Next Article in Journal
Individual Identification of Medaka, a Small Freshwater Fish, from the Dorsal Side Using Artificial Intelligence
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Leaf Species and Conditioning State of Fresh Leaves on Colonization by Stream and Pond Macroinvertebrates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Hydrobiology
Volume 3
Issue 2
10.3390/hydrobiology3020008
hydrobiology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Toward a Brighter Future: Enhanced Sustainable Methods for Preventing Algal Blooms and Improving Water Quality

by
Su-Ok Hwang
1,
In-Hwan Cho
2,
Ha-Kyung Kim
3,
Eun-A Hwang
4,
Byung-Hun Han
5 and
Baik-Ho Kim
1,5,*
1
Institute of Natural Science, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea
2
Migang E&C Co., Ltd., Gyeonggi 14057, Republic of Korea
3
Water Environmental Engineering Research Division, National Institute of Environmental Research, Inchon 22689, Republic of Korea
4
Han River Environment Research Center, National Institute of Environmental Research, Gyeonggi 12585, Republic of Korea
5
Department of Environmental Science, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Hydrobiology 2024, 3(2), 100-118; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3020008
Submission received: 20 March 2024 / Revised: 27 May 2024 / Accepted: 27 May 2024 / Published: 29 May 2024
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This comprehensive review explores the escalating challenge of nutrient enrichment in aquatic ecosystems, spotlighting the dire ecological threats posed by harmful algal blooms (HABs) and excessive particulate organic matter (POM). Investigating recent advancements in water treatment technologies and management strategies, the study emphasizes the critical need for a multifaceted approach that incorporates physical, chemical, and biological methods to effectively address these issues. By conducting detailed comparative analyses across diverse aquatic environments, it highlights the complexities of mitigating HABs and underscores the importance of environment-specific strategies. The paper advocates for sustainable, innovative solutions and international cooperation to enhance global water quality and ecosystem health. It calls for ongoing advancement, regular monitoring, and comprehensive research to adapt to emerging challenges, thus ensuring the preservation of aquatic biodiversity and the protection of communities reliant on these vital resources. The necessity of integrating technological innovation, ecological understanding, and global cooperation to safeguard aquatic ecosystems for future generations is paramount.

1. Introduction

The global recognition of aquatic ecosystems’ susceptibility to nutrient enrichment highlights a critical environmental concern. Recent studies have broadened the understanding of nutrient inputs’ impacts on biological processes across various ecosystems, moving beyond the focus on toxic algal blooms and dead zones in lakes and coastal areas [1,2,3,4]. The link between nutrient loading increase and agricultural activity, driven by population growth, is well-established. Even arid regions experience consistent nutrient runoff despite potential decreases in overall runoff due to increased water demand [5,6,7,8]. Sources of nutrient elevation include atmospheric deposition, wastewater, and runoff from impermeable surfaces, revealing the complex nature of this challenge [1,9,10]. Some papers stressed the essential role of strict environmental regulations in reducing nutrient loads from both direct and indirect sources as a key strategy for ecosystem preservation [11,12].
Eutrophication, triggered by excessive nitrogen and phosphorus in water bodies, causes algae and aquatic plant overgrowth, leading to numerous ecological problems [13,14,15,16,17]. These issues include the negative impacts of harmful algal blooms (HABs) and the accumulation of particulate organic matter (POM) on water quality and ecosystem health, underscoring the urgency for remediation efforts. [18,19,20,21,22,23].
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) refer to the overgrowth of algae that can have deleterious effects on ecosystems, economy, and health. These blooms can be triggered by a variety of factors, including increased nutrient loads from fertilizers, warmer temperatures, changes in water flow, and the presence of invasive species. Typically, these conditions promote the rapid growth of algae that can produce harmful toxins [24,25,26,27]. In freshwater, such as lakes and rivers, HABs often involve blue-green algae (also known as cyanobacteria). One notorious example is the 2014 Toledo bloom in Lake Erie, which left 500,000 residents without drinking water due to the high concentration of microcystins, a group of toxins produced by these cyanobacteria [28,29,30]. In marine environments, HABs often involve dinoflagellates like Karenia brevis, which causes Korea and Florida’s red tides. These blooms can lead to massive fish kills and can contaminate shellfish, making them dangerous for human consumption [31,32].
While often perceived negatively, algae play a foundational role in aquatic habitats. They serve as the primary producers in aquatic food webs, providing the base for most aquatic life forms. However, when they grow excessively and form blooms, the adverse impacts can be significant. These include the depletion of oxygen in the water, known as hypoxia; the production of toxins harmful to fish, wildlife, and humans; and significant disruptions to aquatic environments and local economies dependent on these waters [33,34,35]. In essence, while algae are critical to aquatic ecosystems, their unchecked growth during HABs can cause severe ecological and economic damage [32,36,37].
Researchers examine the nature and impact of particulate organic matter (POM) in aquatic environments, identifying its diverse composition—including bacteria, phytoplankton, protozoa, metazoans, and organic debris—and the factors influencing its deposition and ecological function [38,39,40,41,42]. POM typically ranges in size from 0.5 μm to several millimeters, depending on the source and composition. It is often characterized by a complex chemical nature, including carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids [43,44,45]. The reactivity of POM is influenced by its chemical structure and environmental conditions, which can affect its role in biogeochemical cycles and its interaction with pollutants [46,47,48,49]. POM particles can exhibit varying degrees of hydrophobicity, influencing their aggregation and sedimentation behavior. They often form conjugates with metals and organic pollutants, affecting their transport and bioavailability [49,50]. POM particles have sedimentation coefficients that reflect their size and density, typically ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 g/cm3 [51,52]. The adverse effects of excessive POM and harmful algal bloom (HAB) levels on nutrient cycling, pollution absorption, and biodiversity are discussed, along with the crucial role of POM removal in maintaining environmental and organismal health [23,53,54,55,56,57].
Moreover, some papers have studied the role of fine particulate organic matter (FPOM) in ecosystems, highlighting its significance as a food source for filter-feeding animals and its role in exporting organic matter to water bodies affected by HABs. FPOM is generally smaller than 0.5 μm and often consists of decomposed organic materials and microorganisms. Its fine size and high surface area enhance its reactivity and capacity to adsorb contaminants, making it a critical component in nutrient cycling and pollutant transport [58,59]. FPOM particles are typically more hydrophilic than larger POM, thus influencing their stability in suspension and interaction with aquatic organisms. Their smaller size and lower density usually result in lower sedimentation coefficients, which affect their settling rates in water columns [18,60]. Researchers discuss strategies for POM and HAB mitigation, such as using physical (e.g., filtration and sedimentation), chemical (e.g., coagulants and oxidants), and biological methods (e.g., bioremediation and phytoremediation), and emphasize the careful selection of treatment methods to avoid unintended ecological impacts [18,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69].
This study conducts a comprehensive review of HAB control technologies for both freshwater and marine ecosystems, aiming to identify and recommend advanced, sustainable methods for removing harmful substances with minimal environmental impact. It reaffirms the importance of addressing the impacts of nutrient enrichment on aquatic ecosystems and calls for the adoption of effective environmental regulations and management strategies. The need for selecting appropriate remediation methods to improve water quality, conserve biodiversity, and ensure the health and safety of aquatic environments is emphasized.

2. Advancements in Water Treatment: Focused Strategies for Particulate Organic Matter and Harmful Algae

The systematic classification of water treatment methods is underscored, highlighting the critical need for selectively removing POM and combating HABs. Such classification enhances our understanding of the recent advancements in the field, as outlined in Table 1 [18,23,61,70,71,72,73,74,75]. The review sheds light on worldwide efforts to advance water treatment technologies to tackle POM and HAB challenges [76,77,78]. The contributions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the practices in countries such as China and those in the OECD demonstrate the effectiveness of diverse monitoring and response strategies [18,79,80,81]. This discussion spans the gamut of water treatment technologies, including physical, chemical, and biological methods, for the effective removal of POM and HABs [82,83,84]. A comprehensive review by the EPA in 2023 emphasizes the variety of advanced water treatment approaches, integrating innovative technologies like advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), membrane bioreactors (MBRs), and real-time monitoring systems [85,86,87,88]. The crucial role of global collaboration and knowledge exchange in driving innovative solutions to new water treatment challenges is highlighted [89,90].

2.1. Physical Methods

Physical methods, such as sedimentation, filtration, and dredging, utilize mechanisms like screens, dissolved air flotation, and filters to capture and isolate contaminants [18,69,91,92]. The operational requirements for these methods include regular maintenance to ensure efficiency, considerable energy consumption, and managing the risk to aquatic life due to physical barriers [93,94]. Current costs for physical methods can vary widely; for instance, filtration and membrane filtration are generally medium to high cost but offer low environmental impact and high removal efficiency, respectively, despite high maintenance demands and susceptibility to fouling. Byproducts such as sludge and waste solids must be carefully managed to avoid environmental degradation [95,96,97].

2.2. Chemical Methods

Chemical methods employ additives like activated carbon, ozone, and various coagulants to destabilize or aggregate particles, which are crucial for contaminant removal. These processes involve specific operational requirements, such as precise dosing and monitoring of chemical levels to prevent environmental harm [98,99,100]. The ongoing need for enhancement is driven by challenges like sedimentation inefficiencies and filtration process optimization [101,102,103]. Costs for chemical treatments can be high, particularly with ozone and advanced oxidation processes, due to their powerful oxidizing abilities and high operational costs. Byproducts such as sludge from coagulation/flocculation and potential secondary pollutants from ozone treatment necessitate careful management to mitigate environmental impact [104,105,106].

2.3. Biological Methods

Biological methods focus on leveraging organisms such as zooplankton and bacteria to mitigate harmful algal blooms (HABs), offering an environmentally friendly solution [107,108,109,110,111]. Bacteria can impact HABs by releasing enzymes or toxins that degrade algal cells, while zooplankton directly consume HABs, effectively reducing algal biomass. Real case studies, such as the introduction of copepods in Lake Taihu, China, demonstrate significant reductions in cyanobacteria like Microcystis aeruginosa [112,113]. Another study indicated that increased populations of the cladoceran zooplankton reduced the biomass of cyanobacteria, highlighting the potential of zooplankton as a natural control agent for HABs [114,115]. Additionally, wetlands play a pivotal role by decomposing particulate organic matter (POMs) and HABs into simpler compounds essential for water purification [18,116,117,118]. Operationally, these methods require conditions that support the growth and activity of beneficial organisms, with low energy demands and minimal environmental disruption [119,120]. Costs for biological treatments are generally low, with benefits including biodiversity support and natural pollutant breakdown, though effectiveness can vary, and methods may require longer timescales and specific conditions to achieve optimal results [121,122,123,124].

3. Comparative Analysis of Harmful Algal Blooms in Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems

This section conducts a comparative analysis of HABs in freshwater and marine environments, identifying specific causative microorganisms, their toxins, and control strategies [80,125,126,127]. Freshwater HABs often involve cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates, with eutrophication, high temperatures, excessive sunlight, and stagnant waters exacerbating these blooms. Key contributors to nutrient excess include fertilizers, domestic wastewater, and industrial residues, which introduce high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus into aquatic systems. Seasonal blooms are particularly significant, with increasing frequencies observed during warmer months and occasionally in non-typical seasons due to climate change and altered precipitation patterns [88,128,129]. In contrast, marine HABs involve a wider variety of microorganisms, including cyanobacteria, dinoflagellates, diatoms, etc., with coastal upwelling, nutrient concentration increases, warm temperatures, and decreased salinity as key factors [130,131,132,133].
Toxin production in each ecosystem is discussed, with marine HABs producing toxins like saxitoxins, brevetoxins, and domoic acid, while freshwater HABs generate a range of toxins, including anatoxins, microcystins, saxitoxins, and cylindrospermopsin, posing significant health risks [18]. Some invasive species, such as Alexandrium spp. and Karenia spp., have displaced native biota, altering ecosystem dynamics. Studies have shown a global increase in human intoxication incidents caused by HABs, particularly in regions such as North America, Europe, and Southeast Asia. These incidents are often linked to consumption of contaminated seafood or exposure to contaminated water [134,135,136]. Various methods for HAB mitigation are proposed, influenced by bloom type and environmental context, including physical, chemical, and biological treatments [76,133]. The necessity of an integrative management approach considering water’s chemical, physical, and biological aspects is stressed, along with the need for ongoing monitoring and additional research into efficient, environmentally friendly methods tailored to specific blooms [137,138,139].
Table 2 outlines differences in microorganisms, toxins, and mitigation techniques across environments, detailing algal species linked to various poisoning syndromes [140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151]. The importance of timely monitoring and detection to prevent toxin spread and protect public health and the environment is reiterated [152,153,154]. The table also highlights the invasive nature of certain algal species and their impacts on local ecosystems.
Lastly, it acknowledges the variability in toxin production across different species within these genera and the existence of other harmful algal genera [155]. The need for vigilant, timely monitoring and detection to curb toxin proliferation and protect both public health and ecosystems is reiterated.

4. Passive Strategies for Managing Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in Aquatic Ecosystems

The strategic management of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in both freshwater and marine ecosystems is crucial for maintaining ecological balance. Increasingly, passive management strategies are being applied to manage HABs effectively across various infrastructure types. This review covers various strategies assessed for their effectiveness in controlling HABs, considering the type of infrastructure used.
In marine environments, specific HAB species have been successfully managed using methods such as ballast water treatment (typically in hermetic tanks), UV irradiation (open waters or controlled environments), biomanipulation (open waters and flowing channels), and the introduction of ciliates or flagellates (open waters). Both marine and freshwater systems have benefited from strategies like nutrient reduction (open waters and flowing channels), physical removal (open pools and flowing channels), and biomanipulation (open waters and controlled tanks), with their effectiveness supported by recent research [156,157,158,159,160].
In freshwater environments, strategies to mitigate HABs caused by species such as Anabaena, Aphanizomenon, and Microcystis include filtration (flowing channels and hermetic tanks), sedimentation (open pools and flowing channels), chemical treatments (e.g., copper sulfate in open waters and flowing channels), aeration (open pools and hermetic tanks), and nutrient management (open waters and flowing channels) [80,161,162]. Efforts to control Oscillatoria with copper sulfate treatments (open waters) and sediment removal (open pools) are well-documented [163,164,165]. The management of freshwater Cyanobacteria includes methods such as filtration (flowing channels and hermetic tanks), sedimentation (open pools), chemical treatments (open waters), aeration (open pools), nutrient management (open waters and flowing channels), and UV light exposure (open waters and controlled environments) [61,63,166]. The passive control of marine dinoflagellates through methods like introducing zooplankton or bacteria (open waters), water cycling and filtration (flowing channels and hermetic tanks), or applying binders, hydrogen peroxide, or ozone (open waters and controlled tanks) is also noted [167,168,169].
A detailed assessment of biological methods for HAB control in Table 3 emphasizes economic, ecological, and safety considerations across different infrastructures. This includes evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of using phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, microorganisms, aquatic plants, fish, and allelochemicals, integrating findings from relevant studies. The exploration of innovative technologies, such as remote sensing, DNA sequencing, and machine learning, for early detection and prevention of HABs is discussed, highlighting their potential for real-time monitoring and prediction across various types of aquatic infrastructure [170,171,172,173,174,175].
This review of biological methods for controlling HABs underscores the importance of assessing potential benefits and impacts on native communities and potential toxicity within different infrastructure settings. The optimal use of these techniques may require significant resources and a comprehensive understanding of the local ecosystem to effectively mitigate risks. The adoption of innovative technologies, such as remote sensing, DNA sequencing, and machine learning, offers promising avenues for early detection and prevention of HABs, enabling effective real-time monitoring and predictive capabilities [176,177]. The exploration of various management methods, including natural predators, physical barriers, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is discussed [72,178], emphasizing the necessity of evaluating their environmental impacts and effects on non-target organisms before implementation. The debate over genetically modified crops is acknowledged [179,180,181].
Advocating for the continuous improvement of monitoring and management strategies, preceded by a comprehensive assessment of potential risks and benefits within various infrastructure contexts, is crucial for reducing the frequency and severity of HABs. Enhancing public awareness and education on the prevention and management of HABs is highlighted as essential [36,182].

5. Enhanced Sustainable Strategies for Algal Bloom Prevention and Water Quality Improvement

Recent research underscores the critical importance of prioritizing water quality and ecosystem health, focusing on the sustainable removal of organic matter and the mitigation of harmful algal blooms (HABs) (Table 4). Addressing HABs sustainably is essential not only for ecosystem preservation but also for protecting public health and maintaining economic activities that rely on water bodies. Eliminating various forms of organic matter, including particulates and gases, is vital to mitigate the displacement or replacement of organisms and to preserve biodiversity [21,22,80,183]. This study emphasizes the necessity of implementing effective practices to maintain water quality while efficiently removing harmful organisms through environmentally friendly methods, thus reducing the negative impacts on ecosystem health and human activities [184,185].
The effectiveness of physical methods such as filtration, sedimentation, and skimming in removing harmful organisms is well-established. However, the use of chemicals like chlorine, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide should be approached cautiously due to their potential adverse effects on both ecosystems and human health [186,187]. UV disinfection is highlighted as an eco-friendly alternative, eradicating harmful organisms without introducing additional chemicals into the water, thereby minimizing ecological disruption and maintaining biodiversity [188]. The introduction of live organisms for algae control requires careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences that could displace native species and disrupt ecosystem balance [21].
Achieving success in natural environments is complex, influenced by factors such as water temperature, nutrient levels, and the presence of competing organisms, all of which affect ecosystem health and biodiversity [17,189]. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) have severe consequences, including water quality degradation, oxygen depletion, ecosystem damage, reduced biodiversity, unpleasant odors, and toxin production, which directly affect both environmental and human health [79]. Recovering and removing flocculated or settled organic matter from water is crucial to prevent further ecological harm and to protect biodiversity [100,184]. Sustainable approaches to managing water quality, public health, and ecosystem health are critical, with a strong emphasis on evaluating potential impacts to avoid undesirable outcomes that could harm ecosystems and human activities [190,191,192,193].
Given the severe impact of HABs on water quality and ecosystem health, the paper reiterates the imperative for adopting sustainable solutions to safeguard water quality, protect biodiversity, and ensure the resilience of ecosystems against future challenges.

6. Conclusions and Future Direction

This research highlights the critical vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems to nutrient enrichment, emphasizing the severe ecological threats posed by harmful algal blooms (HABs) and excessive particulate organic matter (POM) [194,195,196]. It delves into the latest advancements in water treatment technologies and management strategies, advocating for a comprehensive approach that integrates physical, chemical, and biological methods to effectively tackle these issues [197,198,199].
Through detailed comparative analysis, this study reveals the complexities involved in mitigating HABs across various aquatic environments, underscoring the importance of strategies tailored to specific environmental and biological factors [200,201]. Future studies must focus on sustainable, innovative solutions that are both environmentally friendly and cost-effective. Methods such as nutrient reduction, biomanipulation, and the use of targeted, minimally disruptive algicides are highlighted [202,203].
This study calls for enhancing water quality and ecosystem health on a global scale through ongoing advancements, regular monitoring, and extensive research. It advocates for developing efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly water treatment technologies, with a focus on refining the selectivity and efficiency of treatment methods to target contaminants without harming aquatic ecosystems [204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213]. International cooperation is essential, as demonstrated by events like the “PICES GlobalHAB International Workshop on HAB Control Solutions in Marine and Estuarine Waters,” held in Seattle, Washington, in 2023 [214]. Key challenges include ensuring cost-effectiveness at large scales, obtaining public acceptance and regulatory approval, and securing funding for widespread implementation.
Innovations in material science, the incorporation of molecular biology techniques like CRISPR-Cas for managing toxin-producing algal species, and leveraging data science and remote sensing technologies for early detection and monitoring are critical areas for future progress [215,216,217,218]. Collaborative international research efforts are essential to address the transboundary nature of water pollution and ecosystem degradation [219,220]. Such collaborations can help standardize monitoring and treatment methodologies, exchange best practices, and align regulatory frameworks to manage nutrient loads and prevent HABs across different regions [221,222,223].
Future research should also consider the socioeconomic aspects of water quality management, integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into policy-making. This promotes strategies that balance environmental conservation with economic development and social well-being [224,225,226].
In summary, the confluence of interdisciplinary research, technological innovation, and international collaboration is vital for protecting aquatic ecosystems, preserving biodiversity, and ensuring the sustainability of water resources for future generations. Effective methods to control HABs must be environmentally friendly and cost-effective, while focusing on comprehensive strategies that combine prevention, early detection, and targeted treatment approaches.

Author Contributions

S.-O.H. was responsible for validation, formal analysis, and writing the original draft. H.-K.K. and I.-H.C. contributed to the methodology and formal analysis. E.-A.H., B.-H.H. and B.-H.K. conducted the investigation, with B.-H.K. also leading the conceptualization and editing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable contributions, which significantly improved the scientific quality of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Author In-Hwan Cho was employed by the company Migang E&C Co. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bashir, I.; Lone, F.A.; Bhat, R.A.; Mir, S.A.; Dar, Z.A.; Dar, S.A. Concerns and Threats of Contamination on Aquatic Ecosystems. In Bio-Remediation and Biotechnology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bouraï, L.; Logez, M.; Laplace-Treyture, C.; Argillier, C. How Do Eutrophication and Temperature Interact to Shape the Community Structures of Phytoplankton and Fish in Lakes? Water 2020, 12, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Anderson, D.M.; Burkholder, J.M.; Cochlan, W.P.; Glibert, P.M.; Gobler, C.J.; Heil, C.A.; Vargo, G.A. Harmful Algal Blooms and Eutrophication: Examining Linkages from Selected Coastal Regions of the United States. Harmful Algae 2008, 8, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Paerl, H.W.; Otten, T.G.; Kudela, R. Mitigating the Expansion of Harmful Algal Blooms Across the Freshwater-to-Marine Continuum. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 5519–5529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kennish, M.J. Environmental Threats and Environmental Future of Estuaries. Environ. Conserv. 2002, 29, 78–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chilton, D.; Hamilton, D.P.; Nagelkerken, I.; Cook, P.; Hipsey, M.R.; Reid, R.; Brookes, J. Environmental Flow Requirements of Estuaries: Providing Resilience to Current and Future Climate and Direct Anthropogenic Changes. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 764218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shah, N.W.; Baillie, B.R.; Bishop, K.; Ferraz, S.; Högbom, L.; Nettles, J.; Brookes, J. The Effects of Forest Management on Water Quality. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2022, 522, 120397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Withers, P.J.A.; Neal, C.; Jarvie, H.P.; Doody, D.G. Agriculture and Eutrophication: Where Do We Go from Here? Sustainability 2014, 6, 5853–5875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kelly, N.E.; Guijarro-Sabaniel, J.; Zimmerman, R. Anthropogenic Nitrogen Loading and Risk of Eutrophication in the Coastal Zone of Atlantic Canada. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2021, 263, 107630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Osman, M.; Wan Yusof, K.; Takaijudin, H.; Goh, H.W.; Abdul Malek, M.; Azizan, N.A.; Abdurrasheed, A.S. A Review of Nitrogen Removal for Urban Stormwater Runoff in Bioretention System. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carpenter, S.R.; Caraco, N.F.; Correll, D.L.; Howarth, R.W.; Sharpley, A.N.; Smith, V.H. Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 1998, 8, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Filippelli, R.; Termansen, M.; Hasan, S.; Hasler, B.; Hansen, L.; Smart, J.C.R. Water Quality Trading Markets—Integrating Land and Marine Based Measures under a Smart Market Approach. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 200, 107549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ho, J.C.; Michalak, A.M.; Pahlevan, N. Widespread Global Increase in Intense Lake Phytoplankton Blooms Since the 1980s. Nature 2019, 574, 667–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wagner, T.; Erickson, L. Sustainable Management of Eutrophic Lakes and Reservoirs. J. Environ. Prot. 2017, 8, 436–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schindler, D.W.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapra, S.C.; Hecky, R.E.; Orihel, D.M. Reducing Phosphorus to Curb Lake Eutrophication is a Success. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 8923–8929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Shortle, J.S.; Mihelcic, J.R.; Zhang, Q.; Arabi, M. Nutrient Control in Water Bodies: A Systems Approach. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 49, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Akinnawo, S.O. Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, Physical, Chemical and Biological Techniques for Mitigation Strategies. Environ. Challenges 2023, 12, 100733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Anderson, D.M.; Boerlage, S.F.E.; Dixon, M.B. Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and Desalination: A Guide to Impacts, Monitoring and Management; IOC Manuals and Guides; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hattenrath, T.K.; Anderson, D.M.; Gobler, C.J. The Influence of Anthropogenic Nitrogen Loading and Meteorological Conditions on the Dynamics and Toxicity of Alexandrium fundyense Blooms in a New York (USA) Estuary. Harmful Algae 2010, 9, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Plaas, H.E.; Paerl, H.W. Toxic Cyanobacteria: A Growing Threat to Water and Air Quality. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 44–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Sukenik, A.; Kaplan, A. Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Outlook on Current and Emerging Mitigation and Control Approaches. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Newton, A.R.; Melaram, R. Harmful Algal Blooms in Agricultural Irrigation: Risks, Benefits, and Management. Front. Water 2023, 5, 1325300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brown, A.R.; Lilley, M.; Shutler, J.; Lowe, C.; Artioli, Y.; Torres, R.; Berdalet, E.; Tyler, C.R. Assessing Risks and Mitigating Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms on Mariculture and Marine Fisheries. Rev. Aquacult. 2020, 12, 1663–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gilbert, O. (Ed.) GEOHAB. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms, Harmful Algal Blooms in Eutrophic Systems; IOC: Paris, France; SCOR: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2006; 74p. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sellner, K.G.; Doucette, G.J.; Kirkpatrick, G.J. Harmful Algal Blooms: Causes, Impacts and Detection. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2003, 30, 383–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Igwaran, A.; Kayode, A.J.; Moloantoa, K.M.; Khetsha, Z.P.; Unuofin, J.O. Cyanobacteria Harmful Algae Blooms: Causes, Impacts, and Risk Management. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2024, 235, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kimambo, O.N.; Gumbo, J.R.; Chikoore, H. The Occurrence of Cyanobacteria Blooms in Freshwater Ecosystems and Their Link with Hydro-Meteorological and Environmental Variations in Tanzania. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Thees, A.; Atari, E.; Birbeck, J.; Westrick, J.A.; Huntley, J.F. Isolation and Characterization of Lake Erie Bacteria that Degrade the Cyanobacterial Microcystin Toxin MC-LR. J. Great Lakes Res. 2019, 45, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report. Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms: Causes, Challenges, and Policy Considerations. Congressional Research Service. 2020; R44871. Available online: https://crsreports.congress.gov (accessed on 18 March 2024).
  30. Salter, C.; VanMensel, D.; Reid, T.; Birbeck, J.; Westrick, J.; Mundle, S.O.C.; Weisener, C.G. Investigating the Microbial Dynamics of Microcystin-LR Degradation in Lake Erie Sand. Chemosphere 2021, 272, 129873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fleming, L.E.; Kirkpatrick, B.; Backer, L.C.; Walsh, C.J.; Nierenberg, K.; Clark, J.; Reich, A.; Hollenbeck, J.; Benson, J.; Cheng, Y.S.; et al. Review of Florida Red Tide and Human Health Effects. Harmful Algae 2011, 10, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Park, T.G.; Lim, W.A.; Park, Y.T.; Lee, C.K.; Jeong, H.J. Economic Impact, Management and Mitigation of Red Tides in Korea. Harmful Algae 2013, 30, S131–S143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chapman, R.L. Algae: The World’s Most Important “Plants”—An Introduction. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2013, 18, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Glibert, P.M. Harmful Algae at the Complex Nexus of Eutrophication and Climate Change. Harmful Algae 2020, 91, 101583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zanchett, G.; Oliveira-Filho, E.C. Cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins: From impacts on aquatic ecosystems and human health to anticarcinogenic effects. Toxins 2013, 5, 1896–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  36. Anabtawi, H.M.; Lee, W.H.; Al-Anazi, A.; Mohamed, M.M.; Aly Hassan, A. Advancements in Biological Strategies for Controlling Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). Water 2024, 16, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Oh, J.-W.; Pushparaj, S.S.C.; Muthu, M.; Gopal, J. Review of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Causing Marine Fish Kills: Toxicity and Mitigation. Plants 2023, 12, 3936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jürgens, K.; Sala, M.M. Predation-Mediated Shifts in Size Distribution of Microbial Biomass and Activity during Detritus Decomposition. Oikos 2000, 91, 29–40. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3547471 (accessed on 15 April 2023). [CrossRef]
  39. Vézina, A.F.; Platt, T. Food Web Dynamics in the Ocean. I. Best-Estimates of Flow Networks Using Inverse Methods. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1988, 42, 269–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Moncelon, R.; Metzger, E.; Pineau, P.; Emery, C.; Bénéteau, E.; de Lignières, C.; Philippine, O.; Robin, F.X.; Dupuy, C. Drivers for Primary Producers’ Dynamics: New Insights on Annual Benthos Pelagos Monitoring in Anthropised Freshwater Marshes (Charente-Maritime, France). Water Res. 2022, 221, 118718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Guo, C.; Yang, S.; Zhai, W.; Niu, Y.; Liu, C. Biological–Physical Oceanographic Coupling Influencing Particulate Organic Matter in the South Yellow Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 919423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Orcutt, B.N.; Sylvan, J.B.; Knab, N.J.; Edwards, K.J. Microbial Ecology of the Dark Ocean above, at, and below the Seafloor. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2011, 75, 361–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wurzbacher, C.; Wannicke, N.; Grimmett, I.J.; Bärlocher, F. Effects of FPOM Size and Quality on Aquatic Heterotrophic Bacteria. Limnologica 2016, 59, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bibi, R.; Kang, H.Y.; Kim, D.; Jang, J.; Kim, C.; Kundu, G.K.; Kang, C.-K. Biochemical Composition of Seston Reflecting the Physiological Status and Community Composition of Phytoplankton in a Temperate Coastal Embayment of Korea. Water 2021, 13, 3221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, Z.; Breecker, D.; Mayer, L.M.; Zhong, J. Composition of Size-Fractioned Sedimentary Organic Matter in Coastal Environments is Affected by Difference in Physical Forcing Strength. Org. Geochem. 2013, 60, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hu, B.; Wang, P.; Wang, C.; Bao, T. Photogeochemistry of Particulate Organic Matter in Aquatic Systems: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Liang, S.; Li, S.; Guo, J.; Yang, Y.; Xu, Z.; Zhang, M.; Li, H.; Yu, X.; Ma, H.; Wang, X. Source, Composition, and Reactivity of Particulate Organic Matter along the Changjiang Estuary Salinity Gradient and Adjacent Sea. Mar. Chem. 2023, 252, 104245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Berhe, A.A.; Barnes, R.T.; Six, J.; Marín-Spiotta, E. Role of Soil Erosion in Biogeochemical Cycling of Essential Elements: Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2018, 46, 521–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mehler, W.T.; Li, H.; Pang, J.; Sun, B.; Lydy, M.J.; You, J. Bioavailability of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants in Sediment with Different Particle-Size Distributions. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 61, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ma, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhu, Z.; Li, L.; Yu, F. Effect of Microplastic Size on the Adsorption Behavior and Mechanism of Triclosan on Polyvinyl Chloride. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 254, 113104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Filep, T.; Zacháry, D.; Jakab, G.; Szalai, Z. Chemical Composition of Labile Carbon Fractions in Hungarian Forest Soils: Insight into Biogeochemical Coupling between DOM and POM. Geoderma 2022, 419, 115867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yeasmin, S.; Singh, B.; Johnston, C.T.; Hua, Q.; Sparks, D.L. Changes in Particulate and Mineral-Associated Organic Carbon with Land Use in Contrasting Soils. Pedosphere 2023, 33, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wei, X.; Huang, Z.; Jiang, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, X.; Leng, Y.; Jiang, C. Charting the Landscape of the Environmental Exposome. iMeta 2022, 1, e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Coffey, R.; Paul, M.; Stamp, J.; Hamilton, A.; Johnson, T. A Review of Water Quality Responses to Air Temperature and Precipitation Changes 2: Nutrients, Algal Blooms, Sediment, Pathogens. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2018, 55, 844–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, Y.; Zeng, M.; Xie, Z.; Ning, D.; Zhou, J.; Yu, X.; Liu, R.; Zhang, L.; Fang, J. Microbial Community Structure and Ecological Networks during Simulation of Diatom Sinking. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mayali, X.; Azam, F. Algicidal Bacteria in the Sea and Their Impact on Algal Blooms. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 2004, 51, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Deng, Y.; Vallet, M.; Pohnert, G. Temporal and Spatial Signaling Mediating the Balance of the Plankton Microbiome. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2022, 14, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bundschuh, M.; McKie, B.G. An Ecological and Ecotoxicological Perspective on Fine Particulate Organic Matter in Streams. Freshw. Biol. 2016, 61, 2063–2074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nakakuni, M.; Yamamoto, S.; Yamaguchi, H.; Ichimi, K.; Tada, K. Molecular Composition of Particulate Organic Matter in Surface Waters of the Harima-Nada, Seto Inland Sea, Japan. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2022, 56, 102685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Callisto, M.; Graça, M.A.S. The Quality and Availability of Fine Particulate Organic Matter for Collector Species in Headwater Streams. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 2013, 98, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Song, J.; Xu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Guo, J. Nanoparticles, an Emerging Control Method for Harmful Algal Blooms: Current Technologies, Challenges, and Perspectives. Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Inaba, N.; Kodama, I.; Nagai, S.; Shiraishi, T.; Matsuno, K.; Yamaguchi, A.; Imai, I. Distribution of Harmful Algal Growth-Limiting Bacteria on Artificially Introduced Ulva and Natural Macroalgal Beds. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gallardo-Rodríguez, J.J.; Astuya-Villalón, A.; Llanos-Rivera, A.; Avello-Fontalba, V.; Ulloa-Jofré, V. A Critical Review on Control Methods for Harmful Algal Blooms. Rev. Aquacult. 2019, 11, 661–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sharma, A.K.; Pandit, J. Advanced Bioremediation Strategies for Organophosphorus Compounds. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Lett. 2023, 51, 374–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, T.; Chu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Ju, M.; Wang, Y. Contrasting Eutrophication Risks and Countermeasures in Different Water Bodies: Assessments to Support Targeted Watershed Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pereira, A.C.; Mulligan, C.N. Practices for Eutrophic Shallow Lake Water Remediation and Restoration: A Critical Literature Review. Water 2023, 15, 2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khan, F.A.; Ansari, A.A. Eutrophication: An Ecological Vision. Bot. Rev. 2005, 71, 449–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rast, W.; Holland, M. Eutrophication of Lakes and Reservoirs: A Framework for Making Management Decisions. Ambio 1988, 17, 2–12. [Google Scholar]
  69. González, Y.; Gómez, G.; Moeller-Chávez, G.E.; Vidal, G. UV Disinfection Systems for Wastewater Treatment: Emphasis on Reactivation of Microorganisms. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hendricks, D.W. Fundamentals of Water Treatment Unit Processes: Physical, Chemical, and Biological; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mojiri, A.; Trzcinski, A.P.; Bashir, M.J.K.; Abu Amr, S.S. Editorial: Innovative treatment technologies for sustainable water and wastewater management. Front. Water 2024, 6, 1388387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Somashekar, V.; Vivek Anand, A.; Hariprasad, V.; Elsehly, E.M.; Kapulu, M. Advancements in saline water treatment: A review. Water Reuse 2023, 13, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kaswan, V.; Kaur, H. A comparative study of advanced oxidation processes for wastewater treatment. Water Pract. Technol. 2023, 18, 1233–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zouboulis, A.I.; Katsoyiannis, I.A. Recent Advances in Water and Wastewater Treatment with Emphasis in Membrane Treatment Operations. Water 2019, 11, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Martín Enríquez Castro, C.; Pérez Nafarrate, M.; Manuel Badillo Olvera, A.; Guzmán Martínez, C. Emerging Technologies in Water Treatment: Recent Advances; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Anderson, D.M. Approaches to Monitoring, Control, and Management of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. GlobalHAB. 2023. Fish-Killing Marine Algal Blooms: Causative Organisms, Ichthyotoxic Mecha-nisms, Impacts and Mitigation; Hallegraeff, G.M., Anderson, D.M., Davidson, K., Gianella, F., Hansen, P.J., Hegaret, H., Iwataki, M., Larsen, T.O., Mardones, J., MacKenzie, L., Eds.; UNESCO-IOC/SCOR: Paris, France; 96pp, (IOC Manuals and Guides, 93). [CrossRef]
  78. ISOC-HAB. Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms: State of the Science and Research Needs. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2008, 619, 1–912. [Google Scholar]
  79. FAO; IOC; IAEA. Joint Technical Guidance for the Implementation of Early Warning Systems for Harmful Algal Blooms; Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 690; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Stauffer, B.A.; Bowers, H.A.; Buckley, E.; Davis, T.W.; Johengen, T.H.; Kudela, R.; McManus, M.A.; Purcell, H.; Smith, G.J.; Vander Woude, A.; et al. Considerations in Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Monitoring: Perspectives From a Consensus-Building Workshop and Technology Testing. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shen, L.; Xu, H.; Guo, X. Satellite Remote Sensing of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and a Potential Synthesized Framework. Sensors 2012, 12, 7778–7803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Cardoso, I.M.F.; Cardoso, R.M.F.; da Silva, J.C.G.E. Advanced Oxidation Processes Coupled with Nanomaterials for Water Treatment. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gopalakrishnan, G.; Jeyakumar, R.B.; Somanathan, A. Challenges and Emerging Trends in Advanced Oxidation Technologies and Integration of Advanced Oxidation Processes with Biological Processes for Wastewater Treatment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Boinpally, S.; Kolla, A.; Kainthola, J.; Kodali, R.; Vemuri, J. A State-of-the-Art Review of the Electrocoagulation Technology for Wastewater Treatment. Water Cycle 2023, 4, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Price, J.I.; Heberling, M.T. The Effects of Source Water Quality on Drinking Water Treatment Costs: A Review and Synthesis of Empirical Literature. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Griffiths, C.; Klemick, H.; Massey, M.; Moore, C.; Newbold, S.; Simpson, D.; Walsh, P.J.; Wheeler, W.J. US Environmental Protection Agency Valuation of Surface Water Quality Improvements. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2012, 6, 130–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Overview of the EPA, The Clean Water Act, and Water Quality Standards, Virtual WQS Academy; May 2023. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/clean-water-act-water-quality-standards.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2024).
  88. U.S. Government Accountability Office (USGAO). Water Quality and Protection; 2024. Available online: https://www.gao.gov/water-quality-and-protection (accessed on 10 May 2024).
  89. Anderson, C.R.; Berdalet, E.; Kudela, R.M.; Cusack, C.K.; Silke, J.; O’Rourke, E.; Dugan, D.; McCammon, M.; Newton, J.A.; Moore, S.K.; et al. Scaling Up from Regional Case Studies to a Global Harmful Algal Bloom Observing System. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kudela, R.M.; Berdalet, E.; Enevoldsen, H.; Pitcher, G.; Raine, R.; Urban, E. GEOHAB: The Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms Program: Motivation, Goals, and Legacy. Oceanography 2017, 30, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Qasem, N.A.A.; Mohammed, R.H.; Lawal, D.U. Removal of Heavy Metal Ions from Wastewater: A Comprehensive and Critical Review. npj Clean Water 2021, 4, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Laursen, S.N.; Fruergaard, M.; Andersen, T.J. Rapid Flocculation and Settling of Positively Buoyant Microplastic and Fine-Grained Sediment in Natural Seawater. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 178, 113619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Razali, M.C.; Wahab, N.A.; Sunar, N.; Shamsudin, N.H. Existing Filtration Treatment on Drinking Water Process and Concerns Issues. Membranes 2023, 13, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Cevallos-Mendoza, J.; Amorim, C.G.; Rodríguez-Díaz, J.M.; Montenegro, M.D.C.B.S.M. Removal of Contaminants from Water by Membrane Filtration: A Review. Membranes 2022, 12, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hoslett, J.; Massara, T.M.; Malamis, S.; Ahmad, D.; van den Boogaert, I.; Katsou, E.; Ahmad, B.; Ghazal, H.; Simons, S.; Wrobel, L.; et al. Surface Water Filtration Using Granular Media and Membranes: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 639, 1268–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, J.; Li, G.; Yuan, X.; Li, P.; Yu, Y.; Yang, W.; Zhao, S. Reduction of Ultrafiltration Membrane Fouling by the Pretreatment Removal of Emerging Pollutants: A Review. Membranes 2023, 13, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Othman, N.H.; Alias, N.H.; Fuzil, N.S.; Marpani, F.; Shahruddin, M.Z.; Chew, C.M.; Ng, D.; Lau, W.J.; Ismail, A.F. A Review on the Use of Membrane Technology Systems in Developing Countries. Membranes 2021, 12, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Aragaw, T.A.; Bogale, F.M. Role of Coagulation/Flocculation as a Pretreatment Option to Reduce Colloidal/Bio-Colloidal Fouling in Tertiary Filtration of Textile Wastewater: A Review and Future Outlooks. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1142227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Alshahri, A.H.; Fortunato, L.; Ghaffour, N.; Leiknes, T. Controlling Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) by Coagulation-Flocculation-Sedimentation Using Liquid Ferrate and Clay. Chemosphere 2021, 274, 129676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Badawi, A.K.; Salama, R.S.; Mostafa, M.M.M. Natural-based coagulants/flocculants as sustainable market-valued products for industrial wastewater treatment: A review of recent developments. RSC Adv. 2023, 13, 19335–19355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Erftemeijer, P.L.A.; Riegl, B.; Hoeksema, B.W.; Todd, P.A. Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 1737–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kjelland, M.E.; Woodley, C.M.; Swannack, T.M.; Smith, D.L. A review of the potential effects of suspended sediment on fishes: Potential dredging-related physiological, behavioral, and transgenerational implications. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2015, 35, 334–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chahal, C.; van den Akker, B.; Young, F.; Franco, C.; Blackbeard, J.; Monis, P. Pathogen and Particle Associations in Wastewater: Significance and Implications for Treatment and Disinfection Processes. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 97, 63–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Hama Aziz, K.H.; Fryad, S.M. Advanced oxidation processes for the decontamination of heavy metal complexes in aquatic systems: A review. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 2024, 9, 100567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chalaris, M.; Gkika, D.A.; Tolkou, A.K.; Kyzas, G.Z. Advancements and sustainable strategies for the treatment and management of wastewaters from metallurgical industries: An overview. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2023, 30, 119627–119653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  106. Yeoh, J.X.; Jamil, S.N.A.; Syukri, F.; Koyama, M.; Nourouzi Mobarekeh, M. Comparison between Conventional Treatment Processes and Advanced Oxidation Processes in Treating Slaughterhouse Wastewater: A Review. Water 2022, 14, 3778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Imai, I.; Inaba, N.; Yamamoto, K. Harmful algal blooms and environmentally friendly control strategies in Japan. Fish Sci. 2021, 87, 437–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dhir, B. Effective control of waterborne pathogens by aquatic plants. In Waterborne Pathogens; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 339–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Landesman, L.; Fedler, C.; Duan, R. Plant Nutrient Phytoremediation Using Duckweed. In Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences and Control; Ansari, A., Singh Gill, S., Lanza, G., Rast, W., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kim, B.-H.; Sang, M.; Hwang, S.-J.; Han, M.-S. In situ bacterial mitigation of the toxic cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa: Implications for biological bloom control. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 2008, 6, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kim, N.-Y.; Park, M.-H.; Hwang, S.-O.; Kim, B.-H.; Hwang, S.-J. Combined Effects of Filter-feeding Bivalve and Zooplankton on the Growth Inhibition of Cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa. Korean J. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 48, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kazmi, S.S.U.H.; Yapa, N.; Karunarathna, S.C.; Suwannarach, N. Perceived Intensification in Harmful Algal Blooms Is a Wave of Cumulative Threat to the Aquatic Ecosystems. Biology 2022, 11, 852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  113. Sun, X.; Tao, M.; Qin, B.; Qi, M.; Niu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Ma, Z.; Xie, P. Large-scale field evidence on the enhancement of small-sized cladocerans by Microcystis blooms in Lake Taihu, China. J. Plankton Res. 2012, 34, 853–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Agasild, H.; Panksep, K.; Tõnno, I.; Blank, K.; Kõiv, T.; Freiberg, R.; Laugaste, R.; Jones, R.I.; Nõges, P.; Nõges, T. Role of potentially toxic cyanobacteria in crustacean zooplankton diet in a eutrophic lake. Harmful Algae 2019, 89, 101688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. du Plooy, S.J.; Carrasco, N.K.; Perissinotto, R. Effects of zooplankton grazing on the bloom-forming Cyanothece sp. in a subtropical estuarine lake. J. Plankton Res. 2017, 39, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Omondi, O.; Donde; Atalitsa, C.N. Constructed Wetlands in Wastewater Treatment and Challenges of Emerging Resistant Genes Filtration and Reloading. In Inland Waters—Dynamics and Ecology; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sakadevan, K.; Bavor, H.J. Nutrient Removal Mechanisms in Constructed Wetlands and Sustainable Water Management. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 40, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gasparatos, A.; Doll, C.N.H.; Esteban, M.; Ahmed, A.; Olang, T.A. Renewable Energy and Biodiversity: Implications for Transitioning to a Green Economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Niesenbaum, R.A. The Integration of Conservation, Biodiversity, and Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Sandifer, P.A.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P. Exploring Connections Among Nature, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health and Well-Being: Opportunities to Enhance Health and Biodiversity Conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. White, T.B.; Petrovan, S.O.; Booth, H.; Correa, R.J.; Gatt, Y.; Martin, P.A.; Newell, H.; Worthington, T.A.; Sutherland, W.J. Determining the economic costs and benefits of conservation actions: A decision support framework. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2022, 4, e12840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Wang, J.; Delavar, M.A. Junye Wang, Mojtaba Aghajani Delavar, Techno-economic analysis of phytoremediation: A strategic rethinking. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 902, 165949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Saveyn, H.; Eder, P. End-of-Waste Criteria for Biodegradable Waste Subjected to Biological Treatment (Compost & Digestate): Technical Proposals; Scientific and Technical Research Series; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2014; 308p, ISSN 1831-9424. ISBN 978-92-79-35062-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. WHO. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Health Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; ISBN 92 4 156309 5. [Google Scholar]
  125. Feist, S.M.; Lance, R.F. Genetic detection of freshwater harmful algal blooms: A review focused on the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) in Microcystis aeruginosa and Prymnesium parvum. Harmful Algae 2021, 110, 102124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pal, M.; Yesankar, P.J.; Dwivedi, A.; Qureshi, A. Biotic Control of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs): A Brief Review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 268, 110687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Griffith, A.W.; Gobler, C.J. Harmful Algal Blooms: A Climate Change Co-Stressor in Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Harmful Algae 2020, 91, 101590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Devlin, M.; Brodie, J. Nutrients and Eutrophication. In Marine Pollution—Monitoring, Management and Mitigation; Reichelt-Brushett, A., Ed.; Springer Textbooks in Earth Sciences, Geography and Environment; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Davidson, K.; Gowen, R.J.; Harrison, P.J.; Fleming, L.E.; Hoagland, P.; Moschonas, G. Anthropogenic nutrients and harmful algae in coastal waters. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Yan, Z.; Kamanmalek, S.; Alamdari, N.; Nikoo, M.R. Comprehensive Insights into Harmful Algal Blooms: A Review of Chemical, Physical, Biological, and Climatological Influencers with Predictive Modeling Approaches. J. Environ. Eng. 2024, 150, 03124002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Loureiro, S.; René, A.; Garcés, E.; Camp, J.; Vaqué, D. Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs), Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM), and Planktonic Microbial Community Dynamics at a Near-Shore and a Harbour Station Influenced by Upwelling (SW Iberian Peninsula). J. Sea Res. 2011, 65, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Yoon, J.N.; Lee, M.; Jin, H.; Lim, Y.K.; Ro, H.; Park, Y.G.; Baek, S.H. Summer Distributional Characteristics of Surface Phytoplankton Related to Multiple Environmental Variables in the Korean Coastal Waters. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Paerl, H.W. Mitigating Toxic Planktonic Cyanobacterial Blooms in Aquatic Ecosystems Facing Increasing Anthropogenic and Climatic Pressures. Toxins 2018, 10, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Lad, A.; Breidenbach, J.D.; Su, R.C.; Murray, J.; Kuang, R.; Mascarenhas, A.; Najjar, J.; Patel, S.; Hegde, P.; Youssef, M.; et al. As We Drink and Breathe: Adverse Health Effects of Microcystins and Other Harmful Algal Bloom Toxins in the Liver, Gut, Lungs and Beyond. Life 2022, 12, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  135. Gill, D.; Rowe, M.; Joshi, S.J. Fishing in greener waters: Understanding the impact of harmful algal blooms on Lake Erie anglers and the potential for adoption of a forecast model. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 227, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Karlson, B.; Andersen, P.; Arneborg, L.; Cembella, A.; Eikrem, W.; John, U.; West, J.J.; Klemm, K.; Kobos, J.; Lehtinen, S.; et al. Harmful algal blooms and their effects in coastal seas of Northern Europe. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Balaram, V.; Copia, L.; Kumar, U.S.; Miller, J.; Chidambaram, S. Pollution of Water Resources and Application of ICP-MS Techniques for Monitoring and Management—A Comprehensive Review. Geosyst. Geoenviron. 2023, 2, 100210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wang, M.; Zhu, J.; Mao, X. Removal of Pathogens in Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems: A Review of Design Considerations and Influencing Factors. Water 2021, 13, 1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Naidoo, S.; Olaniran, A.O. Treated Wastewater Effluent as a Source of Microbial Pollution of Surface Water Resources. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 11, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Nguyen, H.N.; Smith, M.E.; Swoboda, H.D. Shellfish Toxicity. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  141. Grattan, L.M.; Holobaugh, S.; Morris, J.G. Harmful algal blooms and public health. Harmful Algae 2016, 57 Pt B, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Cusick, K.D.; Sayler, G.S. An overview of the marine neurotoxin, saxitoxin: Genetics, molecular targets, methods of detection and ecological functions. Mar. Drugs. 2013, 11, 991–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  143. Band-Schmidt, C.J.; Durán-Riveroll, L.M.; Bustillos-Guzmán, J.J.; Leyva-Valencia, I.; López-Cortés, D.J.; Núñez-Vázquez, E.J.; Hernández-Sandoval, F.E.; Ramírez-Rodríguez, D.V. Paralytic Toxin Producing Dinoflagellates in Latin America: Ecology and Physiology. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Hoagland, P.; Jin, D.; Beet, A.; Kirkpatrick, B.; Reich, A.; Ullmann, S.; Fleming, L.E.; Kirkpatrick, G. The human health effects of Florida Red Tide (FRT) blooms: An expanded analysis. Environ. Int. 2014, 68, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Vargo, G.A. A brief summary of the physiology and ecology of Karenia brevis Davis (G. Hansen and Moestrup comb. nov.) red tides on the West Florida Shelf and of hypotheses posed for their initiation, growth, maintenance, and termination. Harmful Algae 2009, 8, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Li, X.; Tian, Y.; Yu, R.; Zhou, M. A review of Karenia mikimotoi: Bloom events, physiology, toxicity and toxic mechanism. Harmful Algae 2019, 90, 101702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Louzao, M.C.; Vilariño, N.; Vale, C.; Costas, C.; Cao, A.; Raposo-Garcia, S.; Vieytes, M.R.; Botana, L.M. Current Trends and New Challenges in Marine Phycotoxins. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Burkholder, J.M. Implications of Harmful Microalgae and Heterotrophic Dinoflagellates in Management of Sustainable Marine Fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 1998, 8, S37–S62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Farabegoli, F.; Blanco, L.; Rodríguez, L.P.; Vieites, J.M.; Cabado, A.G. Phycotoxins in Marine Shellfish: Origin, Occurrence and Effects on Humans. Mar. Drugs 2018, 16, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  150. Moreira, C. Editorial: Harmful Algal Blooms in Marine Environments: From Biologically Active Compounds to Species Diversity. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 812660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Martelli, F.; Cirlini, M.; Dellafiora, L.; Neviani, E.; Dall’Asta, C.; Bernini, V. Mitigation of marine toxins by interactions with bacteria: The case of okadaic acid and tetrodotoxin. Food Control 2022, 131, 108428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Anderson, D.M.; Fensin, E.; Gobler, C.H.; Hoeglund, A.E.; Hubbard, K.A.; Kulis, D.B.; Landsberg, J.H.; Lefebvre, K.A.; Provoost, P.; Richlen, M.L.; et al. Marine harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the United States: History, current status and future trends. Harmful Algae 2021, 102, 101975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Mary, L.; Quere, J.; Latimier, M.; Rovillon, G.A.; Hégaret, H.; Réveillon, D.; Le Gac, M. Genetic association of toxin production in the dinoflagellate Alexandrium minutum. Microb. Genom. 2022, 8, mgen000879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Subong, B.J.J.; Lluisma, A.O.; Azanza, R.V.; Salvador-Reyes, L.A. Differentiating Two Closely Related Alexandrium Species Using Comparative Quantitative Proteomics. Toxins 2021, 13, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Christensen, V.G.; Maki, R.P.; Stelzer, E.A.; Norland, J.E.; Khan, E. Phytoplankton Community and Algal Toxicity at a Recurring Bloom in Sullivan Bay, Kabetogama Lake, Minnesota, USA. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 16129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. García-Garay, J.; Franco-Herrera, A.; Machuca-Martinez, F. Zooplankton sensitivity and phytoplankton regrowth for ballast water treatment with advanced oxidation processes. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 35008–35014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Löder, M.G.J.; Meunier, C.; Wiltshire, K.H.; Boersma, M.; Aberle, N. The role of ciliates, heterotrophic dinoflagellates and copepods in structuring spring plankton communities at Helgoland Roads, North Sea. Mar. Biol. 2011, 158, 1551–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Lee, R.E.; Kugrens, P. Relationship between the flagellates and the ciliates. Microbiol. Rev. 1992, 56, 529–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  159. Landsberg, J.H. The effects of harmful algal blooms on aquatic organisms. Rev. Fish. Sci. 2002, 10, 113–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Christensen, S.; Daugbjerg, N.; Moestrup, Ø.; Annadotter, H.; Cronberg, G. Potential harmful cyanobacteria in drinking water reservoirs of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam—Toxicity and molecular phylogeny. In Proceedings of the XII International Conference on Harmful Algal Blooms, København, Denmark, 4–8 September 2006. Abstract. [Google Scholar]
