• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

HCB-1

☰
Visit HCB-2 Website
Home
Interactive Tools
Nutrient Reduction Tool
Monitoring Tool
Management Criteria Tool
Risk Communication Tool
1. Overview
1. Overview
1.1 Our Goals in Developing This Guidance
2. Using this Guidance for Cyanobacterial Bloom Response
3. Introduction to the Cyanobacteria
3. Introduction to the Cyanobacteria
3.1 What Are Cyanobacteria?
3.2 Health, Environment, and Economic Impacts
3.3 Cyanobacteria Biological Functions and Environmental Interactions
3.4 Understanding Your Water Body and Developing an HCB Management Plan
4. Monitoring
4. Monitoring
4.1 HCB Monitoring
4.2 Developing a Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program
4.3 Approaches to Monitoring
4.4 Selecting Appropriate Sample Collection Methods for Your Lake’s HCB Event
4.5 Water Quality Monitoring to Support Cyanobacteria Management
4.6 Examples of Recreational and Drinking Water Monitoring Approaches for Cyanobacteria
5. Strategies for Communication and Response Planning for HCBs
5. Strategies for Communication and Response Planning for HCBs
5.1 Immediate Communication and Response Tasks
5.2 Build, Improve, and Maintain Response Capacity
6. Management and Control Strategies for HCBs
6. Management and Control Strategies for HCBs
6.1 Summary Table
7. Strategies for Use in Nutrient Management
7. Strategies for Use in Nutrient Management
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Environmental Regulatory and Nonregulatory/Voluntary Programs for Nutrient Control
7.3 Source Identification and Prioritization
7.4 Linking Nutrients to Land Use
7.5 Point Sources
7.6 Nonpoint Sources
7.7 Water Quality Trading
8. Recommendations
8. Recommendations
8.1 Overall understanding of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins and their potential impacts
8.2 HCB Monitoring
8.3 Strategic Communication and Response Planning
8.4 HCB Management and Control Strategies
8.5 HCB Prevention Through Nutrient Reduction
References
Appendix
Appendix A. Visual Guide to Common Harmful Cyanobacteria
Appendix B. North American Lake Management Society survey on HCB notification/outreach
Appendix C. Management Strategy Fact Sheets
C.1 Management Strategy Fact Sheets
C.2 Cost Compilation for Several Mitigation Strategies
C.3 Abridged Strategies
Appendix D. Team Contacts
Appendix E. Glossary
Appendix F. Acronyms
Additional Information
Acknowledgments
Document Feedback
Navigating this Website

 

Strategies for Preventing and Managing Harmful Cyanobacterial Blooms (HCB-1)

Organic Biocides

Planktonic:   

In-water Prevention and Intervention Strategy
Limited/Emerging Supporting Field Data

Benthic:

In-water Prevention and Intervention Strategy
Limited Supporting Field Data

Several research groups have explored the possibility of controlling cyanobacterial blooms using natural biocidal compounds or synthetic analogs. These compounds are not one group or a derivative of a similar group or classification of molecules. Instead, they represent natural or synthetically modified extracts from various sources. By definition, a biocide is any compound (preservative, insecticide, disinfectant, pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, etc.) that is used for controlling a microorganism that is harmful to human or animal health (USEPA 2019). These organic biocides can range in algal and cyanobacterial targets, and there is an extensive literature of possible ecological end points. In some cases, it is not known how these compounds function; only observations of the effects (for example, algistatic or algaecidal and cyanostatic or cyanocidal) these biocides may have on target organisms are available. In some cases, compounds registered as biocides with USEPA for the control of cyanobacteria are used for limited instances, such as industrial cooling waters and biofouling, and not for surface recreational water bodies.

In general, organic biocides can be broken down into two categories: (1) those that are extracted from plants and (2) those that are natural derivatives of specific metabolites of other microorganisms or plants (NEIWPCC 2015). One potential example of a commonly used, known natural biocide is barley and rice straw extracts, which is expanded upon further in its own strategy.

Various natural compounds have been considered for their potential activity against cyanobacterial blooms and cyanotoxins, including:

  • barley straw and its extracts
  • L-lysine
  • tellimagrandin II
  • tryptamine
  • nonanoic acid
  • β-ionone
  • geranyl acetone

While the above is not an exhaustive list of all natural biocidal compounds, several compounds have been examined (NEIWPCC 2015), generally in small-scale studies. Broader ecological impacts may not be known or fully understood. Exhaustive reviews of natural compounds, such as those conducted by Shao et al. (2013), note that many of these compounds may only be weakly cyanocidal or only exhibit inhibitory effects at very high concentrations. Additional concerns are that some organic biocide compounds can themselves be sources of nitrogen or phosphorus, important for additional algal or cyanobacterial growth. Use of some of these compounds, such as L-lysine, may enhance eutrophication by introducing exogenous sources of nitrogen.

PLANKTONIC AND BENTHIC

EFFECTIVENESS

  • Varies depending on the biocide and its application

NATURE OF HCB

  • Since this is not a homogeneous group of compounds, the product will vary for the nature of each HCB. For USEPA-approved products, follow the application guidance for the nature of the HCB bloom experienced.
  • Prevention and intervention strategy

ADVANTAGES

  • Cost can be lower, depending on the organic biocide and the source, compared to chemical algaecides
  • Some extracts can be prepared on site with minimal equipment
  • Some natural compounds may degrade with no off-target effects noted

LIMITATIONS

  • Limited documented application for all organic biocides as an intervention technique for HCBs
  • Depending on mechanism of action, cyanotoxin release can occur
  • Some risk of enhancing eutrophication in the use of several compounds
  • Human and animal toxicity data are limited
  • High purity extracts may be cost-prohibitive to effectively control blooms

COST ANALYSIS

Estimating cost is difficult for this technique due to the numerous variables. The cost and difficulty in generating the compound is a limiting factor, as is “growing” the source material. Some material, such as L-lysine, can be extracted in abundance at low cost. Others, as described in the literature, require several purification steps to isolate the targeted compound. In general, the simpler the extraction method, the lower the cost.

Some specialized equipment, such as sprayers or on-site grinders, may need to be purchased if the extract must be prepared from fresh material.

Relative cost per growing season: Organic biocides

ITEM RELATIVE COST PER GROWING SEASON
Material $–$$$
Personal Protective Equipment $–$$
Equipment $–$$
Labor $
O&M Costs $
OVERALL $$

REGULATORY AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Some organic biocides already have USEPA registration. Additional products are registered as organic biocides, but only for application in specific environments. Some products, though naturally derived, have not been evaluated for short- or long-term toxicity in humans or other aquatic organisms and may pose a hazard. A “natural” or “organic” product is not necessarily safe and could have greater impacts on the ecosystem than the HCB it is purported to treat.

CASE STUDY EXAMPLES

Dianch Lake, China: The cyanocidal effects of L-lysine and malonic acid were evaluated in enclosures with blooms of Microcystis aeruginosa (Kaya et al. 2005).

Three enclosures, measuring 10 m by 10 m by 1.3–1.5 m deep, were established and monitored over 28 days. Enclosure A served as the control, B served as L-lysine alone, and C served as L-lysine + malonic acid.

Upon initial spraying, blooms resolved in both enclosures B and C; however, within 7 days a rebound bloom of M. aeruginosa appeared in enclosure B.

No rebound bloom was documented in enclosure C, and enhanced macrophyte growth was observed.

By the end of 28 days, no recovery of L-lysine or malonic acid could be detected, indicating that possible complete degradation of these compounds had occurred.

REFERENCES

Kaya, K., Y. D. Liu, Y. W. Shen, B. D. Xiao, and T. Sano. 2005. “Selective control of toxic Microcystis water blooms using lysine and malonic acid: an enclosure experiment.”  Environmental Toxicology 20 (2):170-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.20092.

NEIWPCC. 2015. “Harmful Algal Bloom Control Method Synopses.” New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. https://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/NEIWPCC_HABControlMethodsSynopses_June2015.pdf.

Shao, J., R. Li, J. E. Lepo, and J. D. Gu. 2013. “Potential for control of harmful cyanobacterial blooms using biologically derived substances: problems and prospects.”  Journal of Environmental Management 125:149-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.001.

USEPA. 2019. “I-BEAM Glossary of Terms.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=I-BEAM%20Glossary%20of%20Terms.

image_pdfPrint this page/section


HCB

Home
glossaryGlossary
referencesReferences
acronymsAcronyms
ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
social media iconsClick here to visit ITRC on FacebookClick here to visit ITRC on TwitterClick here to visit ITRC on LinkedInITRC on Social Media
about_itrc
Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer). This web site is owned by ITRC • 1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 • (202) 266-4933 • Email: [email protected] • Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States.