this process, the resulting compound of oxygen and chloride breaks down directly
into its components in strong oxidation and reacts with all available organic substances.
At high temperatures and with exposure to air, the effective substance decomposes more
quickly, and phytotoxic NaClO3 is formed [74]. Furthermore, viruses cannot be rendered
harmless efficiently with sodium hypochlorite treatment, and some bacterial pathogens
also survive the treatment due to their spores [73]. Moreover, this method increases the
concentrations of Na+ and Cl- in closed systems, which makes it necessary to wash out
the nutrient solution in order to avoid negatively affecting plant growth. Nevertheless,
sodium hypochlorite is used and recommended for disinfection in commercial farms as a
cost-effective and useful method.
For farmers, efficiency and cost play the biggest roles when choosing disinfection
methods. High disinfection efficiencies are achieved by heat treatment, UV irradiation
and ozone treatment. Ozone treatment is the most expensive method due to purchase
and maintenance costs, whereas heat treatment and UV irradiation also cause high annual
costs, but with lower initial investments. Especially farms larger than one hectare use heat
treatment or UV irradiation. For smaller farms, the more cost-effective purchase of an
inefficient and slower sand filtration system may be recommended. Sodium hypochlorite
and hydrogen peroxide are not recommended due to their insufficient efficiency in killing
pathogens [68]. As a biocide, the use of sodium hypochlorite is banned in the EU for such
applications anyway. With all chemical methods, it should be borne in mind that they are
not very selective in distinguishing between pathogens and other organic components,
so non-chemical methods should be used for pre-treatment. The residues of chemical
applications often react with biofilms in the system’s pipes, causing them to detach and
clog the system.

3.3.2. Physico-Chemical Parameters That Need to Be Controlled

The most important parameters for plant production in hydroponic systems are the
pH, temperature and nutrient concentrations [75]. The pH can be altered by the addition
of acid or alkaline solutions, resulting in either alkalization or acidification. Controlling
the pH by adding salts is a complementary procedure. In practice, nitrogen is added in the
form of ammonium and nitrate. If only ammonium was added, the pH would be lowered,
and if nitrate was added alone, the pH would rise accordingly [76]. In addition to the pH
value, temperature also plays a decisive role in the uptake of nutrients.
The oxygen content is also temperature-dependent, whereby at higher temperatures,
there is generally less oxygen in the water and, at the same time, increased demand by
the plants. Insufficient amounts of oxygen in the water lead to reduced root respiration
and, thus, to lower nutrient and water uptake. In addition, root tissue may die and the
plant may become more susceptible to pathogens [77]. The dissolved oxygen concentration
should, therefore, be higher than 3 mg/L [78].

3.3.3. Supply of Nutrients

In hydroponics, careful monitoring of the system is required due to the limited nutrient
buffering capacity of the system and the risk of making rapid changes [32]. Two aspects of
nutrition need to be considered. Firstly, the supply of nutrients by the nutrient delivery
system, and secondly, the response of the plants to the nutrients must be considered. Critical
levels for commonly used nutrients have been determined for many crops. The frequency
and quantity of the nutrient solution administered depend on the type of substrate used
(volume and physicochemical properties), the crop (species and stage of development),
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 9 of 32

the size of the container, the cultivation and irrigation systems used and the prevailing
climatic conditions. When a nutrient solution is supplied continuously, plants can take
up ions at very low concentrations. It has been reported that a large proportion of the
nutrients are not used by the plants, or at least their uptake has no effect on production. On
the other hand, highly concentrated nutrient solutions lead to excessive nutrient uptake,
so toxic effects can be expected. Parameters of the nutrient solution such as temperature,
pH, electrical conductivity, oxygen content and others must be precisely adjusted to the
needs of the respective plant species in order to create optimal growth conditions [79].
The solution should be directly available to the roots, although it is advisable to avoid
wetting the leaves in order to reduce damage and the occurrence of diseases. Under no
circumstances should the plants suffer from water stress, as this impairs growth [80]. To
conserve resources, the excess nutrient solution drained from the containers during daily
watering should be reused during the next watering. However, excess nutrient solutions
should be monitored for the growth of algae and the development of other undesirable
organisms and disinfected as necessary before reuse.

3.4. Assessment, Current Situation and Future Perspectives for Hydroponics

3.4.1. Advantages of Hydroponics
There are many advantages of growing plants in soilless culture over soil-based
culture [67]. Soilless culture offers opportunities to provide optimal conditions for plant
growth and, therefore, higher yields that are consistently reliable can be obtained compared
to open-field agriculture. Hydroponics produce the healthiest plants and cultivation is
clean and relatively easy, requiring little effort. Nutrients are delivered directly to the roots,
and as a result, plants grow faster with smaller roots, plants can be grown more densely
and only 1/5 of the total area and 1/20 of the total water is needed to grow plants under
soilless culture compared to soil-based culture [81]. Nevertheless, there still is a chance
for some soil-borne pests, diseases or weed infestation to occur in the system, and the
control of such diseases is absolutely necessary as they can spread rapidly. Overall, soilless
culture provides efficient nutrient regulation and higher planting density and results in
higher yield per hectare along with better quality produce. It is especially suitable for those
regions of the world that lack arable land or fertile soil for agricultural culture [67].

3.4.2. Disadvantages of Hydroponics

Despite the many advantages, soilless cultivation has some limitations. Its application
on a commercial scale requires technical knowledge and high initial investment, although
yields are high [82,83]. Considering the cost expenditure, soilless culture is limited to
high-value crops. However, once the system is set up, it can be cheaper than running a
conventional farm [28]. Plants in a hydroponic system are supplied via the same nutrient
solution, which means that plants within the system should have the same requirements.
In addition, waterborne diseases can easily spread from one plant to another [84]. Great
care is required in controlling plant health. The dangers of direct consequences of incorrect
fertilization have to be mentioned as well [85]. High temperatures and inadequate oxygen
supply can limit production performance and cause crop failure. Unfortunately, hydroponic
systems are fundamentally dependent on electricity and require expensive generators to
compensate for power outages. Maintaining pH, electrical conductivity and the right
concentration of nutrients in the medium is of utmost importance. Finally, light and energy
supply are usually required to operate the system under a protected structure. The high
energy inputs that are required to operate the system are a serious problem [29]. For this,
aspects of sustainability have to be considered as long as a large part of our energy is
generated from fossil fuels and with climate-damaging methods. A detailed LCA needs
to be carefully done for a particular system, and the results need to be evaluated from a
sustainability point of view.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 10 of 32

3.4.3. Global Hydroponics Market and Commercial Production

Historically, in the 1960s and 1970s, commercial hydroponic farms were developed
in Abu Dhabi, Arizona, Belgium, California, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Iran, Italy,
Japan, the Russian Federation and other countries. In the 1980s, many automated and
computerized hydroponic farms were established around the world. Some hydroponic kits
became popular in the 1990s [86].
The rapid gain in the popularity of soilless cropping systems around the world in
the last three decades can be attributed to the disadvantages caused by cultivation in the
soil (including soil-borne pathogens). Due to the extensive control and preventability of
diseases, soilless cultivation systems are becoming increasingly important in protected
cultivation. Simple greenhouse constructions to exploit favorable climatic conditions also
play a supporting role. With soilless systems, even areas with saline, sodic or non-arable
soils with poor structure, which make up a large part of the world’s agricultural land, can
be used effectively for agriculture. High-quality and consumer-oriented agriculture with a
focus on environmental and sustainability aspects will continue to influence the cultivation
of our agricultural products in the near future. Nations that rely on large and modern
greenhouses against less favorable climatic conditions need to make large investments to
maximize yields and achieve consistently high product quality through complete control
of all growing conditions. The installation of a hydroponic system is only a small part of
the total cost and is a way to avoid the risk factors regarding soils. With simple greenhouse
constructions, which only serve to improve the climatic conditions, e.g., to increase the
temperature and to protect the plants from environmental influences, it only makes sense
to establish a technically complex hydroponic system for a limited number of crops or
in certain growing regions. Often, the initial costs for a complex, automated hydroponic
system are too high as long as the soil does not lead to specific problems or the available
space is limited. Hydroponic culture has been recommended when it could avoid critical
soil culture problems, when water resources were limited or when the environmental
impact of nutrient leaching was severe. This seems to be the main reason for the so-far
lower spread of commercial soilless cultivation systems in countries characterized by a
Mediterranean climate, for example [31].
In 2016, the global market for hydroponically grown products was estimated at USD
21,204.5 million. The global hydroponics market specifically includes tomato, cucurbits,
lettuce and leafy vegetables, peppers and other food crops. Among these, tomato cultivation
forms the largest market segment and accounted for 30.4% of the total hydroponic market
in 2018 [33]. The hydroponic cultivation of tomato, lettuce and other leafy vegetables
is predicted to grow in terms of their market share. This is also due to the attitude of
consumers, whose awareness of quality products from greenhouses has been steadily
increasing. Particularly in Europe and Asia, a trend towards production in greenhouses
is recognizable. Europe has currently been the largest market for the use of advanced
hydroponic techniques. The Asia-Pacific region has been the second-largest market for
hydroponic products and is expected to grow steadily. The leading nations in hydroponic
technology have been the Netherlands, Australia, France, England, Israel, Canada and
the United States. With 13,000 ha under hydroponic cultivation for tomatoes, peppers,
cucumbers and cut flowers, the Netherlands has been the world leader in the use of
hydroponic technology [87]. The Netherlands has already produced 50% of the value of
all fruits and vegetables grown in the country in hydroponic systems. Australia has also
achieved a market value of about USD 300–400 million with hydroponic products such as
vegetables, herbs and cut flowers, which corresponds approximately to 20% of the total
value of vegetable and cut flower production [88]. Australia has also been the largest
producer of hydroponically grown lettuce, globally. In addition to that, their hydroponic
production of strawberries has exceeded the hydroponic production capacity of the United
States. Furthermore, the hydroponic production of cut flowers in Australia has almost been
as large as in the United States. Moreover, countries like Canada and Spain have expanded
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 11 of 32

their acreage for commercial hydroponics. Japan has pioneered rice cultivation with the
use of hydroponic technology [80].
Large quantities of berries, citrus fruits and bananas have been cultivated hydroponi-
cally in Israel’s dry and arid climate. Currently, it can be generalized that the demand for
hydroponic cultivation has increased in all developing and developed countries. Hydro-
ponic approaches are particularly suitable for alternative solutions such as the utilization
of fallow land with poor soil quality but high water supply, for example, in India. Space
reclamation for agricultural production in large cities such as Delhi, Chandigarh, Noida
and Bangalore can hardly do without hydroponic techniques. Already today, city dwellers
grow some leafy vegetables and small herbs and spices for fresh consumption on their
rooftops and balconies [33].

3.5. Future Scope of Hydroponics

When talking about controlled environment agriculture, one of the greatest innova-
tions of our time is computer technology. Technologies such as crop monitoring and mobile
apps help farmers make decisions about “when”, “where”, “how” or “what” to plant, irri-
gate, fertilize and control. The benefits of these innovations include giving farmers greater
control over production, increased and more sustainable yields, and greater flexibility to
respond to changes in weather. In this context, sensor technologies, for example, enable the
constant monitoring and identification of the crop as well as some self-controlled regulatory
mechanisms. Automation will help agriculture to make production even more efficient and
to control agricultural products at the plant level with less effort. With modern agricultural
engineering, farming can be extended to new means, places and areas [28]. It would also be
desirable for the consumer to save on pesticides in cultivation, which are used to disinfect
the soil or to combat soil-borne pathogens, too.
The history of hydroponics goes back to before these innovations. As early as the
1970s, hydroponics was recognized as a promising technology and its massive spread
was predicted. It is still true that hydroponics has been one of the fastest-growing sectors
of our modern agriculture and may well dominate food production in the future [89].
As the population will continue to increase and cultivable land tends to decrease due to
inefficient land management, people will turn to new technologies, such as hydroponics
and aeroponics, to provide adequate ways of crop production [26]. To get an idea of
the future of hydroponics, one has to take a look at the first applications of this once
new science [32]. The land around Tokyo is extremely valuable due to the increasing
population. To feed the people while conserving land, the country turned to hydroponic
rice production [80]. Here, the rice is harvested in underground vaults without the use
of soil. Thanks to environmental control, four harvest cycles can be carried out per year
instead of the traditional one-year production [86].
Hydroponics has also been used successfully in Israel, for example. There, water is
rather scarce due to the dry climate. A company called Organitech has grown plants in
shipping containers about 12 m long using hydroponic systems. These are used to cultivate
large quantities of berries, citrus fruits and bananas that could normally not be grown
in Israel’s climate [29]. Hydroponic techniques produce a yield up to 1000 times greater
than that produced annually on a comparably sized conventional area. One of the biggest
advantages is that the process can be fully automated and controlled by robots that work
in a similar way to assembly line production [86].
There has been much discussion in the scientific community about the potential of
hydroponic systems in third world countries where water supplies are limited [26,32,80,89].
One obstacle is the high initial cost of setting up hydroponic systems, but in the long run,
as with any technology, costs will come down, making the use of hydroponics much more
realistic [32,66,80]. Hydroponics, thus, has the potential to feed millions of people in the
future in areas of Africa and Asia where both water and crops are scarce, or to effectively
use limited land in drastically developing large cities.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 12 of 32

Hydroponics is, therefore, likely to be important for the future of space programs. In
this regard, NASA is relying on extensive programs to further develop hydroponics, both
for current space exploration and for future, long-term projects, such as colonizing Mars or
the Moon. Since we have yet to find cultivable soil away from our planet that can support
life in space, and the logistics of transporting soil on space shuttles seem impractical,
hydroponics could play a supporting role in the future of space exploration [29]. The
advantages of hydroponics in space are twofold: it offers the possibility of cultivating a
greater variety of food crops and it can include a biological aspect called the bioregenerative
life support system. This simply means that plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and
provide new oxygen through the plant’s natural growth process. Obviously, this will be
important for the long-term planning of both space stations and cities on other planets [32].

3.6. Preliminary Impact Assessment of Hydroponics

Greenhouses with hydroponic systems have been proposed as sustainable and con-
trolled systems for growing food in urban areas. In this context, nutrient management in
hydroponic agricultural systems has been an ecological challenge, the efficiency of which
could be improved by the use of recycling. Therefore, three options were analyzed for nutri-
ent recovery in hydroponics. Among them were direct leachate recycling (DLR), chemical
precipitation (CP), and membrane filtration (MF), and their environmental performance
was also investigated through LCA. The assessment showed that leachate recirculation
(DLR) is the most environmentally friendly option in terms of global warming [90]. In
contrast, CP and MF have three- and five-times greater impacts on our climate, respectively.
Nevertheless, all three alternatives showed lower eutrophication potential compared to
conventional agriculture. Meeting crop nutrient needs sustainably by reusing wastewater
can save between 44 and 52% of global warming impacts with the DLR process or the MF
process compared to conventional cultivation. Urban agriculture and its sustainability can
be promoted through such circular principles.
In relation to this, a similar approach showed that hydroponic water reuse systems can
be operated economically viable, that their products have a high level of product confidence
and that their ecological effects can be positive if appropriate landscaping measures are
taken [91]. Nevertheless, landscaping, as well as acceptance measures, should be carried
out to accompany hydroponic crop production to improve its social and ecological impacts.
Other researchers have investigated the environmental impact of three hydroponic
tomato production systems using LCA. Two NFT systems and one drip system with
granulated rockwool were used for production. All inputs and outputs of each hydroponic
system were divided into structural materials, cultivation inputs and waste. Structural
materials and wastes accounted for a much smaller share of the environmental impacts.
The environmental impact of fertilizers as a result of production was the highest. Water
consumption, on the other hand, had a much lower environmental impact in all systems.
However, all systems had different water consumption levels, with drip irrigation having
the lowest water consumption. The impact of fertilizers could be minimized through
a proper irrigation schedule and needs to be studied and improved in more detail as it
probably has the most visible environmental impact [92].
As well as that, it was shown that the growing medium, the pots, the electricity
demand, the transport of raw materials and the product deliveries have the greatest impact
in ecological terms on hydroponic systems [93]. Paper pots can replace those made of plastic,
resulting in large savings in greenhouse gas emissions and fossil resource consumption.
Coconut fiber can replace conventional garden soil, also allowing for more environmentally
friendly crop production. To further reduce the impact of hydroponic and related systems,
resource-efficient steps are needed to improve the impact of high electricity demand, in
particular. In addition, more symbiotic exchange relationships should be developed to
harness urban waste and by-products.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 13 of 32

4. Aquaponics
4.1. General Aspects of Aquaponics
Aquaponics is a sustainable food production system that combines hydroponics with
aquaculture, in which the waste produced by farmed fish can be used as a nutrient source
for plants. The nutrient-enriched water from the fish tank is used to feed the plants after
being processed by nitrifying bacteria (Nitrosomonas spp. and Nitrobacter spp.), which
convert ammonium as well as highly toxic ammonia into nitrate in two sequential chemical
reactions. The nitrifying bacteria form biofilms in biofilters or in the substrate of the
hydroponic system. In turn, excessively high oxygen content in the water can inhibit
denitrification by bacteria [94].
The water cleaned by the plants is then returned to the fish [77,95]. This system
combines efficient nutrient use with the minimization of water consumption, enabling
production in areas with limited water supply. Only a small proportion of the total system’s
water needs to be changed per day. Furthermore, the chemical fertilization of the plants
might partly not be mandatory as the wastewater of aquaculture often has similar nutrient
parameters as the nutrient solution of hydroponic systems. This does not necessarily apply
to potassium, calcium and iron, so adding these nutrients makes sense for optimal plant
growth [77]. Nitrogen and phosphorus, on the other hand, are abundantly available to the
plants in the aquaponic system [96].
Aquaponics, thus, has both economic and environmental advantages. In addition to
the efficient use of space, costs are reduced by the fact that high-cost water treatments for
fish cultivation can be replaced by cheaper systems. In such a low maintenance cost alter-
native, the wastewater is first coarsely filtered and then treated in the biofilter by nitrifying
bacteria. For the environment, the aspects of phytoremediation and the avoidance of the
release of nutrients via wastewater are particularly advantageous and can additionally
reduce maintenance costs.
In addition, pesticides are not allowed in fish farming, which makes it necessary to use
biological techniques to protect plants and fish [77]. Despite the advantages, the aquaponic
production system in Europe is still at an early stage of development, not least due to
the fact that the bureaucratic requirements and regulations of the European Union have
complicated the progress. In addition, aquaponic products cannot be sold as organic or
subsidized in their production. Nevertheless, there are some relatively small companies
producing and offering aquaponic products in the EU. The United States already has some
medium-sized companies in the aquaponic sector. In addition, they established a certificate
for organic aquaponic cultivation in 2008 [97].
As is well known, unused nutrients lead to eutrophication [13,98]. In conventional
fish farming, up to two-thirds of the nutrients remain unused [99]. Nitrogen and phos-
phorus compounds in particular pollute the environment and lead to increased growth
of phytoplankton and algae, including toxic algae [100,101]. This can result in anaerobic
zones, high fish mortality and a loss of biodiversity [102,103]. In particular, an ammonium
surplus and ammonia and nitrite from the degradation of proteins have a direct toxic effect
on many aquatic organisms [100,104].

4.2. Advantages of Aquaponics

The benefits of aquaponics include high water-use efficiency, the use of a minimal
amount of fertilizer, the saving of pesticides and antibiotics, the elimination of soil, the com-
bination of crop and fish production and the reduction of the harmful input of aquacultural
waste in the environment. Although data have still been thin in some areas, aquaponics
already has a reputation as one of the most sustainable forms of agriculture [105,106].
The majority of aquaponic systems function as recirculating aquaculture systems (RASs),
with plants uptaking nutrients from fish waste. No water is lost in the process except for
splash water and due to the processes of evaporation, transpiration by plants and necessary
withdrawals. RASs use 90–99% less water than conventional aquaculture systems [107].
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 14 of 32

Several studies have found that aquaponic systems typically consume between 0.3%
and 5.0% of the total system’s water per day [108,109]. In comparison, some basic hy-
droponic recirculating systems require complete nutrient replacement every 2–3 weeks,
making the water-use efficiency of hydroponic systems look comparatively poor [110,111].
In general, aquaponic systems use at least 50% of the nutrients originally provided by
fish food as plant fertilizer. Again, there is a saving of a substantial amount of fertilizer
compared to hydroponics, and the production of fertilizer accounts for a large proportion
of the energy required for agriculture. Aquaculture farms require a filtration system to
remove toxic compounds such as ammonia, nitrite and suspended solids from the system.
These compounds, if not properly managed, can leach into neighboring environments and
cause eutrophication of the water. Considering that aquaculture, as the fastest growing
agricultural industry in the world, has been projected to provide 54% of the estimated
200 million tons of fish needed by 2030, it could possibly have an immense impact on the
environment [112]. Due to its independence from land, the use of aquaponic systems can
be optimized in controlled environments in urban areas. This can help mitigate potential
land scarcity. Aquaponics has the potential to use the resources of our agriculture much
more efficiently.

4.3. Disadvantages of Aquaponics

Achieving resource efficiency has been poorly demonstrated in previous trials. The
challenges to establishing a successful and sustainable aquaponic operation are numerous
and include the impact of system design [106], pH control of the system’s water [113],
aeration and filtration technologies [114], acceptable nutrient ranges [115], plant and fish
species mating, microbial populations, nitrogen content, feed quantity and type [116],
pest management and effective marketing. In a broader sense, aquaponics is an even
more complex system involving multiple disciplines, including aquaculture, microbiology,
ecology, horticulture, agriculture, chemistry and engineering.

4.4. Aquaponic Parameters

In order to optimize the yield of fish and plants alike, the water quality must be
adapted to the selected species. The levels of ammonium, nitrate and nitrite are of particular
importance here, along with the pH value, the temperature and the oxygen dissolved in
the water. High ammonium concentrations are generally toxic for fish. Additionally, the
amount of highly toxic ammonia increases automatically with the temperature and the
pH value, as these parameters influence the ratio between ammonium and other nitrogen
compounds:
NH4 + ↔ NH3 + H+ . (3)
The pH value is a difficult parameter to adjust, and organisms generally have different
demands on it. For the plants, the pH value should not exceed 7.5 in order to optimize the
bioavailability of the nutrients. For optimal nitrification, the pH value should be between
6.5 and 8.5. In turn, nitrification lowers the pH by releasing hydrogen ions and utilizing
carbon [77].
When nitrate is taken up by the roots of the plants, the pH value will in turn increase
because hydroxide ions are being released. Overall, a pH value of about 7 is, thus, also
recommended with regard to fish culture. An adequate supply of nitrate is indispensable
for plant growth. However, higher concentrations of nitrate in the water lead to the growth
inhibition of fish and a simultaneous increase in their stress level [117].
Waste products from aquaculture include dissolved solids, organic and inorganic
matter, pathogens from unused food and by-products from fish metabolism such as feces,
chemicals or medicines [118]. In particular, the increased amounts of ammonium, nitrate
and phosphate in aquacultural wastewater have led to environmental problems. The
consequences include the eutrophication of habitats and the direct, harmful effects of
excessive ammonium and nitrate on many organisms [119]. The sustainable purification of
water through a biofilter and hydroponically cultivated plants thus appears to make sense.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 15 of 32

Certain plants, namely halophytes, which colonize saline habitats, are particularly suitable
for the purification of saline wastewater from aquacultures. The economic feasibility
of certain halophytes focusing on their filter performance, including various utilization
options, is described in [96].

4.5. Aquaponic Organisms

Plants in aquaponic systems must be adapted to the specific composition of the fish
effluent. In addition, plant species that have short production cycles with high market
value have been preferred. Herbs such as spinach, basil, coriander, chives, purslane,
parsley, mint and watercress have already been established in aquaponic systems alongside
lettuce. Among others, medicinal and ornamental plants are good candidates for this type
of production system. Fish species used in aquaponics include the Spotted Fork Catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus), the Trout Perch (Micropterus salmoides), the Sunfish (Pomoxis spp.),
the Black Pacu (Colossoma macropomum), the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and the
carp (Cyprinus carpio), including the koi, the barramundi (Lates calcarifer) and the codfish
(Maccullochella peelii) named in the Australian Murray Cod. Fish from the African cichlid
genus (Tilapia spp.) have been most commonly used in aquaponic culture to date [77].

4.6. Potential for Phytoremediation

The use of plants for wastewater remediation as a cost-effective and sustainable
practice is promising [120]. Phytoremediation is a natural process in which metabolites
are degraded in plants and accumulated in the harvested compartments and sometimes
even volatilized via plant metabolism. Despite many other plant species, there has been
a whole series of studies looking at the potential of watercress for phytoremediation.
Organic components such as textile dyes [121], pesticides [122] or pharmaceuticals [123]
can be bound in watercress. Inorganic components, especially heavy metals such as
arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, copper, chromium, nickel and lead, can also be partially taken
up and accumulated in the plants [123–134]). For example, watercress tolerates heavy
metals at least in moderate amounts and is suitable for the accumulation of cadmium,
cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel and lead. Arsenic, on the other hand, interferes with
plant growth. In addition, the uptake capacity of watercress for nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds) has been investigated in a whole series of studies, testing, on
the one hand, in hydroponic systems [135–137], and on the other hand, in aquaponic
systems [138,139]. In summary, the plant tolerates a wide range of nutrient concentrations
and has a high nitrogen uptake capacity but also requires relatively high amounts of
nitrogen for healthy development.

4.7. Preliminary Impact Assessment of Aquaponics

Both aquaponic and hydroponic systems require high energy input, leading to poten-
tial environmental burdens. A cradle-to-gate LCA compared the environmental perfor-
mance, on an economic basis, of aquaponics and hydroponics with identical system designs.
For a one-month cultivation period, tilapia and six vegetables produced in the aquaponic
system had almost twice the total value of the vegetables from the hydroponic system.
Aquaponics produced a 45% lower endpoint environmental impact than hydroponics.
Electricity use for heating and lighting and water pumping contributed to the majority of
the environmental impacts of both systems, which was followed by the production of fish
feed and fertilizers. However, changing the energy source from coal to wind power could
make hydroponic systems more environmentally friendly than aquaponic systems [140].

