Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 227–235 | Cite as

Life after treatment: detecting living microorganisms following exposure to UV light and chlorine dioxide



Rapid analytical methods are needed to quantify living microorganisms to determine if ships’ discharged ballast water is in compliance with national and international standards. Traditionally, regrowth assays and microscope counts of stained organisms—which are time-consuming, require expensive equipment, and require extensive staff training—are used to assess microorganisms. The goal of this study was to evaluate other approaches. Both ambient microorganisms from an oligotrophic marine environment and laboratory cultures of marine algae were evaluated following exposure to two types of ballast water treatment: ultraviolet (UV) light and chlorine dioxide (ClO2). Microorganisms in two size classes (<10 and ≥10 to <50 μm) were quantified using regrowth assays and vital staining, and samples were evaluated using two rapid approaches: (1) chlorophyll a fluorescence and photochemical yield were measured using a pulse amplitude modulated fluorometer and (2) the concentration of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) was measured with a handheld luminometer. The response of microorganisms to UV and ClO2 was evident in measurements of photochemical yield, as photochemical yield decreased at high doses. However, initial values of photochemical yield were variable and species-specific. Oddly, in some trials, initial fluorescence increased at intermediate UV doses; this phenomenon could lead to overestimation of total biomass. In samples treated with UV light, ATP was not significantly different among any of the doses used; however, concentrations of ATP were significantly lower at the highest dose of ClO2 than control samples. These results demonstrate that approaches used for ballast water testing can be treatment-specific, and compliance approaches should be validated to determine their utility with the appropriate treatments.


Ballast water Ultraviolet radiation Invasive species Disinfection Protists Ballast water management systems 



This work was supported by the USCG Environmental Standards Division (CG-OES-3; MIPR HSCG23-11-X-MMS154, Tasks 5.2 and 5.3) and does not represent official USCG policy. We are grateful to Richard Everett (USCG) for advice and guidance with this work. We appreciate the comments and suggestions of two anonymous reviewers, which helped to improve and clarify an earlier draft of this manuscript. We very much appreciate the contributions of Stephanie Robbins-Wamsley and Scott Riley (SAIC, Inc., Key West, FL). The research, which was conducted at the Naval Research Laboratory in Key West, was supported by Diane Lysogorski (Section Head of NRL Code 6136 and Director of the Center for Corrosion Science and Engineering, Key West, Florida). Finally, this manuscript was improved by reviews from Ms. Lysogorski, Gina Bergner (USCG), and Richard Colton (Superintendent, Chemistry Division, Naval Research Laboratory)—we thank you.


  1. Alldredge AL, Silver MW (1988) Characteristics, dynamics and significance of marine snow. Prog Oceanogr 20:41–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cosgrove J, Borowitzka MA (2006) Applying pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) fluorometry to microalgae suspensions: stirring potentially impacts fluorescence. Photosynth Res 88:343–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cosgrove J, Borowitzka MA (2010) Chlorophyll fluorescence terminology: an introduction. In: Suggett D, Prásil O, Borowitzka MA (eds) Chlorophyll a fluorescence in aquatic sciences: methods and applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Man JC (1977) MPN tables for more than one test. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 4:307–316Google Scholar
  5. First MR, Drake LA (2012) Performance of the human “counting machine”: evaluation of manual microscopy for enumerating plankton. J Plankton Res 34:1028–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Genty B, Briantais JM, Baker NR (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim Biophys Acta 990:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregg M, Rigby G, Hallegraeff GM (2009) Review of two decades of progress in the development of management options for reducing or eradicating phytoplankon, zooplankton and bacteria in ship’s ballast water. Aquat Invas 4:521–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guillard RRL, Ryther JH (1962) Studies of marine planktonic diatoms. I. Cyclotella nana Hustedt and Detonula confervacea Cleve. Can J Microbiol 8:229–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodson RE, Holm-Hansen O, Azam F (1976) Improved methodology for ATP determination in marine environments. Mar Biol 34:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2004) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments.'-Ballast-Water-and-Sediments-(BWM).aspx. Accessed 19 Nov 2012
  11. International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2005) Guidelines for the approval of ballast water management systems (G8) resolution. MEPC 125(53)Google Scholar
  12. Kaeberlein T, Lewis K, Epstein SS (2002) Isolating “uncultivable” microorganisms in pure culture in a simulated natural environment. Science 296:1127–1129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karl DM (1993) Total microbial biomass estimation derived from the measurement of particulate adenosine-5′-triphosphate. In: Kemp PF, Cole JJ, Sherr B, Sherr EB (eds) Handbook of methods in aquatic microbial ecology. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 359–368Google Scholar
  14. Liebich V, Stehouwer PP, Veldhuis M (2012) Re-growth of potential invasive phytoplankton following UV-based ballast water treatment. Aquat Invasions 7:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Steinberg MK, First MR, Lemieux EJ, Drake LA, Nelson BN, Kulis DM, Anderson DM, Welschmeyer NA, Herring PR (2011a) Comparison of techniques used to count single-celled viable phytoplankton. J Appl Phycol 24:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Steinberg MK, Lemieux EJ, Drake LA (2011b) Determining the viability of marine protists using a combination of vital, fluorescent stains. Mar Biol 158:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Taylor JR (1996) An Introduction to error analysis: the study of uncertainties in physical measurements, 3rd edn. University Science, SaucilitoGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsolaki E, Diamadopoulos E (2010) Technologies for ballast water treatment: a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 85:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Technology Verification Program (2010) Generic protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment technology. Report number EPA/600/R–10/146. Accessed 19 Nov 2012
  20. U.S. Coast Guard (2012) Standards for living organisms in ships’ ballast water discharged in U.S. waters. Fed Regist 77:17254–17320Google Scholar
  21. Villaverde A, Guerrero R, Barbe J (1986) Microbiology ATP production after ultraviolet irradiation in Escherichia coli. Curr Microbiol 14:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waite TD, Kazumi J, Lane PVZ, Farmer LL, Smith SG, Smith SL, Hitchcock G, Capo TR (2003) Removal of natural populations of marine plankton by a large-scale ballast water treatment system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 258:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SAIC, IncMcLeanUSA
  2. 2.Chemistry DivisionNaval Research LaboratoryKey WestUSA

Personalised recommendations