• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

HCB-1

☰
Home
About ITRC
Navigating this Website
Visit HCB-2 Website
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)
HOME

Skimming and Harvesting

Planktonic:   

In-water Intervention Strategy
Limited Supporting Field Data

Benthic:

In-water Intervention Strategy
No Available Supporting Field Data

There is little available detail on the technologies for skimming or harvesting cyanobacteria from natural systems. A large surfactant, flotation, skimming, ozonation technology has been used in a pilot project in Florida (Page et al. 2020) that shows promise for removal of cyanobacteria and possible cyanotoxin destruction. A second project is a skimming application in Southampton, New York (Southampton Press 2019). Although harvesters for submerged aquatic plants are known and used occasionally for removal of invasive submerged grasses, such as Hydrilla spp. (McGehee 1979), data that support the removal of cyanobacteria biomass from concentrated blooms with these techniques are limited.

PLANKTONIC BENTHIC
EFFECTIVENESS
  • Water body types: Pond, lake/reservoir, bay/estuary, systems allowing scum formation
  • Any surface area or depth
  • Water body uses: Any, except perhaps drinking water sources
  • Any trophic state
  • Any mixing regime
  • Reported (no data) treatment of 100 M gal/day
EFFECTIVENESS
  • No available studies  
NATURE OF HCB
  • Scum-forming or floating HCBs
  • Singular or repeating HCBs
  • Toxic and nontoxic HCBs
  • Intervention strategy
NATURE OF HCB
  • No available studies on benthic cyanobacteria
ADVANTAGES
  • Biofuel production from harvested biomass is proposed
  • Low potential for adverse impacts
  • High volumes of surface scum biomass can be harvested
ADVANTAGES
  • No available studies on benthic cyanobacteria
LIMITATIONS
  • Limited data
  • Huge capital investment for reagents, air flotation technology, ozone, and operations and maintenance
  • May not be scalable
  • Hazardous waste designation for collected biomass possible
  • Indiscriminate removal
  • Scum is collected, so there may be surface water criteria concerns
  • Unknown costs
  • Need partners for post-collection commercial use
LIMITATIONS
  • No available studies on benthic cyanobacteria
  • Not selective to cyanobacteria
  • May spread benthic mats that reproduce by fragmentation
  • Disruptive of habitat
  • Generates high turbidity
  • Decay of disrupted macrophytes may negatively impact water quality

The sole estimate found for efficacy of harvesting and skimming is the 2019 Florida pilot project (Page et al. 2020). Unfortunately, much of the cyanobacteria present in this study were subsurface, and there was little cyanotoxin (microcystin) detected. Most results were for nutrient removal, but this method was quite effective in removing nitrogen and phosphorus, which are mostly found in the cyanobacteria biomass. There were two major limitations for the technology, however: huge capital and operations and management costs, as well as very high energy demand. Page et al. (2020) argued that these costs could be reduced if the harvested biomass could then be converted to biofuels and sold, but that technology is still in development.

As both skimming and flotation cannot remove an entire bloom, the remaining populations could re-seed and cause additional blooms. For skimmed cyanobacteria without biofuel conversion, the collected material could be considered hazardous waste with associated costs for its disposal. Subsequent disposal of harvested biomass may be limited depending on cyanotoxin content of the collected biomass.

COST ANALYSIS

Costs are relatively low for simple skimming and very high for surfactant-flotation-skimming-ozone treatment. Specific equipment for skimming or harvesting would be required, and some form of power would be needed. The relative costs below are for skimming only and surfactant-flotation-skimming-ozonation. If harvested biomass can be processed for commercial uses, net overall cost may be reduced. Whether funds recovered from the sale of the collected material are passed on to the lake manager to reduce their costs is unknown.

Relative cost per growing season: Skimming and harvesting

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

REGULATORY AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Collected biomass may include intracellular cyanotoxins, so appropriate use of the harvested biomass will depend on the material’s cyanotoxin concentration. If nontoxic, landfill application or use as wet fertilizer might be possible; composting would likely be allowed, but authorities would need to be contacted for local regulations. If processors can be found for use in the synthesis of commercial products such as foam rubber or biofuels, disposal permitting may not be necessary. If cyanotoxins are present, then permits for use of the collected biomass would be needed, and local and state officials should be contacted. For both toxic and nontoxic biomass, harvesting would remove cellular nitrogen and phosphorus, assisting in nutrient removal from impacted water bodies and therefore possible “credit” for TMDLs in a watershed.

CASE STUDY EXAMPLES

Lake Okeechobee and Newnans Lake, Florida, U.S.: Skimming alone or flotation followed by skimming are two strategies offered as intervention technologies for HCB removal in New York and Florida, respectively. In Florida (Page et al. 2020), a pilot study of the surfactant-flotation-skimming-ozone technology was conducted in Lake Okeechobee and Newnans Lake. Unfortunately for estimates of efficacy, little scum cyanobacteria were present; most biomass was at depth and at low cyanotoxin concentrations (<1 ppb). Results indicated that most of the nitrogen and phosphorus was found in the cells, and removal of nutrients was very high. The technology shows promise, particularly when surface cyanobacteria densities are elevated, but treatment costs are very high, estimated from $2M to $18M per year.

Southampton, New York, U.S.: Detail on the pilot program in New York can be found in the Southampton Press (2019).

REFERENCES

McGehee, J. T. 1979. “Mechanical hydrilla control in Orange Lake, Florida.”  Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 17:58-61.

Page, Martin A., Bruce A. MacAllister, Angela. Urban, Christopher L. Veinotte, Irene E. MacAllister, Kaytee L. Pokrzywinski, Jim. Riley, Edith Martinez-Guerra, Craig S. White, Chris. Grasso, Alan James Kennedy, Catherine C. Thomas, Justin. Billing, Andrew Schmidt, Dan. Levy, Bill. Colona, David. Pinelli, and Chandy. John. 2020. “Harmful Algal Bloom Interception, Treatment, and Transformation System, “HABITATS”, ERDC TR-20-1.” Champaign, IL: U. S. Army Corps or Engineers. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. https://hdl.handle.net/11681/35214.

Southampton Press. 2019. “Governor Cuomo and DEC Launch Blue-Green Algae Removal Pilot Program In Southampton Village.” The Southampton Press, 10/3/2019, Environment/Neighborhood. https://www.27east.com/southampton-press/governor-cuomo-and-dec-launch-blue-green-algae-removal-pilot-program-in-southampton-village-1540878/.

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.