4.8. Germany’s Contribution to the Scientific and Economic Development of Aquaponics in the
Frame of EU-Funded Projects
INAPRO is an EU-funded project that represents innovative model- and demonstration-
based water management for resource-efficient integrated multitrophic systems of vegetable
production and aquaculture. Resource-saving solutions are found on a production scale
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 16 of 32

under different geographical and climatic conditions. The aquaponic system was devel-
oped by the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in the Research
Association Berlin e.V. (Forschungsverbund Berlin e.V.; Rudower Chaussee 17; D-12489
Berlin, Germany) and uses ASTAF-PRO technology, which is characterized by an innova-
tive double recirculation system. This is intended to create optimal production conditions
in both subsystems for fish and plants. With the help of computer models, sustainable
food production was developed that is, according to the researchers, almost emission-free.
Cold traps catch the evaporation water in the greenhouse, which is then fed back into the
fish section. Even the CO2 produced in the fish section is in turn absorbed by the plants
to again release O2 . Aquaponic systems of this kind have already been implemented in
Spain, Germany, Belgium and China as part of the project to demonstrate the technical and
economic feasibility of the system, and moreover, to open up new market opportunities for
manufacturers and operators of aquaponic systems [141].
Another project carried out by IGB Berlin is CITYFOOD, where researchers are devel-
oping innovative solutions for integrating multitrophic vegetable production and aqua-
culture systems (IAAC systems) on a larger scale in urban areas. In this way, the project
contributes to meeting the enormous ecological challenges of the future. IAAC systems are
resource-efficient and optimize water, energy, wastewater and nutrient dynamics to ensure
sustainable urban development. The project uses computer models, real-world experiments
in living labs, urban planning aspects and case studies within a multidisciplinary project
consortium and disseminates findings to the public in a freely available IAAC knowledge
database [142].
Within Germany, aquaponic research has not only been advanced in Berlin. The
FischGlasHaus (English: FishGlasHouse), with a total area of 1000 m2 , was built in 2015 on
the campus of the Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (AUF), Rostock, and
is currently, according to its own information, the most advanced aquaponics experimental
facility in Europe. The facility can particularly be characterized by its “multi-unit-system-
design” technology. Under ecologically sustainable conditions (no pesticides or antibiotics
are used), the influence of different fish species, such as the African predatory catfish
(Clarias gariepinus) and the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), on the growth of herbs
(basil, mint), cabbages (pak choi) or fruit vegetables (cucumbers) is studied. For plant
nutrition, only the wastewater from fish production is used. In addition, the extent to
which partial fertilization would be necessary to achieve a marketable plant quality has
been examined [143].
European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) has been supported by the
EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020. The EU project “Aquaponics Hub—Realizing
sustainable integrated fish and vegetable production for the EU” (https://www.cost.eu/
actions/FA1305/project, accessed on 2 February 2022) has aimed to develop aquaponics
in the EU by guiding research through the creation of a networked hub of scientific and
industry experts—scientists, engineers, economists, aquaculturists and horticulturists. The
project can be divided into three areas. The first area has dealt with the development of
aquaponic technologies in cities and urban areas. The second area has been concentrated
on development in third world countries to promote food security for local people. The
last area has been focused on aquaponic technologies on an industrial scale, exploring
competitive systems to produce low-cost, healthy and sustainable food [144].
Berlin has honored its reputation as an innovation hotspot in the private sector as
well. In Berlin-Schoeneberg, one of the world’s most modern urban aquaponics facilities,
the ECF FARM Berlin, is operated. The aquaponic system produces tilapia and basil and
distributes the products regionally to Berlin’s residents. The start-up uses the technologies
developed by IGB Berlin as part of the INAPRO project and has equipped the system with
two water circuits [145]. The aquaculture cycle for fish production is coupled with the
hydroponic cycle for plant production. In this way, two different pH values optimized for
the respective cycle can be set. In addition, minerals important for the plants can be added
separately as substitute fertilizer without harming the fish. Another big advantage is that
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 17 of 32

the water in this system is used twice, and the fish excretions are used as fertilizer for the
plants. In addition to the 1800 m2 production area in Berlin, there is an 1100 m2 rooftop
farm in Bad Ragaz, Czech Republic, for the combined production of trout and lettuce as
well as herbs, and another 2400 m2 rooftop farm in Brussels, Belgium, where striped bass
are produced in the same system as lettuce and herbs [146].
TopFarmers GmbH, also based in Berlin, wants to play a part in the further develop-
ment of aquaponics, too. With AquaTerraPonik, the waste materials from aquaculture can
be utilized by the crops in a closed fish-plant cycle. The uniqueness lies in the fact that
special attention is paid to the substrates. They not only serve to hold the plant, but also
provide space for many microorganisms and enable an optimal supply of nutrients. With
the help of self-developed technologies, such as AgTech, Big Data, IoT, Industry 4.0 and
Smart Factory, processes and procedures have been made more transparent and efficient.
The networking of sensors and technology plays an important role and provides data for
the continuous optimization of the system. As an open platform, the Cloud GrowControl
system is self-learning and can be linked with other services [147].

5. Vertical Farming
5.1. General Aspects of Vertical Farming
Vertical agriculture offers the advantages of a regional supply of fresh food while
saving water and avoiding, or at least reducing, the use of pesticides. In doing so, vertical
approaches are suitable for mass food production regardless of climate and location. These
innovative approaches hold solutions to the intensifying problems of overpopulation and
climate change. A driving force for innovation is the new initiative of the Indoor Farming
University Network [148], which was founded to support and increase the popularity of
the indoor farming industry and connects the worldwide research of vertical approaches.
According to the World Wildlife Foundation’s “2050 Criteria” report, humanity will
need to produce more food in the next four decades than we have in the last 8000 years of
agriculture combined [149]. Increasing urbanization, in particular, confronts our agriculture
with the challenge of supplying growing cities with high-quality food in a sustainable
manner. Vertical farming offers a regionally feasible way to meet the increasing food
demand of cities. In addition to eliminating pesticides, there are virtually no nutrient
emissions and, with an average of only 2–4 L of water per kg of product, huge amounts
of water can potentially be saved. Vertical approaches use much less land and potentially
fewer resources in the distribution of their products and produce less waste. Alongside this,
the controlled environment of an indoor farm not only allows for a significant improvement
in quality (taste, flavor, appearance, shelf life, nutritional value, safety) but also the security
of continuously high production volumes with consistent quality every day of the year,
regardless of weather, climate changes or location [150–153].

5.2. Advantages of Vertical Farming

A major advantage of vertical farming approaches is the controlled indoor condition of
the mostly hydroponic or aeroponic cultivation technique. This provides complete control
of nutrient supply via optimized fertilization strategies that promote growth, yield and
ultimately food quality [154]. This requires that the essential nutrients are available to the
plants in the right form, at the right time and in the right quantity. In connection with
nutrient deficiencies, morphological growth deficiencies often occur, which limit economic
profitability as well as product quality. Growth deficits can be prevented by constant
monitoring and, thus, the early detection of nutrient deficits and constant optimization of
the fertilization strategy. This in turn requires a basic understanding of the functionality
and transport of plant nutrients, which often already enables a visual diagnosis of most
nutrient deficiencies [155].
The use of distributed sensors and multivariate mathematical modeling systems is
now widespread in modern agriculture. The collection and interpretation of data provide
virtually limitless possibilities for optimizing the production apparatus. Vertical agricul-
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 18 of 32

ture, with its obvious potential for sustainable, water- and land-saving food production,
experiences the same optimization potential and can be optimized in exactly the same
way as the conventional food industry. The basis of any empirical assessment starts at
the level of data and is no less dependent on how you collect it, how you process it and
how you respond to it. Very recent developments have been in the field of sensor and
processing technology that enable AI-based decision-making, with the goal of consistent
and predictable product quality [156].

5.3. Disadvantages of Vertical Farming

Indoor farms, often referred to as plant factories with artificial lighting (PFALs), have
currently spread due to the postulated advantages of the efficient use of natural resources.
However, the major disadvantage of significantly higher energy demand compared to
conventional food production systems has been disregarded [157].
Research around the technological features and management protocols of indoor farms
has experienced an upsurge in recent years, mainly due to innovations in lighting technolo-
gies, cropping systems and environmental control units. In this context, it has been shown
that optimal lighting management, especially in terms of spectral composition [158,159],
light intensity [160] and photoperiod management [161], can transform overall resource
efficiency and environmental performance [162] in controlled crop production systems. A
comprehensive analysis of the resource use and environmental impact of such systems is
still outstanding.

5.4. Preliminary Impact Assessment of Vertical Farming

To systematically assess the environmental advantages and disadvantages of vertical
approaches compared to traditional methods of food production, it would be useful to look
at an LCA, although only a very limited number of such analyses of vertical or similar
systems have been published at present [163].
Conventional arable farming has inherent environmental impacts, such as nitrate
leaching, phosphorus losses, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions, land use and pesticide
emissions, to name just a few of them. Negative environmental impacts have reportedly
been lower for vertical systems, but this has yet to be verified. Certainly, some disadvan-
tages of vertical approaches, as well as hydroponic systems in general, cannot be dismissed.
These include the compulsory use of nutrient solutions, which change in terms of their nu-
trient composition during cycling and are, at the same time, enriched with various, mostly
undesirable organic compounds. For the sustainable and resource-saving use of vertical
systems, the question of disposal or reuse of this solution is, thus, unavoidable. In addition,
another challenge for vertical systems is presented by their dependence on a massive
infrastructure of buildings, racks, containers and lighting. Dealing with this infrastructure
considered from manufacturing to disposal is generally resource- and energy-intensive.
Another challenge already addressed is electricity consumption. As our power generation
becomes more environmentally friendly, the environmental impact of power consumption
by agricultural systems is gradually being reduced. Potentially shorter distances from
producer to consumer will reduce transportation processes overall, which would need to
be evaluated in detail, but can generally be seen as a benefit. However, the LCA evaluation
would also need to consider whether the incorporation of vertical farms in cities has an
impact on other transportation activities, including personnel transportation. Additionally,
the LCA should also take into account the land consumption associated with vertical
systems to make the argument for lower land requirements comprehensible in reality. In
this context, the goal is to obtain future electricity from renewable sources, which in turn
could massively increase land requirements, considering the large areas for solar panels or
wind turbines. So far, the argument for lower water consumption can mainly be used to
justify the use in arid regions, but less so in areas where natural irrigation prevails thanks
to sufficient water reserves. It is often mentioned that no pesticides are used in vertical or
general hydroponic systems. This conceals the fact that the use of toxic biocides to disinfect
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 19 of 32

vertical systems is sometimes well-considered. All in all, the potential of vertical systems
to increase the sustainability of our food production has yet to be critically and objectively
evaluated, which is not to say that it is not there. In particular, the handling of the nutrient
solution, including its disposal or reuse, is a key challenge for vertical as well as hydroponic
systems [164].

6. Rough Comparison of Soilless Systems

Aeroponics is, by definition, a subset of hydroponics, with the difference that no
growing medium is used in any case. It is a method of cultivation in which the plants are
anchored in holes in polystyrene sheets and their roots are suspended in the air below the
sheet. Aeroponic cultivation is usually practiced in sheltered structures and is suitable for
low leafy vegetables such as lettuce, spinach, etc. [86].
By contrast, aquaponics is a sustainable food production system that combines the
hydroponic culture of plants with aquaculture in a closed water cycle [94]. The aquaponic
system relies on the combination of animals and plants to maintain a stable and natural
aquatic environment. The natural functioning in aquaponics means that the elements
tend to balance each other out. In addition, hydroponics is set up in a clean, man-made
environment, while aquaponics is a replica of a natural ecosystem’s functioning, favoring
organic cycles. The fish waste forms the organic nutrient source for the growing plants,
and the plants provide a natural filter, especially for the toxic nitrogen residues from the
fish waste. Microbes (nitrifying bacteria) usually grow in a separate biofilter and convert
the ammonium from the fish waste first into nitrite and afterwards into nitrate, which then
can be reused by the plants [165].
At first glance, the three farming systems of hydroponics, aeroponics and aquaponics
have some aspects in common, as they do not use soil as a substrate for growing crops.
Similarly, they are supposed to deliver sustainable and profitable food production. The
difficulty in comparing hydroponics and aquaponics lies in the different prerequisites of
the systems. The construction of an aquaponic system itself is already more labor- and
cost-intensive, as stages for the filtration and treatment of the fish wastewater have to be
set up, as well as an aquarium as a habitat for the fish themselves. Nevertheless, there
are some significant differences where aquaponics ensures advantages over hydroponics,
such as the higher cost of fertilizer to provide plant nutrients in the hydroponic system. In
the aquaponic system, the nutrients from the fish excrements are reused for conversion by
microorganisms and subsequently to build up new plant material. Several studies have
concluded that aquaponics farming generally shows faster and more efficient results in
terms of plant growth compared to hydroponics. In terms of nutrient solution control, it is
not necessary to upload the nutrient solution in the aquaponic system, while uploading and
disposing of the nutrient solution in the hydroponic system may well become necessary, as
salts and other by-products accumulate and become toxic to the plants. In an established
aquaponic system, pH and nitrogen levels only need to be monitored once a week and
nitrate levels just once a month as a result of the natural balancing of these components.
Aquaponics can, thus, show greater water-use efficiency. In addition, in an aquaponic
system, the electrical conductivity does not need to be checked once a day as it does in a
commercial hydroponic system, which reduces labor input, too [165].
Although aeroponics and hydroponics are designed to be similar in their use of
nutrient-rich water, they are distinctly different. Hydroponics often uses media other
than soil to retain and distribute nutrient-rich water to nourish the plants. In contrast,
aeroponics uses a misting system to deliver the nutrients. Aeroponics promises greater
efficiency in vertical growing arrangements and efficient use of space. Both the hydroponic
and aeroponic systems allow for flexibility and control of quality, health and quantity.
At the same time, hydroponics can use only up to 10% of water resources compared to
conventional methods. Aeroponics has no higher water-saving potential as it does not
use a nutrient medium and instead sprays a nutrient-rich solution onto the root system
to maximize nutrient uptake. While an aeroponic system requires constant monitoring,
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 20 of 32

hydroponic systems can be relatively user-friendly. However, both systems are probably
more efficient in terms of their use of water and space and their yield performance than
soil-based agriculture, and both have almost the same ability to flexibly control irrigation
and nutrient applications [28].
Aeroponic systems allow for a reduction of water consumption by up to 98%, fertilizer
use by up to 60% and pesticide use by almost 100%. At the same time, crop yields can be
maximized. Plants grown aeroponically can, in some cases, absorb more nutrients, which
makes the plants more nutritionally valuable. Another advantage of aeroponics is that the
plants can be transferred with less effort, as they do not suffer from transplant shock. A
disadvantage in the hydroponic system is the transfer of nutrient solution between plants,
which makes it possible for diseases to transfer rapidly between plants via the water [166].

7. Conclusions
In recent years, soilless cultivation has become increasingly important as a promising
strategy for growing a variety of crops. This approach provides the opportunity to grow
short-lived crops, such as vegetables, throughout the whole year with comparatively few
land and labor requirements. Especially in regions with limited water or soil resources,
hydroponic cultivation techniques can open up new approaches to food production. To
support this development, cost-effective hydroponic technologies that save labor as well
as operating costs through increased automation need to reach the market. On the other
hand, hurdles such as the risk of the rapid spread of diseases within the closed systems,
as well as contradictions such as the need for fossil energy resources have to be overcome.
As long as sustainability is limited by the need for fossil resources, large building struc-
tures, technical equipment, any disinfectants and waste materials, the use of hydroponic
techniques should always be critically considered in terms of environmental balance and
long-term consequences for both the planet’s health and ours. When evaluating current
research results, there is a lack of comparable sustainability studies. Efforts are needed to
obtain clear data, especially regarding the environmental impact of high energy costs, and
to find alternatives to fossil energy sources. In order to be able to more accurately assess
the future opportunities of soilless techniques, it is necessary to know the advantages and
disadvantages of the individual systems, substrates and organisms and to understand
their applicability. Not all systems are equally efficient, nor can they be applied in all
areas and locations. Similarly, not all plant species are equally suitable for cultivation
in soilless systems. Economic efficiencies cannot be neglected here. The substrates used
in some cases also have a separate impact on the environment, which must be critically
included in the overall consideration. So, in addition to the lighting and nutrient supply,
the numerous systems, applications, substrates and organisms and their economic viability
and sustainability have to be considered in order to get an understanding of whether and
when it is worthwhile to use soilless techniques.

Author Contributions: Designing the review, J.P. and A.F. Writing of the draft, A.F. Editing, A.F. and
J.P. Supervision, J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Univer-
sität Hannover.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Ariel Turcios, Hannover, for critical reading and correct-
ing the manuscript, and Johann Hornbacher for correcting the English language. Both individuals
have consented to the acknowledgement.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 21 of 32

Appendix A

Table A1. Liquid or solution culture techniques further subdivided into circulating (closed) and
non-circulating (open) techniques. GM, growth medium.

Technique Description Advantages Disadvantages

Circulating methods
Nutrient solution pumped through plant root system, collecting and reusing excess solution.
(closed systems)
Plants in channels with nutrient - control of nutrient
- low initial costs
NFT solution flowing past roots concentrations and pH required
- reusability of nutrient solution
[23,31,43,110] driven by a slight gradient. - difficult for species with short roots
- low probability of blockages
Often in substrate-filled net pots. - power/pump failures
- efficient water and nutrient use
Growing directly in nutrient - take care regarding
DFT - water-loving and
solution. Often in substrate-filled sufficient oxygenation
[23,31,43,167] fast-growing plants
net pots. - risk of diseases, etc.
- can be organic
Plants placed directly in growing
- high demand for reservoir
trays often filled with medium. - water-loving plants
Ebb and flow system capacities and nutrient medium
Nutrient solution periodically - energy-efficient
[23,31,168,169] - risk of anoxia
floods planting chamber and - easily scalable
- power/pump failures
returns to reservoir.
- drip lines/emitters susceptible
Substrate in which roots are - simple installation
to blockages
Drip system supplied with nutrient solution - efficient water and nutrient use
- control of nutrient
[23,31,33,43,170] via drip emitter, and easy control
concentrations and pH required
often periodically.
- power/pump failures
Capillary action feeds plants via - suitable for indoor, small or single
Wick system
synthetic fibers such as nylon. plants such as herbs and spices - requires a lot of water
[23,43,171]
Often with absorbent medium. - passive; no electricity needed
- excellent aeration - maintenance effort
- reusability of nutrient solution - atomizers may clog
Roots hang in air surrounded by
- absence of GM - cleaning of root chambers
Aeroponic sufficient oxygen and wetted
- water-saving - high initial costs
[28,166,172] with aerosol of nutrient solution
- low risk of diseases - power/pump failures
distributed by atomizers.
- high productivity - control of nutrient
- vertical usability concentrations and pH required
- maintenance effort
Combining hydroponic culture
- risk of algae growth
of plants with aquaculture of fish - efficient water and nutrient use
Aquaponic [28,77,95] - risk of diseases, etc.
in closed water cycle and - no fertilizers required
- power/pump failures
nitrifying bacteria.
- sufficient oxygenation
Non-circulating
Nutrient solution is replaced when nutrient concentration decreases or pH and EC change.
methods
- inexpensive
Root dipping - less efficient water and
Pots closely spaced submerged - little maintenance
technique nutrient use
in nutrient solution. - passive; no electricity needed
[173] - risk of diseases, etc.
- good aeration
- less efficient water and
Plants in small pots are fixed to - inexpensive
Floating nutrient use
Styrofoam sheet (or light plate) - little maintenance
technique [27] - risk of diseases, etc.
and float on nutrient solution. - passive; no electricity needed
- artificial aeration
Plant pots with holes at bottom
Capillary action and inert medium placed in
- suitable for ornamental, flower
technique shallow containers. Nutrient - aeration depending on medium
and indoor plants
[174] solution reaches medium by
capillary action.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 22 of 32

Table A2. Solid media culture techniques or aggregate systems.

Technique Description Advantages Disadvantages

Approximately 1 m long polyethylene
bags filled with sterilized coconut fibers
are sealed at the bottom and hung up - chance to reuse solution
(“verti-grow” technique). Plants in net through nutrient
Hanging bag
pots pressed into holes in the sides of solution-collecting channel - risk of algae or mold growth
technique
hanging bags. Nutrient solution - suitable for lettuce, leafy - power/pump failures
[173]
distributed evenly from the top by vegetables, strawberry
micro-sprinkler. The nutrient solution and small flower plants
drips down and moistens coconut fibers
and plant roots.
Polythene bags about 1 m long filled with
sterilized coconut dust are placed
horizontally in rows on the ground.
Small holes are made at the top of the
- chance to reuse solution
Grow bag technique bags and 2–3 plants in net pots per bag - risk of algae or mold growth
through nutrient
[175] are pressed into them. Slits on each side - power/pump failures
solution-collecting channel
of the bags are provided for drainage,
and fertilization is done with a black
capillary tube leading from the main feed
line to each plant.
Plants are grown in narrow trenches or in
above-ground stone troughs. Inner - suitable for lettuce, - tall-growing vine plants
linings of trenches are covered by thick coriander, spinach, etc. (cucumber, tomato, etc.) need
Trench or trough
polythene sheets. Size and shape of - chance to reuse solution additional support to carry
technique
trench are constructed according to if nutrient the weight of their fruits
[176]
cropping nature. All required nutrients solution-collecting - risk of algae or mold growth
with water are circulated through the channel is used - power/pump failures
dripping system with a pump.
- chance to reuse solution
if nutrient - tall-growing plants need
Pot technique is similar to trench or
Pot technique solution-collecting additional support
trough culture, but growing media is
[27] channel is used - risk of algae or mold growth
filled in clay or plastic pots.
- greater controllability by - power/pump failures
singling out

Table A3. List of different plant species that can be cultivated hydroponically. Summarized partly
after Hayden [44], Resh [83], Singh and Singh [32], Sardare and Adame [86], Mohammed [43] and
Sharma et al. [33].

Type of Crop Plant Species Expected Yield References

Al-Karaki and Al-Momani [177],
Avena sativa (Oat) Comparable or higher
Fazaeli et al. [178], Singh and Singh [32]
Glycine max (Soybean) Higher and greater quality Palermo et al. [179], Singh and Singh [32]
Cereals Vargas-Rodríguez [180], Singh and Singh [32],
Oryza sativa (Rice) Cultivar-dependent, higher
Irfan et al. [181]
Pisum sativum (Peas) Comparable or higher Singh and Singh [32], Jada, M. A. S. al [182]
Gros et al. [183], Du Toit and Labuschagne [184],
Triticum aestivum (Wheat) Higher
Singh and Singh [32]
Vargas-Rodríguez [180], Rivera et al. [185],
Zea mays (Maize) Comparable or higher
Singh and Singh [32], Bhattacharya [186]
Guler et al. [187], Fukuda and Anami [188],
Cucumis melo (Melons) Higher and greater quality
Yam et al. [189]
Sarooshi and Cresswell [190], Albaho et al. [191],
Fruits Fragaria ananassa (Strawberry) Lower
Treftz and Omaye [192]
Rubus idaeus (Raspberry) Higher Treftz and Omaye [193]
Vaccinium corymbosum (Blueberry) Higher Nascimento et al. [194]
Vitis vinifera (Grapes) Comparable Nemati et al. [55]
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 23 of 32

Table A3. Cont.

Type of Crop Plant Species Expected Yield References

Allium cepa (Onion) Comparable Pascual et al. [195]
Allium fistulosum (Scallion) NA
Allium schoenoprasum (Chive) Comparable Resh [83]
Apium graveolens (Celery) Comparable Pascale et al. [196]
Asparagus officinalis (Asparagus) Lower Poll et al. [197]
Beta vulgaris (Beet) Higher Singh and Singh [32]
Brassica oleracea var.
Higher Singh and Singh [32]
botrytis (Cauliflower)
Brassica oleracea var. capitata (Cabbage) Higher Singh and Singh [32]
Vegetables
Brassica oleracea var. sabellica (Kale) Higher Chandra et al. [198]
Capsicum annum (Bell pepper) Lower or Higher Albaho et al. [191], Chandra et al. [198]
Capsicum frutescens (Chili) Higher Alimuddin et al. [199]
Gros et al. [183], Singh and Singh [32],
Cucumis sativus (Cucumbers) Comparable or higher
Chandra et al. [198]
Cucurbita pepo (Zucchini) Higher Chandra et al. [198]
Lycopersicon esculentum (Tomato) Higher Singh and Singh [32], Chandra et al. [198]
Psophocarpus tetragonolobus
Comparable or lower Chow and Price [200]
(Winged bean)
Raphanus sativus (Radish) Comparable Gros et al. [183]
Solanum melongena (Eggplant) Higher Costa et al. [201]
Solanum tuberosum (Potato) Comparable or higher Ritter et al. [202], Singh and Singh [32]
Atriplex spp. (Saltbush) Comparable Sharma et al. [33]
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Higher Maboko and Plooy [203], Chandra et al. [198]
Leafy vegetables (Swiss chard)
Ipomoea aquatica (Kang Kong) Semi-aquatic plant Xiang et al. [204]
Singh and Singh [32], Barbosa et al. [205],
Lactuca sativa (Lettuce) Higher
Touliatos et al. [38]
Spinacia oleracea (Spinach) Higher Ranawade et al. [40]
Anethum graveolens (Dill) Comparable Resh [83]
Anthriscus cerefolium (Chervil) Comparable Resh [83]
Artemisia dracunculus (Tarragon) Comparable Resh [83]
Barbarea verna (Upland cress) Comparable Resh [83]
Brassica integrifolia (Mustard) Higher Padmathilake et al. [206]
Foeniculum vulgare (Fennel) Comparable Resh [83]
Mentha x piperita (Peppermint) Higher Daryadar [207], Mairapetyan et al. [208]
Hayden [44], Padmathilake et al. [206],
Condiments Mentha spicata (Mint) Higher and greater quality Vimolmangkang et al. [209],
Surendran et al. [210]
Nasturtium officinale (Watercress) Comparable Resh [83]
Comparable or higher and Sgherri et al. [211], Resh [83],
Ocimum spp. (Basil)
greater quality Chandra et al. [198], Mairapetyan et al. [208]
Origanum majorana (Marjoram) Comparable Resh [83]
Origanum vulgare (Oregano) Comparable Resh [83]
Petroselinum crispum (Parsley) Higher Chandra et al. [198]
Salvia officinalis (Sage) Comparable Resh [83]
Thymus vulgaris (Thyme) Comparable Resh [83]
Trachyspermum roxburghianum
Higher Padmathilake et al. [206]
(Asamodagam)
Trigonella foenum-graecum (Methi) Higher Gurdas et al. [212]
Chrysanthemum indicum
Higher Wilson and Finlay [213]
(Chrysanthemum)
Flower/ornamental
Dianthus caryophyllus (Carnations) Higher Hanan and Holley [214]
crops
Rosa berberifolia (Roses) Comparable Das et al. [215]
Tagetes patula (Marigold) Comparable Sarmah and Bora [216]
Aloe vera (Indian Aloe) Higher Bhattacharya [186]
Anemopsis californica (Yerba mansa) Lower Hayden [44]
Medical crops
Solenostemon scutellarioides (Coleus) NA
Urtica dioica (Nettle) Comparable Hayden [44]
Axonopus compressus (Carpet grass) NA
Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) NA
Fodder crops Asadullah et al. [37],
Hordeum vulgare (Barley) Comparable
Al-Karaki and Al-Hashimi [217]
Medicago sativa (Alfalfa) Comparable Al-Karaki and Al-Hashimi [217]
Sorghum bicolor (Sorghum) Comparable or higher Vargas-Rodríguez [180], Bhattacharya [186]
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 24 of 32

Table A4. Comparison of different substrates/GM modified after Savvas and Gruda [31].

