Next Article in Journal
Greener Polyurethane Adhesive Derived from Polyvinyl Alcohol/Tannin-Based Polyol for Plywood
Previous Article in Journal
The Energy Transition in Colombia: Government Projections and Realistic Scenarios
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

From Waste to Resource: Algal–Bacterial Systems and Immobilization Techniques in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment

Beijing Key Laboratory of Fishery Biotechnology, Fisheries Science Institute, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100068, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Clean Technol. 2025, 7(4), 97; https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7040097
Submission received: 21 August 2025 / Revised: 9 October 2025 / Accepted: 27 October 2025 / Published: 4 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pollutant Removal from Wastewater by Microalgae-Based Processes)

Abstract

The rapid expansion of global aquaculture has led to wastewater enriched with nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, antibiotics, and heavy metals, posing serious risks such as eutrophication, ecological imbalance, and public health threats. Conventional physical, chemical, and biological treatments face limitations including high cost, secondary pollution, and insufficient efficiency, limiting sustainable wastewater management. Algal–bacterial symbiotic systems (ABSS) provide a sustainable alternative, coupling the metabolic complementarity of microalgae and bacteria for effective pollutant mitigation and concurrent biomass valorization. Immobilizing microbial consortia within carrier materials enhances system stability, tolerance to environmental changes, and scalability. This review systematically summarizes the pollution characteristics and ecological risks of aquaculture effluents, highlighting the limitations of conventional treatment methods. It focuses on the metabolic cooperation within ABSS, including nutrient cycling and pollutant degradation, the impact of environmental factors, and the role of immobilization carriers in enhancing system performance and biomass resource valorization. Despite their potential, ABSS still face challenges related to mass transfer limitations, complex microbial interactions, and difficulties in scale-up. Future research should focus on improving environmental adaptability, regulating microbial dynamics, designing intelligent and cost-effective carriers, and developing modular engineering systems to enable robust and scalable solutions for sustainable aquaculture wastewater treatment.

1. Introduction and Rationale for ABSS in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment

1.1. Global Challenge of Aquaculture Effluents

As global population growth and shifting dietary preferences drive demand for high-quality protein sources, aquatic foods are becoming increasingly integral to sustainable food systems. Valued for their nutritional profile and production efficiency, they play an important role in nutrition and food security strategies [1]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)’s State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024, global aquaculture production reached a record 130.9 million tons in 2022, including 94.4 million tons of aquatic animals and 36.5 million tons of algae, with a total value of USD 313 billion [2]. Aquaculture production of animal species exceeded that of capture fisheries for the first time, with inland aquaculture accounting for more than 60% of farmed aquatic animals [2,3]. Aquaculture now accounts for approximately 54% of total aquatic animal production and is projected to provide 60% of aquatic food for human consumption by 2032, as global demand continues to rise [2,4]. Regions such as China, Southeast Asia and Latin America have developed intensive aquaculture systems supported by favorable natural conditions and enabling policies, positioning the sector as a key contributor to rural livelihoods and international trade [2,5]. China remains the largest producer, responsible for 36% of global aquatic animal output in 2022, underscoring the sector’s central role in national food security and its contribution to the supply of essential proteins and micronutrients [6].
Despite the rapid expansion of global aquaculture, its environmental consequences are becoming increasingly apparent. Intensive production systems, characterized by high stocking densities, excessive feed inputs, and indiscriminate pharmaceutical use, have led to the routine discharge of nutrient-rich and chemically contaminated effluents into adjacent water bodies [7]. Aquaculture effluents contain nitrogen [8], phosphorus [9], suspended solids [10], organic matter [11], microplastics [12], and antibiotic residues [13]. Although their concentrations are generally lower than those in domestic wastewater, the discharge of these compounds can still adversely affect receiving water bodies. The sustained and widespread release of such effluents promote eutrophication, algal blooms, and ecological deterioration, while also raising human health concerns through the proliferation of antimicrobial resistance and the accumulation of pharmaceutical residues in aquatic food products [14].

1.2. Pollutant Composition and Ecological Risks

Effluents from aquaculture systems present complex and variable pollution profiles that differ according to farming practices, cultured species, and local management regimes [15]. A comprehensive understanding of these fundamental characteristics is critical for the development of effective, site-specific remediation strategies [16]. As a principal by-product of aquaculture activities, such effluents are characterized by elevated pollutant loads, intermittent discharge patterns, spatial concentration, and the frequent presence of persistent and hard-to-degrade substances [17]. Key pollutants typically include nutrients (notably nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter, suspended solids, antibiotics and their associated resistance genes, as well as heavy metals.

1.2.1. Nutrient Overloading and Its Ecological Consequences

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the primary nutrient pollutants in aquaculture effluents, mainly originating from uneaten feed, feces, metabolic waste, and microbial degradation [8,9]. These nutrients exist in particulate and dissolved forms, with nitrogen typically as ammonium (NH4+-N), nitrate (NO3-N), and nitrite (NO2-N) and phosphorus mostly as orthophosphate (PO43−) [18]. Their high bioavailability and mobility facilitate rapid participation in biogeochemical cycles, often triggering significant ecological changes in receiving waters.
Moreover, inefficient feed conversion in intensive aquaculture leads to nutrient accumulation in both water and sediments, elevating levels of bioavailable N and P over time [19,20]. In poorly flushed or semi-enclosed systems, these inputs can exceed the ecosystem’s natural capacity for nutrient assimilation, intensifying environmental degradation. As a result, excess nutrients drive eutrophication, promoting blooms of phytoplankton and cyanobacteria such as Microcystis sp., Anabaena sp., and filamentous green algae. These blooms impair water clarity, alter light penetration, and induce fluctuations in pH and oxygen. Decomposition of bloom biomass further depletes oxygen, causing hypoxic or anoxic conditions detrimental to aquatic life [21]. Furthermore, imbalances in nutrient stoichiometry, particularly elevated nitrogen-to-phosphorus (N:P) ratios, can selectively promote toxin-producing algal species [22], thereby compounding ecological risks and raising additional concerns for aquatic food safety and public health.

1.2.2. Organic Matter Accumulation and Oxygen Depletion

Organic matter in aquaculture effluents, comprising carbon compounds, proteins, lipids, and metabolic waste, is commonly quantified using chemical oxygen demand (COD) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) [23]. These materials originate predominantly from uneaten feed and excreta and serve as primary substrates for aerobic microbial activity. Rapid accumulation in enclosed or semi-enclosed systems drives oxygen consumption, depleting dissolved oxygen (DO) and increasing oxygen debt [24].
As DO levels decline, aquatic organisms experience physiological stress, with feeding behavior impaired, growth rates reduced, and mortality risk heightened [25]. At the same time, organic matter undergoes anaerobic decomposition in sediments, producing toxic gases such as hydrogen sulfide and methane, which further degrade sediment quality [26]. This results in the formation of black, malodorous sludge commonly referred to as black mud, which disrupts benthic communities and reduces the capacity for pond recovery during rotational farming cycles [27]. In addition, sediment oxygen demand (SOD) in aquaculture zones is closely linked to feed input and biomass density. Elevated SOD reflects intensified organic carbon remineralization within sediments, further exacerbating DO depletion in overlying waters [28]. Thus, these effects position organic matter accumulation as a central driver of oxygen stress and sediment deterioration in intensive aquaculture environments.

1.2.3. Suspended Solids and Particle-Induced Turbidity

Aquaculture effluents commonly contain high levels of suspended solids (SS), including feed particles, fecal fragments, algal debris, and resuspended sediment [29]. These particles reduce water transparency and inhibit photosynthesis in algae and aquatic plants [30]. They also tend to adsorb nutrients and organic pollutants, forming colloidal complexes that prolong contaminant residence times in the environment [31].
In addition to impairing light penetration, suspended solids readily accumulate at discharge points and downstream locations, contributing to sediment build-up, channel narrowing, and potential secondary pollution [32]. Such impacts are particularly evident in pond and cage-culture systems, where the release of particulate matter is often substantial. This leads to increased local turbidity and progressive sediment darkening, which further degrades water and benthic habitat quality [33].

1.2.4. Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance Genes (ARGs)

Antibiotics such as tetracyclines, enrofloxacin, chloramphenicol, and sulfonamides are extensively used in aquaculture to control disease outbreaks and enhance survival rates [34]. However, due to incomplete metabolism and improper application, a portion of these compounds is released into the environment in either their parent form or as active metabolites [35]. Even at low concentrations, these substances can persist in aquatic environments and exert continuous selective pressure on microbial communities, thereby promoting the emergence and proliferation of ARGs and resistant bacterial strains [36]. Moreover, ARGs can spread among aquatic microorganisms via horizontal gene transfer, often facilitated by plasmids and other mobile genetic elements [36,37]. These resistance determinants have the potential to enter the human food chain through contaminated water or aquatic products, posing a serious risk to public health [38].

1.2.5. Heavy Metals and Co-Selection of Antibiotic Resistance

Heavy metal contamination in aquaculture environments frequently originates from intentional supplementation of elements such as copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and iron (Fe) to promote growth and regulate microbial communities [39], as well as from facility corrosion and misuse of feed additives leading to elevated heavy metal levels in effluents. These metals are persistent, non-degradable, and tend to accumulate in sediments and organisms, potentially biomagnifying through the aquatic food web.
Such accumulation poses significant toxicity threats to aquatic life, including tissue damage, reproductive impairment, and behavioral disruption [40]. Chronic exposure may result in heavy metal residues in aquaculture products exceeding permissible limits, thus compromising food safety and trade [41]. Notably, heavy metals like Cu, Zn, and Cd also promote the co-selection of ARGs, through mechanisms of genetic linkage (co-resistance) and shared resistance pathways (cross-resistance) [42]. Mobile genetic elements such as plasmids, integrons, and transposons mediate horizontal gene transfer, thereby facilitating the co-dissemination of metal resistance and ARGs in aquatic microbial communities [43].
The ecological risks of aquaculture effluents extend beyond individual pollutants, posing broader threats to the structure, function, and resilience of aquatic ecosystems. Effluent discharge alters nutrient stoichiometry, modifies primary productivity, and reshapes microbial community composition in receiving waters, often leading to disrupted food webs and declining species diversity. Eutrophication-induced algal blooms contribute to severe nighttime hypoxia, causing fish mortality, while the subsequent decay of algal biomass promotes organic sedimentation, exacerbating benthic degradation and driving a feedback loop of nutrient enrichment, oxygen depletion, and sediment blackening. Especially in densely farmed regions, effluents disperse through interconnected water bodies, extending impacts to nearby croplands, drinking water sources, and wetlands. This diffusion leads to cumulative and potentially irreversible ecological risks. Consequently, aquaculture effluents have become a systemic environmental stressor (Table 1, Figure 1), challenging the sustainability of aquatic food production.

1.3. Conventional Treatment Technologies: Performance and Limitations

1.3.1. Mechanical and Physical Filtration Techniques for Aquaculture Effluents

Physical treatments are widely used in aquaculture effluent management to remove suspended solids such as uneaten feed, fecal particles, and silt. Among them, mechanical filtration using filter meshes, sand beds, or drum screens is the most common pre-treatment approach due to its operational simplicity and high automation potential [49]. This method effectively reduces SS loads and enhances the efficiency of subsequent treatment stages [50]. Although mechanical filtration methods are widely used in aquaculture effluent treatment, they are still inherently limited in scope. These technologies fail to remove dissolved pollutants such as nitrogenous compounds and phosphates [51]. Moreover, advanced equipment like drum filters or dissolved air flotation systems, while effective, involve high capital investment and frequent maintenance, which may restrict adoption in small-scale or resource-limited settings [52].
Dissolved air flotation (DAF), also known as foam separation, is a physical treatment method that removes suspended solids by introducing fine microbubbles into the water. These bubbles attach to particulate pollutants, facilitating their ascent and subsequent removal with the foam layer [53]. Its performance is particularly enhanced in marine systems due to elevated salinity, which improves bubble adhesion and facilitates organic and microbial load reduction [54]. Recent field applications in freshwater systems have demonstrated that when DAF is integrated with solid-separating bag-pen enclosures, it can achieve substantial nutrient removal. In rainbow trout cultivation, DAF alone removed up to 86% of suspended solids and 83% of phosphorus; with ferric dosing, phosphorus and nitrogen reductions reached 90% and 80%, respectively [55]. These results underscore DAF’s versatility as a scalable and effective approach for mitigating particulate and dissolved nutrient emissions across diverse aquaculture contexts.
Membrane separation technologies, including ultrafiltration (UF), microfiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and nanofiltration (NF), have rapidly evolved into modular, scalable, and energy-efficient solutions for aquaculture wastewater treatment. These technologies collectively offer a comprehensive removal spectrum from suspended solids and pathogenic microorganisms (MF and UF) to dissolved salts, organic micropollutants, and nutrients (NF and RO), making them particularly suited for sustainable aquaculture systems [56,57,58]. Studies have shown that UF membranes can effectively eliminate fish viruses and bacteria under varying temperature conditions [56], while RO and NF systems achieve high rejection rates of organic and inorganic contaminants, especially when used in combination with UF as a pretreatment step [58,59].

1.3.2. Chemical Coagulation in Aquaculture

Chemical coagulation remains a widely adopted approach in aquaculture effluent treatment, particularly for the rapid removal of suspended solids and phosphorus. Aluminum- and iron-based salts facilitate the aggregation of colloidal particles through charge neutralization and polymeric bridging, with optimized dosages achieving orthophosphate removal efficiencies exceeding 90% [60,61]. Field-scale applications, such as lake restoration initiatives, further demonstrate the efficacy of alum treatments in reducing total phosphorus (TP) concentrations from 1–2 mg/L to below 0.5 mg/L, often reaching tens of micrograms per liter and effectively mitigating eutrophication risk [62].
Despite these advantages, conventional coagulants pose inherent trade-offs, including elevated operational costs, significant chemical sludge generation, and environmental concerns associated with residual metal ions. Aluminum concentrations have been shown to impair aquatic life and may contribute to long-term ecological and human health risks [63]. In pursuit of more sustainable alternatives, recent advances have highlighted the potential of bio-based coagulants such as chitosan, which offer comparable removal efficiency with reduced toxicity and the added benefit of biodegradable sludge [64]. Moreover, hybrid coagulant systems combining polyaluminum chloride (PAC) with cationic modified starch have demonstrated notable promise, achieving high removal performance for COD and color while significantly lowering chemical demand, thereby balancing treatment efficacy with environmental compatibility [65].
Ozonation has emerged as a promising advanced oxidation process for aquaculture effluent treatment due to its strong oxidative potential and broad-spectrum pathogen inactivation. In marine recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), ozonation effectively removes nitrite and dissolved organic matter, reduces bacterial biomass, and facilitates the conversion of ammonium–nitrogen into nitrogen gas via bromide-catalyzed reactions in seawater [66]. However, ozone’s non-selective oxidative action may disrupt beneficial microbial communities essential for biofiltration and ecosystem stability [67]. In bromide-rich waters, it can also lead to the formation of disinfection by-products such as bromate, a recognized carcinogen. Even low bromide concentrations (~100 µg/L) can markedly increase the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of treated effluents due to the presence of brominated inorganic and organic compounds [68]. Furthermore, the deployment of ozonation systems entails considerable capital and energy input. Common ozone generators, including corona discharge and Ultraviolet-based systems, are technically complex and expensive to operate, limiting their feasibility in small- and medium-scale aquaculture operations [69].

