Aquaculture International

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 1207–1216 | Cite as

Organic flocculants for the removal of phytoplankton biomass

  • Daniel Jančula
  • Eliška Maršálková
  • Blahoslav MaršálekEmail author
Original Research


The formation of noxious phytoplankton blooms causes deterioration of water quality in aquaculture ponds and reservoirs, but also in swimming pools and aquaria. We have studied the effects of selected cationic polyacrylamides on natural phytoplankton community, which was investigated by a decrease of chlorophyll a content in the water column and photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton floccules. Results indicate that cationic polyacrylamides are able to remove more than 80% of phytoplankton biomass. Moreover, no cell damage or lysis was observed by microscopic observation after flocculation. To our knowledge, this is the first report suggesting the removal of cyanobacterial blooms by organic flocculants. Cationic polyacrylamides are biodegradable organic flocculants with low toxicity to aquatic organisms, and seem to be a prospective tool with a possibility for algal or cyanobacterial bloom management in aquaculture.


Cyanobacteria Management Polyacrylamides Phytoplankton 



The research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, no. 1M0571 Research Center for Bioindication and Revitalization and the grant no. AVOZ60050516 (Institute of Botany ASCR).


  1. Aksberg R, Wagberg L (1989) Hydrolysis of cationic polyacrylamides. J Appl Polym Sci 38:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baade W, Hunkeler D, Hamielec AE (1989) Copolymerization of acrylamide with cationic monomers in solution and inverse-microsuspension. J Appl Polym Sci 38:185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Best JH, Pflugmacher S, Wiegand C, Eddy FB, Metcalf JS, Codd GA (2002) Effects of enteric bacterial and cyanobacterial lipopolysaccharides, and of microcystin-LR, on glutathione S-transferase activities in zebra fish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicol 60:223–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilanovic D, Shelef G, Sukenik A (1988) Flocculation of microalgae with cationic polymers—effects of medium salinity. Biomass 17:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolto B, Gregory J (2007) Organic polyelectrolytes in water treatment. Water Res 41:2301–2324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron MD, Post ZD, Stahl JD, Haselbach J, Aust SD (2000) Cellobiose dehydrogenase-dependent biodegradation of polyacrylate polymers by Phanerochaete chrysosporium. Environ Sci Pollut Res 7:130–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caskey JA, Primus RJ (1986) The effect of anionic polyacrylamide molecular-conformation and configuration on flocculation effectiveness. Environ Prog 5:98–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Codd GA, Morrison LF, Metcalf JS (2005) Cyanobacterial toxins: risk management for health protection. Toxicol Appl Pharm 203:264–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, Boesch DF, Seitzinger SP, Havens KE, Lancelot C, Likens GE (2009) Ecology controlling eutrophication: nitrogen and phosphorus. Science 323:1014–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Oliveira EC, Lopes RM, Paumgartten FJR (2004) Comparative study on the susceptibility of freshwater species to copper-based pesticides. Chemosphere 56:369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gavel A, Marsalek B (2004) A novel approach for phytotoxicity assessment by CCD fluorescence imaging. Environ Toxicol 19:429–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giacomazzi S, Cochet N (2004) Environmental impact of diuron transformation: a review. Chemosphere 56:1021–1032PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregor J, Geris R, Marsalek B, Hetesa J, Marvan P (2005) In situ quantification of phytoplankton in reservoirs using a submersible spectrofluorometer. Hydrobiologia 548:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haarhoff J, Cleasby JL (1989) Direct-filtration of chlorella with cationic polymer. J Environ Eng Asce 115:348–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lafuma F, Durand G (1989) C-13 Nmr-spectroscopy of cationic copolymers of acrylamide. Polym Bull 21:315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lam AKY, Prepas EE, Spink D, Hrudey SE (1995) Chemical control of hepatotoxic phytoplankton blooms—implications for human health. Water Res 29:1845–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nakamiya K, Kinoshita S (1995) Isolation of polyacrylamide-degrading bacteria. J Ferment Bioeng 80:418–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nguyen TP, Hilal N, Hankins NP, Novak JT (2008) Determination of the effect of cations and cationic polyelectrolytes on the characteristics and final properties of synthetic and activated sludge. Desalination 222:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rout D, Verma R, Agarwal SK (1999) Polyelectrolyte treatment—an approach for water quality improvement. Water Sci Technol 40:137–141Google Scholar
  20. Saveyn H, Curvers D, Thas O, Van der Meeren P (2008) Optimization of sewage sludge conditioning and pressure dewatering by statistical modeling. Water Res 42:1061–1074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith VH, Sieber-Denlinger J, deNoyelles F, Campbell S, Pan S, Randtke SJ, Blain GT, Strasser VA (2002) Managing taste and odor problems in a eutrophic drinking water reservoir. Lake Reserv Manage 18:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sutton R, Sposito G (2005) Molecular structure in soil humic substances: the new view. Environ Sci Technol 39:9009–9015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Jančula
    • 1
  • Eliška Maršálková
    • 1
  • Blahoslav Maršálek
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Cyanobacteria and their Toxins, Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations