Comparison of techniques used to count single-celled viable phytoplankton
Comparison of techniques used to count single-celled viable phytoplankton
Date
2010-10-14
Authors
Steinberg, Mia K.
First, Matthew R.
Lemieux, Edward J.
Drake, Lisa A.
Nelson, Bruce N.
Kulis, David M.
Anderson, Donald M.
Welschmeyer, Nicholas A.
Herring, Penny R.
First, Matthew R.
Lemieux, Edward J.
Drake, Lisa A.
Nelson, Bruce N.
Kulis, David M.
Anderson, Donald M.
Welschmeyer, Nicholas A.
Herring, Penny R.
Linked Authors
Person
Person
Person
Person
Person
Alternative Title
Citable URI
As Published
Date Created
Location
DOI
Related Materials
Replaces
Replaced By
Keywords
Phytoplankton
Enumeration
FlowCAM
Flow cytometry
Sedgewick Rafter
Ballast water
SYTOX Green
CellTracker Green
Enumeration
FlowCAM
Flow cytometry
Sedgewick Rafter
Ballast water
SYTOX Green
CellTracker Green
Abstract
Four methods commonly used to count phytoplankton were evaluated based upon the precision of concentration
estimates: Sedgewick Rafter and membrane filter direct counts, flow cytometry, and flow-based imaging cytometry
(FlowCAM). Counting methods were all able to estimate the cell concentrations, categorize cells into size classes,
and determine cell viability using fluorescent probes. These criteria are essential to determine whether discharged
ballast water complies with international standards that limit the concentration of viable planktonic organisms based
on size class. Samples containing unknown concentrations of live and UV-inactivated phytoflagellates (Tetraselmis
impellucida) were formulated to have low concentrations (<100 ml-1) of viable phytoplankton. All count methods
used chlorophyll a fluorescence to detect cells and SYTOX fluorescence to detect non-viable cells. With the
exception of one sample, the methods generated live and non-viable cell counts that were significantly different
from each other, although estimates were generally within 100% of the ensemble mean of all subsamples from all
methods. Overall, percent coefficient of variation (CV) among sample replicates was lowest in membrane filtration
sample replicates, and CVs for all four counting methods were usually lower than 30% (although instances of ~60%
were observed). Since all four methods were generally appropriate for monitoring discharged ballast water,
ancillary considerations (e.g., ease of analysis, sample processing rate, sample size, etc.) become critical factors for
choosing the optimal phytoplankton counting method.
Description
Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2010. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Springer for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Applied Phycology 24 (2012): 751-758, doi:10.1007/s10811-011-9694-z.