Material Origin Advantages Disadvantages

Low nutrient- and water-holding
Natural with particles of Relatively inexpensive, good
Sand capacity, high volume weight, low
0.05–2.0 mm drainage ability
total pore space
Light volume weight, high total
Melted silicates at pore space, ease of handling, Disposal problems, energy
Rockwool
1500–2000 ◦ C totally inert, nutrition can be consumed during manufacture
carefully controlled
Light volume weight, high
nutrient-holding ability, good Compacts when too wet,
Mg, Al and Fe silicate sieved
Vermiculite water-holding ability, good pH energy-consuming
and heated to 1000 ◦ C
buffering capacity, good aeration product, expensive
due to high pore space
Light volume weight, sterile, Low nutrient capacity,
Siliceous volcanic mineral
Perlite neutral in pH (6.5–7.5), no decay, energy-consuming
sieved and heated to 1000 ◦ C
sufficient total pore space product, expensive
Relatively light volume weight,
Light silicate mineral of good total pore space, cheap and High transport costs,
Pumice
volcanic material long-lasting, pH may be high
environmentally friendly
Physical stability, good air and
Finite resource, environmental
water-holding capacity due to
concerns (CO2 release), increasing
Natural anaerobically high total pore space, low
Peat cost due to energy crisis, may be
processed plant residues microbial activity, light volume
strongly acidic, shrinking may
weight, low and easily adjustable
lead to substrate hydro-repellence
pH, low nutrient content
Physical stability, light weight,
good air content due to high total May contain high salt levels,
By-product of fiber
Coconut coir pore space and high energy consumption
coconut processing
water-holding capacity, during transport
subacid-neutral pH (5–6.8)
Good air content and High variability, need time to
water-holding capacity, good total reduce C:N ratio and terpenes
Bark By-product or waste of
pore space, sub-acid-neutral pH concentrations, increasing cost
(well-aged) wood manufacture
(5–7), sufficient volume weight, since used as an alternative to fuel
long-lasting and in landscaping
Good source of potassium and Non-homogeneous, high volume
micronutrients, suppression of weight, may contain excess salt,
Green compost Composted plant residues
diseases, good moisture-holding need time to be composted,
capacity, urban waste reduction becomes easily waterlogged
Production energy-neutral, helps
with carbon sequestration, Properties vary dependent on
Solid material derived from
biologically very stable, wet feedstock (biochar), high
Biochar and hydrochar biomass pyrolysis or
material can be used for production costs, biochar often
biomass hydrolysis
hydrochar; hydrochar has low has high pH, can be dusty
electric conductivity

References
1. Wackernagel, M.; Cranston, G.; Morales, J.C.; Galli, A. Ecological Footprint Accounts. In Handbook of Sustainable Development;
Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, England, 2014; ISBN 1848444729.
2. Lin, D.; Galli, A.; Borucke, M.; Lazarus, E.; Grunewald, N. Tracking Supply and Demand of Biocapacity through Ecological
Footprint Accounting. In Sustainability Assessment of Renewables-Based Products; Dewulf, J., de Meester, S., Alvarenga, R.A.F., Eds.;
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2015; pp. 179–200. ISBN 9781118933916.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 25 of 32

3. Lin, D.; Hanscom, L.; Murthy, A.; Galli, A.; Evans, M.; Neill, E.; Mancini, M.S.; Martindill, J.; Medouar, F.-Z.; Huang, S.; et al.
Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources
2018, 7, 58. [CrossRef]
4. Wackernagel, M.; Galli, A.; Hanscom, L.; Lin, D.; Mailhes, L. Ecological Footprint accounting: Criticisms and applications. In Rout-
ledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators; Bell, S., Morse, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 521–539. ISBN 9780367497552.
5. Wackernagel, M.; Galli, A.; Hanscom, L.; Lin, D.; Mailhes, L. Ecological Footprint accounting. In Principles Routledge Handbook of
Sustainability Indicators; Bell, S., Morse, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 244–264. ISBN 9780367497552.
6. Wackernagel, M.; Beyers, B. Ecological Footprint: Managing Our Biocapacity Budget; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island,
Canada, 2019; ISBN 9781771423007.
7. Wackernagel, M.; Lin, D.; Evans, M.; Hanscom, L.; Raven, P. Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource
Trends. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2164. [CrossRef]
8. Global Footprint Network. National Footprint accounts 2019 edition. 2019.
9. Lin, D.; Wambersie, L.; Wackernagel, M.; Hanscom, P. (Eds.) Global Footprint Network. In Calculating Earth Overshoot Day 2020:
Estimates Point to August 22nd; Global Footprint Network: Oakland, CA, USA, 2020.
10. Peters, G.P.; Marland, G.; Le Quéré, C.; Boden, T.; Canadell, J.G. Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008-2009 global
financial crisis. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 2–4. [CrossRef]
11. Galli, A.; Halle, M.; Grunewald, N. Physical limits to resource access and utilisation and their economic implications in
Mediterranean economies. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 51, 125–136. [CrossRef]
12. Ryder, J.; Iddya, K.; Ababouch, L.; Hallegraeff, G. Impacts of climate change on harmful algal blooms and seafood safety. In
Assessment and Management of Seafood Safety and Quality: Current Practices and Emerging Issues. Food and Agric; Organization of the
United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014; pp. 174–184.
13. Edwards, P. Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture 2015, 447, 2–14. [CrossRef]
14. Sun, Z.; Sun, W.; Tong, C.; Zeng, C.; Yu, X.; Mou, X. China’s coastal wetlands: Conservation history, implementation efforts,
existing issues and strategies for future improvement. Environ. Int. 2015, 79, 25–41. [CrossRef]
15. Sutradhar, L.C.; Bala, S.K.; Islam, A.; Hasan, M.A.; Paul, S.; Rhaman, M.M.; Pavell, M.A.A.; Billah, M. A review of good adaptation
practices on climate change in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Water & flood Management,
Tokyo, Japan, 14–18 March 2015.
16. Rockström, J.; Karlberg, L. The Quadruple Squeeze: Defining the safe operating space for freshwater use to achieve a triply green
revolution in the Anthropocene. AMBIO J. Environ. Soc. 2010, 39, 257–265. [CrossRef]
17. Killebrew, K.; Wolff, H. Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Technologies. Evans Sch. Policy Anal. Res. Group 2010,
EPAR Brief No. 65, 1–18.
18. Walls, M. Agriculture and environment. MTT Agrifood Res. Finl. 2006. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/
topics/agriculture-and-the-environment/ (accessed on 3 February 2022).
19. Kläring, H.-P. Strategies to control water and nutrient supplies to greenhouse crops. A review. Agronomie 2001, 21, 311–321.
[CrossRef]
20. Bridgewood, L. Hydroponics: Soilless Gardening Explained; The Crowood Press Limited: Marlborough, UK, 2003.
21. Marginson, S. Aero-Farms Urban Agriculture System: Less Space, Less Water, and No Pesticides. New Atlas [Online], 11 June 2010.
Available online: https://newatlas.com/aerofarms-urban-agriculture/15371/ (accessed on 3 February 2022).
22. Brechner, M.; Both, A.J.; CEA Staff. Hydroponic Lettuce Handbook; Cornell Controlled Environment Agriculture, Cornell University:
New York, NY, USA, 1998.
23. Geilfus, C.-M. Controlled Environment Horticulture: Improving Quality of Vegetables and Medicinal Plants; Springer Nat.:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; ISBN 9783030231972.
24. Khan, F.A. A review on hydroponic greenhouse cultivation for sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci. 2018,
2, 59–66. [CrossRef]
25. Beibel, J.P. Hydroponics—The Science of Growing Crops Without Soil. Fla. Dep. Agric. Bull. 1960, 180. Available online: https:
//www.labroots.com/trending/videos/10250/hydroponics-science-growing-plants-without-soil (accessed on 3 February 2022).
26. Maharana, L.; Koul, D.N.; The emergence of Hydroponics. Yojana 2011, 39–40. Available online: https://thenaturalfarmer.org/
article/the-history-of-hydroponics/ (accessed on 3 February 2022).
27. Hussain, A.; Iqbal, K.; Aziem, S.; Mahato, P.; Negi, A.K. A Review On The Science Of Growing Crops Without Soil (Soilless
Culture)—A Novel Alternative For Growing Crops. Int. J. Agric. Crop. Sci. 2014, 7, 833–842.
28. AlShrouf, A. Hydroponics, Aeroponic and Aquaponic as Compared with Conventional Farming. Int. Sch. Res. Netw. Agron. (ISRN)
2017, 27, 247–255.
29. Van Os, E.; Gieling, T.H.; Ruijs, M.N.A. Equipment for hydroponic installations. In Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and
Ornamentals; Savvas, D., Passam, H.C., Eds.; Embryo Publications: Athens, Greece, 2002; pp. 103–141.
30. Savvas, D.; Gianquinto, G.; Tuzel, Y.; Gruda, N. Good Agricultural Practices for greenhouse vegetable crops—12. Soil-
less Culture: Principles for Mediterranean Climate Areas. Food Agric. Organ. U. N. 2013, 217. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260984593_Good_Agricultural_Practices_for_greenhouse_vegetable_crops_
Principles_for_Mediterranean_climate_areas (accessed on 3 February 2022).
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 26 of 32

31. Savvas, D.; Gruda, N. Application of soilless culture technologies in the modern greenhouse industry—A review. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci.
2018, 83, 280–293. [CrossRef]
32. Singh, S.; Singh, B.S. Hydroponics—A technique for cultivation of vegetables and medicinal plant. In Proceedings of the 4th
Global Conference on Horticulture for Food, Nutrition and Livelihood Options, Bhubaneshwar, India, 5 August 2017; p. 220.
33. Sharma, N.; Acharya, S.; Kumar, K.; Singh, N.; Chaurasia, O.P. Hydroponics as an advanced technique for vegetable production:
An overview. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2018, 17, 364–371. [CrossRef]
34. Mohammed, S.B.; Sookoo, R. Nutrient Film Technique for Commercial Production. Agric. Sci. Res. J. 2016, 6, 269–274.
35. Peckenpaugh, D. Hydroponic Solutions: Volume 1: Hydroponic Growing Tips; New Moon Publishing, Inc.: HongKong, China, 2004;
ISBN 9780944557044.
36. Hovorka, A.J. The (Re) Production of Gendered Positionality in Botswana’s Commercial Urban Agriculture Sector.
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2005, 95, 294–313. [CrossRef]
37. Ajmi, A.A.; Salih, A.A.; Kadim, I.; Othman, Y. Yield and water use efficiency of Barley fodder produced under hydroponic system
in GCC countries using tertiary treated sewage effluents. J. Phytol. 2009, 1, 342–348.
38. Touliatos, D.; Dodd, I.C.; McAinsh, M. Vertical farming increases lettuce yield per unit area compared to conventional horizontal
hydroponics. Food Energy Secur. 2016, 5, 184–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Frezza, D.; León, A.; Logegaray, V.; Chiesa, A.; Desimone, M.; Diaz, L. Soilless culture technology for high quality lettuce: Proc. IS
on Soilless Culture and Hydroponics. Acta Hortic. 2005, 697, 43–48. [CrossRef]
40. Ranawade, P.S.; Tidke, S.D.; Kate, A.K. Comparative Cultivation and Biochemical Analysis of Spinacia oleraceae Grown in
Aquaponics, Hydroponics and Field Conditions. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 1007–1013. [CrossRef]
41. Bulgari, R.; Baldi, A.; Ferrante, A.; Lenzi, A. Yield and quality of basil, Swiss chard, and rocket microgreens grown in a hydroponic
system. N. Z. J. Crop. Hortic. Sci. 2016, 45, 119–129. [CrossRef]
42. Majdi, Y.; Ahmandizadeh, M.; Ebrahimi, R. Effect of different substrates on growth indices and yield of green peppers at
hydroponic cultivate. Curr. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 4, 496–499.
43. Mohammed, S. Tomorrow’s Agriculture: “NFT Hydroponics”-Grow within Your Budget; Springer Int. Publ.: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2018.
44. Hayden, A.L. Aeroponic and Hydroponic Systems for Medicinal Herb, Rhizome, and Root Crops. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2006,
41, 536–538. [CrossRef]
45. Walters, K.J.; Currey, C.J. Hydroponic Greenhouse Basil Production: Comparing Systems and Cultivars. HortTechnology 2015,
25, 645–650. [CrossRef]
46. Gruda, N.; Qaryouti, M.M.; Leonardi, C. Growing Media. In Good Agricultural Practices for Greenhouse Vegetable Crops: Principles for
Mediterranean Climate Areas; Baudoin, W., Nono-Womdim, R., Lutaladio, N., Hodder, A., Castilla, N., Leonardi, C., De Pascale, S.,
Qaryouti, S., Duffy, R., Eds.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; pp. 271–302.
47. Böhme, M. Effects of closed systems in substrate culture for vegetable production in greenhouses. Acta Hortic. 1995, 45–54.
[CrossRef]
48. Grillas, S.; Lucas, M.; Bardopoulous, E.; Sarafopoulos, S. Perlite based soilless culture systems: Current commercial application
and prospects. Acta Hortic. 2001, 548, 105–113. [CrossRef]
49. Gruda, N.; Caron, J.; Prasad, M.; Maher, M.J. Growing Media. In Encyclopedia of Soil Sciences, 3rd ed.; Ward Chesworth, W., Lal, R.,
Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; Taylor & Francis Group: Oxford, UK; ISBN 9781498738934.
50. Schmilewski, G. Growing medium constituents used in the EU. Acta Hortic. 2009, 33–46. [CrossRef]
51. Raviv, M. Composts in growing media: What’s new and what’s next? Acta Hortic. 2013, 39–52. [CrossRef]
52. Maher, M.J.; Thomson, D. Growth and manganese content of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) seedlings grown in Sitka spruce
(Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) bark substrate. Sci. Hortic. 1991, 48, 223–231. [CrossRef]
53. Gruda, N.; Schnitzler, W.H. Suitability of wood fiber substrate for production of vegetable transplants: I. Physical properties of
wood fiber substrates. Sci. Hortic. 2004, 100, 309–322. [CrossRef]
54. Gruda, N. Current and future perspective of growing media in Europe. Acta Hortic. 2012, 37–43. [CrossRef]
55. Nemati, M.R.; Simard, F.; Fortin, J.-P.; Beaudoin, J. Potential Use of Biochar in Growing Media. Vadose Zone J. 2015, 14, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
56. Ortega, M.C.; Moreno, M.T.; Ordovás, J.; Aguado, M.T. Behaviour of different horticultural species in phytotoxicity bioassays of
bark substrates. Sci. Hortic. 1996, 66, 125–132. [CrossRef]
57. Morel, P.; Guillemain, G. Assessment of the possible phytotoxicity of a substrate using an easy and representative biotest.
Acta Hortic. 2004, 644, 417–423. [CrossRef]
58. Gruda, N.; Rau, B.J.; Wright, R.D. Laboratory Bioassay and Greenhouse Evaluation of a Pine Tree Substrate Used as a Container
Substrate. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2009, 74, 73–78.
59. Gruda, N.; Schnitzler, W.H. The effect of water supply on bio-morphological and plant-physiological parameters of tomato
transplants cultivated in wood fiber substrate. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2000, 74, 233–239.
60. Grunert, O.; Hernandez-Sanabria, E.; Vilchez-Vargas, R.; Jauregui, R.; Pieper, D.H.; Perneel, M.; van Labeke, M.-C.; Reheul, D.;
Boon, N. Mineral and organic growing media have distinct community structure, stability and functionality in soilless culture
systems. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Gruda, N. Sustainable peat alternative growing media. Acta Hortic. 2012, 973–979. [CrossRef]
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 27 of 32