  161. Cheung, M.Y.; Liang, S.; Lee, J. Toxin-producing cyanobacteria in freshwater: A review of the problems, impact on drinking water safety, and efforts for protecting public health. J. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Rolton, A.; Rhodes, L.; Hutson, K.S.; Biessy, L.; Bui, T.; MacKenzie, L.; Symonds, J.E.; Smith, K.F. Effects of Harmful Algal Blooms on Fish and Shellfish Species: A Case Study of New Zealand in a Changing Environment. Toxins 2022, 14, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Kansole, M.M.R.; Lin, T.-F. Impacts of Hydrogen Peroxide and Copper Sulfate on the Control of Microcystis aeruginosa and MC-LR and the Inhibition of MC-LR Degrading Bacterium Bacillus sp. Water 2017, 9, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Haughey, M.A.; Anderson, R.D.; Whitney, W.D.; Taylor, R.F. Losee, Forms and fate of Cu in a source drinking water reservoir following CuSO4 treatment. Water Res. 2000, 34, 3440–3452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Hangzhou, X.; Justin, B.; Peter, H.; Haiyan, P. Impact of copper sulphate, potassium permanganate, and hydrogen peroxide on Pseudanabaena galeata cell integrity, release and degradation of 2-methylisoborneol. Water Res. 2019, 157, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Bartram, J.; Balance, R. (Eds.) Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to Their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring, and Management; F & FN Spon: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  167. Smith, B.C.; Persson, A.; Alix, J.H. Dinoflagellate cell density limits explored using Scrippsiella lachrymosa cultured in flow-through cages. J. Appl. Phycol. 2023, 35, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Randhawa, V.; Thakkar, M.; Wei, L. Applicability of hydrogen peroxide in brown tide control—Culture and microcosm studies. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e47844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Mardones, J.I.; Flores-Leñero, A.; Pinto-Torres, M.; Paredes-Mella, J.; Fuentes-Alburquenque, S. Mitigation of Marine Dinoflagellates Using Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) Increases Toxicity towards Epithelial Gill Cells. Microorganisms 2022, 11, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  170. Coyne, K.J.; Wang, Y.; Johnson, G. Algicidal Bacteria: A Review of Current Knowledge and Applications to Control Harmful Algal Blooms. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 871177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Thawabteh, A.M.; Naseef, H.A.; Karaman, D.; Bufo, S.A.; Scrano, L.; Karaman, R. Thawabteh AM, Naseef HA, Karaman D, Bufo SA, Scrano L, Karaman R. Understanding the Risks of Diffusion of Cyanobacteria Toxins in Rivers, Lakes, and Potable Water. Toxins 2023, 15, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  172. Zhu, X.; Dao, G.; Tao, Y.; Zhan, X.; Hu, H. A review on control of harmful algal blooms by plant-derived allelochemicals. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 401, 123403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. GlobalHAB. Guidelines for the Study of Climate Change Effects on HABs; Wells, M., Burford, M., Kremp, A., Montresor, M., Pitcher, G., Richardson, A., Eriksen, R., Hallegraeff, G., Rochester, W., Van de Waal, D., et al., Eds.; IOC Manuals and Guides no 88; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  174. Marrone, B.L.; Banerjee, S.; Talapatra, A.; Gonzalez-Esquer, C.R.; Pilania, G. Toward a Predictive Understanding of Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms through AI Integration of Physical, Chemical, and Biological Data. ACS ES&T Water 2023, 4, 844–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Wells, M.L.; Karlson, B.; Wulff, A.; Kudela, R.; Trick, C.; Asnaghi, V.; Berdalet, E.; Cochlan, W.; Davidson, K.; De Rijcke, M.; et al. Future HAB science: Directions and challenges in a changing climate. Harmful Algae 2020, 91, 101632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Izadi, M.; Sultan, M.; Kadiri, R.E.; Ghannadi, A.; Abdelmohsen, K. A Remote Sensing and Machine Learning-Based Approach to Forecast the Onset of Harmful Algal Bloom. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Potvin, M.; Gauthier, J.; Langevin, C.; Mohit, V.; da Costa, N.B.; Deschênes, T.; Pomerleau, M.; Kukavica-Ibrulj, I.; Verreault, D.; Comte, J.; et al. Rapid on-site detection of harmful algal blooms: Real-time cyanobacteria identification using Oxford Nanopore sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1267652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Sebesta, J.; Xiong, W.; Guarnieri, M.T.; Yu, J. Biocontainment of Genetically Engineered Algae. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 839446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  179. Raman, R. The Impact of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops in Modern Agriculture: A Review. GM Crops Food. 2017, 8, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  180. Oliver, M.J. Why We Need GMO Crops in Agriculture. MO Med. 2014, 111, 492–507. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  181. Snow, A.A.; Andow, D.A.; Gepts, P.; EM Hallerman Power, A.; Tiedje, J.M.; Wolfenbarger, L.L. Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment: Current Status and Recommendations. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 377–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Anderson, D.M.; Cembella, A.D.; Hallegraeff, G.M. Progress in understanding harmful algal blooms: Paradigm shifts and new technologies for research, monitoring, and management. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2012, 4, 143–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  183. Balaji-Prasath, B.; Wang, Y.; Su, Y.P.; Hamilton, D.P.; Lin, H.; Zheng, L.; Zhang, Y. Methods to control harmful algal blooms: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 3133–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Silva, J.A. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse for Sustainable Water Resources Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Chapman, D.V.; Sullivan, T. The role of water quality monitoring in the sustainable use of ambient waters. One Earth 2022, 5, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Englande, A.J., Jr.; Krenkel, P.; Shamas, J. Wastewater Treatment & Water Reclamation. Ref. Modul. Earth Syst. Environ. Sci. 2015. [CrossRef] [PubMed Central]
  187. Khadre, M.A.; Yousef, A.E. Sporicidal action of ozone and hydrogen peroxide: A comparative study. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2001, 71, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Pfendler, S.; Bousta, F.; Alaoui-Sossé, L.; Khatyr, A.; Aleya, L.; Alaoui-Sossé, B. UV-C as an Efficient Means to Combat Biofilm Formation in Cultural Heritage Monument. Biodiversity and Impact on Prehistoric Pigments? In 10th International Symposium on the Conservation of Monuments in the Mediterranean Basin; Koui, M., Zezza, F., Kouis, D., Eds.; MONUBASIN 2017; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Prest, E.I.; Hammes, F.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.; Vrouwenvelder, J.S. Biological Stability of Drinking Water: Controlling Factors, Methods, and Challenges. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  190. USEPA. Drinking Water Treatment Technologies; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  191. UNEP. Water Quality for Ecosystem and Human Health, 2nd ed.; United Nations Environment Programme Global Environment Monitoring System/Water Programme; UN GEMS/Water Programme Office: Koblenz, Germany, 2008; Available online: http://www.gemswater.org/ (accessed on 21 April 2024).
  192. Magrabi, F.; Ammenwerth, E.; Hyppönen, H.; de Keizer, N.; Nykänen, P.; Rigby, M.; Scott, P.; Talmon, J.; Georgiou, A. Improving Evaluation to Address the Unintended Consequences of Health Information Technology: A Position Paper from the Working Group on Technology Assessment & Quality Development. Yearb. Med. Inform. 2016, 1, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  193. Suckling, J.; Hoolohan, C.; Soutar, I.; Druckman, A. Unintended Consequences: Unknowable and Unavoidable, or Knowable and Unforgivable? Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 737929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Wurtsbaugh, W.A.; Paerl, H.W.; Dodds, W.K. Nutrients, eutrophication and harmful algal blooms along the freshwater to marine continuum. WIREs Water. 2019, 6, e1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Song, X.; Huang, L.; Zhang, J.; Huang, H.; Li, T.; Su, Q. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) in Daya Bay, China: An in situ study of primary production and environmental impacts. Mar Pollut Bull. 2009, 58, 1310–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Lapointe, B.E.; Herren, L.W.; Debortoli, D.D.; Vogel, M.A. Evidence of sewage-driven eutrophication and harmful algal blooms in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon. Harmful Algae 2015, 43, 82–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Singh, B.J.; Chakraborty, A.; Sehgal, R. A systematic review of industrial wastewater management: Evaluating challenges and enablers. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 348, 119230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Ibrahim, M.; Nawaz, M.H.; Rout, P.R.; Lim, J.-W.; Mainali, B.; Shahid, M.K. Advances in Produced Water Treatment Technologies: An In-Depth Exploration with an Emphasis on Membrane-Based Systems and Future Perspectives. Water 2023, 15, 2980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Martínez-Huitle, C.A.; Rodrigo, M.A.; Sirés, I.; Scialdone, O. A critical review on latest innovations and future challenges of electrochemical technology for the abatement of organics in water. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2023, 328, 122430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Paerl, H.W.; Gardner, W.S.; Havens, K.E.; Joyner, A.R.; McCarthy, M.J.; Newell, S.E.; Qin, B.; Scott, J.T. Mitigating cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms in aquatic ecosystems impacted by climate change and anthropogenic nutrients. Harmful Algae 2016, 54, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. West, J.J.; Järnberg, L.; Berdalet, E.; Cusack, C. Understanding and Managing Harmful Algal Bloom Risks in a Changing Climate: Lessons From the European CoCliME Project. Front. Clim. 2021, 3, 636723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Banerji, A.; Benesh, K. Incorporating Microbial Species Interaction in Management of Freshwater Toxic Cyanobacteria: A Systems Science Challenge. Aquat Ecol. 2022, 3, 570–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kibuye, F.A.; Zamyadi, A.; Wert, E.C. A critical review on operation and performance of source water control strategies for cyanobacterial blooms: Part I-chemical control methods. Harmful Algae 2021, 109, 102099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Mishra, B.K.; Kumar, P.; Saraswat, C.; Chakraborty, S.; Gautam, A. Water Security in a Changing Environment: Concept, Challenges and Solutions. Water 2021, 13, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Harper, M.; Mejbel, H.S.; Longert, D.; Abell, R.; Beard, T.D.; Bennett, J.R.; Carlson, S.M.; Darwall, W.; Dell, A.; Domisch, S.; et al. Twenty-five essential research questions to inform the protection and restoration of freshwater biodiversity. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 2632–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Cantonati, M.; Poikane, S.; Pringle, C.M.; Stevens, L.E.; Turak, E.; Heino, J.; Richardson, J.S.; Bolpagni, R.; Borrini, A.; Cid, N.; et al. Characteristics, Main Impacts, and Stewardship of Natural and Artificial Freshwater Environments: Consequences for Biodiversity Conservation. Water 2020, 12, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Lahsen, M.; Sanchez-Rodriguez, R.; Lankao, P.R.; Dube, P.; Leemans, R.; Gaffney, O.; Mirza, M.; Pinho, P.; Osman-Elasha, B.; Smith, M.S. Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability to global environmental change: Challenges and pathways for an action-oriented research agenda for middle-income and low-income countries. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010, 2, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Troell, M.; Costa-Pierce, B.; Stead, S.; Cottrell, R.S.; Brugere, C.; Farmery, A.K.; Little, D.C.; Strand, Å.; Pullin, R.; Soto, D.; et al. Perspectives on aquaculture’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals for improved human and planetary health. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2023, 54, 251–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Hariram, N.P.; Mekha, K.B.; Suganthan, V.; Sudhakar, K. Sustainalism: An Integrated Socio-Economic-Environmental Model to Address Sustainable Development and Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Rabiee, N.; Sharma, R.; Foorginezhad, S.; Jouyandeh, M.; Asadnia, M.; Rabiee, M.; Akhavan, O.; Lima, E.C.; Formela, K.; Ashrafizadeh, M.; et al. Green and Sustainable Membranes: A review. Environ. Res. 2023, 231 Pt 2, 116133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Anegbe, B.; Ifijen, I.H.; Maliki, M.; Uwidia, I.E.; Aigbodion, A.I. Graphene oxide synthesis and applications in emerging contaminant removal: A comprehensive review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2024, 36, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Osman, A.I.; El-Monaem, E.M.A.; Elgarahy, A.M.; Aniagor, C.O.; Hosny, M.; Farghali, M.; Rashad, E.; Ejimofor, M.I.; Lopez-Maldonado, E.A.; Ihara, I.; et al. Methods to prepare biosorbents and magnetic sorbents for water treatment: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 2337–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Honarmandrad, Z.; Kaykhaii, M.; Gębicki, J. Microplastics removal from aqueous environment by metal organic frameworks. BMC Chem. 2023, 21, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  214. PICES (North Pacific Marine Science Organization). PICES-2023 Annual Meeting. 2023. Available online: https://meetings.pices.int/meetings/annual/2023/PICES/Program (accessed on 21 April 2024).
  215. McPartlin, D.A.; Loftus, J.H.; Crawley, A.S.; Silke, J.; Murphy, C.S.; O’Kennedy, R.J. Biosensors for the monitoring of harmful algal blooms. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2017, 45, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Wang, L.; Chen, X.; Pan, F.; Yao, G.; Chen, J. Development of a rapid detection method for Karenia mikimotoi by using CRISPR-Cas12a. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1205765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  217. Han, X.; Zhao, T.; Yan, T.; Yu, R. Rapid and sensitive detection of Karenia mikimotoi by loop-mediated isothermal amplification combined with a lateral flow dipstick. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 24696–24703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Durán-Vinet, B.; Araya-Castro, K.; Chao, T.C.; Wood, S.A.; Gallardo, V.; Godoy, K.; Abanto, M. Potential applications of CRISPR/Cas for next-generation biomonitoring of harmful algae blooms: A review. Harmful Algae 2021, 103, 102027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Chernysh, Y.; Roubík, H. International Collaboration in the Field of Environmental Protection: Trend Analysis and COVID-19 Implications. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Nti, E.K.; Cobbina, S.J.; Attafuah, E.E.; Senanu, L.D.; Amenyeku, G.; Gyan, M.A.; Forson, D.; Safo, A.R. Water pollution control and revitalization using advanced technologies: Uncovering artificial intelligence options towards environmental health protection, sustainability and water security. Heliyon 2023, 9, e18170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  221. Chen, C.H.; Liu, W.L.; Leu, H.G. Sustainable water quality management framework and a strategy planning system for a river basin. Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 952–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Sagarminaga, Y.; Garcés, E.; Francé, J.; Stern, R.; Revilla, M.; Magaletti, E.; Bresnan, E.; Tsirtsis, G.; Jakobsen, H.H.; Sampedro, N.; et al. New tools and recommendations for a better management of harmful algal blooms under the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Front. Ocean Sustain. 2023, 1, 1298800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Rashidi, H.; Baulch, H.; Gill, A.; Bharadwaj, L.; Bradford, L. Monitoring, Managing, and Communicating Risk of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in Recreational Resources across Canada. Environ. Health Insights 2021, 15, 11786302211014401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  224. Santos, E.; Carvalho, M.; Martins, S. Sustainable Water Management: Understanding the Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Jin, G.; Deng, X.; Chu, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y. Optimization of land-use management for ecosystem service improvement: A review. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2017, 101, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Berghöfer, A.; Brown, C.; Bruner, A.; Emerton, L.; Esen, E.; Geneletti, D.; Kosmus, M.; Kumar, R.; Lehmann, M.; Leon Morales, V. Increasing the Policy Impact of Ecosystem Service Assessments and Valuations—Insights from Practice; Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ) GmbH: Leipzig, Germany; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH: Eschborn, Germany, 2016; 31p, Available online: https://www.aboutvalues.net (accessed on 21 April 2024).
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Water Treatment Technologies: Mechanisms, Advantages, and Limitations [18,23,61,70,71,72,73,74,75].
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Water Treatment Technologies: Mechanisms, Advantages, and Limitations [18,23,61,70,71,72,73,74,75].
TechnologyMechanismAdvantagesLimitations
FiltrationPhysicalEffective across a broad particle size range
Medium to high cost efficiency
Low environmental impact		High maintenance and operational energy requirements
Membrane FiltrationPhysicalHigh removal efficiency and consistency
Environmentally friendly		High costs and susceptibility to membrane fouling
SedimentationPhysicalEffective for large particulates using gravity
Economical and straightforward operation		Ineffective against dissolved substances
Dissolved Air FlotationPhysicalEfficient in suspended particle removal
Moderately priced
Low environmental impact		More energy-demanding than gravity-based methods
ElectrocoagulationPhysicalChemical-free with effective contaminant removal
Considerable byproduct management requirements		Energy-intensive with potential negative effects on aquatic life
Ultraviolet IrradiationPhysical/ChemicalHighly efficient in microorganism inactivation
Non-specific action on natural microorganisms		Moderate environmental impact
Specific operational conditions required
Possible UV resistance in some organisms
Activated CarbonChemicalHighly effective against dissolved organics
Medium environmental footprint		Needs frequent regeneration
OzoneChemicalPowerful oxidizing ability, degrades organics and microorganisms
Moderate environmental impact		High operational costs and byproduct management needed
Coagulation/FlocculationChemicalEffective in particulate matter removal through aggregation
Medium environmental footprint		Dependence on chemicals, results in sludge production, although sludges may be repurposed for other uses.
Advanced Oxidation ProcessesChemicalHigh efficiency in pollutant removal
Potentially beneficial with proper integration into ecosystems		Specific conditions required, possibly high energy consumption
Biological TreatmentBiologicalPromotes biodiversity by creating a conducive environment for various microorganisms. Utilizes diverse consortia of bacteria, fungi, and algae. Low cost and eco-friendlyTime-consuming and condition-dependent
BiocharBiologicalImproves water quality and supports biodiversity
Economical and beneficial to soil and carbon storage		Varying effectiveness on pollutants, may need regeneration
Table 2. Comparative Analysis of Phytoplanktons, Toxins, and Mitigation Strategies in Freshwater and Marine Harmful Algal Blooms [140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151].
Table 2. Comparative Analysis of Phytoplanktons, Toxins, and Mitigation Strategies in Freshwater and Marine Harmful Algal Blooms [140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151].
GenusKey ToxinsAdverse EffectsMitigation Strategies
Alexandrium
(Dinoflagellata)		Saxitoxins, Gonyautoxins, PSPNeurotoxic effects, paralysis, respiratory failure in humansAdvanced ballast water treatment, UV treatment, biomanipulation, RNA interference (RNAi) techniques, genetic engineering for resistant marine life
Anabaena
(Cyanobacteria)		Saxitoxins, PSPNeurotoxic effects, respiratory distress in humansFiltration, sedimentation, advanced chemical treatments (e.g., precision dosing), aeration, nutrient management, UV light, phage therapy
Aphanizomenon
(Cyanobacteria)		Saxitoxins, PSPNeurotoxic effects, respiratory distress in humansAdvanced filtration methods, sedimentation, chemical treatments with lower environmental impact, aeration, precise nutrient addition, UV light, enzymatic degradation
Chattonella
(Raphidophyceae)		Ichthyotoxins, BrevetoxinsFish mortality, respiratory distress in humansGenetic manipulation of ciliates or flagellates for better efficacy, advanced binding agents, water temperature control, innovative biological controls
Cochlodinium
(Dinoflagellata)		Palytoxin, Neurotoxic effectsNeurological symptoms, respiratory distress in humansEnhanced water circulation and filtration, bioaugmentation with specific zooplankton or bacteria strains, innovative binding agents, H2O2, ozone, nanotechnology
Dinophysis
(Dinoflagellata)		Okadaic Acid, Dinophysistoxins, DSPGastrointestinal issues, diarrhea in humansAdvanced coagulation techniques, UV treatment with improved efficacy, precision nutrient management, biocontrol agents
Lingulodinium polyedra (formerly Gonyaulax polyedra) (Dinoflagellata)Yessotoxins, Shellfish PoisoningGastrointestinal issues, respiratory distress in humansOptimized water circulation and filtration, H2O2 or ozone treatment with reduced byproducts, introduction of genetically engineered copepods or rotifers
Karenia
(Dinoflagellata)		BrevetoxinsNeurotoxic effects, respiratory distress in humansIntegrated nutrient management, physical removal with minimal impact, biological control with novel agents, CRISPR-Cas9 for targeted interventions
Microcystis
(Cyanobacteria)		MicrocystinsHepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal issues in humansAdvanced filtration and sedimentation, precision chemical treatments, aeration, targeted nutrient addition, UV light, application of biofilms and microbial mats for toxin degradation
Oscillatoria
(Cyanobacteria)		Anatoxin-a, CylindrospermopsinNeurological disturbances, nausea, vomiting, acute liver failure, respiratory irritation in humansTargeted copper sulfate treatment, sediment removal with minimal ecological impact, bioremediation techniques, introduction of toxin-degrading bacteria
Prymnesium parvum
(Haptophyta)		Prymnesins, Hemolytic ToxinHemolysis, fish mortalityClay flocculation with specific clays, introduction of genetically modified tolerant fish species, copper sulfate treatment with precise application, toxin adsorbents
Pseudo-nitzschia
(Bacillariophyceae)		Domoic Acid, ASPNeurological symptoms, memory loss in humansEnhanced monitoring and early warning systems, adaptive nutrient management, biomanipulation with targeted species, AI-driven predictive modeling
Note: PSP = Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, DSP = Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning, ASP = Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning.
Table 3. Comparative Evaluation of Biological Control Strategies for Harmful Algal Blooms: Assessing Economic Efficiency, Ecological Impact, and Infrastructure Applicability [170,171,172,173,174,175].
Table 3. Comparative Evaluation of Biological Control Strategies for Harmful Algal Blooms: Assessing Economic Efficiency, Ecological Impact, and Infrastructure Applicability [170,171,172,173,174,175].
MethodsEconomic EfficiencyEcological ImpactInfrastructure Type
PhytoplanktonCost-effective with minimal investmentMay impact non-target species, affecting biodiversityOpen waters
ZooplanktonEfficient, uses natural predation without additional costsRisk of food web disruption, altering natural balancesOpen waters, flowing channels
Benthic Macro-InvertebratesNatural and effective, low ongoing costsPotential for habitat disturbance, changing ecosystemsOpen waters, open pools
MicroorganismsVersatile and cost-effective, with scalable applicationsHigh specificity to target species, minimizing collateral damageHermetic tanks, controlled tanks
Aquatic PlantsProvides oxygenation benefits, economically beneficial long-termRisk of overgrowth and habitat change, can lead to ecological imbalanceOpen waters, open pools
FishEconomically viable, especially in integrated pest management systemsPotential for ecosystem disruption through predation and competitionOpen waters, flowing channels
AllelochemicalsSelective and natural, cost-effective for targeted applicationsMay affect non-target species, requiring careful managementOpen waters, controlled tanks
Algicidal MicroorganismsEco-friendly and cost-effective, sustainable over timeTargeted action against HABs, promotes ecological balanceOpen waters, hermetic tanks
Seagrass-associated BacteriaLow long-term management cost, sustainable solutionPromotes biodiversity and relies on healthy seagrass ecosystems, enhancing ecological resilienceOpen waters, coasta
Table 4. Comprehensive Insights into Sustainable Water Quality Enhancement and Algal Bloom Mitigation [21,22,80,183].
Table 4. Comprehensive Insights into Sustainable Water Quality Enhancement and Algal Bloom Mitigation [21,22,80,183].
Areas of FocusApproaches
Water Quality ImprovementFocuses on advanced methods for pollutant removal, including physical, chemical, and biological techniques. It also mentions developing diagnostic tests for cyanotoxins and using high-resolution data for site restoration and nutrient interception.
Algal Bloom MitigationHighlights integrated approaches, such as drainage water recycling and assessing wetland plants for nutrient capture. Monitoring and modeling specific lakes for HAB reduction and evaluating climate change’s impact on nutrient runoff are also covered.
Decision CriteriaDiscusses the consideration of contamination type, resource availability, environmental impact, cost-effectiveness, and scalability in projects, thus supporting statewide water quality and HAB management efforts.
Biocontrol and Health ImpactsReviews research on the susceptibility to HAB toxins and toxic microplastics, focusing on direct and indirect human health impacts, highlighting the need to mitigate adverse health effects on communities and ecosystems.
Socioeconomic Consequences of HABsNew research addresses broader socioeconomic effects on communities and industries, with projects aimed at visualizing water quality trends in the Lake Erie watershed to enhance understanding and communication of these impacts.
Ecologically Sustainable PracticesEmphasizes sustainable and ecological solutions like nutrient capture in wetlands and best practices for nutrient control, including research on water-carbon-nutrient coupling for climate-resilient production.
Policy and GovernanceSupports policy development and implementation based on research, evaluating water treatment technologies and fostering collaboration among universities and state agencies for adaptive governance, aiming to sustain water quality and ecosystem health.
Innovative and Emerging SolutionsIncorporates predictive models for climate change effects on nutrient runoff and explores enhanced cyanotoxin removal methods, underscoring the importance of emerging technologies in water quality and HAB management.
Community Involvement and AwarenessFocuses on increasing public awareness and involvement through projects that make water quality data more accessible and understandable, encouraging community engagement in addressing water quality issues, thus supporting proactive management strategies.
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

Hwang, S.-O.; Cho, I.-H.; Kim, H.-K.; Hwang, E.-A.; Han, B.-H.; Kim, B.-H. Toward a Brighter Future: Enhanced Sustainable Methods for Preventing Algal Blooms and Improving Water Quality. Hydrobiology 2024, 3, 100-118. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3020008

AMA Style

Hwang S-O, Cho I-H, Kim H-K, Hwang E-A, Han B-H, Kim B-H. Toward a Brighter Future: Enhanced Sustainable Methods for Preventing Algal Blooms and Improving Water Quality. Hydrobiology. 2024; 3(2):100-118. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3020008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hwang, Su-Ok, In-Hwan Cho, Ha-Kyung Kim, Eun-A Hwang, Byung-Hun Han, and Baik-Ho Kim. 2024. "Toward a Brighter Future: Enhanced Sustainable Methods for Preventing Algal Blooms and Improving Water Quality" Hydrobiology 3, no. 2: 100-118. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3020008

APA Style

Hwang, S. -O., Cho, I. -H., Kim, H. -K., Hwang, E. -A., Han, B. -H., & Kim, B. -H. (2024). Toward a Brighter Future: Enhanced Sustainable Methods for Preventing Algal Blooms and Improving Water Quality. Hydrobiology, 3(2), 100-118. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology3020008

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop