Taking a look at new technology objectively as a tool for lake management can be difficult, not unlike eating food or taking medicine that has not yet been evaluated by the FDA. Nannobubble tech seemed to burst onto the scene around 2020 when I first witnessed it at the Illinois Lakes Management Association (ILMA) annual conference. I honestly didn’t know the angle other than it felt like another disruption technology to influence (negatively) the ability for algae to grow. It seemed a bit costly compared to the already existing tech on the market.
As the years passed, and certainly technology advanced further, it seemed to shift into a sort of bio-dredging market which made me a bit more skeptical, as that market seemed to be already on thin ice with the “muck pellets”, subsurface diffusers, and other tech not tested or evaluated by third parties. In the end of all things, there is only 12% organic matter (OM) in most bottom sediments, so seeing what appeared to be significant change claims had me concerned as a Certified Lake Manager (CLM), dredging and general lake consultant, and advocate for protecting potential and existing clients. At the end of the day there is only so much funding to around, the cost of the tech and its energy needs could be considerable.
While not a disparaging review by any means, the Minnesota Dept of Natural Resource (MDNR) did pilot testing which appears to arrive at a point of added value: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/lakeaeration/nanobubble-pilot-study-finding-2026.pdf.