62. Blok, C.; Urrestarazu, M. Substrate growing developments in Europe 2010–2027. Horticom Plataforma 2010. Available online:
https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/substrate-growing-developments-in-europe-2010-2027 (accessed on 3 February 2022).
63. Vinci, G.; Rapa, M. Hydroponic cultivation: Life cycle assessment of substrate choice. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 1801–1812. [CrossRef]
64. Martínez-Blanco, J.; Lazcano, C.; Christensen, T.H.; Muñoz, P.; Rieradevall, J.; Møller, J.; Antón, A.; Boldrin, A. Compost benefits
for agriculture evaluated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 721–732. [CrossRef]
65. Steiner, C.; Harttung, T. Biochar as a growing media additive and peat substitute. Solid Earth 2014, 5, 995–999. [CrossRef]
66. Raviv, M.; Krasnovsky, A.; Medina, S.; Reuveni, R. Assessment of various control strategies for recirculation of greenhouse
effluents under semi-arid conditions. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 1998, 74, 485–491. [CrossRef]
67. Savvas, D. Nutrient solution recycling. In Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals; Embryo Publications: Athens,
Greece, 2002; pp. 299–343.
68. Maucieri, C.; Nicoletto, C.; Van Os, E.; Anseeuw, D.; van Havermaet, R.; Junge, R. Hydroponic Technologies. In Aquaponics
Food Production; Systems; Goddek, S., Joyce, A., Kotzen, B., Burnell, G.M., Eds.; Combined Aquaculture and Hydroponic:
Singapore, 2019.
69. Zoschke, K.; Börnick, H.; Worch, E. Vacuum-UV radiation at 185 nm in water treatment—A review. Water Res. 2014, 52, 131–145.
[CrossRef]
70. Moriarty, M.J.; Semmens, K.; Bissonnette, G.K.; Jaczynski, J. Inactivation with UV-radiation and internalization assessment of
coliforms and Escherichia coli in aquaponically grown lettuce. LWT 2018, 89, 624–630. [CrossRef]
71. Van Os, E. Recent advances in soilless culture in Europe. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1–8. [CrossRef]
72. Nicoletto, C.; Maucieri, C.; Sambo, P. Effects on Water Management and Quality Characteristics of Ozone Application in Chicory
Forcing Process: A Pilot System. Agronomy 2017, 7, 29. [CrossRef]
73. Runia, W.T. A review of possibilities for disinfection of recirculation water from soilless cultures. Acta Hortic. 1995, 221–229.
[CrossRef]
74. Le Quillec, S.; Fabre, R.; Lesourd, D. La désinfection par chloration à l’eau de Javel: Phytotoxicité sur tomate et chlorate de sodium.
Infos CTIFL 2003, 40–43. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=FR2004002114 (accessed on
3 February 2022).
75. Lara, A. Nutrient Solution Management in the Hydroponic Production of Tomato. Terra Latinoam. 1999, 17, 221–229.
76. Sambo, P.; Nicoletto, C.; Giro, A.; Pii, Y.; Valentinuzzi, F.; Mimmo, T.; Lugli, P.; Orzes, G.; Mazzetto, F.; Astolfi, S.; et al. Hydroponic
Solutions for Soilless Production Systems: Issues and Opportunities in a Smart Agriculture Perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2019,
10, 923. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Rakocy, J.E.; Masser, M.P.; Losordo, T.M. Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: Aquaponics-integrating fish
and plant culture SRAC Publication No. 454 (revision November 2006). South. Reg. Aquac. Cent. 2006. Available online:
https://fisheries.tamu.edu/files/2013/09/SRAC-Publication-No.-454-Recirculating-Aquaculture-Tank-Production-Systems-
Aquaponics-Integrating-Fish-and-Plant-Culture.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2022).
78. Gislerød, H.R.; Kempton, R.J. The oxygen content of flowing nutrient solutions used for cucumber and tomato culture. Sci. Hortic.
1983, 20, 23–33. [CrossRef]
79. Trejo-Tellez, L.I.; Gomez-Merino, F.C. Nutrient Solutions for Hydroponic Systems. In Hydroponics—A Standard Methodology for
Plant Biological Researches; Asao, T., Ed.; BoD-Books on Demand: Nordstedt, Germany, 2012; ISBN 978-953-51-0386-8.
80. De Kreij, C.; Voogt, W.; Baas, R. Nutrient Solutions and Water Quality for Soilless Cultures; Research Station for Floriculture and
Glasshouse Vegetables (PBG): Naaldwijk, The Netherlands, 1999; Brochure 196.
81. Silberbush, M.; Ben-Asher, J. Simulation study of nutrient uptake by plants from soilless cultures as affected by salinity buildup
and transpiration. Plant Soil 2001, 233, 59–69. [CrossRef]
82. Sonneveld, C. Effects of Salinity on Substrate Grown Vegetables and Ornamentals in Greenhouse Horticulture. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2000.
83. Resh, H.M. Hydroponic Food Production: A Definitive Guidebook for the Advanced Home Gardener and the Commercial Hydroponic
Grower, 7th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781439878675.
84. Ikeda, H.; Koohakan, P.; Jaenaksorn, T. Problems and counter measures in the re-use of the nutrient solution in soilless production.
Acta Hortic. 2002, 213–219. [CrossRef]
85. Jones, J.W.; Mair, R.A.; Neves, R.J. Factors Affecting Survival and Growth of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels Cultured in Recirculating
Aquaculture Systems. N. Am. J. Aquac. 2005, 67, 210–220. [CrossRef]
86. Sardare, M.D.; Adame, S.V. A review on plant without soil-hydroponics. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2013, 2, 299–304. [CrossRef]
87. Netherlands Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, NDEFRA. Available online: https://www.government.nl/
ministries/ministry-of-agriculture-nature-and-food-quality (accessed on 27 January 2021).
88. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; Australia.
89. Butler, J.D.; Oebker, N.F. Hydroponics as a Hobby: Growing Plants without Soil; University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, Extension
Service in Agriculture and Home Economics: Urbana, IL, USA, 1962; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/33041
(accessed on 3 February 2022).
90. Rufí-Salís, M.; Calvo, M.J.; Petit-Boix, A.; Villalba, G.; Gabarrell, X. Exploring nutrient recovery from hydroponics in urban
agriculture: An environmental assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104683. [CrossRef]
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 28 of 32

91. Zimmermann, M.; Fischer, M. Impact assessment of water and nutrient reuse in hydroponic systems using Bayesian Belief
Networks. J. Water Reuse Desalination 2020, 10, 431–442. [CrossRef]
92. Tewolde, F.T.; Takagaki, M.; Oshio, T.; Maruo, T.; Kozai, T.; Kikuchi, Y. Environmental impact of tomato production under
different hydroponic systems. Acta Hortic. 2016, 267–271. [CrossRef]
93. Martin, M.; Molin, E. Environmental Assessment of an Urban Vertical Hydroponic Farming System in Sweden. Sustainability
2019, 11, 4124. [CrossRef]
94. Zheng, Y.; Wang, X.C.; Ge, Y.; Dzakpasu, M.; Zhao, Y.; Xiong, J. Effects of annual harvesting on plants growth and nutrients
removal in surface-flow constructed wetlands in northwestern China. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 83, 268–275. [CrossRef]
95. Cowx, I.G. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme—Oncorhynchus mykiss. Food Agric. Organ. Fish. Aquac. Dep. 2006.
Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cultured-Aquatic-Species-Information-Programme-canadum/f4
57e370eff829f33bf249e2c7ca0b9f6d0d5eba (accessed on 3 February 2022).
96. Buhmann, A.; Papenbrock, J. Biofiltering of aquaculture effluents by halophytic plants: Basic principles, current uses and future
perspectives. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2013, 92, 122–133. [CrossRef]
97. Miličić, V.; Thorarinsdottir, R.; Santos, M.D.; Hančič, M.T. Commercial Aquaponics Approaching the European Market: To
Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaponics Products in Europe. Water 2017, 9, 80. [CrossRef]
98. Chen, R.Z.; Wong, M.-H. Integrated wetlands for food production. Environ. Res. 2016, 148, 429–442. [CrossRef]
99. Pullin, R.S.V.; Rosenthal, H.; Maclean, J.L. Environment and Aquaculture in Developing Countries: An Overview of En-
vironmental Issues in Developing-Country Aquaculture. ICLARM: Manila, Philippines, 1993; p. 359. Available online:
https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/handle/20.500.12348/2954.
100. Bunting, S.W. Principles of Sustainable Aquaculture: Promoting Social, Economic and Environmental Resilience; Routledge: London, UK,
2013; ISBN 9781136462511.
101. Jacobs, A.E.; Harrison, J.A. Effects of floating vegetation on denitrification, nitrogen retention, and greenhouse gas production in
wetland microcosms. Biogeochemistry 2014, 119, 51–66. [CrossRef]
102. Okaichi, T. Toxic algal blooms and red tides: A global perspective. In Red Tides: Biology Environmental Science and Toxicology;
Anderson, D.M., Nemoto, T., Anderson, D.M., Eds.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 1989.
103. Backer, L.C.; Mc Gillicuddy, D.J., Jr. Harmful algal blooms: At the interface between coastal oceanography and human health.
Oceanography 2006, 19, 94–106.
104. Kadlec, R.H.; Zmarthie, L.A. Wetland treatment of leachate from a closed landfill. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 946–957. [CrossRef]
105. König, B.; Janker, J.; Reinhardt, T.; Villarroel, M.; Junge, R. Analysis of aquaponics as an emerging technological innovation
system. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 232–243. [CrossRef]
106. Palm, H.W.; Knaus, U.; Appelbaum, S.; Goddek, S.; Strauch, S.M.; Vermeulen, T.; Jijakli, M.H.; Kotzen, B. Towards commercial
aquaponics: A review of systems, designs, scales and nomenclature. Aquac. Int. 2018, 26, 813–842. [CrossRef]
107. Timmons, M.; Ebeling, J.M. Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. In Aquaculture Production Systems; Tidwell, J., Ed.; Wiley-Blackwell:
Ames, IA, USA, 2012; pp. 245–277. ISBN 9781118250105.
108. Rakocy, J.E.; Masser, M.P.; Losordo, T.M. (Eds.) Update on tilapia and vegetable production in the UVI aquaponic system. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, Manila, Philippines, 12–16 September 2004; University
of the Virgin Islands: Kingshill, VI, USA, 2010; pp. 1–15.
109. Maucieri, C.; Nicoletto, C.; Junge, R.; Schmautz, Z.; Sambo, P.; Borin, M. Hydroponic systems and water management in
aquaponics: A review. Ital. J. Agron. 2018, 11. [CrossRef]
110. Cooper, A.J. The ABC of NFT; Grower Books: London, UK, 1979.
111. Resh, H.M. Hydroponic food production. In A Definitive Guidebook of Soilless Food-Growing Methods; Wood Press Publishing
Company: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1995.
112. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Sustainability in Action;
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018.
113. Tyson, R.V.; Simonne, E.H.; Treadwell, D.D.; White, J.M.; Simonne, A. Reconciling pH for Ammonia Biofiltration and Cucumber
Yield in a Recirculating Aquaponic System with Perlite Biofilters. HortScience 2008, 43, 719–724. [CrossRef]
114. Danaher, J.J.; Shultz, R.C.; Rakocy, J.E.; Bailey, D.S. Alternative Solids Removal for Warm Water Recirculating Raft Aquaponic
Systems. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2013, 44, 374–383. [CrossRef]
115. Delaide, B.; Goddek, S.; Gott, J.; Soyeurt, H.; Jijakli, M. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. sucrine) Growth Performance in Comple-
mented Aquaponic Solution Outperforms Hydroponics. Water 2016, 8, 467. [CrossRef]
116. Endut, A.; Jusoh, A.; Ali, N.; Wan Nik, W.B.; Hassan, A. A study on the optimal hydraulic loading rate and plant ratios in
recirculation aquaponic system. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 1511–1517. [CrossRef]
117. Tyson, R.V.; Simonne, E.H. A Practical Guide for Aquaponics as an Alternative Enterprise; UF/IFAS Extension Service: 2014.
Available online: https://www.youngfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/practical-guide-to-aquaponics_university-
of-fl.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2021).
118. Cripps, S.J.; Bergheim, A. Solids management and removal for intensive land-based aquaculture production systems. Aquac. Eng.
2000, 22, 33–56. [CrossRef]
119. Turcios, A.E.; Papenbrock, J. Sustainable Treatment of Aquaculture Effluents—What Can We Learn from the Past for the Future?
Sustainability 2014, 6, 836–856. [CrossRef]
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 29 of 32

