Reading mode

Hydrodynamic cavitation in aquaculture

What has hydrodynamic cavitation been tested for in fish and shrimp farming, and where does the evidence stop?

KairospaceUpdated 6 min readPeer-reviewed research

On this page
  1. Key takeaways
  2. What cavitation has been tested for in aquaculture
  3. Venturi oxygenation: what tank tests measured
  4. Cyanobacteria: collapsing gas vesicles
  5. Scaling up, and adding ozone
  6. Treating water in recirculating systems
  7. What this means in practice
  8. Limits and open questions
  9. Questions
  10. References

What cavitation has been tested for in aquaculture

Research on cavitation for aquaculture follows three lines: getting oxygen into water with Venturi devices, reducing cyanobacteria, and treating culture water. Most of it was done in laboratories and tanks, and none of the cited studies measured fish or shrimp.

A cavitation device speeds water through a constriction until its pressure falls below the vapor pressure, and the vapor cavities collapse as the pressure recovers. A review stresses that reactor design largely determines how effective and economical the process is Sun et al., 2020. The principles are in What hydrodynamic cavitation is and Cavitation, gas dissolution and fine bubbles.

Venturi oxygenation: what tank tests measured

Venturi aerators have been measured in tanks, not against paddlewheels in working ponds. Paddlewheels and propeller-aspirator pumps are the most widely used pond aerators, at 1–2 kW/ha in some fish culture up to 15–20 kW/ha in intensive shrimp culture Boyd, 1998.

A Venturi aerator speeds water through a narrow throat, where the pressure drops and air is drawn in. In a 1,124 L tank, an aerator with optimized geometry transferred 0.0216 kg O₂/h, a standard aeration efficiency of 0.611 kg O₂/kWh Yadav et al., 2021. A solar-powered prototype with four injectors and a 0.3 kW pump reached 0.681 kg O₂/kWh and a of 7.32% in a 4,000 L pool Dayıoğlu, 2022. In four days of simulated operation with deliberate de-oxygenation, its efficiency peaked at 0.474 kg O₂/kWh, while dissolved oxygen () ranged from 1.05 to 6.65 mg/L.

These are aeration results. The abstracts do not report cavitation at the throat or performance in a stocked pond. Nanobubble oxygen results are in Oxygen management and sediment.

Cyanobacteria: collapsing gas vesicles

In laboratory work, brief cavitation made Microcystis sink rather than burst. The cyanobacterium stays afloat with intracellular gas vesicles, and cavitation disrupted them.

A 10-minute treatment lowered Microcystis cell density by 88% and chlorophyll-a by 94%, measured after 3 days of culture Li et al., 2014. Electron microscopy linked the settling to disrupted gas vesicles, and the cells did not break. Free radicals did little damage; treatment time and pump pressure mattered most.

A follow-up found selectivity. Microcystis fell by nearly 90%, while the green alga Chlorella, which has no gas vesicles, fell by 63% with its photosynthesis unaffected Li et al., 2015. In 10 minutes, cavitation reached 88% algal removal against 39% for ultrasound.

Hydraulic jet cavitation, tested on cultures and on real bloom biomass, removed up to 99% of the cyanobacteria Jančula et al., 2013. Flow cytometry detected no membrane damage, which the authors read as a low risk of toxin release, and the green alga Chlorella kessleri was not affected negatively. Bubble work on lake blooms is in Remediation of lakes and rivers.

Scaling up, and adding ozone

Larger reactors have ruptured cells, and the strongest results used ozone as well. In a pilot loop, an 11 kW pump drove 35 L of field-collected Microcystis through a jet pump reactor; cell disruption reached 17.4% after 6 hours, and at most 25.54% at 900 kPa Xu et al., 2022. An optimized reactor reached at most 39.9% removal, using about 18% of the energy of ultrasonic cavitation Chai et al., 2025.

With ozone fed to the pump suction, cavitation and ozone together reduced Microcystis by 91% in 5 minutes. Over 10 minutes, cavitation alone had removed less than 15% and ozone alone less than 35% Wu et al., 2012. The chemistry is in Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs).

Treating water in recirculating systems

The evidence for recirculating systems is one study. Ozone-assisted cavitation degraded eight antibiotics in aquaculture seawater within 20 seconds; DO rose from 9.79 to 13.19 mg/L and nitrite nitrogen fell from 0.14 to 0.01 mg/L Huang et al., 2025. The authors called for field-scale validation.

Off-flavor work has used ultrasound instead: 15 minutes at 850 kHz reduced geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol in 250 mL samples of recirculating-system water Nam-Koong et al., 2016. Ozone results on fish and shrimp bacteria are in Disease control and biosecurity.

What this means in practice

Run any cavitation or Venturi unit beside the current equipment, and measure both.

  • Oxygen: log DO in mg/L and energy in kWh for each unit, and work out the oxygen delivered per kWh at the site.
  • Cyanobacteria: measure cell counts, chlorophyll-a, settling and microcystins in treated and untreated water.
  • Ozone, if used: record the dose, residual ozone and oxidation-reduction potential (), and trial it separately from oxygenation.
  • Recirculating systems: track ammonia and nitrite to see whether the biofilter is affected.

Cavitation and aeration work alongside biosecurity, water exchange and sanitation; they do not replace them.

Limits and open questions

  • No cited study ran a cavitation device in a stocked pond, raceway or recirculating system, or measured fish or shrimp growth, survival or feed conversion.
  • The Venturi results are tank aeration tests: cavitation was not reported, no study compared them with paddlewheels in the same pond, and simulated operation fell below the standard-test value.
  • The cyanobacteria results come from cultures, bloom samples and a 35 L loop, not a pond, and none reported energy per cubic meter of pond water.
  • Toxin release was not measured in the studies read here, and the more intense pilot treatment ruptured cells.
  • In the hybrid studies ozone did much of the work, and the antibiotic result is one study whose scale the abstract does not give.
  • The off-flavor evidence is ultrasonic. Effects on biofilters and beneficial microbes are untested.

Questions

Can a Venturi or cavitation unit replace paddlewheel aerators?

The cited evidence cannot say. Venturi aerators reached 0.611–0.681 kg O₂/kWh in tank tests, but no study compared them with paddlewheels in the same pond, and one prototype fell to 0.474 kg O₂/kWh in simulated operation. Measure oxygen delivered and energy used side by side at your own site.

Does cavitation control cyanobacteria in a pond?

It has not been tested in a pond. In laboratory work, 10 minutes of cavitation lowered Microcystis cell density by 88% after 3 days as gas vesicles collapsed and cells sank. A 35 L pilot loop disrupted 17.4% of cells after 6 hours. Pond-scale results and energy use are unknown.

Does cavitation release cyanobacterial toxins?

It depends on intensity, and toxins were not measured in the studies read here. Gentle laboratory treatment collapsed gas vesicles without detectable membrane damage, so its authors judged toxin release unlikely. A more intense pilot reactor ruptured up to 25.54% of cells. Measure microcystins in treated water before any use.

Can cavitation treat water in a recirculating system?

There is one study. Ozone-assisted cavitation degraded eight antibiotics in aquaculture seawater within 20 seconds and raised dissolved oxygen from 9.79 to 13.19 mg/L. Off-flavor work has used ultrasound instead. Effects on biofilters are untested, so track ammonia and nitrite in any trial.

References

  1. Yadav, A., Kumar, A., Sarkar, S. (2021). Performance evaluation of venturi aeration system. Aquacultural Engineering, 93, 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2021.102156 ↩
  2. Dayıoğlu, M. A. (2022). Experimental study on design and operational performance of solar-powered venturi aeration system developed for aquaculture – A semi-floating prototype. Aquacultural Engineering, 98, 102255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2022.102255 ↩
  3. Li, P., Song, Y., Yu, S. (2014). Removal of Microcystis aeruginosa using hydrodynamic cavitation: Performance and mechanisms. Water Research, 62, 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.052 ↩
  4. Xu, S., Wang, J., Chen, W., et al. (2022). Removal of field-collected Microcystis aeruginosa in pilot-scale by a jet pump cavitation reactor. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 83, 105924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.105924 ↩
  5. Huang, X., Yang, D., Song, L., et al. (2025). Degradation of Antibiotics in Aquaculture Seawater: A Treatment Based on Ozone Assisted with Hydrodynamic Cavitation. Water, 17, 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17040566 ↩
  6. Sun, X., Liu, J., Ji, L., et al. (2020). A review on hydrodynamic cavitation disinfection: The current state of knowledge. Science of The Total Environment, 737, 139606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139606 ↩
  7. Boyd, C. E. (1998). Pond water aeration systems. Aquacultural Engineering, 18, 9-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0144-8609(98)00019-3 ↩
  8. Li, P., Song, Y., Yu, S., et al. (2015). The effect of hydrodynamic cavitation on Microcystis aeruginosa: Physical and chemical factors. Chemosphere, 136, 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.017 ↩
  9. Jančula, D., Mikula, P., Maršálek, B., et al. (2013). Selective method for cyanobacterial bloom removal: hydraulic jet cavitation experience. Aquaculture International, 22, 509-521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-013-9660-7 ↩
  10. Chai, T., Mo, X., Xu, S., et al. (2025). Removal of Microcystis aeruginosa using hydrodynamic cavitation in a jet pump cavitation reactor: Considering the mechanical and chemical effects. Journal of Environmental Management, 390, 126264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126264 ↩
  11. Wu, Z., Shen, H., Ondruschka, B., et al. (2012). Removal of blue-green algae using the hybrid method of hydrodynamic cavitation and ozonation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 235-236, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.07.034 ↩
  12. Nam-Koong, H., Schroeder, J., Petrick, G., et al. (2016). Removal of the off-flavor compounds geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol from recirculating aquaculture system water by ultrasonically induced cavitation. Aquacultural Engineering, 70, 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.10.005 ↩

What changed: New lesson. (Updated )

This lesson summarizes published research for educational purposes. Results reported in studies depend on their conditions and may not reproduce at your site. Nothing here is a performance guarantee or a recommendation for a specific installation.

Cite this lesson

Kairospace Technologies. “Hydrodynamic cavitation in aquaculture.” Kairospace Classroom, Sep 2026. https://kairospacetech.com/classroom/cavitation-aquaculture.html