2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2010.05.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing ballast water treatments: Evaluation of viability methods for ambient freshwater microplankton assemblages

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the method is accurate and is therefore applied as one of the detailed sample analysis methods for laboratory applications including type approval tests of BWMS and it is planned to be used also for CME purposes. Our experience matches the views of Reavie et al (2010), Steinberg et al (2011a,b), Maurer (2011) andStehouwer et al (2012) who also concluded that staining and epifluorescence microscopic observations are reliable and efficient methods to evaluate the concentration of living phytoplankton organisms.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…However, the method is accurate and is therefore applied as one of the detailed sample analysis methods for laboratory applications including type approval tests of BWMS and it is planned to be used also for CME purposes. Our experience matches the views of Reavie et al (2010), Steinberg et al (2011a,b), Maurer (2011) andStehouwer et al (2012) who also concluded that staining and epifluorescence microscopic observations are reliable and efficient methods to evaluate the concentration of living phytoplankton organisms.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…It is not our intent to 'elect' the best indicator of viability, since each one of these methods has its own set of advantages and limitations (see 'Introduction'). For those involved in ballast management, however, assessment of viability is essential for compliance with regulatory practices (see Regulation D-2, IMO 2004) and access to live samples has become mandatory; thus the need to consider the use of vital stains in such cases (Reavie et al 2010).…”
Section: Effective Propagule Pressurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is not our intent to 'elect' the best indicator of viability, since each one of these methods has its own set of advantages and limitations (see 'Introduction'). For those involved in ballast management, however, assessment of viability is essential for compliance with regulatory practices (see Regulation D-2, IMO 2004) and access to live samples has become mandatory; thus the need to consider the use of vital stains in such cases (Reavie et al 2010).Actual growth is still a less disputable sign of viability. Viable diatoms have been found in ballast tanks, as demonstrated by incubation experiments with ballast waters (Subba Rao et al 1994, Rhodes et al 1998, Forbes & Hallegraeff 2002, McCarthy & Crowder 2000, Marangoni et al 2001, Burkholder et al 2007) and ballast sediments (Hallegraeff & Bolch 1992, Kelly 1993, Pertola et al 2006, although growth rate potentials had not been quantified before.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The biological tests indicated that the high temperature might be required in order to ensure efficient destructing of micro-organisms (under ten microns) within short heating time. The larger organisms (phytoplankton and zoo-plankton) are almost destructed at lower temperatures [14]. In parallel, the water treatment process system was modelled using Bond Graph and 20SIM software [15].…”
Section: A Project Conceptmentioning
confidence: 99%