120. Pilon-Smits, E. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2005, 56, 15–39. [CrossRef]
121. Torbati, S.; Khataee, A.R.; Movafeghi, A. Application of watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. Br.) for biotreatment of a textile dye:
Investigation of some physiological responses and effects of operational parameters. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2014, 92, 1934–1941.
[CrossRef]
122. Okumuş, V.; Çelik, K.S.; Sadin, Ö.; Dündar, A.; Onay, A.; Kılınç, E. Simultaneous Removal of Some Pesticides from Aqueous
Solution by Using Submerged Aquatic Plant (Nasturtium officinale). Batman Univ. Yasam Bilimleri Derg. 2016, 6, 174–187.
123. Okumuş, V.; Basaran, D.; Onay, A. Heavy metals biosorption by submerged plant Nasturtium officinale. Asian J. Chem. 2010,
22, 455–460.
124. Aslan, M.; Unlu, M.Y.; Turkmen, N.; Ylmaz, Y.Z. Sorption of cadmium and effects on growth, protein content, and photosynthetic
pigment composition of Nasturtium officinale R. Br. and Mentha aquatica L. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2003, 323–329. Available
online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00128-003-0167-1?noAccess=true (accessed on 3 February 2022).
125. Kara, Y. Bioaccumulation of Cu, Zn and Ni from the wastewater by treated Nasturtium officinale. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005,
2, 63–67. [CrossRef]
126. Duman, F.; Leblebici, Z.; Aksoy, A. Growth and bioaccumulation characteristics of watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. BR.) exposed
to cadmium, cobalt and chromium. Chem. Speciat. Bioavailab. 2009, 21, 257–265. [CrossRef]
127. Duman, F.; Ozturk, F. Nickel accumulation and its effect on biomass, protein content and antioxidative enzymes in roots and
leaves of watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. Br.). J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 22, 526–532. [CrossRef]
128. Keser, G.; Saygideger, S. Effects of Lead on the Activities of Antioxidant Enzymes in Watercress, Nasturtium officinale R. Br.
Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2010, 137, 235–243. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
129. Ozturk, F.; Duman, F.; Leblebici, Z.; Temizgul, R. Arsenic accumulation and biological responses of watercress (Nasturtium officinale
R. Br.) exposed to arsenite. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2010, 69, 167–174. [CrossRef]
130. Aydin, D.; Coskun, O.F. Effects of EDTA on Cr+3 Uptake, Accumulation, and Biomass in Nasturtium officinale (Watercress). Ekoloji
2013, 22, 16–23. [CrossRef]
131. Lin, L.J.; Luo, L.; Liao, M.A.; Zhang, X.; Yang, D.Y.; Ya, A.S.; Water, C.M. Cadmium accumulation characteristics of emerged plant
Nasturtium officinale R. BR. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2015, 24, 684–689.
132. Gounden, D.; Kisten, K.; Moodley, R.; Shaik, S.; Jonnalagadda, S.B. Impact of spiked concentrations of Cd, Pb, As and Zn in
growth medium on elemental uptake of Nasturtium officinale (Watercress). J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2016, 51, 1–7. [CrossRef]
133. Huang, K.; Lin, L.; Chen, F.; Liao, M.; Wang, J.; Tang, Y.; Lai, Y.; Liang, D.; Xia, H.; Wang, X.; et al. Effects of live
Myriophyllum aquaticum and its straw on cadmium accumulation in Nasturtium officinale. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017,
24, 22503–22509. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Zhang, X.; Zhang, F.; Wang, J.; Lin, L.; Liao, M.; Tang, Y.; Sun, G.; Wang, X.; Lv, X.; Deng, Q.; et al. Cutting after grafting affects the
growth and cadmium accumulation of Nasturtium officinale. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 15436–15442. [CrossRef]
135. Kopsell, D.A.; Barickman, T.C.; Sams, C.E.; McElroy, J.S. Influence of nitrogen and sulfur on biomass production and carotenoid
and glucosinolate concentrations in watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. Br.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 10628–10634. [CrossRef]
136. Fernandez-Going, B.; Even, T.; Simpson, J. The effect of different nutrient concentrations on the growth rate and nitrogen storage
of watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. Br.). Hydrobiologia 2013, 705, 63–74. [CrossRef]
137. Ortiz-Hernández, Y.D.; Martínez-Gutiérrez, G.A.; Urrestarazu, M.; Vasquez-Vasquez, L.; Escamirosa-Tinoco, C. Productivity
under Shade and Different Nutrient Solution of Hydroponic Watercress (Nasturtium officinale R. BR.). J. Plant Nutr. 2015,
38, 1495–1504. [CrossRef]
138. Dyer, D.J. Effectiveness of aquatic phytoremediation of nutrients via watercress (Nasturtium officinale), basil (Ocimum basilicum), dill
(Anethum graveolens) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) from effluent of a flow-through aquaculture operation. Grad. Theses Diss. Probl. Rep.
2006. [CrossRef]
139. Smith, E.N. Watercress (Nasturtium officinale) Production Utilizing Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Flow-through Aquaculture
Effluent. Davis College of Agriculture; Natural Resources and Design: Alexandria, Australia, 2007.
140. Chen, P.; Zhu, G.; Kim, H.-J.; Brown, P.B.; Huang, J.-Y. Comparative life cycle assessment of aquaponics and hydroponics in the
Midwestern United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122888. [CrossRef]
141. IGB. INAPRO—Innovative Aquaponics for Professional Applications: IGB—Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland
Fisheries in the Research Association Berlin e.V. Available online: https://www.igb-berlin.de/projekt/inapro-innovative-
aquaponik-fuer-professionelle-anwendungen (accessed on 2 February 2022).
142. IGB. CITYFOOD—Multitrophic food production: A Water and Energy Efficient Solution Approach in the Context of Global
Urbanisation: IGB—Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in the Research Association Berlin e.V. Available
online: https://www.igb-berlin.de/projekt/cityfood (accessed on 2 February 2022).
143. University of Rostock. Standpunkt Fischglashaus—Agrar- und Umweltwissenschaftliche Fakultät: Viewpoint Fishgreenhouse—
Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. Available online: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-rostock-germany-
27th-nov-2015-the-new-fischglashaus-lit-fish-greenhouse-90612177.html (accessed on 2 February 2022).
144. Dos-Santos, M.J.P.L. COST FA1305—The EU Aquaponics Hub—Realising Sustainable Integrated Fish and Vegetable Production
for the EU: COST—European Cooperation in Science and Technology. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/project/
COST-FA1305-The-EU-Aquaponics-Hub-Realising-Sustainable-Integrated-Fish-and-Vegetable-Production-for-the-EU (accessed
on 2 February 2022).
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 30 of 32

145. Der Tagesspiegel GmbH. Aquaponik-Farmen: Mit Fischen will dieses Berliner Unternehmen die Ernährung Revolutionieren—
Berlin: Aquaponics Farms: With Fish, This Berlin Company Wants to Revolutionize Nutrition—Berlin. Available online:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/aquaponik-farmen-mit-fischen-will-dieses-berliner-unternehmen-die-ernaehrung-
revolutionieren/26613842.html (accessed on 2 February 2022).
146. ECF Farm Berlin. Urban Farming Meets Aquaponic! Available online: https://www.ecf-farm.de/ (accessed on 2 February 2022).
147. TopFarmers GmbH. Aquaponic—Future Urban Farming: AquaTerraPonic. Available online: http://www.topfarmers.de/
(accessed on 2 February 2022).
148. IFUN. Indoor Farming University Network. Available online: https://ifun.vertical-farming.net/ (accessed on 9 March 2021).
149. Levin, J.; Stevenson, M. The 2050 Criteria: Guide to Responsible Investment in Agricultural, Forest, and Seafood Commodities; WWF Int.:
Gran, Switzerland, 2012.
150. Kalaitzoglou, P.; van Ieperen, W.; Harbinson, J.; van der Meer, M.; Martinakos, S.; Weerheim, K.; Nicole, C.C.S.; Marcelis, L.F.M.
Effects of Continuous or End-of-Day Far-Red Light on Tomato Plant Growth, Morphology, Light Absorption, and Fruit Production.
Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10. [CrossRef]
151. Ntagkas, N.; Woltering, E.; Nicole, C.; Labrie, C.; Marcelis, L.F.M. Light regulation of vitamin C in tomato fruit is mediated
through photosynthesis. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 158, 180–188. [CrossRef]
152. Butturini, M.; Marcelis, L.F.M. Vertical farming in Europe: Present status und outlook. In Plant factory: An indoor vertical farming
system for efficient quality food production, 2nd ed.; Kozai, T., Niu, G., Takagaki, M., Eds.; Acad. Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2020; pp. 77–91. ISBN 9780128166918.
153. Ji, Y.; Nuñez Ocaña, D.; Choe, D.; Larsen, D.H.; Marcelis, L.F.M.; Heuvelink, E. Far-red radiation stimulates dry mass partitioning
to fruits by increasing fruit sink strength in tomato. New Phytol. 2020, 228, 1914–1925. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
154. Williams, K.A.; Nelson, J.S. Challenges of using organic fertilizers in hydroponic production systems. Acta Hortic. 2016, 365–370.
[CrossRef]
155. De Bang, T.C.; Husted, S.; Laursen, K.H.; Persson, D.P.; Schjoerring, J.K. The molecular–physiological functions of mineral
macronutrients and their consequences for deficiency symptoms in plants. New Phytol. 2021, 229, 2446–2469. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
156. ASABE. Annual International Meeting by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Available online:
https://www.asabe.org/Events/2017-Annual-International-Meeting (accessed on 9 March 2021).
157. Orsini, F.; Pennisi, G.; Michelon, N.; Minelli, A.; Bazzocchi, G.; Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Gianquinto, G. Features and Functions of
Multifunctional Urban Agriculture in the Global North: A Review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 228. [CrossRef]
158. Pennisi, G.; Orsini, F.; Blasioli, S.; Cellini, A.; Crepaldi, A.; Braschi, I.; Spinelli, F.; Nicola, S.; Fernández, J.A.; Stanghellini, C.; et al.
Resource use efficiency of indoor lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cultivation as affected by red:blue ratio provided by LED lighting.
Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–11. [CrossRef]
159. Pennisi, G.; Blasioli, S.; Cellini, A.; Maia, L.; Crepaldi, A.; Braschi, I.; Spinelli, F.; Nicola, S.; Fernández, J.A.; Stanghellini, C.; et al.
Unraveling the Role of Red:Blue LED Lights on Resource Use Efficiency and Nutritional Properties of Indoor Grown Sweet Basil.
Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 305. [CrossRef]
160. Pennisi, G.; Pistillo, A.; Orsini, F.; Cellini, A.; Spinelli, F.; Nicola, S.; Fernandez, J.A.; Crepaldi, A.; Gianquinto, G.; Marcelis, L.F.M.
Optimal light intensity for sustainable water and energy use in indoor cultivation of lettuce and basil under red and blue LEDs.
Sci. Hortic. 2020, 272, 109508. [CrossRef]
161. Pennisi, G.; Orsini, F.; Landolfo, M.; Pistillo, A.; Crepaldi, A.; Nicola, S.; Fernández, J.A.; Marcelis, L.F.M.; Gianquinto, G. Optimal
photoperiod for indoor cultivation of leafy vegetables and herbs. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 85, 329–338. [CrossRef]
162. Orsini, F.; Pennisi, G.; Zulfiqar, F.; Gianquinto, G. Sustainable use of resources in plant factories with artificial lighting (PFALs).
Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 85, 297–309. [CrossRef]
163. Romeo, D.; Vea, E.B.; Thomsen, M. Environmental Impacts of Urban Hydroponics in Europe: A Case Study in Lyon. Procedia CIRP
2018, 69, 540–545. [CrossRef]
164. Kalantari, F.; Tahir, O.M.; Joni, R.A.; Fatemi, E. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainability of Vertical Farming: A Review.
J. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 11, 35–60. [CrossRef]
165. Goddek, S.; Delaide, B.; Mankasingh, U.; Ragnarsdottir, K.; Jijakli, H.; Thorarinsdottir, R. Challenges of Sustainable and
Commercial Aquaponics. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4199–4224. [CrossRef]
166. Lakhiar, I.A.; Gao, J.; Syed, T.N.; Chandio, F.A.; Buttar, N.A. Modern plant cultivation technologies in agriculture under controlled
environment: A review on aeroponics. J. Plant Interact. 2018, 13, 338–352. [CrossRef]
167. Hoagland, D.R.; Arnon, D.I. The Water-Culture Method for Growing Plants Without Soil. University of California: Berkeley, CA,
USA, 1950.
168. Reshma, T.; Joseph, S. Hydroponic cultivation of tomatoes—An attempt for Kerala conditions. J. Trop. Agric. 2017, 54, 164.
169. Budye, D.; Dhanawade, P.; Parab, K.; Mahesh, P.; Gupte, A. Automation in hydroponic system. Int. J. Res. Eng. Appl. Manag. 2018,
3, 118–120.
170. Sheikh, B.A. Hydroponics: Key to sustain agriculture in water stressed and urban environment. Pak. J. Agric. Agric. Eng. Vet. Sci.
2006, 22, 53–57.
171. Sinha, A.; Singh, D.; Swapnil, D. Hydroponic—A new method of growing crops without soil. Sci. Agric. Allied Sect. Mon. Newsl.
2020, 2, 3.
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 31 of 32

172. Schröder, F.G.; Lieth, J.H. Irrigation control in hydroponics. In Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals; Savvas, D.,
Passam, H., Eds.; Embryo Publications: Athens, Greece, 2002; pp. 263–298. ISBN 9608002125.
173. Hasan, M.; Sabir, N.; Singh, A.K.; Singh, M.C.; Pragnya, P. Hydroponics Technology for Horticultural Crops; ICAR IARI New Delhi:
New Delhi, India, 2018; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/murtaza_hasan6/publication/331832817_
hydroponics_technology_for_horticultural_crops (accessed on 19 January 2021).
174. Sengupta, A.; Banerjee, H. Soil-less culture in modern agriculture. World J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 2, 103–108.
175. Miranda, F.R.d.; Silva, V.B.d.; dos Santos, F.S.R.; Rossetti, A.G.; Silva, C.; de Fatima Bruce da Silva, C. Production of strawberry
cultivars in closed hydroponic systems and coconut fibre substrate. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2014, 45, 833–841. [CrossRef]
176. Waiba, K.M.; Sharma, P.; Sharma, A.; Chadha, S.; Kaur, M. Soil-less vegetable cultivation: A review. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem.
2020, 9, 631–636.
177. Al-Karaki, G.N.; Al-Momani, N. Evaluation of some barley cultivars for green fodder production and water use efficiency under
hydroponic conditions. Jordan J. Biol. Sci. 2011, 7, 3.
178. Fazaeli, H.; Golmohammadi, H.A.; Tabatabayee, S.N.; Asghari-Tabrizi, M. Productivity and nutritive value of barley green fodder
yield in hydroponic system. World Appl. Sci. J. 2012, 16, 531–539.
179. Palermo, M.; Paradiso, R.; Pascale, S.d.; Fogliano, V. Hydroponic cultivation improves the nutritional quality of soybean and its
products. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 250–255. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
180. Vargas-Rodríguez, C.F. Comparison of production yields of green hydroponic fodder of corn, rice and sorghum. Agron. Mesoam.
2008, 19, 233–240.
181. Irfan, M.; Aziz, T.; Maqsood, M.A.; Bilal, H.M.; Rasheed, N. Differential Performance of Lowland Rice Cultivars for Phosphorus
Uptake and Utilization Efficiency under Hydroponic and Soil Conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 21, 703–710. [CrossRef]
182. Al Jada, M.A.S. Effects of Salinity, Nutrients, Heavy Metals and Organic Matters on Growth, Yield and Uptake of Pea in Piped Hydroponics;
An Najah National University: Nablus, Palestine, 2014.
183. Gros, J.B.; Lasseur, C.; Tikhomirov, A.A.; Manukovsky, N.S.; Kovalev, V.S.; Ushakova, S.A.; Zolotukhin, I.G.; Tirranen, L.S.;
Karnachuk, R.A.; Dorofeev, V.Y. Testing soil-like substrate for growing plants in bioregenerative life support systems.
Adv. Space Res. 2005, 36, 1312–1318. [CrossRef]
184. Du Toit, A.G.A.; Labuschagne, M.T. A comparison between hydroponics systems and pots for growing wheat in the greenhouse.
S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 2007, 24. [CrossRef]
185. Rivera, A.; Moronta, M.; González-Estopiñán, M.; González, D.; Perdomo, D.; García, D.E.; Hernández, G. Hydroponic forage
production of corn (Zea mays L.) under natural conditions of light deficiency. Zootec. Trop. 2010, 28, 33–41.
186. Bhattacharya, N. Hydroponics: Producing plants In-vitro on artificial support medium. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 8, 224–229.
187. Guler, H.G.; Olympios, C.; Gerasopoulos, D. The effect of the substrate on the fruit quality of hydroponically grown melons
(Cucumis Melo, L.). Acta Hortic. 1995, 261–266. [CrossRef]
188. Fukuda, N.; Anami, Y. Substrate and nutrient level: Effects on the growth and yield of melon (Cucumis melo) in soilless culture.
Acta Hortic. 2002, 111–117. [CrossRef]
189. Yam, R.S.W.; Fan, Y.-T.; Lin, J.-T.; Fan, C.; Lo, H.-F. Quality Improvement of Netted Melon (Cucumis melo L. var. reticulatus)
through Precise Nitrogen and Potassium Management in a Hydroponic System. Agronomy 2020, 10, 816. [CrossRef]
190. Sarooshi, R.A.; Cresswell, G.C. Effects of hydroponic solution composition, electrical conductivity and plant spacing on yield and
quality of strawberries. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1994, 34, 529–535. [CrossRef]
191. Albaho, M.; Thomas, B.; Christopher, A. Evaluation of Hydroponic Techniques on Growth and Productivity of Greenhouse
Grown Bell Pepper and Strawberry. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2008, 14, 23–40. [CrossRef]
192. Treftz, C.; Omaye, S.T. Comparison between hydroponic and soil systems for growing strawberries in a greenhouse.
Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2016, 3, 195–200.
193. Treftz, C.; Omaye, S.T. Nutrient Analysis of Soil and Soilless Strawberries and Raspberries Grown in a Greenhouse. Food Nutr. Sci.
2015, 6. [CrossRef]
194. Nascimento, D.C.; Schuch, M.W.; Peil, R.M.N. Growth and mineral nutrient content of blueberry transplants in conventional and
semi-hydroponic systems: Crescimento e conteúdo de nutrientes minerais em mudas de mirtileiro em sistema convencional e
semi-hidropônico. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2011, 33, 1155–1161. [CrossRef]
195. Pascual, M.P.; Lorenzo, G.A.; Gabriel, A.G. Vertical Farming Using Hydroponic System: Toward a Sustainable Onion Production
in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Open J. Ecol. 2018, 08, 25–41. [CrossRef]
196. Pascale, S.d.; Maggio, A.; Ruggiero, C.; Barbieri, G. Growth, Water Relations, and Ion Content of Field-grown Celery
[Apium graveolens L. var. dulce (Mill.) Pers.] under Saline Irrigation. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2003, 128, 136–143. [CrossRef]
197. Poll, J.T.K.; Kramer, C.F.G.; van Kruistum, G. Forcing of Asparagus in climatised rooms during the off-season. Acta Hortic. 1990,
163–172. [CrossRef]
198. Chandra, S.; Khan, S.; Avula, B.; Lata, H.; Yang, M.H.; Elsohly, M.A.; Khan, I.A. Assessment of total phenolic and flavonoid content,
antioxidant properties, and yield of aeroponically and conventionally grown leafy vegetables and fruit crops: A comparative
study. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. eCAM 2014, 253875. [CrossRef]
199. Alimuddin, M.; Subrata, D.; Nurmayulis, R.; Khastini, O.; Arafiyah, R. Analysis of Chilli Plant Physiology Conventional System,
Green House Hydroponic Utilization System Using Fuzzy Logic. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 434, 12219. [CrossRef]
Plants 2022, 11, 1153 32 of 32

200. Chow, K.K.; Price, T.V. Biomass and flower production of winged bean in a nutrient film (NFT) hydroponic system. Plant Soil
1989, 113, 85–92. [CrossRef]
201. Costa, J.C.; Mendes, A.Q.; de Carvalho, I.D.E.; Da Silva, J.; Carvalho Filho, J.L.S.; de Menezes, D. Interaction of Eggplant
Genotypes by Cropping Systems and Correlations between Characters. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2019, 1–10. [CrossRef]
202. Ritter, E.; Angulo, B.; Riga, P.; Herrán, C.; Relloso, J.; San Jose, M. Comparison of hydroponic and aeroponic cultivation systems
for the production of potato minitubers. Potato Res. 2001, 44, 127–135. [CrossRef]
203. Maboko, M.M.; Plooy, C.P. Effect of plant spacing and harvesting frequency on the yield of Swiss chard cultivars (Beta vulgaris L.)
in a closed hydroponic system. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 936–942.
204. Xiang, S.; Wu, S.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Ruan, R. A nitrogen dynamic hydroponic culture on performance and quality of water
spinach (Ipomoea aquatica). J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 773–783. [CrossRef]
205. Barbosa, G.L.; Gadelha, F.D.A.; Kublik, N.; Proctor, A.; Reichelm, L.; Weissinger, E.; Wohlleb, G.M.; Halden, R.U. Comparison
of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce Grown Using Hydroponic vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 6879–6891. [CrossRef]
206. Padmathilake, K.R.E.; Wickramaarachchi, V.N.; Anver, M.A.M.S.; Bandara, D.C. Biological and Economic Feasibility of Growing
Mint (Mentha sylvestris L.), Mustard (Brassica integrifolia L.) and Asamodagam (Trachyspermum involucratum L.) under hydroponics.
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. Trop. Agric. Res. 2007, 19, 193–201.
207. Daryadar, M. Water stream hydroponics as a new technology for soilless production of valuable essential oil and medicinal plant
peppermint. Acad. Publ. House 2015, 3, 259–263.
208. Mairapetyan, S.; Alexanyan, J.; Tovmasyan, A.; Mamikonyan, V. Productivity, Biochemical Indices and Antioxidant Activity of
Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) and Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) in Conditions of Hydroponics. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2016, 7, 6.
[CrossRef]
209. Vimolmangkang, S.; Sitthithaworn, W.; Vannavanich, D.; Keattikunpairoj, S.; Chittasupho, C. Productivity and quality of volatile
oil extracted from Mentha spicata and M. arvensis var. piperascens grown by a hydroponic system using the deep flow technique.
J. Nat. Med. 2010, 64, 31–35. [CrossRef]
210. Surendran, U.; Chandran, C.; Joseph, E.J. Hydroponic cultivation of Mentha spicata and comparison of biochemical and antioxidant
activities with soil-grown plants. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2017, 39, 1–14. [CrossRef]
211. Sgherri, C.; Cecconami, S.; Pinzino, C.; Navari-Izzo, F.; Izzo, R. Levels of antioxidants and nutraceuticals in basil grown in
hydroponics and soil. Food Chem. 2010, 123, 416–422. [CrossRef]
212. Gurdas, S.; Patil, R.K.; Diksha, J.; Patil, H.C. To evaluate growth factors of Feenugreek in hydroponic system and soil based
system. Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev. 2020, 7, 265–269.
213. Wilson, D.P.; Finlay, A.R. Hydroponic system for production of all year round Chrysanthemums. Acta Hortic. 1995, 185–192.
[CrossRef]
214. Hanan, J.J.; Holley, W.D. Introduction of hydroponics in Colorado; technique and implications in a semi-arid region.
Agric. Meteorol. 1970, 7, 29–38. [CrossRef]
215. Das, A.; Bhui, S.; Chakraborty, D. Growth behavior of rose plants in low cost hydroponics culture. J. Hortic. Sci. Ornam. Plants
2012, 4, 1–6.
216. Sarmah, R.; Bora, S. Quality Blooming of Marigold in Hydroponics. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2020, 9, 1792–1799. [CrossRef]
217. Al-Karaki, G.N.; Al-Hashimi, M. Green Fodder Production and Water Use Efficiency of Some Forage Crops under Hydroponic
Conditions. Int. Sch. Res. Not. Agron. (ISRN) 2012, 2012, 924672. [CrossRef]