Model calculations show CO2 fluctuations and stress increase H2S toxicity risk in aquaculture, suggesting enhanced risk assessments are needed.
Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), alkalinity, and pH are closely linked, but little information exists on how CO 2 fluctuations influence hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) toxicity in aquaculture systems. As fish respire, CO 2 accumulates and lowers pH, which increases the proportion of total sulfide present as toxic H 2 S. During periods of elevated activity or stress, CO 2 production rises further, potentially worsening this effect. We calculated how respiration driven CO 2 increases can affect pH and the sulfide balance under typical post smolt RAS conditions (12 °C, 12 ppt, 25-200 mg/L alkalinity as CaCO 3 ). Our results show that relying solely on inlet measurements can underestimate H 2 S risks. At high alkalinity and low CO 2 , only 5-10% of total sulfide appears as H 2 S at the inlet. If CO 2 increases from 5 mg/L at the inlet to 15 mg/L in the tank, the resulting pH drop could increase H 2 S up to 2.4 fold. During stress, CO 2 could reach 30 mg/L, leading to a further ~50% increase in H 2 S in the tank. Although higher alkalinity generally reduces overall H 2 S toxicity, it also makes systems more sensitive to rapid shifts in the sulfide equilibrium when CO 2 rises. Our results clearly suggest that stress and its secondary effects on pH and chemical equilibria may be the missing link to explain the sudden onset and severity of H 2 S mortality events. Risk assessments for H 2 S must therefore consider the effects of alkalinity, stress and CO 2 on sulfide balances within a system. • Increases in CO 2 raise the risk of H 2 S toxicity in aquaculture systems. • Stress respiration exacerbates H 2 S toxicity, creating a potential feedback loop. • High alkalinity protects from H 2 S but also masks risks for toxicity. • Monitoring H 2 S before the fish tanks is not sufficient to assess risks in RAS. • Risk assessment must consider total sulfide and expected maximal changes in pH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meriac et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: