First observation of microcystin- and anatoxin-a-producing cyanobacteria in the easternmost part of the Gulf of Finland (the Baltic Sea)

The Diversity of Cyanobacterial Toxins on Structural Characterization, Distribution and Identification: A Systematic Review

“…Six common cyanobacterial toxins were distributed in Europe. MCs were reported in Finland [203,204], Austria [205], Greece [206], Poland [207], Ireland [208], Portugal [209], Hungary [210], Norway [211], Netherlands [212], Czech [213], Germany [214], Sweden [215], Switzerland [205], Spain [216], Poland [217], the UK [218], Bulgaria [219], Romania [220], France [221,222], Serbia [223], Russia [224,225,226] and Latvia [227]. CYNs were distributed in Ireland [228], Germany [229], France [230], Italy [231], Czech [232], Spain [233], Lebanon [234], Greece [235], Finland [236], Poland [237], Sweden [215], Serbia [238], Portugal [239] and Hungary [240].…”

“…CYNs were distributed in Ireland [228], Germany [229], France [230], Italy [231], Czech [232], Spain [233], Lebanon [234], Greece [235], Finland [236], Poland [237], Sweden [215], Serbia [238], Portugal [239] and Hungary [240]. ATXs were found in Ireland [241], Italy [242], France [243], Netherlands [244], Denmark [245], Bulgaria [219], Finland [204], Poland [246], Sweden [215], Portugal [220], Spain [247], the UK [248] and Germany [249]. STXs were reported in Portugal [250], Denmark [251], France [252], Germany [253], Czech [213], Italy [254], Finland [255], the UK [256], Poland [257], Bulgaria [219], Serbia [223], Greece [235], Russia [27], Norway [258] and Spain [258].…”

Combining Imaging Flow Cytometry and Molecular Biological Methods to Reveal Presence of Potentially Toxic Algae at the Ural River in Kazakhstan

“…HABs are complex events typically caused by multiple factors occurring simultaneously, may threaten ecosystems, and lead to the degradation of water quality for recreation, drinking, and aquaculture (Heisler et al, 2008;Oliver et al, 2012;Jeppesen et al, 2017) with further changes in temperature, nutrient load, and oxygenation of aquatic environments. The toxin production by certain cyanobacteria (e.g., Dolichospermum circinalis, Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii, and Microcystis aeruginosa) during algal blooms causes the accumulation of toxins in the tissues of fresh-and saltwater mussels, fish, and mammals (Rapala et al, 1997;Codd et al, 2005;Wilson et al, 2005;Carmichael, 2008;Mihali et al, 2009;Oliver et al, 2012;De Pace et al, 2014;Gibble et al, 2016;Li et al, 2016;Luerling et al, 2017;Meriluoto et al, 2017;Chernova et al, 2019). The harmful effects can be caused by either direct effects from toxins or changes in the water chemistry, such as oxygen depletion or hydrogen sulfide production (Eriksson et al, 1986;Tornazo et al, 1990).…”

Hazardous cyanobacteria integrity response to velocity gradient and powdered activated carbon in water treatment plants

“…Intense D. circinale lysis is of major concern to water companies since many authors have reported that this taxon is potentially producers of geosmin, 2-metil-isoborneol (MIB), and cyanotoxins such as saxitoxin, microcystin, cylinderspermopsin, anatoxin-a, and anatoxin-a(S) (Carmichael and Boyer, 2016;Chernova et al, 2019;Li et al, 2016;Paerl et al, 2016b;Pereyra et al, 2017). An important and concerning assessment of our finding is that the amount of adsorbent applied to the treatment could be less than needed since the addition of PAC is commonly estimated based on the concentration of dissolved metabolites (e.g., MIB, Geosmina, or toxin) before raw water enters the WTPs (Cook et al, 2001).…”

“…In addition to the cell lysis that occurs naturally in the reservoir, several physical and chemical stresses may cause damage to the cyanobacteria membrane throughout the treatment steps, thereby increasing the solubilization of their intracellular content (Szlag et al, 2015;Zamyadi et al, 2015). In this case, WTPs that use water from highly eutrophic reservoirs may produce drinking water with concentrations of toxins and T&O compounds above guideline thresholds, leading to the rejection of the finished water due to the unpleasant organoleptic characteristics or to the potential toxicity (Chernova et al, 2019(Chernova et al, , 2017Paerl et al, 2016a). Additionally, the increase of soluble organic matter and secondary metabolites increases WTP chemical requirements and the potential to form disinfection by-products during the treatment process (Ho et al, 2012).…”