4.7 Article

Comparison of evaluation methods for Microcystis cell breakage based on dissolved organic carbon release, potassium release and flow cytometry

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 281, 期 -, 页码 174-182

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.06.072

关键词

Cell breakage; DOC release; Potassium release; Flow cytometry; Microcystis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51308146]
  2. Open project of State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment [ES201511-02]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2013M540293]
  4. Heilongjiang Postdoctoral Fund [LBH-Z13083]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As Microcystis cell breakage may decrease the water quality, the accurate evaluation of cell breakage is of concern in drinking water production. Well-known cell breakage indicators such as dissolved organic carbon (DOC) release and potassium release were investigated in comparison with flow cytometry coupled with a fluorescence probe. DOC release, potassium release and ratios of SYTOX Green positive cells (ruptured cells) were calibrated using known degrees of cell breakage (mixtures of live and heated cells). Good linear relationships were observed between the indicators and the known ratios of ruptured cells, with R-2 values larger than 0.925. Flow cytometry coupled with a fluorescence probe had the best overall performance, followed by potassium release and then DOC release. Moreover, the influence of factors such as extracellular organic matter (EOM), cell intake, sample conservation and strong oxidants was also studied. EOM and strong oxidants caused the overestimation and underestimation, respectively, of the cell breakage by DOC release. Potassium release had a more extensive application scope than DOC release and was only influenced by intake by residual live cells. Flow cytometry was generally not affected by EOM, cell intake or strong oxidants except during long-term storage. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据