Report The Panel agreed on the outline of the 2027 IPCC Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Additional guidance) at its 63rd Session held in Lima, Peru from 27-30 October 2025 (Decision IPCC-LXIII-6). The report will be a single Methodology Report comprising an Overview Chapter and six volumes consistent with the format of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The structure of the Methodology Report is consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines so as to make it easier for inventory compilers to use this Methodology Report with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Topics that will be addressed include: Transport, injection and sequestering of CO2 in relation to enhanced oil, gas, and coal-bed methane recovery Production of products containing or derived from captured and/or removed CO2 Carbonation of cement and lime-based structures Soil carbon sinks and related emissions enhanced through biochar and weathering and other elements Coastal wetlands carbon dioxide removal types not in previous IPCC Guidelines as well as additional information on mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass in coastal waters Durable biomass products Carbon dioxide capture from combustion and process gases Direct air capture Carbon dioxide utilisation Carbon dioxide transport including cross border issues Carbon dioxide injection and storage CO2 removal through direct capture of CO2 from water already processed by inland and coastal facilities; and related elements across the range of categories of the IPCC Guidelines. The national greenhouse gas inventory includes sources and sinks occurring within the territory over which a country has jurisdiction. Over 150 experts are expected to participate in the writing process, which will be completed by 2027. The participants will be selected by the Task Force Bureau taking into account scientific and technical expertise, geographical and gender balance to the extent possible in line with Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. The First Lead Authors’ meeting will be held in Rome, Italy, in April 2026. Preparatory Work The decision by the Panel to prepare this Methodology Report was informed by the work of experts at the scoping meeting held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from 14-16 October 2024. Prior to the scoping meeting, an expert meeting was held at Vienna, Austria 1-3 July 2024. These meetings considered Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods mentioned in the AR6 WGIII Report as a starting point for discussion and noted that several CDR activities have been already covered by the existing IPCC Guidelines. More Information The IPCC Secretary has written to national government focal points inviting nominations of authors by 12 December 2025.

Fast Facts Medicaid programs that cover prescription drugs are generally required to cover drugs that are (1) FDA approved and (2) made by a manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. 13 Medicaid programs didn’t cover Mifeprex and its generic equivalent, Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, when required. These drugs are used for medical abortion. We recommended the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ensure Medicaid programs comply with federal requirements for covering Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. We also reiterated our 2019 recommendation on Mifeprex, which hasn’t been implemented. White pills spilling from a pill bottle. Skip to Highlights Highlights What GAO Found Medicaid programs that choose to cover outpatient prescription drugs are required to cover all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs for their medically accepted indications when those drugs are made by a manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP), except as outlined in federal law. The FDA has approved two drugs—Mifeprex in 2000 and its generic equivalent in 2019, referred to as Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg—for the medical termination of an intrauterine pregnancy, known as a medical abortion. Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro are the exclusive manufacturers of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, respectively, and both manufacturers participate in the MDRP. Medicaid programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico cover prescription drugs and participate in the MDRP. According to officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for ensuring Medicaid programs’ compliance—none of the MDRP’s statutory exceptions apply to Mifeprex or Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. Thus, these 52 Medicaid programs must cover these drugs when prescribed for medical abortion in circumstances eligible for federal funding, such as when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. GAO identified gaps in Medicaid programs’ coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. Officials from 35 of the 49 programs who responded to GAO questions said their programs covered Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg for medical abortion, as of December 31, 2024. In contrast, officials from 13 programs told GAO their programs did not cover either drug for medical abortion. An official from the remaining program did not specify the medical indications for which its program covered the drugs. Medicaid Programs’ Coverage of Danco Laboratories’ Mifeprex and GenBioPro’s Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, as of December 31, 2024 Note: For more details, see fig. 1 in GAO-25-107911. State officials’ responses to GAO’s questions indicated that some states may not be complying with the MDRP requirements for covering Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. However, CMS has not determined the extent to which states comply with the MDRP requirements for these drugs. CMS officials told GAO they were not aware of the following: Nine programs did not cover Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg for any medical indication, as of December 31, 2024; GAO reported four of these programs did not cover Mifeprex in 2019. Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg was not available at the time of GAO’s 2019 report. Four additional Medicaid programs did not cover either drug when prescribed for medical abortion, as of December 31, 2024. CMS was not aware of these coverage gaps, in part, because it had not implemented GAO’s 2019 recommendation to take actions to ensure Medicaid programs comply with MDRP requirements to cover Mifeprex. CMS also has not taken actions related to the coverage of Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, as of August 2025. Without such actions, CMS lacks assurance that Medicaid programs comply with MDRP requirements and Medicaid beneficiaries may lack access to these drugs when appropriate. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to describe Medicaid programs’ coverage of mifepristone. This report examines Medicaid programs’ coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, among other things. GAO reviewed laws and CMS guidance on the MDRP, and coverage of Mifeprex and Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg. GAO also sent written questions to officials from the 52 Medicaid programs that participate in the MDRP regarding their coverage of these drugs, and reviewed officials’ responses from the 49 programs that provided GAO information. Recommendations GAO reiterates its 2019 recommendation that CMS take actions to ensure states’ compliance with MDRP requirements to cover Mifeprex. GAO also recommends that CMS determine the extent to which states comply with federal Medicaid requirements regarding coverage of GenBioPro’s Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, and take actions, as appropriate, to ensure compliance. In response to the recommendation, HHS noted it is reviewing applicable law and will determine the best course of action to address it moving forward. Recommendations for Executive Action Agency Affected Recommendation Status Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services The Administrator of CMS should determine the extent to which states comply with federal Medicaid requirements regarding coverage of GenBioPro's Mifepristone Tablets, 200 mg, and take actions, as appropriate, to ensure compliance. (Recommendation 1) Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. Full Report Full Report (11 pages)

05.12.2025 – The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, established under the European Climate Law, will continue to be supported in its second term (2026-2030) by Ottmar Edenhofer. The Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) has now been appointed by the Management Board of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen for another four-year term on the Advisory Board, beginning on 24 March 2026. Advising EU policymakers on the path to the declared goal of climate neutrality: PIK Director Ottmar Edenhofer. Photo: PIK/Karkow The Advisory Board gives independent advice and produces reports on EU policies, and their coherence with the Climate Law and the EU’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. It consists of 15 high-level scientific experts covering a wide range of relevant fields. Edenhofer is serving as the Advisory Board’s current Chair during its first term (2022-2026). Highlights during this period have included scientific recommendations for an ambitious EU climate target for 2040, an analysis of the action needed to achieve climate neutrality, and a study on scaling up atmospheric carbon removals. “I am very thankful for the great opportunity to continue supporting EU climate policy in this service role for the next four years,” says Edenhofer, who is also Professor for The Economics and Politics of Climate Change at the Technische Universität Berlin. “The European Union has taken some important steps in recent years towards its declared goal of climate neutrality by 2050. It remains important to make climate policy cost-effective, socially balanced and consistent with the requirements of an internationally competitive economy. As a member of the Advisory Board, I will do my best to provide scientific advice to policymakers on this task.” The composition of the Advisory Board for the next four-year term has now been decided through an open, fair and transparent selection process lasting several months. The decision on who will chair the body in future is not expected until beginning of the second term. The other members of the Advisory Board in the second term are: • Annela Anger-Kraavi – University of Cambridge • Constantinos Cartalis – National and Kapodistrian University of Athens • Suraje Dessai – University of Leeds’ School of Earth, Environment, and Sustainability • Laura Díaz Anadón – University of Cambridge • Vera Eory – Scotland’s Rural College • Lena Kitzing - Technical University of Denmark • Kati Kulovesi – University of Eastern Finland • Lars J. Nilsson – Lund University • Åsa Persson – KTH Royal Institute of Technology’s Climate Action Centre • Keywan Riahi – International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis • Jean-François Soussana – French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment • Giorgio Vacchiano – University of Milan • Detlef van Vuuren – PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency • Zinta Zommers – University of Toronto

EPA Announces Intent to Regulate Dozens of Uses of Five Phthalate Chemicals to Protect Workers and Environment Agency's comprehensive risk evaluations find unreasonable risks requiring regulatory action December 31, 2025 Contact Information EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov) WASHINGTON – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that it will move to regulate dozens of applications of five widely used phthalate chemicals to address environmental and workplace risks. This decision is based on final risk evaluations, released today, for each of these chemicals: Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (BBP), Dibutyl Phthalate (DBP), Dicyclohexyl Phthalate (DCHP), Diethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP), and Diisobutyl Phthalate (DIBP), commonly used to make plastics more flexible in everything from building materials to industrial applications. EPA used gold standard science and tapped independent peer reviewers to reach its conclusions that all five chemicals it reviewed pose unreasonable risks to workers and to the environment. EPA's regulatory focus will target the specific uses that harm workers or threaten the environment. "Our gold standard science delivered clear answers that these phthalates pose unreasonable risk to workers in specific industrial settings and to the environment," said Administrator Lee Zeldin. " We'll work directly with stakeholders to develop targeted protections that keep workers safe and protect our environment. This is exactly what science-based environmental protection should look like." Phthalates have the potential to cause human health abnormalities that EPA is seriously concerned with, including hormone deficiencies and endocrine disruption. It’s also important to note that gold standard science also shows that these health impacts do not occur at all exposure levels. The key factor in determining risk is whether people are exposed to amounts above levels that could cause health problems. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluation process, EPA focuses specifically on uses regulated under the federal chemical safety law. EPA’s TSCA risk evaluation does not analyze exposures from food, food additives, food packaging, medical devices, cosmetics and other consumer products that are under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration or Consumer Product Safety Commission. For the consumer uses that are part of this TSCA risk evaluation, EPA found no products with exposure levels that are causing unreasonable risk to the general population. In pursuit of gold standard science, dermal modeling was enhanced based on peer review feedback and public comment, especially with the replacement of rodent data with actual human data. The agency's cumulative exposure analysis, which examined exposure to multiple phthalates simultaneously, was based on available data for individuals aged four years and older. While no national-scale biomonitoring data exists for children under four, EPA used conservative modeling approaches to specifically assess toy mouthing behaviors in infants (less than one year), as well as two- and three-year-olds, ensuring that even the most vulnerable young children were included and protected in the evaluation. EPA will next develop rules to eliminate the identified unreasonable risks to workers and the environment. The agency will conduct extensive consultation with workers, businesses, labor groups, and communities to develop targeted, practical protections that ensure worker safety and environmental protection. Personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and alternative approaches will be carefully evaluated to create effective, implementable solutions that protect those most at risk. BBP: Unreasonable risk to workers (2 conditions of use); environmental risks (7 conditions of use) DBP: Unreasonable risk to workers (5 conditions of use); environmental risks (1 condition of use) DCHP: Unreasonable risk to workers (2 conditions of use); DEHP: Unreasonable risk to workers (10 conditions of use); environmental risks (20 conditions of use) DIBP: Unreasonable risk to workers (4 conditions of use); environmental risks (7 conditions of use) When EPA determines whether a chemical poses unreasonable risk, the agency must consider several key factors: Health impacts: How the actual, real-world level of chemical exposure is affecting people's health, including cancer risks and other negative health impacts, based on how the chemical is being used Environmental impacts: How the chemical is affecting the environment and how much exposure is occurring in real-world conditions Who gets exposed: Which groups of people are being exposed to the chemical above levels that cause health impacts, paying special attention to vulnerable populations (like children, pregnant women, or people with existing health conditions) How dangerous the chemical is: The severity and type of harm it can cause What we don't know: Any gaps or uncertainties in the scientific data EPA considers all of these factors together when determining a chemical's risks.

EPA Announces Intent to Regulate Nearly One Dozen 1,3-Butadiene Uses to Protect American Workers December 31, 2025 Contact Information EPA Press Office (press@epa.gov) WASHINGTON – In compliance with a court ordered deadline, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a robust review of 1,3-butadiene using gold standard science. We used the best research, data, and testing available, along with input from the public and independent expert peer reviewers to complete this thorough evaluation. Our comprehensive scientific review found potential unreasonable health risks for workers who breathe in this chemical at their jobs in 11 specific industrial settings. Use of personal protective equipment, which is often used in industrial workplaces will help mitigate these risks. EPA did not find unreasonable risks to the environment, for consumers and to the general population including people living near facilities. As required by law under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA will now develop rules to protect workers from the risks we identified. This process will include meticulous consideration of health effects, exposure levels, economic impacts, and benefits of use, with extensive stakeholder engagement to ensure the resulting rules are both protective and practical. EPA is committed to radical transparency throughout the review and risk management process. The review process for butadiene has taken six years, with approximately 20,000 scientific studies considered during the review process for 30 different use cases. We improved our evaluation by incorporating real-world data and refining some conservative assumptions from our first draft, making our science more accurate and reliable. For example, EPA switched to a more detailed database (NEI) that includes specific details like how tall stacks are, what angle they release emissions at, and emission temperatures, which are not reported in TRI. This allowed our evaluation to move away from defaults to more accurate, facility-specific conditions. The NEI database also provides exact coordinates of where emissions are actually released, rather than just general facility locations. This geographic precision gives a more accurate picture of actual exposure risks. EPA also took into account additional feedback from peer reviewers recommending that we add together the risks from bladder cancer and leukemia. This resulted in a higher overall cancer risk estimate used in the risk evaluation. Regarding workplace exposures, which is where the highest risks occur, we followed robust scientific practices during our 1,3-butadiene evaluation to provide clear, reliable results. The final rules will give companies clear regulatory certainty while providing workers with necessary protections. Our safeguards will be tough and practical. We will ensure the protections we put in place are workable, taking additional action if new science emerges or conditions change. In addition to evaluating workplace exposures, we also thoroughly analyzed risk to the environment, to consumers, and to the general population. We are pleased to report that EPA did not find unreasonable risks to the environment, or for consumers or the general population, including people living near facilities. Background 1,3-butadiene is a colorless gas essential for manufacturing products Americans use every day, including car tires, adhesives and sealants, paints and coatings, and automotive care products. Consumer products only contain tiny, safe amounts less than 0.001 percent. Unreasonable risks are found in industrial settings where workers could be exposed to much higher levels that could lead to health risks which may include reduced birthweight pregnancies, anemia, leukemia, and bladder cancer.

Matthieu Tordeur, Heïdi Sevestre and the bust of Vladimir Lenin at the southern pole of inaccessibility, Antarctica Heïdi Sevestre/Matthieu Tordeur In the endless white expanse, a small mound broke the horizon. As explorer Matthieu Tordeur and glaciologist Heïdi Sevestre skied towards it, they saw a golden head emerging from the snow. It was the bust of Vladimir Lenin left by a Soviet expedition at the southern pole of inaccessibility, the point in Antarctica furthest from any coast. This surreal experience was the first milestone of a 4000-kilometre expedition across the continent to collect data that could shed light on its future in a warming world. Read more Antarctica is in crisis and we are scrambling to understand its future “I almost had tears in my eyes,” says Sevestre, speaking to New Scientist by satellite phone from Antarctica. “We felt really humble, really, really small, and it was quite something to see lonely Lenin here just in the middle of nowhere.” Since 3 November, the pair have been skiing with kites that can pull them at speeds of 35 kilometres an hour or more. It is the first kite-ski expedition to collect data for polar science. The pair are hauling sleds with ground-penetrating radar that can scan the snow and ice 40 metres down. Scientists have been trying to figure out if increased snowfall in the interior of East Antarctica is offsetting greater melting along the coast. Satellite measurements can give some indication, but Sevestre and Tordeur’s data could help produce more accurate estimates, says Martin Siegert at the University of Exeter in the UK. Free newsletter Sign up to The Earth Edition Unmissable news about our planet, delivered straight to your inbox each month. Sign up to newsletter “For a thousand kilometres in all directions, there will be no one,” he says. “And so it’s rare to get that type of information, but as we’re interpreting satellite data [to work out whether] the ice sheet growing, we really need that.” The pair have three months to get from Novo Airbase in East Antarctica to Hercules Inlet in West Antarctica before the Antarctic summer ends and there will be no flights out. In 2019, at age 27, Tordeur became the youngest person to ski to the South Pole solo and unassisted. He decided that if he returned, he would try to combine adventure with science. “It was much better to use kites, because we would be able to travel much further and do science much further inland in the continent where scientists don’t go often,” he says. Matthieu Tordeur and Heïdi Sevestre in Antarctica Heïdi Sevestre/Matthieu Tordeur While most subsurface mapping is done by aircraft, researchers have also towed ground-penetrating radar behind tractors to get more detailed data. But this kite-ski expedition would be one of the longest ground-penetrating radar surveys ever. From the South Pole, Tordeur and Sevestre will tow a more powerful radar that can penetrate as deep as 2 kilometres. Researchers at the British Antarctic Survey want to see if this can trace ancient ice layers from East Antarctica into West Antarctica. If so, it would suggest that West Antarctica — which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by up to 5 metres — didn’t completely melt during the last interglacial period, a much-debated question. “This is important because it would indicate whether the ice sheet is unstable to the sort of climate forcing it is now experiencing,” says Hamish Pritchard at the British Antarctic Survey. Read more Rapid melt from Antarctica could help preserve crucial ocean current Tordeur and Sevestre have had to ski through almost 1000 kilometres of sastrugi, wind-sculpted ripples of hard snow that jolt and break equipment in the sleds. Sevestre keeps a sense of perspective by listening to audiobooks, including The Worst Journey in the World, Apsley Cherry-Garrard’s account of an agonising winter crossing of the Ross Ice Shelf in 1910-1913 and his failed attempt to meet Robert Falcon Scott’s party, who froze to death kilometres away. “They’re talking about temperatures of -65°C in their tents,” she says. “I thought, OK, I’m not going to complain about the -28°C we have in our tent.” Arctic expedition cruise with Dr Russell Arnott: Svalbard, Norway Embark on an unforgettable marine expedition to the Arctic, accompanied by marine biologist Russell Arnott. Read more Topics: climate change/ Antarctica

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

Abstract Industrial pollution represents a critical threat to freshwater ecosystems, particularly in regions where rivers serve multiple socio-economic functions. The Nile River in Aswan Governorate, southern Egypt, is a vital source of drinking water, irrigation, fisheries, and tourism, yet it is increasingly exposed to untreated industrial effluents. This study assessed the spatial extent and intensity of such pollution using geographic information system (GIS)-based spatial interpolation alongside two comprehensive indices: the weighted arithmetic water quality index (WAWQI) and the canadian water quality index (CWQI). Findings revealed distinct pollution hotspots near major industrial discharge areas, where water quality was classified as poor to very poor (WAWQI: 52.6–127.4; CWQI: 74.2–68.3). In contrast, upstream and downstream zones more distant from effluent sources exhibited good water quality (WAWQI: 24.5–38.1; CWQI: 93.69–85.52). The most degraded sites were characterized by elevated concentrations of chemical oxygen demand (13.1–59.6 mg/L), biochemical oxygen demand (7.67–36.5 mg/L), total suspended solids (4.67–13.1 mg/L), turbidity (6.01–17.1 NTU), total nitrogen (1.13–3.35 mg/L), and phenol (8.01–10.10 µg/L). These results highlight the ecological vulnerability of the Nile River in Aswan to industrial activities, with direct implications for ecosystem health and resource sustainability. They also underscore the limitations of relying solely on traditional water quality monitoring without spatial analysis, as GIS-based interpolation proved critical in detecting pollution gradients beyond sampling sites. The study supports the enforcement of Egypt’s Law 48/1982 on water protection and contributes to global sustainable development goals, particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Data availability The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Kaur, J. et al. Evaluating potential ecological risks of heavy metals of textile effluents and soil samples in vicinity of textile industries. Soil. Syst. 5, 63 (2021). Google Scholar Li, D. et al. Significant dynamic disturbance of water environment quality in urban rivers flowing through industrial areas. Water 15, 3640 (2023). Google Scholar Iqbal, J. et al. Groundwater fluoride and nitrate contamination and associated human health risk assessment in South Punjab, Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 61606–61625 (2023). Google Scholar Omeka, M. E., Egbueri, J. C. & Unigwe, C. O. Investigating the hydrogeochemistry, corrosivity and scaling tendencies of groundwater in an agrarian area (Nigeria) using graphical, indexical and statistical modelling. Arab. J. Geosci. 15, 1233 (2022). Google Scholar Lemessa, F., Simane, B., Seyoum, A. & Gebresenbet, G. Assessment of the impact of industrial wastewater on the water quality of rivers around the Bole Lemi industrial park (BLIP), Ethiopia. Sustainability 15, 4290 (2023). Google Scholar Dragun, Z. et al. The problem of diffuse pollution of a major river running through predominantly rural area: the case of potentially detrimental levels of tungsten, silver, and manganese in the Mura river. Environmental Chem. Ecotoxicology, 7, 2043–2066 (2025). McCartney, M. & Rebelo, L. M. In the Wetland Book 1–9 (Springer, 2016). Hamed, M. et al. Characterization, surface deformation analysis and sources of small plastic fragments collected in diverse environments of Egypt. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 209, 117222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117222 (2024). Google Scholar Haider, H. et al. A strategic approach to sustainable wastewater management and reuse in Saudi Arabia. Environ. Res. Commun. 6, 075009 (2024). Google Scholar Fanelli, E., Menicucci, S., Malavolti, S., De Felice, A. & Leonori, I. Spatial changes in community composition and food web structure of mesozooplankton across the Adriatic basin (Mediterranean Sea). Biogeosciences 19, 1833–1851 (2022). Google Scholar Mahdy, A., Said, R. E., Khaled, M. A. & Abdelsalam, A. A. First record of red-tide in Elba protectorate Coast using Sentinel-3 and its impacts on ecosystem. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 25, 803–813 (2022). Google Scholar Hamed, M. et al. Impacts of climate change and black sand on red Sea, Egypt. A comprehensive review. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 78, 103787 (2024). Google Scholar Goher, M. E., Mangood, A. H., Mousa, I. E., Salem, S. G. & Hussein, M. M. Ecological risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in sediments of nile River, Egypt. Environ. Monit. Assess. 193, 1–16 (2021). Google Scholar Buzzini, A. P. & Pires, E. C. Evaluation of a upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor with partial recirculation of effluent used to treat wastewaters from pulp and paper plants. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 1838–1848 (2007). Google Scholar Kushwaha, J. P. A review on sugar industry wastewater: sources, treatment technologies, and reuse. Desalination Water Treat. 53, 309–318 (2015). Google Scholar Fito, J., Tefera, N. & Van Hulle, S. W. Sugarcane biorefineries wastewater: bioremediation technologies for environmental sustainability. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 6, 1–13 (2019). Google Scholar El-Sheekh, M. M. I, Impact of Water Quality on Ecosystems of the Nile River. In: Negm, A. (eds) The Nile River. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Springer, Cham, 56, 357–385 (2017). Abouhalima, A. & Li, Y. Studies on nile river pollution and water quality indicators in Egypt. Curr. Chem. Lett. 12, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ccl.2022.8.009 (2022). Google Scholar Abdelhafiz, M. A. et al. Chemical and bacterial quality monitoring of the nile river water and associated health risks in Qena–Sohag sector, Egypt. Environ. Geochem. Health. 43, 4089–4104 (2021). Google Scholar Omran, E. S. E. & Elawah, S. A. in Egypt’s Strategy to Meet the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030: Researchers’ Contributions: SDGs Viewed Through the Lens of Egypt’s Strategy and Researchers’ Views 249–259 (Springer, 2023). Wahaab, R. A. & Badawy, M. I. Water quality assessment of the river nile system: an overview. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 17, 87–100 (2004). Google Scholar Khan, M. N. & Mohammad, F. Eutrophication: challenges and solutions. Eutrophication: Causes Consequences Control: Volume. 2, 1–15 (2014). Google Scholar Bashir, I. et al. Concerns and threats of contamination on aquatic ecosystems. Bioremediation Biotechnology: Sustainable Approaches Pollution Degradation, 1–26 (2020). Zhou, M. et al. Dilution or enrichment: the effects of flood on pollutants in urban rivers. Environ. Sci. Europe. 34, 61 (2022). Google Scholar Khaled, M. A., Obuid-Allah, A. H., Moustafa, A. S., Gaber, A. M. & Mohammad, W. A. E.-H. Spatio-temporal distribution of zooplankton inhabiting nile river in Qena Governorate, Egypt using geomatics approach. Sci. Afr. 27, e02511 (2025). Google Scholar Hamed, M. et al. Occurrence, distribution, and composition of black sand along the red Sea, Egypt. Sci. Total Environ. 923, 171277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171277 (2024). Google Scholar Hamed, M. et al. Patterns distribution, concentrations and sources of radioactive elements from black sand in the red sea coast, Egypt. J. Hazard. Mater. 480, 136051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136051 (2024). Google Scholar Khaled, M. A. et al. Analysis of SST and Chl-a data from MODIS-Aqua in the major Egyptian fishing zones of the red sea. Egypt J. Aquat. Res. 49, 520–529 (2023). Google Scholar Dehkordi, M. M., Nodeh, Z. P., Dehkordi, K. S., Khorjestan, R. R. & Ghaffarzadeh, M. Soil, air, and water pollution from mining and industrial activities: sources of pollution, environmental impacts, and prevention and control methods. Results Engineering, 23 102729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102729 (2024). Ragab, S. H., Khaled, M. A., Taha, R. H. & El-Tabakh, M. Spatial Distribution of Appropriate Aquatic Mosquitos’ Larval Sites Occurrence Using Integration of Field Data and GIS Techniques. Egyptian J. Aquat. Biology & Fisheries 27 (2023) 355–371. Sayed, A. E. D. H. et al. Interactive effects of black sand and heat stress on coral reefs at red Sea, Egypt. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 222, 118601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118601 (2026). Google Scholar Patil, P., Sawant, D. & Deshmukh, R. Physico-chemical parameters for testing of water–A review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 3, 1194–1207 (2012). Google Scholar Singh, M., Gupta, A. & Beeteswari, K. Physico-chemical properties of water samples from Manipur river system, India. Journal Appl. Sci. Environ. Management, 14, 4 https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v14i4.63263(2010). Ouyang, Y. Evaluation of river water quality monitoring stations by principal component analysis. Water Res. 39, 2621–2635 (2005). Google Scholar Lodder, W., Van Den Berg, H. & Rutjes, S. Roda Husman, A. Presence of enteric viruses in source waters for drinking water production in the Netherlands. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 76, 5965–5971 (2010). de. Google Scholar Yan, T., Shen, S. L. & Zhou, A. Indices and models of surface water quality assessment: review and perspectives. Environ. Pollut. 308, 119611 (2022). Google Scholar Tyagi, S., Sharma, B., Singh, P. & Dobhal, R. Water quality assessment in terms of water quality index. Am. J. Water Resour. 1, 34–38 (2013). Google Scholar Tokatlı, C. Application of water quality index for drinking purposes in dam lakes: A case study of Thrace region. Sigma J. Eng. Nat. Sci. 38, 393–402 (2020). Google Scholar Hurley, T., Sadiq, R. & Mazumder, A. Adaptation and evaluation of the Canadian Council of ministers of the environment water quality index (CCME WQI) for use as an effective tool to characterize drinking source water quality. Water Res. 46, 3544–3552 (2012). Google Scholar Uddin, M. G., Nash, S. & Olbert A. I. A review of water quality index models and their use for assessing surface water quality. Ecol. Ind. 122, 107218 (2021). Google Scholar Hereher, M., Eissa, R., Alqasemi, A. & El Kenawy, A. M. Assessment of air pollution at greater Cairo in relation to the Spatial variability of surface urban heat Island. Environmental Sci. Pollution Research, 29, 21412–21425, (2022). Andrio, D., Asmura, J., Yenie, E. & Putri, K. in MATEC Web of Conferences. 06027 (EDP Sciences). Csábrági, A. et al. Estimation of dissolved oxygen in riverine ecosystems: comparison of differently optimized neural networks. Ecol. Eng. 138, 298–309 (2019). Google Scholar Larance, S., Wang, J., Delavar, M. A. & Fahs, M. Assessing water temperature and dissolved oxygen and their potential effects on aquatic ecosystem using a SARIMA model. Environments 12, 25 (2025). Google Scholar El-Sherbini, A., El-Moattassem, M. & Solterdijk, H. Water quality condition of the River Nile. Management and development of major rivers, Shady, AM; El-Mottassem, M (1996). Wang, C., Feng, Y., Gao, P., Ren, N. & Li, B. L. Simulation and prediction of phenolic compounds fate in Songhua River, China. Sci. Total Environ. 431, 366–374 (2012). Google Scholar Raza, W. et al. Removal of phenolic compounds from industrial waste water based on membrane-based technologies. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 71, 1–18 (2019). Google Scholar Narayanan, M., Ali, S. S. & El-Sheekh, M. A comprehensive review on the potential of microbial enzymes in multipollutant bioremediation: Mechanisms, challenges, and future prospects. J. Environ. Manage. 334, 117532 (2023). Google Scholar Alshabib, M. & Onaizi, S. A. A review on phenolic wastewater remediation using homogeneous and heterogeneous enzymatic processes: current status and potential challenges. Sep. Purif. Technol. 219, 186–207 (2019). Google Scholar Shaaban, N. A., Tawfik, S., El-Tarras, W. & Ali, T. E. S. Are the water quality of the agricultural drainage and Nile River suitable for tilapia culture? A case study from Kafr El-Shaikh’s fish farms, Egypt. Turkish J. Fisheries Aquat. Sciences 22, TRJFAS21395 (2022). Lassaletta, L., García-Gómez, H., Gimeno, B. S. & Rovira, J. V. Agriculture-induced increase in nitrate concentrations in stream waters of a large mediterranean catchment over 25 years (1981–2005). Sci. Total Environ. 407, 6034–6043 (2009). Google Scholar Mian, I. A. et al. Spatial and Temporal trends in nitrate concentrations in the river Derwent, North Yorkshire, and its need for NVZ status. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 702–712 (2010). Google Scholar Saad, E., Hamed, M., Elshahawy, A. M., El-Aal, A., Sayed, A. & M. & E.-D. H. Effects of major and trace elements from the El Kahfa ring complex on fish: Geological, physicochemical, and biological approaches. Front. Environ. Sci. 10–2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1013878 (2023). Abdel-Shafy, H. I. & Aly, R. O. Water issue in egypt: Resources, pollution and protection endeavors. Cent. Eur. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 8, 3–21 (2002). Google Scholar Saad, S., El-Deeb, A., Tayel, S. & Ahmed, N. Haematological and histopathological studies on Clarias Gariepinus in relation to water quality along Rosetta branch, river Nile, Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. (Zool). 7, 223–233 (2011). Google Scholar Ahmed, N. Biochemical studies on pollution of the River Nile at different stations of delta barrage (Egypt). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Agric. Fac., Benha, Egypt (2012). EPA, U. S. Quality Criteria for Water (Gold Book). (Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA-440/5-86-001, Washington, DC, (1986). Abd El-Hack, M. E. et al. Effect of environmental factors on growth performance of nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Int. J. Biometeorol. 66, 2183–2194 (2022). Google Scholar Ma, X., Qiang, J., He, J., Gabriel, N. & Xu, P. Changes in the physiological parameters, fatty acid metabolism, and SCD activity and expression in juvenile GIFT tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) reared at three different temperatures. Fish Physiol. Biochem. 41, 937–950 (2015). Google Scholar Law, E. (1982). CCME. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. User’s Manual. (2001). EPA, U. S. 5.5 Turbidity, Water: Monitoring & Assessment. (2012). Teng, W., Guoxiang, W. & Qiang, L. Effects of water turbidity on the photosynthetic characteristics of myriophyllum spicatum L. Asian J. Plant. Sci. 6, 773–780 (2007). Google Scholar EPA, U. S. Total Alkalinity. Water: Monitoring and Assessment. (2013). Hong, Y. et al. Freshwater water-quality criteria for chloride and guidance for the revision of the water-quality standard in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 20, 2875 (2023). Google Scholar Camargo, J. A. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review. Chemosphere 50, 251–264 (2003). Google Scholar Zak, D., Kleeberg, A. & Hupfer, M. Sulphate-mediated phosphorus mobilization in riverine sediments at increasing sulphate concentration, river Spree, NE Germany. Biogeochemistry 80, 109–119 (2006). Google Scholar Smolders, A. J., Lucassen, E. C., Bobbink, R., Roelofs, J. G. & Lamers, L. P. How nitrate leaching from agricultural lands provokes phosphate eutrophication in groundwater fed wetlands: the sulphur Bridge. Biogeochemistry 98, 1–7 (2010). Google Scholar Sivaranjani, S., Rakshit, A. & Singh, S. Water quality assessment with water quality indices. Int. J. Bioresource Sci. 2, 85–94 (2015). Google Scholar Chidiac, S., El Najjar, P., Ouaini, N. & Rayess, E. El Azzi, D. A comprehensive review of water quality indices (WQIs): history, models, attempts and perspectives. Reviews Environ. Sci. Bio/Technology. 22, 349–395 (2023). Google Scholar Abdelhaleem, F. S., Amin, A. M. & Helal, E. Y. Mean flow velocity in the nile River, egypt: an overview of empirical equations and modification for low-flow regimes. Hydrol. Sci. J. 66, 239–251 (2021). Google Scholar Hegab, M. H. et al. Evaluating the Spatial pattern of water quality of the nile River, Egypt, through multivariate analysis of chemical and biological indicators. Sci. Rep. 15, 7626 (2025). Google Scholar Abdel-Satar, A. M., Ali, M. H. & Goher, M. E. Indices of water quality and metal pollution of nile River, Egypt. Egypt J. Aquat. Res. 43, 21–29 (2017). Google Scholar Download references Author information Authors and Affiliations Aquatic Ecology Department, Faculty of Fish and Fisheries Technology, Aswan University, Aswan, Egypt Ahmed N. A. Abdou Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University (Assiut Branch), Assiut, 71524, Egypt Mohamed Hamed Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Skip Bertman Drive, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA Mohamed Hamed Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA), Aswan, Egypt Abdelmonsef M. M. Hassan Marine Science Department, National Authority for Remote Sensing &Space Sciences (NARSS), Cairo, Egypt Mostafa A. Khaled Authors Ahmed N. A. Abdou View author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Mohamed Hamed View author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Abdelmonsef M. M. Hassan View author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Mostafa A. Khaled View author publications Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar Contributions Ahmed N. A. Abdou: Methodology, Visualization, Validation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing original draft. Mohamed Hamed: Conceptualization, Visualization, Validation, Investigation, Data curation, Writing original draft, review, and editing. Abdelmonsef M. M. Hassan: Visualization, Validation, Data curation, Writing original draft, review, and editing. Mostafa A. Khaled: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Writing original draft. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Corresponding author Correspondence to Mohamed Hamed. Ethics declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing interests that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this study. Additional information Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Supplementary Information Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary Material 1 Rights and permissions Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions About this article Cite this article Abdou, A.N.A., Hamed, M., Hassan, A.M.M. et al. Assessment of industrial pollution and water quality in the Nile River using GIS-based indices at Aswan, Egypt. Sci Rep (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-33738-5 Download citation Received: 04 July 2025 Accepted: 22 December 2025 Published: 31 December 2025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-33738-5 Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy shareable link to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Keywords GIS Industrial effluent Nile River Spatial distribution Water quality indices Subjects Ecology Environmental sciences Hydrology Water resources