Skip to main content
Log in

Field evaluation of seven products to control cyanobacterial blooms in aquaculture

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 09 August 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Harmful algal blooms negatively impact water quality in hypereutrophic systems that are common in aquaculture. However, few algaecides are approved for use in food-fish aquaculture. This study assessed the effectiveness of seven products, including hydrogen peroxide (as a concentrated liquid or in granular form (PAK-27)), peracetic acid (as VigorOx SP-15 and Peraclean), copper (as copper sulfate in unchelated (powder) or chelated (Captain) forms), and a clay-based product (as Phoslock) on phytoplankton (including cyanobacteria) and zooplankton biomass. Each product was tested in a 14-day laboratory and 35-day field experiment to assess their short- and long-term performance. Although some products (i.e., copper-based and liquid hydrogen peroxide) quickly reduced phytoplankton, effects were short-lived given that chlorophyll concentrations returned to starting concentrations within 21 days. In contrast, all but one product (i.e., concentrated liquid hydrogen peroxide) maintained low phycocyanin concentrations for 35 days. Zooplankton biomass trends showed large, negative effects for most algaecides; however, zooplankton rebounded for most treatments except for copper-based products. In general, copper-based products remain the most efficient and cheapest choice to reduce total phytoplankton biomass in aquaculture systems. However, peracetic acid-based products effectively and quickly reduced cyanobacteria while having marginal effects on beneficial algae and zooplankton. Such algaecides could be effective alternatives to copper-based products for aquaculture farmers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the members of the Wilson laboratory for their assistance and two anonymous reviewers who provided suggestions that improved an earlier version of this manuscript. We thank SePRO, Evonik, and PeroxyChem for their financial and/or product support. This study was supported by NSF grant DBI-1658694 and USDA grant 2017-70007-27132, the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, the Hatch program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, and a small gift from SePRO.

Funding

This study was supported by NSF grant DBI-1658694 and USDA grant 2017-70007-27132, the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, the Hatch program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, and a small gift from SePRO.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: RPB and AEW; methodology: RPB, CA, AEW; formal analysis and investigation: RPB, CA, APB, EGFF, MFG, BG, and AEW; writing—original draft preparation: RPB, APB, EGFF, MFG, and AEW; writing—review and editing: RPB, CA, APB, EGFF, MFG, BG, and AEW; funding acquisition: AEW; resources: AEW; supervision: AEW.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan E. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research followed the guidelines provided by Auburn University for ethical research. Consent to participate was not applicable for this study.

Consent for publication

N/A

Competing interests

The two peracetic acid-based products used in this study were provided by Evonik (Peraclean®) and PeroxyChem (VigorOx®). Partial financial support in the form of an unrestricted gift was provided by SePRO prior to the start of this study.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Vitor Manuel Oliveira Vasconcelos

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(PPTX 268 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buley, R.P., Adams, C., Belfiore, A.P. et al. Field evaluation of seven products to control cyanobacterial blooms in aquaculture. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 29971–29983 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12708-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12708-0

Keywords

Navigation