1.3.3. Traditional Biological Treatments

Biological treatment technologies, particularly nature-based solutions such as constructed wetlands (CWs) and ecological floating beds (EFBs), have emerged as sustainable and environmentally friendly approaches for managing aquaculture effluents. CWs have demonstrated consistent removal of COD, Total nitrogen (TN), ammonium (NH4+-N), and TP across diverse aquaculture systems, including a five-year hybrid vertical–horizontal flow wetland treating effluents from blunt snout bream farms [70], and subsurface flow wetlands achieving TN reductions of 36.94% and cyanobacterial removal of up to 97% in mariculture wastewater [71]. Multi-stage CWs that integrate aquatic vegetation, aeration, and filtration have maintained TN and TP removal efficiencies exceeding 60% with strong operational stability [72]. EFBs offer a more land-efficient alternative, employing floating macrophytes whose extensive root zones and associated microbial biofilms effectively remove nitrogen and phosphorus [73]. However, large spatial requirements, species-specific design considerations, and intensive maintenance demands remain key limitations, necessitating site-specific and adaptive implementation strategies [74].
The activated sludge process remains a widely adopted and dependable biological treatment method for aquaculture effluents, promoting microbial proliferation through aeration to form flocculent biomass that adsorbs and biodegrades organic contaminants. As a mature and scalable technology, it substantially improves water quality in intensive aquaculture systems. Recent studies have confirmed its flexibility and effectiveness under diverse operational conditions. In marine recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), fed-batch reactors utilizing activated sludge achieved total nitrogen removal efficiencies exceeding 80%, particularly when acetate was used as an external carbon source, significantly reducing the required reactor volume [75]. In freshwater RAS, integration of activated sludge membrane bioreactors (MBRs) enabled efficient removal of ammonium and organic pollutants while minimizing water consumption, with no adverse effects on the growth performance or flesh quality of Oncorhynchus mykiss [76]. Anaerobic co-digestion of aquaculture sludge with waste activated sludge has also shown promise for improving methane production and sludge stabilization, enhancing the energy recovery potential of the system [77]. However, the long-standing issue of filamentous bulking, driven by the excessive growth of filamentous bacteria, continues to compromise sludge settleability and effluent clarity. Effective control requires both traditional chemical treatments and targeted microbial management strategies [78].
Biofilm-based treatment technologies harness microbial communities attached to carrier surfaces to metabolize organic matter and remove N and P pollutants. These systems demonstrate strong resilience to influent water quality fluctuations, operational simplicity, and relatively low excess sludge production, making them particularly attractive for aquaculture wastewater treatment [79]. The biofilm matrix provides a stable microenvironment that enhances microbial diversity and functional stability, ensuring sustained pollutant removal even under variable loading conditions [80]. Furthermore, moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs) have shown efficient nutrient removal and robust performance in aquaculture effluent treatment [81]. Nevertheless, this technology performance may decline at low temperatures [82], and biofilm sloughing necessitates complementary post-treatment to control suspended solids in the effluent [83].
Conventional solutions for aquaculture wastewater include sedimentation and oxidation ponds, biofilters, constructed wetlands, activated sludge and membrane-based processes. Although high-rate technologies such as activated sludge, Sequencing batch reactors (SBR) and MBR can achieve substantial nutrient removal, they are typically energy-intensive, sensitive to salinity changes, and generate secondary sludge or require chemical inputs for phosphorus control. Low-tech approaches (wetlands, ponds) are land-intensive and show strong seasonal and loading-dependent variability. A comparative summary of conventional technologies, their typical removal performance and practical limitations is presented in Table 2. Importantly, many conventional systems struggle to consistently meet emerging discharge thresholds (e.g., TN < 10 mg L−1; TP < 1 mg L−1) under the dynamic operating conditions common to aquaculture facilities. To address these risks, it is essential to develop and implement effluent treatment technologies that are cost-effective, scalable, and environmentally sustainable [84,85].

1.4. Rationale for ABSS and Immobilization

In recent years, ABSS has emerged as an innovative biological treatment approach that effectively integrates the metabolic advantages of photosynthetic microalgae and heterotrophic bacteria [95]. This technology has attracted significant attention in wastewater treatment due to its excellent metabolic complementarity, efficient removal of nitrogen, phosphorus, organic pollutants, and certain antibiotics, as well as its advantages in resource recycling and system stability [96,97]. Beyond pollutant degradation, the technology enables the conversion of algal biomass into valuable feed, fertilizer, or renewable energy, aligning closely with the principles of pollution control, resource recovery, and the circular economy [98]. Meanwhile, the incorporation of immobilization techniques has further enhanced system robustness and expanded its prospects for industrial application [99].
Although several recent reviews have examined algal–bacterial symbiotic systems for wastewater treatment [86,96], most remain broad in scope and primarily descriptive. Prior work has summarized mechanisms and case studies but has rarely offered systematic, quantitative comparisons across system types or application domains. In particular, limited attention has been given to aquaculture effluents, immobilization strategies, techno-economic feasibility, and regulatory drivers. In contrast, the present review advances the field in four ways. First, we synthesize quantitative data into a comparative dataset that encompasses pollutant composition and risks of aquaculture effluents, contrasts among conventional treatment technologies, representative algal–bacterial pairings, immobilization carriers, and case studies, as well as a direct comparison of free-living and immobilized systems. Second, we highlight immobilization as a decisive enabler, analyzing both mechanistic implications and practical advantages for biomass retention, kinetics, and reusability. Third, we explicitly integrate techno-economic assessments and policy contexts, linking treatment performance with cost ranges, valorization of harvested biomass, and compliance with discharge standards. Finally, we emphasize aquaculture effluents as a priority testbed, showing how their nutrient-rich yet carbon-poor composition, variable salinity, and regulatory pressures uniquely align with the strengths of immobilized ABSS. Together, these elements establish a more critical and application-oriented perspective than previous reviews, shifting the discussion from descriptive synthesis to prescriptive guidance for research, engineering, and policy implementation.

2. Algae–Bacteria Consortia: A Synergistic Platform for Integrated Remediation and Resource Recovery

Amid the global transition toward green and low-carbon development, ABSS have emerged as a next-generation bioremediation platform. By leveraging the mutualistic interactions between microalgae and bacteria, ABSS integrate pollutant removal, carbon mitigation, and resource recovery within a self-regulating, ecologically adaptive framework, highlighting their potential as a sustainable strategy for water management and the circular bioeconomy.

2.1. Microalgae-Based Aquaculture Wastewater Treatment and Species Performance

Microalgae-based platforms represent an efficient and ecologically adaptive solution for aquaculture wastewater remediation. Among them, Chlorella vulgaris, Scenedesmus spp., and Tribonema spp. are the most studied genera, each exhibiting distinct functional advantages. C. vulgaris demonstrates broad compatibility with both freshwater and marine systems, achieving over 90% nutrient and 80% antibiotic removal in biofilm-based photobioreactors, while forming productive phycospheric interactions that enhance nutrient cycling and biomass yield [100,101]. Scenedesmus spp. excel in decentralized and in situ mixotrophic systems, with nitrogen removal efficiencies up to 81% higher than conventional autotrophic or bacterial treatments [102]. Recently, Tribonema spp. have demonstrated remarkable potential when co-cultured with aerobic denitrifying phosphorus-accumulating bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas sp.), achieving rapid and efficient removal of NH4+-N (76.9%), NO3-N (95.8%), PO43−-P (67.7%), and total nitrogen (84.9%) within 36 h, while simultaneously enhancing lipid accumulation (25.4% of dry weight) [103]. These taxa underpin a versatile and scalable biological platform for integrated pollutant removal, resource recovery, and biomass valorization in sustainable aquaculture [104].

2.2. Bacterial Taxa in Algae–Bacteria Symbiotic System

In ABSS, functional bacterial taxa play critical and differentiated roles in enhancing nutrient removal, degrading organic pollutants, and stabilizing microbial communities. Ammonia—and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (AOB and NOB), such as Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, are essential to the nitrification process and are commonly enriched in low-temperature aquaculture systems to improve ammonium oxidation efficiency [88,89]. These bacteria are widely employed in biofilm reactors and integrated fixed-film systems [91], where they demonstrate strong resilience to temperature fluctuations and high organic loading. Aerobic denitrifying and phosphorus-accumulating bacteria, particularly Pseudomonas spp., facilitate the coordinated removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. A novel Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain capable of heterotrophic nitrification, aerobic denitrification, and aerobic phosphate removal has achieved removal efficiencies of up to 87% for NH4+-N and 97% for PO43−-P in aquaculture wastewater [105]. In addition, Actinobacteria-based bioremediation contributes to organic matter degradation, surfactant production, and microbial community stability [106]. Genera such as Streptomyces sp., Acinetobacter sp. and Rhodococcus sp. are often dominant in aquaculture systems treated with biofloc [45], or algae-based technologies and have been recognized for their antimicrobial and probiotic roles, offering protection against pathogens and contributing to water quality stabilization [106,107]. Thus, these bacteria form metabolically complementary partnerships with microalgae, enabling a robust and synergistic system that enhances pollutant removal, stabilizes microbial ecology, and supports sustainable, high-efficiency treatment of aquaculture wastewater.

2.3. Environmental Drivers Shaping Microbial Interactions and Treatment Efficiency

Environmental factors directly regulate the growth and metabolism of both bacteria and algae, thereby altering their reproductive capacity, physiological activity, and interaction intensity within ABSS, ultimately affecting the overall wastewater treatment performance [44]. In practical applications, several key factors require close attention, including algae–bacteria volume ratio, light regulation, temperature and pH, external carbon source and C/N, and aeration rate and DO. These parameters, through synergistic or limiting effects, collectively shape the microecological balance and metabolic efficiency of the system [108].

2.3.1. Algae to Bacterial Ratio

The algal-to-bacterial volume ratio is a pivotal factor governing both system stability and pollutant removal efficiency in wastewater treatment. Ji et al. (2018) reported that a ratio of C. vulgaris to Bacillus licheniformis (1:3) achieved 86.55% COD, 80.28% total dissolved nitrogen (TDP), and 88.95% total dissolved phosphorus (TDN) removal in synthetic wastewater [109]. In contrast, Zhang et al. (2021) found that a combination of Scenedesmus obliquus with Pseudomonas putida at a 1:3 volumetric ratio enhanced TN and TP removal by 28.9% and 67.6% compared to bacterial monocultures [110]. Similarly, Liu et al. (2024) optimized the co-culture of C. vulgaris with Bacillus subtilis at a 2:3 ratio in anaerobically digested wastewater, achieving 81.38% TN, 94.28% NO2-N, 75.33% COD, and 96.56% TP removal [111]. In systems treating rare earth element-rich wastewater, Tribonema sp. paired with phosphorus-accumulating denitrifies showed enhanced ammonium removal rates of 17.69 ± 0.45 mg L−1 d−1. In livestock wastewater, the 1:3 ratio also yielded removal efficiencies of 50% (TN), 70% (NH4+-N), and 83% (COD), alongside improved algal proliferation and flocculation [92]. Although optimal ratios vary depending on microbial taxa and wastewater characteristics, they generally range from 1:3 to 2:3. These ratios promote mutualistic interactions whereby algae provide oxygen and organic substrates, while bacteria mineralize pollutants and regenerate CO2 and nutrients, collectively enhancing nitrogen, phosphorus, and COD removal [86,92,96]. Therefore, precise optimization of algal-to-bacterial ratios tailored to specific microbial consortia and wastewater matrices is essential to maximize the performance of ABSS in treating complex effluents.

2.3.2. Light Regulation

Light serves as a key environmental factor in ABSS, with light cycle, wavelength, and intensity exhibiting distinct regulatory mechanisms that critically affect pollutant removal efficiency and biomass accumulation. Studies on light cycles have shown that carbon removal efficiency increases with prolonged dark periods, while nitrogen and phosphorus removal decrease correspondingly. Moreover, extended dark phases significantly reduce the N/P removal ratio [112]. Regarding light wavelength, red light significantly enhances nitrogen removal, enabling the system to meet aquaculture water quality standards within nine days. Under red light, algae (e.g., Characium sp., Microcoleus sp.) and bacteria (e.g., Nakamurella sp., Micropruina sp.) exhibit complementary metabolic functions, assimilating organic matter and nutrients, respectively, thereby improving cooperative efficiency [113]. Glemser et al. (2016) further highlighted that Light-Emitting Diodes sources, due to their spectral specificity, are superior to traditional fluorescent lighting for investigating wavelength-dependent effects [114]. Light intensity also displays an optimal range. Under 80 μE/(m2·s), nitrogen removal, Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) supply, photosynthetic performance, and enzyme activities are maximized, with upregulation of photosynthetic genes (petC, atpH/A); in contrast, excessive or insufficient light induces oxidative stress and inhibits system function [115]. Similarly, Wang et al., (2025) [116] found that a light intensity of 7000 Lux optimally promotes ammonium oxidation and nitrate reduction in a sequencing batch reactor. Notably, coordinated regulation of light cycle and intensity enables dual benefits in system performance and bioproduct yield. By optimizing these parameters, a bacterium–microalgae coupled system achieved COD, NH4+-N, and TP removal efficiencies of 86.68%, 87.35%, and 95.13%, respectively, while significantly promoting microalgal accumulation of carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids [117]. Therefore, rational design of light parameters provides both theoretical and engineering guidance for the application of algal–bacterial systems in aquaculture wastewater treatment.

2.3.3. Temperature and pH

Temperature is a critical environmental factor influencing pollutant removal efficiency in algae-bacteria systems, as it significantly modulates the metabolic pathways and interactions between microalgae and bacteria. Studies have shown that optimal temperatures (22–28 °C) markedly enhance the cooperative metabolism between microalgae and bacteria, thereby improving the removal of N, P, and organic matter [118,119]. Warmer seasonal conditions not only promote higher algal growth rates but also facilitate more efficient nutrient removal, with summer and autumn yielding the most favorable results [118]. However, when temperatures rise above 30 °C, the system becomes imbalanced as ammonia -oxidizing bacteria (AOB) rapidly proliferate, suppressing algal activity and intensifying competition for nitrogen, ultimately reducing treatment performance [120]. Temperature also shapes algal community composition as elevated temperatures favor Chlorophyta sp. over Leptolyngbyales sp., thereby altering phosphorus removal mechanisms [119]. Further evidence suggests that sustained high temperatures or abrupt thermal fluctuations can disrupt the dynamic equilibrium between algae and bacteria, compromising system stability [121]. Therefore, precise temperature regulation, particularly in response to seasonal variability, is essential for maintaining the efficiency and stability of algae-bacteria wastewater treatment systems.
pH is another key factor influencing pollutant removal efficiency in ABSS, as it directly affects microbial metabolism, interspecies interactions, and cellular stability. Liang et al., (2015) [122] demonstrated that in a combined system of C. vulgaris and B. licheniformis, a decrease in pH from neutral (7.0) to acidic (3.5) significantly impaired nutrient removal and algal activity, while regulating the pH back to 7.0 restored algal growth and improved the removal efficiencies of NH4+-N (86%) and TP (93%), alongside an increase in chlorophyll a. In a related study, unregulated acidic conditions caused algal cells to become compact and spherical, whereas cells exposed to a neutral pH exhibited a more metabolically active, wrinkled morphology, highlighting the morphological and functional sensitivity of the algae-bacteria system to pH shifts [123]. Complementary findings showed that adding biochar stabilized the system pH within the range of 6.0–7.9, enabling up to 99.96% removal of total ammonium nitrogen and 55% phosphate within six days under heterotrophic conditions [124]. These results collectively underscore that maintaining a stable and optimal pH range (typically 6.0–7.5) is essential for promoting efficient nutrient removal, sustaining microbial synergy, and ensuring the operational stability of ABSS in wastewater treatment.

2.3.4. External Carbon Source and Carbon-to-Nitrogen Ratio

The type of external carbon source and the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio play critical roles in determining pollutant removal efficiency in algal–bacterial systems, as their regulatory effects are intimately connected to microbial metabolism, community dynamics, and environmental factors. Different carbon sources exert distinct influences on system performance. For instance, organic carbon such as sodium acetate under mixotrophic conditions significantly enhances nutrient removal and biomass production at a C/N ratio of 15 to 1 in algal–cyanobacterial co-cultures [125]. Conversely, glycerol addition, although it increases biomass, does not improve nutrient removal and may ultimately cause consortium collapse during later stages of wastewater treatment [126]. Furthermore, inorganic carbon sources differ from organic ones in nitrogen transformation pathways. Organic carbon addition reduces nitrate concentrations but increases nitrous oxide emissions more than twofold due to elevated nirS gene abundance in ABSS. Inorganic carbon sources are critical for sustaining algal photosynthesis and coupled bacterial metabolism. In many systems, dissolved CO2 from aeration or bacterial respiration provides the primary inorganic carbon source, while supplementation with bicarbonates (e.g., NaHCO3) or carbonate alkalinity has also been reported to stabilize pH and improve nitrogen and phosphorus removal [122,124,127]. For instance, Casagli et al. (2021) demonstrated that inorganic carbon limitation can suppress nutrient uptake and disrupt algae–bacteria balance [127], whereas Liang et al. (2013) found that pH-dependent bicarbonate availability significantly influenced N and P removal in Chlorella–Bacillus systems [123]. In contrast, inorganic carbon promotes ammonium removal without associated greenhouse gas emissions [128].
Optimizing the C/N ratio is essential to balance carbon supply with microbial activity. In microalgae-integrated biofloc aquaculture systems, efficient ammonium removal and nitrite suppression occur at a low C/N ratio of 5 to 1, which is considerably lower than the 15 to 1 ratio required in biofloc-only systems [94]. Similarly, in blends of municipal and industrial wastewater, moderate C/N ratios between 7.52 and 30.67 facilitate effective removal of dissolved organic carbon, ranging from 75.61 to 81.90%, and soluble chemical oxygen demand, between 66.78 and 88.85%. However, excessively high C/N ratios above 30.67 inhibit microalgal growth and reduce overall treatment performance [129]. Synergistic microbial interactions also improve carbon utilization efficiency. The co-cultivation of Chlorella pyrenoidosa and Rhodobacter capsulatus enhances acetate assimilation and stimulates the tricarboxylic acid cycle, promoting coordinated nutrient removal through optimized organic carbon metabolism [130].

2.3.5. Aeration Rate and DO

Aeration rate and DO are key factors influencing the pollutant removal efficiency of ABSS, primarily by regulating microbial metabolic activity, community interactions, and system stability. Low aeration conditions (0.2 L/min) have demonstrated clear advantages in treating both domestic and mariculture wastewater. In domestic sewage, this aeration rate enabled the ABSS to achieve removal rates for NH4+-N, TN, and TP that were 18.90%, 12.45%, and 46.66% higher, respectively, than those of conventional activated sludge systems [93]. In mariculture wastewater, when combined with an algal inoculation ratio of 1:8 and a nitrogen-to-phosphorus (N:P) ratio of 12, the ABSS achieved removal efficiencies of 100% for NH4+-N, 93.26% for TN, and 96.12% for TP [47]. Moderate aeration (1.0 L/min), while not significantly enhancing pollutant removal, improves the self-flocculation capacity of the ABSS. Under this condition, self-flocculation efficiency reached 82.39% within 30 min, enabling more efficient solid–liquid separation in downstream processes [131].
The regulation of DO is closely linked to algal metabolism. Low DO levels promote algal growth, and oxygen produced via photosynthesis supports bacterial degradation. This interplay forms a positive feedback loop that enhances overall system performance. In high-strength textile wastewater, this mechanism led to removal efficiencies for COD, NH4+-N, and TP that were 12.5%, 23.1%, and 10.5% higher, respectively, than those achieved by conventional processes, along with an 80-fold increase in decolorization [87]. In contrast, excessive aeration generates strong shear forces that disrupt the algal-bacterial structure, suppress algal proliferation, and weaken cooperative removal functions [132]. Thus, aeration rate and DO jointly shape the ecological dynamics of algal-bacterial interactions, thereby influencing pollutant removal performance. In practical applications, aeration parameters should be optimized according to wastewater characteristics and treatment objectives to balance pollutant removal efficiency, system stability, and energy consumption.

2.4. Microbial Synergy and Pollutant Removal Mechanisms in ABSS

2.4.1. Microbial Interactions Underpinning Metabolic Complementarity and Ecological Stability in ABSS

Efficient ABSS rely on coordinated metabolic exchange between microalgae and heterotrophic bacteria. Microalgae convert CO2 into organic compounds (e.g., polysaccharides, organic acids) via photosynthesis and release oxygen to support aerobic bacterial metabolism. Certain species, such as Chlorella sp., also excrete amino acids, B vitamins, and other growth factors that promote the growth and activity of associated bacteria like Bacillus sp. [90]. This transfer of photosynthates and oxygen forms the metabolic foundation of nutrient cycling. In turn, bacteria mineralize complex organic matter, particularly in aquaculture wastewater, releasing CO2, NH4+, and PO43−, which are readily assimilated by microalgae. Functional groups such as nitrifiers and denitrifiers further mediate nitrogen transformation, complementing algal nitrogen uptake [90,133]. For instance, in Chlorella–B. subtilis consortia, bacterial secretion of purines and amino acids reinforces mutual carbon–nitrogen cycling, enhancing wastewater treatment performance [90].
Moreover, this metabolic complementarity increases system resilience. Compared with monocultures, algal–bacterial consortia can restructure their microbial communities in response to environmental fluctuations. Under organic or thermal stress, algal photosynthesis maintains oxygen supply while bacterial metabolic flexibility buffers nutrient shocks, preserving overall system performance [134]. These interactions also promote bioflocculation, facilitating biomass separation and reducing the need for external intervention [46,134]. Therefore, the cooperative behavior between algae and bacteria contributes not only to functional efficiency but also to the long-term operational stability of the system.
In terms of carbon cycling, algal CO2 fixation, particularly in strains like Chlorella, sustains organic carbon supply and contributes to carbon sequestration. On average, one ton of algal dry biomass captures approximately 1.8 tons of CO2 [135]. Furthermore, bacterial decomposition and mineralization further redistribute carbon flows, closing the atmospheric CO2 to biomass and inorganic carbon cycle and supporting low-carbon wastewater treatment strategies [48]. Therefore, the metabolic synergy between algae and bacteria improves contaminant removal while enhancing ecological robustness, providing a solid biological foundation for scalable applications in wastewater treatment and carbon management.

2.4.2. Synergistic Degradation Mechanism for Integrated Multi-Pollutant Purification

ABSS exhibit pronounced synergistic effects in pollutant removal, offering particular advantages for treating complex contaminated water. Microalgae efficiently capture a wide range of pollutants through surface adsorption, charge exchange, and intracellular accumulation, with a notably high affinity for heavy metal ions. In parallel, bacteria degrade organic pollutants into harmless products or achieve complete mineralization through enzymatic cascades. The degradation of organophosphates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and antibiotics is further enhanced by algal metabolites, including hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and redox enzymes, which promote bacterial activity, especially under oxygen-limited or photo-inhibited conditions [136]. For heavy metal remediation, phosphate and carboxyl groups on the algal cell surface bind metal ions, reducing their mobility and bioavailability [137]. Complementarily, functional bacteria such as P. aeruginosa and Bacillus spp. convert metal ions into insoluble forms such as metal sulfides or oxides through reduction, thereby enhancing immobilization and long-term stability [138]. This cooperative mechanism, combining algal adsorption with bacterial transformation, effectively overcomes the limitations of incomplete metal speciation conversion observed in single-species systems.
In the treatment of emerging contaminants, ABSS exhibit notable adaptability and efficacy. Specifically, in antibiotic removal, the consortium significantly accelerates the degradation of cephalexin and erythromycin, with removal efficiencies reaching 96.54% and 92.38%, respectively [139]. Similar performance has been observed for sulfonamide antibiotics and other recalcitrant compounds, with removal rates exceeding 80% and a marked reduction in byproduct toxicity [140]. Beyond emerging pollutants, these consortia offer broad-spectrum purification of water quality parameters such as NH4+-N, COD, TN, and TP [90,133]. Multiple case studies report simultaneous compliance with discharge standards across these indices, underscoring the system’s high efficiency in coordinated multi-pollutant remediation [86,96,141].

2.4.3. Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Efficient Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal

The ABSS is a sustainable wastewater treatment platform that leverages the complementary metabolic capabilities of microalgae and heterotrophic bacteria. At the molecular level, ABSS integrates metabolic complementarity, gene-mediated catalysis, and microecological regulation to achieve precise, multi-scale transformation and removal of N and P pollutants from aquaculture effluents.
Nitrogen metabolism in ABSS is a tightly regulated process involving gene-driven oxidation, assimilation, and reduction pathways. Under aerobic conditions, ammonia monooxygenase (amoA) and hydroxylamine oxidoreductase mediate the stepwise oxidation of NH4+ to NO2, while comammox bacteria such as Nitrospira sp. complete the entire nitrification process by encoding both amoA and NxrAB, directly converting NH4+ to NO3 within a single organism, enhancing efficiency and continuity [142]. Nitrogen assimilation adapts to ammonium levels: the Glutamine Synthetase-Glutamate Synthase (GS-GOGAT) pathway dominates under low NH4+, while the Glutamate Dehydrogenase (GDH) pathway is induced under high NH4+, ensuring metabolic flexibility [143]. In anoxic microenvironments, denitrifiers express narG, nirS, norB, and nosZ sequentially to reduce NO3 to N2, with community coordination and environmental cues such as nutrient load and redox potential minimizing intermediate accumulation and preventing secondary pollution [144,145].
Phosphorus removal is governed by gene-regulated transport and physicochemical stabilization. PO43− is taken up via phosphate-specific transporters (PPTs), including the high-affinity PhoP-regulated PstSCAB system and the low-affinity PitH transporter. Intracellularly, phosphate is polymerized by polyphosphate kinases into polyphosphates, serving as precursors for ATP and membrane phospholipids [146,147]. Extracellularly, PO43− is immobilized through non-covalent binding with secreted polysaccharides or precipitated via complexation with Fe3+, Ca2+, and other metal ions [148]. In aquaculture wastewater, organic phosphorus is first hydrolyzed by bacterial phosphatases and nucleotidases into PO43− for assimilation [146], while a portion is retained via interactions with hydroxyl and carboxyl groups in exopolysaccharides (EPS) produced by algal–bacterial consortia. Polysaccharides such as polygalacturonic acid enhance this retention by reinforcing EPS–phosphorus binding [147,148,149]. Central to this process are polyphosphate-accumulating organisms (e.g., Accumulibacter sp.), which achieve efficient phosphorus uptake under alternating anaerobic–aerobic conditions, modulated by operational strategies [147,150].
The ABSS establishes a dynamic microecological interface via metabolic synergy, enabling efficient pollutant removal and system stability. Algal photosynthesis elevates pH by shifting the CO2–HCO3–CO32− balance [151], promoting HN-AD for nitrogen removal and facilitating phosphate precipitation as Ca3(PO4)2 and Ca5(PO4)3OH. Combined with phosphorus assimilation by polyphosphate-accumulating algae such as Craticula molestiformis and Chlamydomonas pulvinata [152], this forms a dual phosphorus recovery pathway. Alkalinity buffering is essential to prevent carbon limitation and suppress N2O emissions [126,153]. Diurnal variations in algal photosynthesis drive DO and Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) fluctuations, which regulate microbial gene expression and alternate nitrification and denitrification [151]. In Microalgal-Bacterial Sequencing Batch Reactors (MB-SBRs), this synchronization achieves up to 68% nitrogen removal, while ORP-guided aeration reduces energy use by 30% [153,154]. Algal EPS supports bacterial growth [154], and niche competition by phosphorus-rich algae enhances phosphate uptake [152]. Thus, the ABSS achieve coordinated pollutant removal and resource recovery by coupling carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling, where algae regulate pH and DO, bacteria respond to environmental signals, and microbial substrates and community structure adaptively stabilize the microenvironment (Figure 2).

3. Application of Algal–Bacterial Immobilization Technology

3.1. Principles of Immobilization Technology

Immobilization technology is a biological treatment technique that confines free microbial cells within a defined space or onto the surface of a carrier through physical, chemical, or biological means, allowing them to retain high activity, stability, and repeated functionality. Its core principle involves the use of natural polymers such as sodium alginate and agar, or synthetic polymers including polyvinyl alcohol and polyacrylamide, as carriers. Immobilization is achieved through adsorption, whereby microorganisms adhere to carrier surfaces via electrostatic interactions and van der Waals forces; covalent binding, in which chemical reagents facilitate the formation of stable covalent linkages between microbial cells and the carrier; entrapment, where cells are enclosed within porous matrices that permit the diffusion of substrates and metabolic products while preventing microbial loss; or encapsulation, which involves the formation of microcapsules enveloped by semi-permeable membranes to enhance protection. These approaches construct a microenvironment conducive to microbial metabolism [155]. This spatial confinement improves microbial resistance to environmental stressors, including toxic heavy metals and temperature fluctuations [156], while also enhancing biocatalytic efficiency by reducing the physical distance between microorganisms and substrates and accelerating the exchange of metabolites. In wastewater treatment applications, immobilization can elevate nutrient removal efficiencies to above 60% and is particularly effective in targeting refractory organic compounds, heavy metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus, with previous work highlighting the beneficial role of sodium alginate in enhancing microbial interactions and treatment performance [155,157].
When applied in conjunction with ABSS, the advantages of immobilization technology are further amplified. Co-immobilization of bacteria and microalgae on a common carrier such as composite gel beads enables the formation of a tightly integrated metabolic network. Microalgae release oxygen via photosynthesis to support aerobic bacterial processes such as nitrification, while bacteria respire and generate carbon dioxide to sustain algal photosynthesis, concurrently degrading organic pollutants and supplying nutrients that promote algal growth [95,158]. The spatial organization enforced by the immobilization matrix enhances material exchange and molecular signaling between bacteria and algae, including the transfer of quorum-sensing signals, promotes niche complementarity, mitigates biomass loss and separation challenges inherent to free-living microbial systems, and increases nitrogen and phosphorus removal as well as overall pollutant degradation by facilitating more efficient electron transfer [158]. In practical applications such as aquaculture wastewater treatment, immobilized algal–bacterial systems have achieved ammonium nitrogen removal rates exceeding 93%, while simultaneously reducing pathogenic microbial populations and antibiotic resistance genes [159]. Thus, the immobilization strategy in ABSS provides a dual advantage by enabling high-efficiency purification while ensuring ecological safety.

3.2. Carrier Types and Approaches for Algal-Bacterial Immobilization Technologies

3.2.1. Inorganic Carrier

Inorganic carrier materials are integral to ABSS, offering attachment sites, enhancing mass transfer, and improving hydraulic performance and stability. Their high surface area and pore density support microbial colonization, promote stable biofilm formation, and minimize biomass loss, forming the microscopic basis of their attachment function [138]. Natural minerals such as zeolite and diatomite are widely employed in practice due to their low cost and excellent mechanical properties. Zeolites, characterized by regular pore structures and ion exchange capabilities, provide stable anchoring sites for algae and bacteria through ionic interactions. Their capacity to adsorb nitrogen and phosphorus complements microbial metabolism, achieving up to 75% total nitrogen removal and promoting metabolic synergy when combined with marine algae [160,161]. Diatomite, with its high porosity and surface area, promotes micro-particle formation and enhances microbial attachment, facilitating material exchange and metabolism among microbes such as denitrifying polyphosphate-accumulating organisms, and supports phosphate removal efficiencies reaching 80% [96,162]. Other carriers, including activated carbon, quartz sand, and vermiculite, function through mechanisms such as high adsorption capacity, chemical stability, and ion exchange ability. Among them, activated carbon not only provides extensive adsorption surfaces for micropollutants and organic matter but also improves sludge floc structure, enhances settling performance, and promotes biodegradation efficiency [163]. These carriers enrich pollutants, optimize hydraulic conditions, and modulate microenvironments, respectively. All operate in accordance with the natural interaction mechanisms between microbes and minerals [138], collectively enhancing microbial attachment, interspecies exchange, and system stability, and thereby improving the overall performance of algal-bacterial symbioses in wastewater treatment and environmental remediation.

3.2.2. Organic Carriers

Organic carriers exhibit excellent biocompatibility and have shown considerable promise in immobilizing microorganisms such as algae and bacteria. By reducing biomass loss and providing a favorable microenvironment for microbial metabolism, they effectively address the limitations of free-living microorganisms in environmental remediation, particularly low stability and efficiency [164]. Among these, natural polymers such as sodium alginate (SA) and chitosan are especially prominent due to their abundance and environmental friendliness.
SA, a widely used natural carrier, offers excellent biocompatibility, hydrophilicity, and reversible swelling [165]. Its carboxyl groups crosslink with multivalent cations (e.g., Ca2+) to form porous hydrogel beads, which support microbial attachment and growth while enabling efficient diffusion of nutrients and metabolites. This structure ensures both system stability and mass transfer. Performance can be enhanced by algal strain selection; for example, Scenedesmus abundans, with high phosphate uptake, reduces phosphate-induced degradation of the calcium–alginate matrix, extending carrier durability and enabling stable operation for up to 42 days [166]. Incorporating inorganic materials or functional polymers, such as peptide-modified matrices [167], further improves alginate’s adsorption capacity and structural integrity. Chitosan, another natural polymer, combines biocompatibility, biodegradability, and film-forming ability. Its amino groups electrostatically bind to negatively charged microbial surfaces, enhancing immobilization. To address individual material limitations, chitosan is often combined with alginate to form hybrid carriers, improving mechanical strength and acid resistance [168]. These composites perform well in pollutant removal, with Pb2+ adsorption up to 180 mg/g. In marine aquaculture wastewater, chitosan-based aerogels co-immobilized with degrading bacteria and Caulerpa lentillifera achieved COD and TN removal rates of 68.61% and 59.03%, respectively [169].
In addition to natural polymers, synthetic materials such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and polyacrylamide (PAM) have been widely used for microbial immobilization. More recently, macroporous cryogels have emerged as promising alternatives [164]. Produced via cryogelation under sub-zero conditions, these materials possess high porosity, elasticity, and mechanical strength. Their structure minimizes microbial detachment and promotes mass transfer, enhancing both microbial activity and pollutant removal. While PVA gels form stable networks via freeze–thaw cycles, their biocompatibility is relatively limited and often requires surface modification to improve microbial affinity. In contrast, cryogels allow for structural design that balances mechanical performance with biological compatibility.

3.3. Immobilized ABSS: Advances and Justifications

Immobilization has emerged as a pivotal strategy to overcome the inherent limitations of free-living algae–bacteria consortia in aquaculture wastewater treatment. Free-living cultures, whether algae-only, bacteria-only, or co-cultivated, often suffer from biomass washout, fluctuating nutrient removal efficiencies, and sensitivity to environmental perturbations such as diurnal pH shifts and seasonal temperature variations [44,86]. In contrast, immobilized systems, where cells are entrapped or attached to carriers such as alginate, zeolite, or activated carbon, demonstrate enhanced biomass retention, higher and more stable removal efficiencies, and the capacity for repeated reuse [155,158,160,166].
Quantitative comparisons across system types highlight these advantages (Table 3). Algae-only systems typically achieve moderate nutrient removal (NH4+-N: 30–70%; TP: 20–50%) but are constrained by light dependence and low resilience under nutrient-rich conditions. Bacteria-only systems excel in rapid ammonium and COD removal (NH4+-N: 60–85%; COD: 50–90%), yet often fail to meet phosphorus discharge standards. Free-living ABSS achieve synergistic removal of N and P (NH4+-N: 70–90%; TP: 60–80%) but remain limited by biomass washout and operational instability. Immobilized ABSS, by contrast, consistently report NH4+-N removal >90% and TP removal >80%, alongside improved kinetic parameters such as higher volumetric reaction rates (Vmax 1.2–1.8× higher than free-living systems) and reduced half-lives for nutrient depletion (t1/2 shortened by 20–40%) [100,101,158,159].
Beyond performance, immobilization also addresses operational and economic concerns. The reusability of carriers over multiple treatment cycles reduces biomass loss and lowers operational costs. Immobilized systems are also more robust to salinity, temperature, and pH fluctuations, making them particularly suited for aquaculture effluents, which are characterized by nutrient heterogeneity and environmental variability [102,160]. Finally, immobilized biomass can be valorized into aquafeeds, fertilizers, and bioenergy products, providing additional economic incentives and aligning with circular economy policies [170,171,172,173,174].
Immobilization is not merely a technical refinement but a necessary step for advancing ABSS from laboratory trials to field-scale applications. Despite the growing interest in algae–bacteria consortia, field-scale applications for aquaculture effluents remain scarce, largely constrained by scale-up challenges and environmental variability. Nevertheless, several pilot- and semi-pilot trials provide important evidence of feasibility. For instance, Peng et al. (2020) demonstrated the operation of a biofilm membrane photobioreactor (BF-MPBR) integrating C. vulgaris for simultaneous nutrient and sulfonamide removal from marine aquaculture wastewater, achieving TN removal above 90% and antibiotic removal around 70–85% [100]. Mubashar et al. (2022) tested a floating permeable nutrient uptake system (FPNUS) under mixotrophic algal cultivation, reporting efficient nitrogen removal (75–85%) under outdoor aquaculture pond conditions [102]. More recently, Sun et al. (2025) employed immobilized algal–bacterial systems with alginate-based carriers to specifically target Vibrio pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes in aquaculture wastewater, achieving >90% ammonium removal alongside significant reductions in microbial risks [159]. These examples, while limited, demonstrate the translational potential of immobilized ABSS in real or semi-real aquaculture environments. They also highlight the added value of immobilization strategies in enhancing biomass stability, facilitating pathogen control, and enabling system reusability. To consolidate these findings, representative pilot and field-scale case studies have been summarized in Table 4, which captures the diversity of algal–bacterial pairings, carrier types, and treatment efficiencies across aquaculture contexts. Such evidence underscores that although large-scale deployments remain rare, the foundation for practical implementation is already emerging.

3.4. ABSS Enhanced by Immobilization: A Promising Strategy for Biomass Resource Valorization

ABSS, particularly co-culture systems of microalgae with fungi or bacteria, exhibit superior potential for biomass resource development compared to monocultures due to their unique ecological synergism [170]. Immobilization technology is a key advancement that enhances the stability and performance of these consortia by overcoming structural instability inherent in traditional co-cultures. By reinforcing the mechanical strength of particles while maintaining a porous, light-permeable microenvironment, immobilized algal-microbial granules sustained over 80% pollutant removal efficiency after nine days of continuous operation, significantly outperforming non-immobilized systems [171]. Furthermore, immobilization promotes the accumulation and stable extraction of high-value bioactive compounds; for example, astaxanthin yields increased by over 20%, ensuring continuous and controllable production [171,172]. This approach not only extends system lifespan and operational stability but also simplifies biomass harvesting, greatly reducing energy and chemical inputs.
The integration of algal-microbial co-cultivation with immobilization demonstrates remarkable application potential across multiple sectors. In energy, co-cultures significantly enhance lipid content, reaching up to 23% dry weight, providing a stable and efficient feedstock for biodiesel production; algal residues further serve as substrates for anaerobic digestion, increasing methane yields [173,174]. In agriculture, co-culture biomass can be converted into organic fertilizers rich in amino acids and vitamins, boosting crop yields by 15–20% while reducing disease incidence; as feed additives, they markedly improve animal growth and immunity [175,176]. In pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals, co-cultivation systems efficiently produce natural pigments and polysaccharides with antioxidant and immunomodulatory properties, catering to high-value markets [86,175,177]. Additionally, biomass from co-cultures can be processed into biodegradable bioplastics and functional biochar, effectively supporting pollution remediation and circular economy initiatives [178,179]. In addition to carrier-based immobilization, several studies have reported the development of self-immobilized co-cultures, such as algal–bacterial granular sludge, which naturally aggregate both types of microorganisms without external carriers. These self-immobilized systems exhibit high structural stability and efficient nutrient removal comparable to carrier-based systems, while avoiding the cost and complexity of carrier materials [8,44]. However, challenges remain in controlling granule formation and maintaining long-term stability, which require further investigation [86].
Therefore, the ABSS combined with immobilization successfully achieves the triple goals of environmental remediation, resource recovery, and economic benefits, underscoring its broad application potential and irreplaceable strategic value in circular economy, carbon neutrality, sustainable agriculture, and the food industry (Figure 3).

3.5. Biomass Valorization and Circular Applications

Beyond wastewater remediation, one of the defining advantages of immobilized ABSS lie in the valorization of harvested biomass, which can offset treatment costs and support a circular bioeconomy (Table 5). In the aquaculture sector, microalgal biomass such as Spirulina sp. and Chlorella sp. has long been recognized as a high-protein feed supplement. Recent feeding trials show that substitution of up to 30% of conventional feed with Spirulina platensis significantly improved growth, hematological indices, and immune parameters in Nile tilapia [176]. Protein levels in algal biomass typically reach 45–55% of dry weight (DW), while lipid fractions range between 20% and 40% DW, making them suitable as both nutritional supplements and energy feedstocks [170].
As biofertilizers, co-culture biomass provides nitrogen- and phosphorus-rich organic amendments that enhance soil fertility and crop yields while recycling nutrients recovered from aquaculture tailwater. This dual role of waste remediation and fertilizer production strengthens the economic viability of ABSS by reducing external input costs. In the bioenergy domain, immobilized algal biomass enriched in lipids can serve as feedstock for biodiesel, while residual fractions can be digested anaerobically to produce methane [170]. Emerging work has also highlighted the potential of microalgal bioplastics, with conversion efficiencies sufficient to support pilot-scale production of biodegradable polymers [178,179].
High-value bioproducts provide an additional dimension of economic return. For instance, immobilization has been shown to enhance the accumulation of astaxanthin in Haematococcus pluvialis by >20% compared to free cultures [172], while Spirulina-derived phycocyanin is already commercialized as a natural pigment with antioxidant and nutraceutical benefits [177]. These products command significantly higher market values than conventional biofuels, offering a pathway to economic sustainability. It should be emphasized that the bioproducts discussed here are derived from controlled cultivation systems rather than directly from wastewater or effluent treatment processes. Consequently, applications for human consumption are limited to biomass produced under controlled, safe cultivation conditions, avoiding potential safety and public perception concerns [180]. Thus, biomass valorization through feed, fertilizer, biofuels, bioplastics, and pigments transforms immobilized ABSS from cost centers into value-generating biorefineries, directly addressing both techno-economic feasibility and environmental sustainability.

4. Key Findings and Critical Discussion

4.1. Aquaculture Effluents: Distinct Composition and Ecological Implications

In general, aquaculture effluents are characterized by moderate-to-high nitrogen (NH4+-N: 2–15 mg L−1; TN: 10–60 mg L−1) and phosphorus concentrations (TP: 2–15 mg L−1), but relatively low organic carbon compared to municipal wastewater where COD often exceeds 200–500 mg L−1 [44,47,86]. This imbalance in the C: N: P ratio makes conventional heterotrophic treatments less effective. In contrast, industrial effluents (e.g., food processing) often have much higher COD and organic loads but lower N:P ratios, highlighting the uniqueness of aquaculture wastewater composition.
Across countries, nutrient profiles vary with farming intensity and culture type. Semi-intensive freshwater ponds in Asia and Africa typically generate effluents with TN 20–40 mg L−1 and TP 2–6 mg L−1, while intensive marine shrimp systems in Latin America and Southeast Asia can reach TN 50–80 mg L−1 and TP 10–15 mg L−1 [47,90,94]. Cage aquaculture in Europe often releases lower concentrations (TN < 20 mg L−1, TP < 3 mg L−1) but over larger volumes, contributing to diffuse eutrophication. Nutrient heterogeneity is further influenced by production practices. For instance, protein-rich formulated feeds increase ammonium and phosphate loads, whereas integrated multi-trophic aquaculture and biofloc systems tend to reduce soluble nutrients while increasing particulate organic matter [45,94]. Management factors such as water exchange rate, aeration, and feed conversion ratio also affect effluent composition. Consequently, aquaculture effluents display higher variability than municipal wastewater, which is relatively stable across countries. This heterogeneity underscores the need for flexible treatment strategies such as immobilized ABSS, which can adapt to variable nutrient regimes while maintaining stable performance.

4.2. Principles for Designing Effective ABSS

Designing robust ABSS is central to their translation from laboratory studies to field applications. Species selection is the first principle: microalgae such as C. vulgaris, Scenedesmus spp., and Tribonema sp. provide high nutrient uptake and tolerance to salinity and pH fluctuations, while bacterial partners include nitrifiers (Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter), heterotrophic nitrifier–aerobic denitrifiers (e.g., Pseudomonas spp.), and phosphorus-accumulating organisms (PAOs). Tailored pairings enable high rates of ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate removal; for example, a Tribonema–PAO consortium removed 76.9% NH4+-N and 95.8% NO3-N within 36 h [103].
Functional complementarity underpins the ecological synergy: algae release oxygen and exudates such as carbohydrates, amino acids, and vitamins that support bacterial growth [90,101], while bacteria mineralize organics, regenerate CO2, and produce metabolites that enhance algal growth and detoxify contaminants [106,107,133]. Optimizing inoculation ratios is equally critical. Ji et al. reported that a C. vulgarisB. licheniformis ratio of 1:3 achieved 86.6% COD, 80.3% TDP, and 88.9% TDN removal [109], while Liu et al. found that a 2:3 ratio optimized TN (81.4%) and TP (96.6%) removal [111]. Ratios between 1:3 and 2:3 consistently outperform monocultures [92,111]. Environmental compatibility is decisive: Scenedesmus sp. withstands wide pH fluctuations, Chlorella sp. adapts to brackish water [102,122,123], nitrifiers remain active at low temperatures [88,89], and aerobic denitrifiers perform under nutrient fluctuations [105]. Engineering constraints such as growth rate mismatch, nutrient competition, and hydrodynamic stress must also be considered, as they can destabilize community dynamics [93,125,126].

4.3. Why Immobilization? Mechanistic and Kinetic Advantages

Free-living ABSS can achieve high nutrient removal, but their application is constrained by biomass washout, instability, and sensitivity to environmental perturbations. Immobilization mitigates these issues by anchoring algal and bacterial cells onto carriers such as alginate, chitosan, zeolite, or diatomite. Immobilization concentrates cells, reduces intercellular distances, and strengthens metabolic coupling, resulting in higher volumetric reaction rates and shorter pollutant half-lives. For example, immobilized consortia achieve NH4+ removal Vmax of 0.30–0.45 mg N L−1 h−1 compared to 0.15–0.28 mg N L−1 h−1 in free-living systems [155,158]. Biomass retention is enhanced, and reuse across 5–10 cycles has been reported without major performance decline [159,160]. However, immobilization also introduces mass transfer limitations and carrier degradation risks, requiring careful selection of carrier porosity and durability.

4.4. Techno-Economic and Regulatory Dimensions

From an economic perspective, immobilized ABSS offer potential cost advantages compared with conventional treatment technologies. Reported treatment costs range between 0.3 and 0.8 USD m−3 for immobilized systems, depending on carrier type and operational scale [155,158], which is competitive with activated sludge and membrane bioreactors that often exceed 1.0 USD m−3 [91]. Importantly, the reusability of immobilized biomass over multiple operational cycles can reduce sludge management and reinoculation costs by 20–40% [159,160].
With respect to discharge parameters, immobilized ABSS consistently achieve nutrient levels below regulatory thresholds in many regions: TN < 10 mg L−1, TP < 1 mg L−1, and NH4+-N often reduced to <2 mg L−1 [47,177]. These performances not only satisfy typical discharge standards in Europe and East Asia, but also provide an additional buffer against seasonal fluctuations that often lead to compliance failure in free-living systems.
Beyond pollution removal, the harvested biomass represents a valuable resource. Immobilized ABSS produce biomass with 20–40% lipids and 40–55% protein (dry weight), which can be processed into aquafeed supplements improving fish growth and immunity [176], biofertilizers that recycle N and P into agriculture, and bioenergy feedstocks for biodiesel and biogas production [170,173,178]. High-value compounds such as astaxanthin and phycocyanin can also be extracted, contributing to nutraceutical and food industries [172,177]. This valorization potential offsets treatment costs and supports integration into a circular bioeconomy. Thus, these techno-economic and application perspectives underscore that immobilized ABSS are not only environmentally effective but also economically viable, particularly in aquaculture where nutrient-rich effluents can be directly converted into value-added biomass streams.

4.5. Critical Insights

Our synthesis of comparative data (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5) yields four critical insights. First, ABSS consistently outperform algae- or bacteria-only systems, with immobilized consortia showing superior nutrient removal (70–95% for nitrogen, 60–90% for phosphorus), faster kinetics, and greater stability. Second, immobilization enhances reusability, allowing multiple treatment cycles with reduced reinoculation and sludge handling. Third, valorization of biomass improves the techno-economic case by generating co-products that offset treatment costs. Fourth, aquaculture effluents represent a high-priority application domain due to their nutrient-rich but carbon-poor profile, strong regulatory drivers, and potential for on-site biomass reuse.

5. Overcoming Limitations and Future Directions

Immobilized ABSS have demonstrated superior nutrient removal, biomass retention, and reusability compared to free-living systems. However, their deployment beyond laboratory settings is constrained by several critical challenges that must be addressed for practical aquaculture wastewater treatment.

5.1. Scale-Up and Reactor Design

Most laboratory studies rely on alginate beads or simple biofilm carriers, which do not replicate the light and mass transfer dynamics of ponds or raceways. At larger scales, uneven illumination and hydrodynamics reduce performance by up to 30–40% in tubular photobioreactors [181,182]. Hydraulic shocks can further detach immobilized cells, decreasing stability [183]. Recent innovations, including modular photobioreactors and fluidized-bed carriers, enhance mixing and nutrient accessibility while reducing washout [155,162]. 3D-printed porous carriers offer tunable geometries that increase surface area-to-volume ratios and cell density. Hybrid systems that combine immobilized biomass for stability with free-living populations for flexibility have also demonstrated robust outcomes under variable loading [44,92].

5.2. Environmental Fluctuations

Aquaculture effluents are subject to diurnal and seasonal changes in light, temperature, and pH. Free-living systems often collapse under such stresses, while immobilization buffers against short-term perturbations. This buffering can be enhanced through biochar- and zeolite-based carriers, which stabilize pH and adsorb excess ammonium [124,160]. Nonetheless, immobilized consortia remain vulnerable to extreme conditions: nitrification efficiency declines by up to 82% at 10 °C [184], and heat stress reduces algal viability by 35–40% [185]. AI-assisted control of aeration, light, and carbon dosing has been proposed to balance photosynthetic and bacterial processes in real time [93,134], while rotational deployment of carrier modules across seasons can mitigate performance variability [118,120].

5.3. Carrier Durability and Fouling

Natural polymers such as alginate exhibit excellent biocompatibility but degrade within 40–60 days in high-ionic-strength environments, causing biomass leakage [158,186]. Synthetic carriers, such as latex-based polymers, provide structural durability but restrict gas permeability and light penetration, impairing algal–bacterial interactions [186,187]. Composite carriers (alginate–chitosan blends, PVA cryogels, organic–inorganic hybrids) improve mechanical strength and resist fouling [166,168]. Inorganic carriers such as diatomite, zeolite, and activated carbon offer longer lifespans and recyclability [160,162,166], and environmental safety. Future efforts should focus on biodegradable yet robust composite carriers [179,186].

5.4. Mass Transfer Limitations and Metabolic Imbalance

Within thick or densely packed carriers, nutrient and gas diffusion is restricted, leading to concentration gradients. Oxygen generated by algae may fail to reach inner bacterial zones, impairing nitrification, while CO2 produced by bacteria may not reach algal cells efficiently [186,188]. Such imbalances create inactive core zones in columnar reactors, lowering overall treatment efficiency [187]. Impaired metabolite exchange has been linked to nitrogen removal efficiency losses of 20–50% [133,183]. Engineering carrier porosity and incorporating responsive materials are emerging strategies to alleviate these bottlenecks [186,188].

5.5. Biomass Recovery and Risk of Secondary Pollution

Downstream processing of immobilized systems remains difficult. Strong adhesion between biomass and carriers complicates harvesting, sometimes requiring harsh chemical treatments that degrade lipids and proteins [189]. Disposal of non-biodegradable carriers, such as latex-derived polymers, contributes to microplastic pollution and secondary contamination [186]. Furthermore, carriers can adsorb heavy metals, creating persistent pollutant complexes with long-term ecological risks [179]. Developing recyclable and biodegradable carriers, coupled with integrated biomass recovery technologies, will be essential for sustainable deployment.

5.6. Economic and Policy Considerations

Immobilized systems entail higher capital and operational expenditures than free-living cultures, primarily due to carrier production and replacement. However, valorization of biomass into aquafeeds, fertilizers, pigments, bioplastics, and biofuels offer substantial cost recovery [170,171,172,173,174,177,178,179]. Life-cycle assessments suggest that when reuse and valorization are factored in, immobilized ABSS can be economically viable for intensive aquaculture [157,158]. Integration with carbon credits, nutrient trading, and circular economy incentives may further improve competitiveness [48,141]. However, policy frameworks currently emphasize discharge compliance without promoting resource recovery. Forward-looking governance should include certification schemes for algal biomass-derived products, subsidies for bio-based carriers, and harmonized nutrient recovery standards to enable international adoption [141,177].

5.7. Integrated Future Directions

Immobilization is thus more than a laboratory method: it is a strategic enabler for scaling ABSS. To overcome limitations, future research (Figure 4) should focus on (i) modular reactor designs and scalable architectures to ensure effective light and nutrient delivery [181,182,183]; (ii) next-generation composite carriers with high porosity, durability, and biodegradability [167,169,186]; (iii) systems biology and machine learning to decode and regulate algal–bacterial interactions [93,134]; (iv) techno-economic and life-cycle assessments to validate viability under operational conditions [157,158]; and (v) policy frameworks that incentivize nutrient recovery and biomass valorization [141,177,186]. Through coordinated advances in engineering, biology, materials science, and governance, immobilized ABSS can transition from experimental prototypes to robust technologies for sustainable aquaculture effluent management.

6. Conclusions

Aquaculture effluents are characterized by nutrient-rich yet carbon-poor and highly variable compositions, which limit the effectiveness of conventional treatment strategies. ABSS directly address these imbalances through synergistic exchanges, with algae providing oxygenation and nutrient uptake while bacteria drive mineralization, detoxification, and carbon recycling. Immobilization enhances these interactions by improving biomass retention, accelerating nutrient turnover, and enabling repeated use, resulting in consistently higher efficiencies than free-living cultures.
Our synthesis highlights that immobilized ABSS achieve 70–95% nitrogen and 60–90% phosphorus removal, faster kinetics, and enhanced resilience, while also generating valorized products such as feed, fertilizer, pigments, and bioenergy. These advantages make immobilized systems not only technically effective but also economically and environmentally competitive when carrier reuse and resource recovery are realized.
Nonetheless, challenges remain. Carrier degradation, biofouling, scale-up constraints, and environmental fluctuations continue to limit widespread application. Addressing these limitations will require composite and 3D-printed carriers with tailored porosity, modular photobioreactor designs, adaptive operational control, and systems biology-guided consortium engineering. Equally important, techno-economic validation and supportive policy frameworks are needed to enable large-scale deployment.
Taken together, immobilized ABSS represent a transformative opportunity for aquaculture wastewater treatment, turning effluents from an ecological burden into a renewable resource within a circular bioeconomy. Looking forward, the integration of immobilized ABSS into aquaculture aligns with global efforts to safeguard food security, reduce nutrient pollution, and advance carbon neutrality, positioning this technology as a cornerstone for sustainable water–energy–food systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Q.; investigation, R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Q.; writing—review and editing, J.Q.; visualization, J.Q. and R.R.; supervision, Q.Z., Z.W. and J.H.; funding acquisition, J.Q. and Q.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Scientific and technological innovation capacity building project of Beijing Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (KJCX20250922, KJCX20251205); Beijing Fishery Innovation Team of the Modern Agricultural Industrial Technology System (BAIC07-2025-07); the Hebei Province Key R&D Programme Project (22326701D, 19226703D).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ABSSAlgal–bacterial symbiotic systems
NNitrogen
PPhosphorus
TNTotal Nitrogen
TPTotal Phosphorus
NH4+-Nammonium
NO2-NNitrite nitrogen
NO3-NNitrate nitrogen
PO43−Orthophosphate
CODChemical oxygen demand
DOCDissolved organic carbon
DODissolved oxygen
ARGsAntibiotic resistance genes
RASRecirculating aquaculture systems
AOBammonia -oxidizing bacteria
NOBNitrite-oxidizing bacteria
ADPAAerobic denitrifying and phosphorus-accumulating bacteria
HNADPRHeterotrophic nitrification, aerobic denitrification, and aerobic phosphate removal
C/NCarbon-to-nitrogen
EPSExtracellular polymeric substances
SASodium alginate
PAMPolyacrylamide

References

  1. Albrektsen, S.; Kortet, R.; Skov, P.V.; Ytteborg, E.; Gitlesen, S.; Kleinegris, D.; Mydland, L.; Hansen, J.Ø.; Lock, E.; Mørkøre, T.; et al. Future Feed Resources in Sustainable Salmonid Production: A Review. Rev. Aquac. 2022, 14, 1790–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2024; ISBN 978-92-5-138763-4. [Google Scholar]
  3. Tacon, A.G.J.; Shumway, S.E. Critical Need to Increase Aquatic Food Production and Food Supply from Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries: Trends and Outlook. Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 2024, 32, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bjørndal, T.; Dey, M.; Tusvik, A. Economic Analysis of the Contributions of Aquaculture to Future Food Security. Aquaculture 2024, 578, 740071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dunshea, F.R.; Sutcliffe, M.; Suleria, H.A.R.; Giri, S.S. Global Issues in Aquaculture. Anim. Front. 2024, 14, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Verdegem, M.; Buschmann, A.H.; Latt, U.W.; Dalsgaard, A.J.T.; Lovatelli, A. The Contribution of Aquaculture Systems to Global Aquaculture Production. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2023, 54, 206–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mavraganis, T.; Constantina, C.; Kolygas, M.; Vidalis, K.; Nathanailides, C. Environmental Issues of Aquaculture Development. Egypt. J. Aquat. Biol. Fish. 2020, 24, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, B.; Bian, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, S.; Yang, F.; Lei, Z.; Huang, W. Nitrogen Reclamation from Aquaculture Wastewater as Potential Fish Feed Additives via Bacterial and Algal-Bacterial Granular Sludge Systems. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2023, 24, 101609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Luo, G. Review of Waste Phosphorus from Aquaculture: Source, Removal and Recovery. Rev. Aquac. 2023, 15, 1058–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schumann, M.; Brinker, A. Understanding and Managing Suspended Solids in Intensive Salmonid Aquaculture: A Review. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 2109–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hatakeyama, Y.; Kawahata, T.; Fujibayashi, M.; Nishimura, O.; Sakamaki, T. Sources and Oxygen Consumption of Particulate Organic Matter Settling in Oyster Aquaculture Farms: Insights from Analysis of Fatty Acid Composition. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2021, 254, 107328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Miao, C.; Zhang, J.; Jin, R.; Li, T.; Zhao, Y.; Shen, M. Microplastics in Aquaculture Systems: Occurrence, Ecological Threats and Control Strategies. Chemosphere 2023, 340, 139924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mohammed, E.A.H.; Kovács, B.; Kuunya, R.; Mustafa, E.O.A.; Abbo, A.S.H.; Pál, K. Antibiotic Resistance in Aquaculture: Challenges, Trends Analysis, and Alternative Approaches. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yusoff, F.M.; Umi, W.A.D.; Ramli, N.M.; Harun, R. Water Quality Management in Aquaculture. Camb. Prism. Water 2024, 2, e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahmad, A.L.; Chin, J.Y.; Mohd Harun, M.H.Z.; Low, S.C. Environmental Impacts and Imperative Technologies towards Sustainable Treatment of Aquaculture Wastewater: A Review. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 46, 102553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Wen, X.; Guo, W.; Zhang, Z. A Systematic Review on Aquaculture Wastewater: Pollutants, Impacts, and Treatment Technology. Environ. Res. 2024, 262, 119793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ahmad, A.; Sheikh Abdullah, S.R.; Hasan, H.A.; Othman, A.R.; Ismail, N. Aquaculture Industry: Supply and Demand, Best Practices, Effluent and Its Current Issues and Treatment Technology. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, J.; Wu, W.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X. Environmental Effects of Mariculture in China: An Overall Study of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2022, 41, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kolek, L.; Inglot, M.; Jarosiewicz, P. Nutrient Cycling Enhancement in Intensive-Extensive Aquaculture through C/N Ratio Manipulation and Periphyton Support. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 368, 128309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yan, Y.; Zhou, J.; Du, C.; Yang, Q.; Huang, J.; Wang, Z.; Xu, J.; Zhang, M. Relationship between Nitrogen Dynamics and Key Microbial Nitrogen-Cycling Genes in an Intensive Freshwater Aquaculture Pond. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, J.; Zhou, W.; Huang, S.; Wu, X.; Zhou, P.; Geng, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Chen, Q.; et al. Promoting Effect and Mechanism of Residual Feed Organic Matter on the Formation of Cyanobacterial Blooms in Aquaculture Waters. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 417, 138068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lan, J.; Liu, P.; Hu, X.; Zhu, S. Harmful Algal Blooms in Eutrophic Marine Environments: Causes, Monitoring, and Treatment. Water 2024, 16, 2525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hu, F.; Ye, J.; Wang, B.; Zhang, W.; Chen, P.; Yuan, Z.; Xu, Z. Transformation of Dissolved Organic Matter during Aquaculture Wastewater Treatment: Insights into the Biological Toxicity, Spectral Indices and Molecular Signatures. Water Res. 2025, 283, 123834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dindar, E. Assessment of Pollution Status Using Water Quality Index (WQI) and Hydrochemical Indicators in the Gemlik Gulf, Marmara Sea, Türkiye: A Spatial and Temporal Perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2025, 32, 14860–14890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, K.; Ye, Z.; Qi, M.; Cai, W.; Saraiva, J.L.; Wen, Y.; Liu, G.; Zhu, Z.; Zhu, S.; Zhao, J. Water Quality Impact on Fish Behavior: A Review From an Aquaculture Perspective. Rev. Aquac. 2025, 17, e12985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kumari, S.; Das, S. Bacterial Enzymatic Degradation of Recalcitrant Organic Pollutants: Catabolic Pathways and Genetic Regulations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 79676–79705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dong, S.-L.; Li, L. Sediment and Remediation of Aquaculture Ponds. In Aquaculture Ecology; Dong, S.-L., Tian, X.-L., Gao, Q.-F., Dong, Y.-W., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 309–334. ISBN 978-981-19-5486-3. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kong, W.; Xu, Q.; Lyu, H.; Kong, J.; Wang, X.; Shen, B.; Bi, Y. Sediment and Residual Feed from Aquaculture Water Bodies Threaten Aquatic Environmental Ecosystem: Interactions among Algae, Heavy Metals, and Nutrients. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 326, 116735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Boyd, C.E. Dissolved and Suspended Solids in Aquaculture. CABI Rev. 2019, 2018, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, D.; Chung, S. Enhancing Harmful Algal Bloom Predictions through Integrated Modeling of Turbidity and Nutrient Dynamics in Monsoon Climate Reservoirs. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 381, 125291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Davies-Colley, R.J.; Smith, D.G. Turbidity Suspeni)Ed Sediment, and Water Clarity: A Review. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2001, 37, 1085–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rossi, L.; Chèvre, N.; Fankhauser, R.; Margot, J.; Curdy, R.; Babut, M.; Barry, D.A. Sediment Contamination Assessment in Urban Areas Based on Total Suspended Solids. Water Res. 2013, 47, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bilotta, G.; Brazier, R.E. Understanding the Influence of Suspended Solids on Water Quality and Aquatic Biota. Water Res. 2008, 42, 2849–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bondad-Reantaso, M.G.; MacKinnon, B.; Karunasagar, I.; Fridman, S.; Alday-Sanz, V.; Brun, E.; Le Groumellec, M.; Li, A.; Surachetpong, W.; Karunasagar, I.; et al. Review of Alternatives to Antibiotic Use in Aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 2023, 15, 1421–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Limbu, S.M.; Chen, L.-Q.; Zhang, M.-L.; Du, Z.-Y. A Global Analysis on the Systemic Effects of Antibiotics in Cultured Fish and Their Potential Human Health Risk: A Review. Rev. Aquac. 2021, 13, 1015–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hossain, A.; Habibullah-Al-Mamun, M.; Nagano, I.; Masunaga, S.; Kitazawa, D.; Matsuda, H. Antibiotics, Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, and Resistance Genes in Aquaculture: Risks, Current Concern, and Future Thinking. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 11054–11075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cabello, F.C. Heavy Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Aquaculture: A Growing Problem for Human and Animal Health and for the Environment. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 8, 1137–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Singh, A.K.; Kaur, R.; Verma, S.; Singh, S. Antimicrobials and Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Water Bodies: Pollution, Risk, and Control. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 830861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Emenike, E.C.; Iwuozor, K.O.; Anidiobi, S.U. Heavy Metal Pollution in Aquaculture: Sources, Impacts and Mitigation Techniques. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2022, 200, 4476–4492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Edo, G.I.; Samuel, P.O.; Oloni, G.O.; Ezekiel, G.O.; Ikpekoro, V.O.; Obasohan, P.; Ongulu, J.; Otunuya, C.F.; Opiti, A.R.; Ajakaye, R.S.; et al. Environmental Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and Ecotoxicology of Heavy Metals. Chem. Ecol. 2024, 40, 322–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Huang, L.; Qin, D.; Tang, S.; Wang, P.; Gao, L. Trace Element Content and Health Risk Assessment of Main Aquaculture Products in Northeast China. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2025, 17, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Singh, C.K.; Sodhi, K.K.; Shree, P.; Nitin, V. Heavy Metals as Catalysts in the Evolution of Antimicrobial Resistance and the Mechanisms Underpinning Co-Selection. Curr. Microbiol. 2024, 81, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Zhao, Z.; Wang, J.; Han, Y.; Chen, J.; Liu, G.; Lu, H.; Yan, B.; Chen, S. Nutrients, Heavy Metals and Microbial Communities Co-Driven Distribution of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Adjacent Environment of Mariculture. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Saravanan, A.; Kumar, P.S.; Varjani, S.; Jeevanantham, S.; Yaashikaa, P.R.; Thamarai, P.; Abirami, B.; George, C.S. A Review on Algal-Bacterial Symbiotic System for Effective Treatment of Wastewater. Chemosphere 2021, 271, 129540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Padeniya, U.; Davis, D.A.; Wells, D.E.; Bruce, T.J. Microbial Interactions, Growth, and Health of Aquatic Species in Biofloc Systems. Water 2022, 14, 4019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mohsenpour, S.F.; Hennige, S.; Willoughby, N.; Adeloye, A.; Gutierrez, T. Integrating Micro-Algae into Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 142168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ding, W.; Zhou, X.; He, M.; Jin, W.; Chen, Y.; Sun, J. Pollutant Removal and Resource Recovery of Co-Cultivated Microalgae Chlorella Sp. and Phaeodactylum Tricornutum for Marine Aquaculture Wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 2024, 67, 106182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hasnain, M.; Zainab, R.; Ali, F.; Abideen, Z.; Yong, J.W.H.; El-Keblawy, A.; Hashmi, S.; Radicetti, E. Utilization of Microalgal-Bacterial Energy Nexus Improves CO2 Sequestration and Remediation of Wastewater Pollutants for Beneficial Environmental Services. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 267, 115646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ahmad Ali, S. Design and Evaluate a Drum Screen Filter Driven by Undershot Waterwheel for Aquaculture Recirculating Systems. Aquac. Eng. 2013, 54, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. de Jesus Gregersen, K.J.; Olsson, P.; Pellicer-Nàcher, C.; Pedersen, P.B. Effect of Drum Filter Mesh Size on RAS Water Quality. Aquac. Eng. 2025, 109, 102508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Crab, R.; Avnimelech, Y.; Defoirdt, T.; Bossier, P.; Verstraete, W. Nitrogen Removal Techniques in Aquaculture for a Sustainable Production. Aquaculture 2007, 270, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Badiola, M.; Mendiola, D.; Bostock, J. Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) Analysis: Main Issues on Management and Future Challenges. Aquac. Eng. 2012, 51, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Muñoz Alegría, J.A.; Muñoz España, E.; Flórez Marulanda, J.F. Dissolved Air Flotation: A Review from the Perspective of System Parameters and Uses in Wastewater Treatment. TecnoLógicas 2021, 24, e2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tango, M.S.; Gagnon, G.A. Impact of Ozonation on Water Quality in Marine Recirculation Systems. Aquac. Eng. 2003, 29, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jokela, P.; Lepistö, R. Lamella Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Fish Farming Effluents as a Part of an Integrated Farming and Effluent Treatment Concept. Environ. Technol. 2014, 35, 2727–2733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mota, V.C.; Brenne, H.; Kojen, M.; Marhaug, K.R.; Jakobsen, M.E. Evaluation of an Ultrafiltration Membrane for the Removal of Fish Viruses and Bacteria in Aquaculture Water. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 1037017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Foorginezhad, S.; Mahdi Zerafat, M.; Fauzi Ismail, A.; Sean Goh, P. Emerging Membrane Technologies for Sustainable Water Treatment: A Review on Recent Advances. Environ. Sci. Adv. 2025, 4, 530–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Acarer, S. A Review of Microplastic Removal from Water and Wastewater by Membrane Technologies. Water Sci. Technol. 2023, 88, 199–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fatima, F.; Du, H.; Kommalapati, R.R. A Sequential Membrane Process of Ultrafiltration Forward Osmosis and Reverse Osmosis for Poultry Slaughterhouse Wastewater Treatment and Reuse. Membranes 2023, 13, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ebeling, J.M.; Sibrell, P.L.; Ogden, S.R.; Summerfelt, S.T. Evaluation of Chemical Coagulation-Flocculation Aids for the Removal of Suspended Solids and Phosphorus from Intensive Recirculating Aquaculture Effluent Discharge. Aquac. Eng. 2003, 29, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kurniawan, S.B.; Imron, M.F.; Abdullah, S.R.S.; Othman, A.R.; Hasan, H.A. Coagulation–Flocculation of Aquaculture Effluent Using Biobased Flocculant: From Artificial to Real Wastewater Optimization by Response Surface Methodology. J. Water Process Eng. 2023, 53, 103869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jensen, H.S.; Reitzel, K.; Egemose, S. Evaluation of Aluminum Treatment Efficiency on Water Quality and Internal Phosphorus Cycling in Six Danish Lakes. Hydrobiologia 2015, 751, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Botté, A.; Zaidi, M.; Guery, J.; Fichet, D.; Leignel, V. Aluminium in Aquatic Environments: Abundance and Ecotoxicological Impacts. Aquat. Ecol. 2022, 56, 751–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alazaiza, M.Y.D.; Alzghoul, T.M.; Nassani, D.E.; Bashir, M.J.K. Natural Coagulants for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment: Current Global Research Trends. Processes 2025, 13, 1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tran, T.; Phuong, T.T.B.; Giang, L.V. Study on Application of Cationic Modified Starch in Combination with Poly Aluminium Chloride for Treatment of Flocculation of Aquatic Wastewater. In Proceedings of the 2nd Energy Security and Chemical Engineering Congress (ESChE 2021), Gambang, Malaysia, 3–5 November 2021; AIP: Melville, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 2610, p. 040010. [Google Scholar]
  66. Schroeder, J.P.; Croot, P.L.; Von Dewitz, B.; Waller, U.; Hanel, R. Potential and Limitations of Ozone for the Removal of Ammonia, Nitrite, and Yellow Substances in Marine Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Aquac. Eng. 2011, 45, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Powell, A.; Scolding, J.W.S. Direct Application of Ozone in Aquaculture Systems. Rev. Aquac. 2018, 10, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wu, Q.-Y.; Zhou, Y.-T.; Li, W.; Zhang, X.; Du, Y.; Hu, H.-Y. Underestimated Risk from Ozonation of Wastewater Containing Bromide: Both Organic Byproducts and Bromate Contributed to the Toxicity Increase. Water Res. 2019, 162, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gonçalves, A.A.; Gagnon, G.A. Ozone Application in Recirculating Aquaculture System: An Overview. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2011, 33, 345–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, B.; Jia, R.; Hou, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, J.; Ge, X. The Sustainable Treatment Effect of Constructed Wetland for the Aquaculture Effluents from Blunt Snout Bream (Megalobrama Amblycephala) Farm. Water 2021, 13, 3418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chen, C.; Yang, G.; Chen, X.; Li, P.; Chen, J.; Yan, M.; Guo, C. Treatment Effect of Long-Term Subsurface-Flow Constructed Wetland on Mariculture Water and Analysis of Wetland Bacterial Community. Water 2024, 16, 1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chao, C.; Gong, S.; Xie, Y. The Performance of a Multi-Stage Surface Flow Constructed Wetland for the Treatment of Aquaculture Wastewater and Changes in Epiphytic Biofilm Formation. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Meng, T.; Cheng, W.; Li, D. Effects of Ammonium/Nitrate Ratios on Plant Growth and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal in an Ecological Floating Bed System. Chem. Ecol. 2025, 41, 408–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Betanzo-Torres, E.A.; Ballut-Dajud, G.; Aguilar-Cortés, G.; Delfín-Portela, E.; Sandoval Herazo, L.C. Plants Used in Constructed Wetlands for Aquaculture: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Letelier-Gordo, C.O.; Huang, X.; Aalto, S.L.; Pedersen, P.B. Activated Sludge Denitrification in Marine Recirculating Aquaculture System Effluent Using External and Internal Carbon Sources. Aquac. Eng. 2020, 90, 102096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Davidson, J.; Summerfelt, S.; Schrader, K.K.; Good, C. Integrating Activated Sludge Membrane Biological Reactors with Freshwater RAS: Preliminary Evaluation of Water Use, Water Quality, and Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus Mykiss Performance. Aquac. Eng. 2019, 87, 102022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wu, Y.; Song, K. Process Performance of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Waste Activated Sludge and Aquaculture Sludge. Aquac. Eng. 2020, 90, 102090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sam, T.; Le Roes-Hill, M.; Hoosain, N.; Welz, P.J. Strategies for Controlling Filamentous Bulking in Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Plants: The Old and the New. Water 2022, 14, 3223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, X. Application of Biofilm Water Conservation and Emission Reduction Technology in the Pond Culture of Largemouth Bass and Japanese Eel. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhou, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, F. Bacterial Biofilm Probed by Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy: A Review. ChemElectroChem 2022, 9, e202200470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shao, S.; Wang, M.; Zhong, J.; Wu, X. Characteristics of Tetracycline Degradation Coupled Simultaneous Nitrification-Denitrification and Phosphorus Removal in Aquaculture Wastewater. Geomicrobiol. J. 2023, 40, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hoang, V.; Delatolla, R.; Abujamel, T.; Mottawea, W.; Gadbois, A.; Laflamme, E.; Stintzi, A. Nitrifying Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Biofilm and Biomass Response to Long Term Exposure to 1 °C. Water Res. 2014, 49, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Aqeel, H.; Liss, S.N. Fate of Sloughed Biomass in Integrated Fixed-Film Systems. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tom, A.P.; Jayakumar, J.S.; Biju, M.; Somarajan, J.; Ibrahim, M.A. Aquaculture Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Their Sustainability: A Review. Energy Nexus 2021, 4, 100022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chanakya Varma, V.; Shyamala, G.; Sri Bala, G.; Nagaraju, T.V. Aquaculture Effluent Treatment and Waste-to-Energy: Driving Inland Aquaculture Sustainability. In Inland Aquaculture Sustainability and Effective Water Management Strategies: Optimizing Resources for Environmental Harmony; Nagaraju, T.V., Das, B., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 49–67. ISBN 978-3-031-88384-2. [Google Scholar]
  86. Xu, J.; Du, Y.; Xu, Y.; Chen, F.; Zhou, L.; Sun, J.; Qiu, T. Review of the Application of Bacterial–Algae Symbiotic Systems in Nitrogen Removal from Aquaculture Effluent: Principles, Performance Enhancement, Resource Utilization, and Challenges. Water Reuse 2025, 15, 230–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lin, C.; Cao, P.; Xu, X.; Ye, B. Algal-Bacterial Symbiosis System Treating High-Load Printing and Dyeing Wastewater in Continuous-Flow Reactors under Natural Light. Water 2019, 11, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Neissi, A.; Rafiee, G.; Rahimi, S.; Farahmand, H.; Pandit, S.; Mijakovic, I. Enriched Microbial Communities for Ammonium and Nitrite Removal from Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Chemosphere 2022, 295, 133811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Li, Q.; Hasezawa, R.; Saito, R.; Okano, K.; Shimizu, K.; Utsumi, M. Abundance and Diversity of Nitrifying Microorganisms in Marine Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. Water 2022, 14, 2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gao, J.; Mang, Q.; Li, Q.; Sun, Y.; Xu, G. Microbial-Algal Symbiotic System Drives Reconstruction of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Methane Cycles for Purification of Pollutants in Aquaculture Water. Bioresour. Technol. 2025, 430, 132531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, Y.; Yin, Z.; Liu, M.; Liu, C. Enhancing Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification in a Plant-Scale Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge System: Focusing on the Cooperation between Activated Sludge and Biofilm. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 496, 154322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ding, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Cui, L.; Liu, J.; You, G.; Chen, Q.; Hou, J.; Fan, X.; Yang, Y. Study on the Treatment of Livestock and Poultry Wastewater Using Algae-Bacteria Symbiotic System: Effect of Inoculation Proportion and Performance. Environ. Technol. 2025, 46, 2597–2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Tang, C.-C.; Zuo, W.; Tian, Y.; Sun, N.; Wang, Z.-W.; Zhang, J. Effect of Aeration Rate on Performance and Stability of Algal-Bacterial Symbiosis System to Treat Domestic Wastewater in Sequencing Batch Reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 222, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Markou, G.; Economou, C.N.; Petrou, C.; Tzovenis, I.; Doulgeraki, A.; Zioga, M.; Saganas, N.; Kougia, E.; Arapoglou, D. Biofloc Technology Combined with Microalgae for Improved Nitrogen Removal at Lower C/N Ratios Using Artificial Aquaculture Wastewater. Aquac. Int. 2024, 32, 1537–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Li, S.-N.; Zhang, C.; Li, F.; Ren, N.-Q.; Ho, S.-H. Recent Advances of Algae-Bacteria Consortia in Aquatic Remediation. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 53, 315–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Satiro, J.; dos Santos Neto, A.G.; Marinho, T.; Sales, M.; Marinho, I.; Kato, M.T.; Simões, R.; Albuquerque, A.; Florencio, L. The Role of the Microalgae–Bacteria Consortium in Biomass Formation and Its Application in Wastewater Treatment Systems: A Comprehensive Review. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Liang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Ji, H.; Li, Z. Algae-Bacteria Symbiotic Biofilm System for Low Carbon Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Wastewater: A Review. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2025, 41, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, X.; Hong, Y. Microalgae Biofilm and Bacteria Symbiosis in Nutrient Removal and Carbon Fixation from Wastewater: A Review. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2022, 8, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Li, Y.; Wu, X.; Liu, Y.; Taidi, B. Immobilized Microalgae: Principles, Processes and Its Applications in Wastewater Treatment. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2024, 40, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Peng, Y.-Y.; Gao, F.; Yang, H.-L.; Wu, H.-W.-J.; Li, C.; Lu, M.-M.; Yang, Z.-Y. Simultaneous Removal of Nutrient and Sulfonamides from Marine Aquaculture Wastewater by Concentrated and Attached Cultivation of Chlorella Vulgaris in an Algal Biofilm Membrane Photobioreactor (BF-MPBR). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wirth, R.; Pap, B.; Böjti, T.; Shetty, P.; Lakatos, G.; Bagi, Z.; Kovács, K.L.; Maróti, G. Chlorella Vulgaris and Its Phycosphere in Wastewater: Microalgae-Bacteria Interactions During Nutrient Removal. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 557572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Mubashar, M.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Q.; Chen, L.; Li, J.; Naveed, M.; Zhang, X. In-Situ Removal of Aquaculture Waste Nutrient Using Floating Permeable Nutrient Uptake System (FPNUS) under Mixotrophic Microalgal Scheme. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 363, 128022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Xu, T.; Liu, W.; Liu, X.; Li, X.; Xian, Q.; Huo, S.; Zhao, C.; Guo, B.; Li, Q. The Symbiotic System between Tribonema Sp. and Aerobic Denitrifying Phosphorus Accumulating Bacteria: A Promising Method for Wastewater Treatment. Algal Res. 2025, 85, 103824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Gururani, P.; Bhatnagar, P.; Kumar, V.; Vlaskin, M.S.; Grigorenko, A.V. Algal Consortiums: A Novel and Integrated Approach for Wastewater Treatment. Water 2022, 14, 3784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Huang, M.-Q.; Cui, Y.-W.; Huang, J.-L.; Sun, F.-L.; Chen, S. A Novel Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Strain Performs Simultaneous Heterotrophic Nitrification-Aerobic Denitrification and Aerobic Phosphate Removal. Water Res. 2022, 221, 118823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Makarani, N.; Kaushal, R.S. Advances in Actinobacteria-Based Bioremediation: Mechanistic Insights, Genetic Regulation, and Emerging Technologies. Biodegradation 2025, 36, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. James, G.; Prasannan Geetha, P.; Thavarool Puthiyedathu, S.; Vattringal Jayadradhan, R.K. Applications of Actinobacteria in Aquaculture: Prospects and Challenges. 3 Biotech 2023, 13, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Qi, L.; Liu, X.; Gao, Y.; Yang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, N.; Su, X. Interactions between Bacteria and Microalgae in Microalgal-Bacterial Symbiotic Wastewater Treatment Systems: Mechanisms and Influencing Factors. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 2024, 90, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ji, X.; Jiang, M.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, X.; Zheng, Z. The Interactions of Algae-Bacteria Symbiotic System and Its Effects on Nutrients Removal from Synthetic Wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zhang, Q.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, Y.; Yuan, C.; Zhao, T. Effect of Bacteria-to-Algae Volume Ratio on Treatment Performance and Microbial Community of a Novel Heterotrophic Nitrification-Aerobic Denitrification Bacteria-Chlorella Symbiotic System. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 342, 126025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Liu, Z.; Feng, L.; Liu, C. Effect of Bacteria-Algae Ratio on Treatment of Anaerobic Digested Wastewater by Symbiotic Coupling of Bacteria and Algae under the Background of Carbon Neutralization. Environ. Res. 2024, 251, 118771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Lee, C.S.; Lee, S.-A.; Ko, S.-R.; Oh, H.-M.; Ahn, C.-Y. Effects of Photoperiod on Nutrient Removal, Biomass Production, and Algal-Bacterial Population Dynamics in Lab-Scale Photobioreactors Treating Municipal Wastewater. Water Res. 2015, 68, 680–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, S.; Jin, Z.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, Z.; Li, L.; Ding, X.; Zhang, C.; Lv, G. Effect of Light Wavelengths on Algal-Bacterial Symbiotic Particles (ABSP): Nitrogen Removal, Physicochemical Properties, Community Structure. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 429, 139465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Glemser, M.; Heining, M.; Schmidt, J.; Becker, A.; Garbe, D.; Buchholz, R.; Brück, T. Application of Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) in Cultivation of Phototrophic Microalgae: Current State and Perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 1077–1089. [Google Scholar]
  115. Chu, G.; Gao, C.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, W.; Tian, T.; Chen, W.; Gao, M. Effect of Light Intensity on Nitrogen Removal, Enzymatic Activity and Metabolic Pathway of Algal-Bacterial Symbiosis in Rotating Biological Contactor Treating Mariculture Wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2025, 417, 131872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Wang, Q.; Chu, G.; Gao, C.; Tian, T.; Zhang, W.; Chen, W.; Gao, M. Effect of Light Intensity on Performance, Microbial Community and Metabolic Pathway of Algal-Bacterial Symbiosis in Sequencing Batch Biofilm Reactor Treating Mariculture Wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2025, 433, 132726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Li, S.; Xing, D.; Sun, C.; Jin, C.; Zhao, Y.; Gao, M.; Guo, L. Effect of Light Intensity and Photoperiod on High-Value Production and Nutrient Removal Performance with Bacterial-Algal Coupling System. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 356, 120595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Xu, K.; Zou, X.; Xue, Y.; Qu, Y.; Li, Y. The Impact of Seasonal Variations about Temperature and Photoperiod on the Treatment of Municipal Wastewater by Algae-Bacteria System in Lab-Scale. Algal Res. 2021, 54, 102175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ji, B.; Zhu, L.; Wang, S.; Liu, Y. Temperature-Effect on the Performance of Non-Aerated Microalgal-Bacterial Granular Sludge Process in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 282, 111955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. González-Camejo, J.; Aparicio, S.; Ruano, M.V.; Borrás, L.; Barat, R.; Ferrer, J. Effect of Ambient Temperature Variations on an Indigenous Microalgae-Nitrifying Bacteria Culture Dominated by Chlorella. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 290, 121788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. González-Camejo, J.; Barat, R.; Pachés, M.; Murgui, M.; Seco, A.; Ferrer, J. Wastewater Nutrient Removal in a Mixed Microalgae-Bacteria Culture: Effect of Light and Temperature on the Microalgae-Bacteria Competition. Environ. Technol. 2018, 39, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Liang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Ge, F.; Liu, N.; Wong, M. A pH-Dependent Enhancement Effect of Co-Cultured Bacillus Licheniformis on Nutrient Removal by Chlorella Vulgaris. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 75, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Liang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Ge, F.; Xu, Y.; Tao, N.; Peng, F.; Wong, M. Efficiency Assessment and pH Effect in Removing Nitrogen and Phosphorus by Algae-Bacteria Combined System of Chlorella Vulgaris and Bacillus Licheniformis. Chemosphere 2013, 92, 1383–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Salisu, A.; Umar, B.I.; Zhong, Z.; Yu, C.; Wang, Y. Charcoal Stabilizes pH and Improves Nutrients Removal of Bacteria-Microalgae Interaction: A Potential for Improving Water Quality in Aquaculture. Environ. Eng. Res. 2023, 28, 220620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Silaban, A.; Bai, R.; Gutierrez-Wing, M.T.; Negulescu, I.I.; Rusch, K.A. Effect of Organic Carbon, C:N Ratio and Light on the Growth and Lipid Productivity of Microalgae/Cyanobacteria Coculture. Eng. Life Sci. 2014, 14, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zhong, Y.; Liu, H.; Li, H.; Lu, Q.; Sun, Y. Does Exogenous Carbon Source Always Promote Algal Biomass and Nutrients Removal in Algal-Bacterial Wastewater Remediation? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 125371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Casagli, F.; Rossi, S.; Steyer, J.P.; Bernard, O.; Ficara, E. Balancing Microalgae and Nitrifiers for Wastewater Treatment: Can Inorganic Carbon Limitation Cause an Environmental Threat. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 3940–3955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ji, M.; Gao, H.; Zhang, J.; Hu, Z.; Liang, S. Environmental Impacts on Algal–Bacterial-Based Aquaponics System by Different Types of Carbon Source Addition: Water Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 26665–26674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Pereira, A.S.A.d.P.; Magalhães, I.B.; Silva, T.A.; dos Reis, A.J.D.; Couto, E.d.A.d.; Calijuri, M.L. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Blending: Effect of the Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio on Microalgae Productivity and Biocompound Accumulation. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 122760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Shen, X.-F.; Xu, Y.-P.; Tong, X.-Q.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, S.; Gong, J.; Chu, F.-F.; Zeng, R.J. The Mechanism of Carbon Source Utilization by Microalgae When Co-Cultivated with Photosynthetic Bacteria. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 365, 128152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Huang, J.; Cheng, S.; Zhang, Y.; Teng, J.; Zhang, M.; Lin, H. Optimizing Aeration Intensity to Enhance Self-Flocculation in Algal-Bacterial Symbiosis Systems. Chemosphere 2023, 341, 140064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Nguyen, N.-K.-Q.; Bui, X.-T.; Dao, T.-S.; Pham, M.-D.-T.; Ngo, H.H.; Lin, C.; Lin, K.-Y.A.; Nguyen, P.-D.; Huynh, K.-P.-H.; Vo, T.-K.-Q.; et al. Influence of Hydrodynamic Shear Stress on Activated Algae Granulation Process for Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2024, 33, 103494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Fallahi, A.; Rezvani, F.; Asgharnejad, H.; Khorshidi Nazloo, E.; Hajinajaf, N.; Higgins, B. Interactions of Microalgae-Bacteria Consortia for Nutrient Removal from Wastewater: A Review. Chemosphere 2021, 272, 129878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Kong, W.; Kong, J.; Feng, S.; Yang, T.; Xu, L.; Shen, B.; Bi, Y.; Lyu, H. Cultivation of Microalgae–Bacteria Consortium by Waste Gas–Waste Water to Achieve CO2 Fixation, Wastewater Purification and Bioproducts Production. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2024, 17, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Iglina, T.; Iglin, P.; Pashchenko, D. Industrial CO2 Capture by Algae: A Review and Recent Advances. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Chan, S.S.; Khoo, K.S.; Chew, K.W.; Ling, T.C.; Show, P.L. Recent Advances Biodegradation and Biosorption of Organic Compounds from Wastewater: Microalgae-Bacteria Consortium—A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 344, 126159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Ordóñez, J.I.; Cortés, S.; Maluenda, P.; Soto, I. Biosorption of Heavy Metals with Algae: Critical Review of Its Application in Real Effluents. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Gadd, G.M. Metals, Minerals and Microbes: Geomicrobiology and Bioremediation. Microbiology 2010, 156, 609–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. da Silva Rodrigues, D.A.; da Cunha, C.C.R.F.; do Espirito Santo, D.R.; de Barros, A.L.C.; Pereira, A.R.; de Queiroz Silva, S.; da Fonseca Santiago, A.; de Cássia Franco Afonso, R.J. Removal of Cephalexin and Erythromycin Antibiotics, and Their Resistance Genes, by Microalgae-Bacteria Consortium from Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary Effluents. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 67822–67832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Xiong, J.-Q.; Kurade, M.B.; Jeon, B.-H. Can Microalgae Remove Pharmaceutical Contaminants from Water. Trends Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Khoo, K.S.; Chia, W.Y.; Chew, K.W.; Show, P.L. Microalgal-Bacterial Consortia as Future Prospect in Wastewater Bioremediation, Environmental Management and Bioenergy Production. Indian J. Microbiol. 2021, 61, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Daims, H.; Lebedeva, E.V.; Pjevac, P.; Han, P.; Herbold, C.; Albertsen, M.; Jehmlich, N.; Palatinszky, M.; Vierheilig, J.; Bulaev, A.; et al. Complete Nitrification by Nitrospira Bacteria. Nature 2015, 528, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Muro-Pastor, M.I.; Reyes, J.C.; Florencio, F.J. Ammonium Assimilation in Cyanobacteria. Photosynth. Res. 2005, 83, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Xu, S.; Wu, X.; Lu, H. Overlooked Nitrogen-Cycling Microorganisms in Biological Wastewater Treatment. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2021, 15, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Zheng, X.; Yan, Z.; Zhao, C.; He, L.; Lin, Z.; Liu, M. Homogeneous Environmental Selection Mainly Determines the Denitrifying Bacterial Community in Intensive Aquaculture Water. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1280450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Martín, J.F.; Liras, P. Molecular Mechanisms of Phosphate Sensing, Transport and Signalling in Streptomyces and Related Actinobacteria. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Iorhemen, O.T.; Ukaigwe, S.; Dang, H.; Liu, Y. Phosphorus Removal from Aerobic Granular Sludge: Proliferation of Polyphosphate-Accumulating Organisms (PAOs) under Different Feeding Strategies. Processes 2022, 10, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Felz, S.; Kleikamp, H.; Zlopasa, J.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.; Lin, Y. Impact of Metal Ions on Structural EPS Hydrogels from Aerobic Granular Sludge. Biofilm 2019, 2, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Muthu, M.; Wu, H.-F.; Gopal, J.; Sivanesan, I.; Chun, S. Exploiting Microbial Polysaccharides for Biosorption of Trace Elements in Aqueous Environments-Scope for Expansion via Nanomaterial Intervention. Polymers 2017, 9, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Law, Y.; Kirkegaard, R.H.; Cokro, A.A.; Liu, X.; Arumugam, K.; Xie, C.; Stokholm-Bjerregaard, M.; Drautz-Moses, D.I.; Nielsen, P.H.; Wuertz, S.; et al. Integrative Microbial Community Analysis Reveals Full-Scale Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal under Tropical Conditions. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 25719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Zhang, L.; Ali, A.; Su, J.; Huang, T.; Wang, Z. Ammonium Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal by Bacterial-Algal Symbiotic Dynamic Sponge Bioremediation System in Micropolluted Water: Operational Mechanism and Transformation Pathways. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 947, 174636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Schaedig, E.; Cantrell, M.; Urban, C.; Zhao, X.; Greene, D.; Dancer, J.; Gross, M.; Sebesta, J.; Chou, K.J.; Grabowy, J.; et al. Isolation of Phosphorus-Hyperaccumulating Microalgae from Revolving Algal Biofilm (RAB) Wastewater Treatment Systems. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1219318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Mauret, M.; Ferrand, F.; Boisdon, V.; Spérandio, M.; Paul, E. Process Using DO and ORP Signals for Biological Nitrification and Denitrification: Validation of a Food-Processing Industry Wastewater Treatment Plant on Boosting with Pure Oxygen. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Jin, Y.; Zhan, W.; Wu, R.; Han, Y.; Yang, S.; Ding, J.; Ren, N. Insight into the Roles of Microalgae on Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification in Microalgal-Bacterial Sequencing Batch Reactors: Nitrogen Removal, Extracellular Polymeric Substances, and Microbial Communities. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 379, 129038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Bouabidi, Z.B.; El-Naas, M.H.; Zhang, Z. Immobilization of Microbial Cells for the Biotreatment of Wastewater: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2019, 17, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Jhariya, U.; Chien, M.-F.; Umetsu, M.; Kamitakahara, M. New Insights into Immobilized Bacterial Systems for Removal of Heavy Metals from Wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 22, 8319–8334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Bustos-Terrones, Y.A. A Review of the Strategic Use of Sodium Alginate Polymer in the Immobilization of Microorganisms for Water Recycling. Polymers 2024, 16, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Yang, L.; Sun, X.; Li, H.; Hao, R.; Liu, F. New Insights into Microalgal-Bacterial Immobilization Systems for Wastewater Treatment: Mechanisms, Enhancement Strategies, and Application Prospects. Bioresour. Technol. 2025, 431, 132609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Sun, N.; Xing, D.; Liu, F.; Liang, F.; Liu, L. Purification Effect of Algae and Immobilized Bacteria Combination System in Aquaculture Wastewater Treatment with Targeted Removal of Pathogenic Vibrio and Antibiotic Resistance Genes. Aquaculture 2025, 607, 742673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Emami Moghaddam, S.A.; Harun, R.; Mokhtar, M.N.; Zakaria, R. Potential of Zeolite and Algae in Biomass Immobilization. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 6563196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Gneedy, A.H.; Dryaz, A.R.; Said, M.S.; AlMohamadi, H.A.; Ahmed, S.A.; Elsayed, R.; Soliman, N.K. Application of Marine Algae Separate and in Combination with Natural Zeolite in Dye Adsorption from Wastewater; A Review. Egypt. J. Chem. 2022, 65, 589–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wang, H.; Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Xu, H.; Yang, D.; Hua, Y.; Dai, X. Diatomite Powder Carrier Improved Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal from Real Municipal Wastewater: Insights into Micro-Granule Formation and Enhancement Mechanism. Chem. Eng. J. 2024, 484, 149482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Gutiérrez, M.; Grillini, V.; Mutavdžić Pavlović, D.; Verlicchi, P. Activated Carbon Coupled with Advanced Biological Wastewater Treatment: A Review of the Enhancement in Micropollutant Removal. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Berillo, D.; Malika, T.; Baimakhanova, B.B.; Sadanov, A.K.; Berezin, V.E.; Trenozhnikova, L.P.; Baimakhanova, G.B.; Amangeldi, A.A.; Kerimzhanova, B. An Overview of Microorganisms Immobilized in a Gel Structure for the Production of Precursors, Antibiotics, and Valuable Products. Gels 2024, 10, 646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Zheng, D.; Wang, K.; Bai, B. A Critical Review of Sodium Alginate-Based Composites in Water Treatment. Carbohydr. Polym. 2024, 331, 121850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Kube, M.; Fan, L.; Roddick, F. Alginate-Immobilised Algal Wastewater Treatment Enhanced by Species Selection. Algal Res. 2021, 54, 102219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Rosiak, P.; Latanska, I.; Paul, P.; Sujka, W.; Kolesinska, B. Modification of Alginates to Modulate Their Physic-Chemical Properties and Obtain Biomaterials with Different Functional Properties. Molecules 2021, 26, 7264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Ablouh, E.; Hanani, Z.; Eladlani, N.; Rhazi, M.; Taourirte, M. Chitosan Microspheres/Sodium Alginate Hybrid Beads: An Efficient Green Adsorbent for Heavy Metals Removal from Aqueous Solutions. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2019, 29, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Ye, T.; Li, M.; Lin, Y.; Su, Z. An Effective Biological Treatment Method for Marine Aquaculture Wastewater: Combined Treatment of Immobilized Degradation Bacteria Modified by Chitosan-Based Aerogel and Macroalgae (Caulerpa Lentillifera). Aquaculture 2023, 570, 739392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Satpati, G.G.; Dikshit, P.K.; Mal, N.; Pal, R.; Sherpa, K.C.; Rajak, R.C.; Rather, S.-U.; Raghunathan, S.; Davoodbasha, M. A State of the Art Review on the Co-Cultivation of Microalgae-Fungi in Wastewater for Biofuel Production. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 870, 161828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Zhang, G.; Cheng, K.; Mei, H. Stability Enhancement of Microalgae–Fungal Pellets. Water 2025, 17, 1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Su, D.; Zhao, L.; Leng, K.; Miao, J.; Yu, Y. Enhancing Astaxanthin Accumulation in Immobilized Haematococcus Pluvialis via Alginate Hydrogel Membrane. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2025, 292, 139145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Wrede, D.; Taha, M.; Miranda, A.F.; Kadali, K.; Stevenson, T.; Ball, A.S.; Mouradov, A. Co-Cultivation of Fungal and Microalgal Cells as an Efficient System for Harvesting Microalgal Cells, Lipid Production and Wastewater Treatment. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Zorn, S.M.F.E.; Reis, C.E.R.; Silva, M.B.; Hu, B.; De Castro, H.F. Consortium Growth of Filamentous Fungi and Microalgae: Evaluation of Different Cultivation Strategies to Optimize Cell Harvesting and Lipid Accumulation. Energies 2020, 13, 3648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Deng, R.; Chow, T.-J. Hypolipidemic, Antioxidant and Antiinflammatory Activities of Microalgae Spirulina. Cardiovasc. Ther. 2010, 28, e33–e45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Youssef, I.M.I.; Saleh, E.S.E.; Tawfeek, S.S.; Abdel-Fadeel, A.A.A.; Abdel-Razik, A.-R.H.; Abdel-Daim, A.S.A. Effect of Spirulina Platensis on Growth, Hematological, Biochemical, and Immunological Parameters of Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus). Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2023, 55, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Sun, H.; Wang, Y.; He, Y.; Liu, B.; Mou, H.; Chen, F.; Yang, S. Microalgae-Derived Pigments for the Food Industry. Mar. Drugs 2023, 21, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Adetunji, A.I.; Erasmus, M. Green Synthesis of Bioplastics from Microalgae: A State-of-the-Art Review. Polymers 2024, 16, 1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Roy Chong, J.W.; Tan, X.; Khoo, K.S.; Ng, H.S.; Jonglertjunya, W.; Yew, G.Y.; Show, P.L. Microalgae-Based Bioplastics: Future Solution towards Mitigation of Plastic Wastes. Environ. Res. 2022, 206, 112620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Diaz, C.J.; Douglas, K.J.; Kang, K.; Kolarik, A.L.; Malinovski, R.; Torres-Tiji, Y.; Molino, J.V.; Badary, A.; Mayfield, S.P. Developing Algae as a Sustainable Food Source. Front. Nutr. 2023, 9, 1029841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Villaseñor Camacho, J.; Fernández Marchante, C.M.; Rodríguez Romero, L. Analysis of a Photobioreactor Scaling up for Tertiary Wastewater Treatment: Denitrification, Phosphorus Removal, and Microalgae Production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 29279–29286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Velásquez-Orta, S.B.; Yáñez-Noguez, I.; Ramírez, I.M.; Ledesma, M.T.O. Pilot-Scale Microalgae Cultivation and Wastewater Treatment Using High-Rate Ponds: A Meta-Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2024, 31, 46994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Kant Bhatia, S.; Ahuja, V.; Chandel, N.; Mehariya, S.; Kumar, P.; Vinayak, V.; Saratale, G.D.; Raj, T.; Kim, S.-H.; Yang, Y.-H. An Overview on Microalgal-Bacterial Granular Consortia for Resource Recovery and Wastewater Treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 351, 127028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Head, M.A.; Oleszkiewicz, J.A. Bioaugmentation for Nitrification at Cold Temperatures. Water Res. 2004, 38, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Béchet, Q.; Laviale, M.; Arsapin, N.; Bonnefond, H.; Bernard, O. Modeling the Impact of High Temperatures on Microalgal Viability and Photosynthetic Activity. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Caldwell, G.S.; In-na, P.; Hart, R.; Sharp, E.; Stefanova, A.; Pickersgill, M.; Walker, M.; Unthank, M.; Perry, J.; Lee, J.G.M. Immobilising Microalgae and Cyanobacteria as Biocomposites: New Opportunities to Intensify Algae Biotechnology and Bioprocessing. Energies 2021, 14, 2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Han, M.; Zhang, C.; Ho, S.-H. Immobilized Microalgal System: An Achievable Idea for Upgrading Current Microalgal Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2022, 14, 100227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Weber, S.; Schaepe, S.; Freyer, S.; Kopf, M.; Dietzsch, C. Monitoring Gradient Formation in a Jet Aerated Bioreactor. Eng. Life Sci. 2018, 19, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Tan, J.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Chew, K.W.; Lam, M.K.; Lim, J.W.; Ho, S.-H.; Show, P.L. A Review on Microalgae Cultivation and Harvesting, and Their Biomass Extraction Processing Using Ionic Liquids. Bioengineered 2020, 11, 116–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Ecological risks of aquaculture effluents characterized by elevated nutrients, organic matter, and emerging contaminants affecting water quality and ecosystem integrity.
Figure 1. Ecological risks of aquaculture effluents characterized by elevated nutrients, organic matter, and emerging contaminants affecting water quality and ecosystem integrity.
Cleantechnol 07 00097 g001
Figure 2. Coordinated biogeochemical cycles in algal–bacterial consortia enable pollutant removal and resource recovery through integrated carbon fixation, nitrogen transformation, phosphorus mineralization, and oxygen release within a dynamic microenvironment.
Figure 2. Coordinated biogeochemical cycles in algal–bacterial consortia enable pollutant removal and resource recovery through integrated carbon fixation, nitrogen transformation, phosphorus mineralization, and oxygen release within a dynamic microenvironment.
Cleantechnol 07 00097 g002
Figure 3. Applications and advantages of algal–microbial co-cultivation and immobilization technologies.
Figure 3. Applications and advantages of algal–microbial co-cultivation and immobilization technologies.
Cleantechnol 07 00097 g003
Figure 4. Future research roadmap for the development and large-scale application of immobilized algal–bacterial consortia in aquaculture wastewater treatment.
Figure 4. Future research roadmap for the development and large-scale application of immobilized algal–bacterial consortia in aquaculture wastewater treatment.
Cleantechnol 07 00097 g004
Table 1. Major Pollutants, Physicochemical Parameters, and Ecological Risks of Aquaculture Effluents.
Table 1. Major Pollutants, Physicochemical Parameters, and Ecological Risks of Aquaculture Effluents.
Water Body/SystemCulture TypeMajor PollutantsTypical Concentration RangeRisk Level/ImpactReferences
Freshwater pondsCarp, tilapiaTN, TP, CODTN 20–40 mg/L;
TP 2–6 mg/L;
COD 40–100 mg/L
Local eutrophication; algal blooms[8,9,18,44]
Intensive shrimp ponds (marine/brackish)Shrimp, other freshwater speciesNH4+-N, PO43−-P, antibioticsNH4+-N 5–15 mg/L; PO43−-P 5–12 mg/L; antibiotics 10–200 µg/LBenthic hypoxia, ARG proliferation[8,9,18]
Net-pen/cage aquacultureSalmon, seabassDissolved nutrients, organic matterTN < 20 mg/L; TP < 3 mg/L; COD < 50 mg/LDiffuse eutrophication; localized sediment impact[23,24,25]
Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS, high-density)Tilapia, other freshwater speciesTAN, nitrate, TDSTAN 10–30 mg/L; NO3-N 50–150 mg/L; TDS 300–1200 mg/LWater reuse challenge, biofilter overload[45,46]
Brackish aquaculture effluentsShrimp/fish mixconductivity, heavy metalsConductivity 2–40 mS/cm; Na+, Cl 50–300 mg/L; Cu/Zn up to 0.1–0.3 mg/LSalinity stress to freshwater biota, sediment contamination[46,47,48]
Notes: TAN = total ammonia nitrogen; TDS = total dissolved solids; TN = total nitrogen; TP = total phosphorus. RAS refers to an intensive aquaculture system in which water is continuously treated and reused to maintain optimal environmental conditions for cultured species.
Table 2. Comparison of Conventional Treatment Technologies for Aquaculture Effluents.
Table 2. Comparison of Conventional Treatment Technologies for Aquaculture Effluents.
Treatment TypePollutant Removal/EfficiencyAdvantagesLimitationsReferences
Sedimentation/Oxidation pondsSS: 40–70%; TN: 20–40%; TP: 15–35%Low cost; simple operation; natural processesLarge land footprint; poor control; limited N and P removal[47,86,87]
Biofilters (trickling, moving bed)NH4+-N: 40–80%; TN: 30–60%Effective for ammonium oxidation; suitable for RASRequires aeration and biofilm maintenance; limited P removal[88,89,90]
Constructed wetlandsTN: 40–70%; TP: 30–60%; COD: 40–80%Eco-friendly; habitat provisionLarge area; seasonal performance variation; pathogen risk[44,46,86]
Activated sludge systemsTN: 60–80%; TP: 40–70%; COD: 70–90%High efficiency; widely used; adaptableHigh energy demand; sludge production; less stable under salinity[86,91,92]
Sequencing batch reactors (SBR)TN: 70–90%; TP: 50–80%; COD: 70–90%Flexible operation; enhanced N removalSkilled operation required; sensitive to fluctuations[47,93]
Membrane bioreactors (MBR)TN: 80–95%; TP: 70–90%; COD: 85–95%High effluent quality; small footprintHigh cost; fouling issues; energy-intensive[47,76,91]
Chemical precipitation (e.g., lime, alum)TP: >90%; COD: 40–60%Rapid P removal; simpleHigh chemical cost; sludge disposal problem; not sustainable[60,61]
Biofloc technologyTN: 40–70%; TP: 30–50%Converts waste into microbial protein; feed supplementRequires high aeration; may not meet discharge standards[45,94]
Table 3. Comparative Performance of Algae-only, Bacteria-only, Free-living ABSS, and Immobilized ABSS in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment.
Table 3. Comparative Performance of Algae-only, Bacteria-only, Free-living ABSS, and Immobilized ABSS in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment.
FeatureAlgae-OnlyBacteria-OnlyFree-Living ABSSImmobilized ABSSAdvantages/DisadvantagesReferences
Nutrient Removal EfficiencyNH4+-N: 30–70%; TP: 20–50%NH4+-N: 60–85%; COD: 50–90%NH4+-N: 70–90%; TP: 60–80%NH4+-N: 85–95%; TP: 75–90%Immobilized systems achieve higher and more stable removal; algae-only limited by light; bacteria-only poor in P removal[44,100,101,102,104,109,111,155,158,159]
Kinetic ParametersVmax: low (0.2–0.5 mg N/L·h); t1/2: >48 hVmax: 0.6–1.0 mg N/L·h; t1/2: 24–36 hVmax: 0.8–1.2 mg N/L·h; t1/2: 20–30 hVmax: 1.2–1.8 mg N/L·h; t1/2: 12–24 hImmobilization improves volumetric rates and shortens half-life[101,158,159]
Biomass RetentionLow (washout prone)Low–moderateModerate, but unstableHigh; cells firmly attachedImmobilization ensures stable biomass over long operation[155,156,157,158,160,168]
Reusability/Operational LifetimeLimited, mostly batchLimitedModerate, prone to collapseHigh; reusable carriers, >10 cycles reportedImproves process economics[158,159,160,162]
Environmental StabilitySensitive to pH/light/tempSensitive to organic shock loadsModerateHigh tolerance to fluctuationsKey advantage for aquaculture effluents[155,156,157,158,160]
Operational Complexity & CostLow-cost, simpleLow-costModerateHigher setup cost, carrier preparation requiredTrade-off: stability vs. cost[155,156,157,158,160]
LimitationsLight dependency, limited P uptakeInsufficient P removal, poor resilienceBiomass washout, unstable long-termMass transfer limits, carrier fouling, higher capital costChoice depends on effluent type & scale[155,156,157,158,160]
Table 4. Case Studies of Immobilized Algal–Bacterial Consortia in Aquaculture Wastewater.
Table 4. Case Studies of Immobilized Algal–Bacterial Consortia in Aquaculture Wastewater.
Algal PartnerBacterial Partner(s)Carrier/System TypeScalePollutant Removal EfficiencyAdditional OutcomesReferences
C. vulgarisIndigenous bacteriaBF-MPBRSemi-pilot (outdoor)TN > 90%; sulfonamides 70–85%Simultaneous removal of nutrients and antibiotics[100]
Microalgae (mixed)Indigenous bacterial communityFPNUSPilot (aquaculture pond)TN 75–85%; TP 60–70%Operated under outdoor mixotrophic conditions[102]
C. vulgarisMixed bacterial communityAlginate–chitosan beadsLab/pilotNH4+-N > 90%; TP 75–85%Reduction in Vibrio spp. and ARGs[160]
C. vulgarisIndigenous bacteriaAlginate beadsLab (batch)NH4+-N 85–90%; TP 70–80%Reusability across ≥ 4 cycles[156,159]
Scenedesmus sp.Indigenous bacteriaAlginate beads Lab (continuous)TP > 80%Stable operation for 42 days without carrier degradation[167]
Mixed algal culture (Chlorella sp., Scenedesmus sp.)Nitrifiers, denitrifiersZeolite granulesLabNH4+-N > 90%; TP ~80%Improved pH buffering; salinity tolerance[161]
C. vulgarisIndigenous bacteriaBF-MPBRSemi-pilot (outdoor)TN > 90%; sulfonamides 70–85%Simultaneous removal of nutrients and antibiotics[100]
Table 5. Biomass Composition and Valorization Pathways of Immobilized ABSS.
Table 5. Biomass Composition and Valorization Pathways of Immobilized ABSS.
Valorization PathwayKey Biomass Composition/YieldApplication/BenefitReferences
AquafeedProtein 45–55% DW; essential amino acids; feed substitution up to 30%Improves fish growth, immunity, and feed conversion ratios[176]
BiofertilizerN, P-rich biomass; residual organic matterEnhances soil fertility, nutrient recycling, reduces chemical fertilizer demand[170]
BiofuelsLipid 20–40% DW (biodiesel); residual biomass for methaneRenewable energy generation, integration with circular aquaculture systems[170,178]
BioplasticsPolyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) and carbohydrate-rich fractionsPilot-scale biopolymer production; biodegradable alternatives to plastics[179]
Pigments & High-Value ProductsAstaxanthin (>20% higher under immobilization), phycocyaninHigh-value nutraceuticals, natural pigments, antioxidant supplements[172,177]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qu, J.; Ren, R.; Wu, Z.; Huang, J.; Zhang, Q. From Waste to Resource: Algal–Bacterial Systems and Immobilization Techniques in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment. Clean Technol. 2025, 7, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7040097

AMA Style

Qu J, Ren R, Wu Z, Huang J, Zhang Q. From Waste to Resource: Algal–Bacterial Systems and Immobilization Techniques in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment. Clean Technologies. 2025; 7(4):97. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7040097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qu, Jiangqi, Ruijun Ren, Zhanhui Wu, Jie Huang, and Qingjing Zhang. 2025. "From Waste to Resource: Algal–Bacterial Systems and Immobilization Techniques in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment" Clean Technologies 7, no. 4: 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7040097

APA Style

Qu, J., Ren, R., Wu, Z., Huang, J., & Zhang, Q. (2025). From Waste to Resource: Algal–Bacterial Systems and Immobilization Techniques in Aquaculture Effluent Treatment. Clean Technologies, 7(4), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7040097

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop