Oxidation to Control Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water Treatment Plants: Challenges at the Laboratory and Full-Scale Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of oxidation on mitigation of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in drinking water treatment sludge was investigated at the laboratory and treatment plant scales. Two common oxidants, KMnO4 (5 and 10 mg/L) and H2O2 (10 and 20 mg/L) were applied under controlled steady-state conditions. Non-oxidized and oxidized sludge was left to stagnate in the dark for 7 to 38 days. Controlled laboratory trials show that KMnO4 and H2O2 decreased cell counts up to 62% and 77%, respectively. The maximum total MC level reduction achieved after oxidation was 41% and 98% using 20 mg/L H2O2 and 10 mg/L KMnO4, respectively. Stagnation caused cell growth up to 2.6-fold in 8 out of 22 oxidized samples. Microcystin (MC) producer orders as Chroococcales and Synechococcales were persistent while Nostocales was sensitive to combined oxidation and stagnation stresses. In parallel, two on-site shock oxidation treatments were performed in the DWTP’s sludge holding tank using 10 mg/L KMnO4. On-site shock oxidation decreased taxonomic cell counts by up to 43% within 24 h. Stagnation preceded by on-site shock oxidation could increase total cell counts by up to 55% as compared to oxidation alone. The increase of cell counts and mcyD gene copy numbers during stagnation revealed the impact of oxidation/stagnation on cyanobacterial cell growth. These findings show the limitations of sludge oxidation as a strategy to manage cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in sludge and suggest that alternative approaches to prevent the accumulation and mitigation of cyanobacteria in sludge should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".