Miquel Lürling Part B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluation of end-of-pipe measures proposed for controlling cyanobacteria blooms and other things people might do in these Miquel Lürling, Els Faassen, Lisette de Senerpont Domis,, Guido Waajen, Frank van Oosterhout, Yora Tolman Methods Beating the Blues 1) Source oriented (nutrients) 2) Public oriented (exposure) 3) Effect oriented (blooms/scums) Set of measures per water(type) Dredging Wet dredging is also active fish removal Restoration Ecological De1000 Ploeg condition Bergen-op-Zoom 1000 Cyanobacteria ) Authorities800 decided: Eukaryote algae -1 500 g l g -600 Dredging Dredging µ Bad 200 -400 Fish stock manipulationVariable results dredging 200 95 - Remove sewer overflow 3 Poor 0 46 Etten-Leur (€25-60 per m sediment) concentration ( concentration Moderate - Creating soft banks a 800 23 Good -600 Planting macrophytes 10.8 ) -1 6.8 Excellent 400 -l g Inform citizens feeding µ ( → System analysis?Chlorophyll- a 200 3 ducks/fish 7 8 9 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 00 01 014 0 20 20 2 20 20 2 2013 2 Someren Molenwiel500 Year 350 Chlorophyll- 400 ) → -1 Total CHL-a Authorities decided: Cheaper alternatives?Cyanobacteria CHL-a 300 g L g 300 median 2006-2012 µ -200 Dredging 250 -100 Creating few soft banks 0 200 Bennekom2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 -600 Planting macrophytes Jaar 150 concentration ( concentration a 400 100 - Fisherman reintroduced fish 200 50 Chlorophyll- 0 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year Year Combination of measures: - Dredging - Fish stock manipulation - Water level fluctuation (less pump) - Creating soft banks - Planting macrophytes - Prohibition dog outlet - Restricting in feeding water birds - No carps, no baiting -1 ) -1 ) 1500 µg l µg l 10001000 500 500 360200 180 95 concentration ( Restoration a 46 90 Restoration 23 10.8 Total P40 concentration ( 6.8 Chlorophyll-20 3 Ecological condition 2009-Pond 2009-Pond Ecological condition 2009-Cont2009-Contrrolol Bad 2010-Control 2010-Control Bad 2011-Control Poor 2011-Control 2012-Pond Moderate Poor Year 2012-Pond Good Year 2013-Pond Moderate E 2013-Pond xcellent 2014-Pond Good 2014-Pond Excellent Restoration l o ol tr r d n n o o -C -Cont -Pond P 0 1 2 009-Pond 01 01 01 2 2 2 2 2013-Pond 2014- Sd (m) 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.50 0.60 0.63 TP (µg/L) 366 548 585 46 26 22 TN (mg/L) 3.42 2.57 2.93 0.44 0.82 0.82 O2 (%) 68 115 105 99 95 89 pH 6.8 8.1 8.3 7.9 7.7 7.8 CYA-CHLa 206.4 20.3 25.0 11.6 0.1 0.3 Total-CHLa 410.9 322.3 269.9 26.2 7.7 8.8 2) Public oriented measures ? Information about risks, increase awareness ? Change of habits ? Warnings (e.g. swimming ban) 3) Public oriented • Inform water profiles, newspaper, signs... General Information General Information http://www.wageningenur.nl/nl/Dossiers/dossier/Blauwalg.htm Booklet for water managers, politicians, students, etc. General Information 3) Effect oriented measures • Inhibition of cyanobacterial growth Physical: Aeration, water movement, US Chemical: Algicides Biological: Barley straw, Dreissena, EM • Decimation of cyanobacterial blooms Physical: US, dynamite, skimmer, jets + air Chemical: Algicides Biological: Viruses • Inhibition scum inflow Jets, bubble screen, dam, floating screen Bubble screen Artificial mixing in Lake Nieuwe Meer From Huisman et al. 2004 Ecology 85: 2960-2970 Artificial mixing experiment in the deep Lake Nieuwe Meer 2003 Mixing prevents bloom of Microcystis Artificial mixing in shallow waters? →Removing/preventing scums? →Reducing foul odours? Enclosure experiment shallow water Cyanobacteria Controls Aeration 250 250 ) Rest Algae ) -1 Total in pond -1 200 200 (µg l (µg l a a 150 150 100 100 50 50 Chlorophyll- Chlorophyll- 0 0 012345678910 012345678910 Week Week Mixing in shallow waters stimulates cyanobacteria Ultrasound FHeavily promoted in the Netherlands FSeveral large applications in 2007 Claims: Clear water within few days Resonance gas vesicles: kills only cyano’s Harmless to all other aquatic life A) 12 kHz B) 20 kHz (in only one) C) 28 kHz D) 44 kHz Agilent 54622D Mixed Signal Oscilloscope Testing in 800 ml 4 controls 4 Ultrasound Anabaena sp. PCC7122 Control Ultrasound 0.30 0.30 A) Aan Controle B) Uit Controle (19-32 d) Ultrageluid Ultrageluid uit (19 -32 d) P < 0.001 Marginal growth inhibition 0.25 0.25 ) ) -1 -1 , d 0.20 P = 0.002 0.20 d , µ P = 0.004 µ 0.15 P = 0.762 P = 0.483 0.15 NoP = 0.009 effect on Φps2 0.10 0.10 Groeisnelheid ( Groeisnelheid( 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 Chlorofyl Deeltjes Biovolume Chlorofyl DeeltjesFilament Biovolume fragmentation 0.6 Control P = 0.735 0.5 Ultrasound ) Continuous exposure: -1 0.4 P = 0.696 0.3 P = 0.340 No effect on C. raciborskii, 0.2 Growth rate (d rate Growth 0.1 M. aeruginosa (unicells) and 0.0 Scenedesmus obliquus C. raciborskii M. aeruginosa S. obliquus Test organisms Effect of ultrasound on Daphnia Ultrasound 100 120 80 100 0 kHz 80 20 kHz 60 28 kHz 40 60 36 kHz 20 44 kHz 0 Gemiddelde overlevingstijd (min) 20 28 36 44 40 Ultrageluid frequentie (kHz) Survivors (%) Survivors 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Controls Time (min) 1 8 0 0 A ) C o n tro le 1 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 ) Totaal fytoplankton -1 1 2 0 0 Cyanobacteriën g l µ ( 1 0 0 0 a a 8 0 0 6 0 0 Chlorofyl- 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 B ) 0Ultrageluid 0.16 1 4 6 8 11 14 15 18 19 21 25 1 6 0 0 T ijd (d ) 1 4 0 0 ) Totaal fytoplankton -1 1 2 0 0 Cyanobacteriën g l g µ ( 1 0 0 0 a a 8 0 0 Ultrasound 6 0 0 Chlorofyl- 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 C )0 D 0.16 a p h n 1 ia 4 6 8 11 14 15 18 19 21 25 F Does not kill cyano’s T ijd (d ) 1 5 0 0 C o n tro le ) F Ultrageluid -1 Does not clear water l # ( 1 0 0 0 F Acute lethal to Daphnia Daphnia Daphnia 5 0 0 F No gasvesicle ruptures 0 0 0.16 1 4 6 8 11 14 15 18 19 21 25 T ijd (d ) Ultrasound made water green 21 days Ultrasound Control Ultrasound Control Field trials: 1) Zwaanshoek No clearing water Govaert et al., 2007 Univ. Leuven/Kortrijk, Belgium Reference basin Ultrasound basin Field trials: 2) Tholen & 3) Gouden Ham Tholen 23-10-2007 Kardinaal et al., 2008: Transducers were not able preventing bloom and surface scums Gouden Ham ‘t Groene Eiland 140x103 140 3000 120x103 120 2500 2000 100x103 100 1500 kHz 80x103 80 1000 500 60x103 60 Microcystis 0 kHz cell MHz 40x103 40 1 10 100 Radius gas bubble (µm) 20x103 20 2.2 - 1.3 0.020 - 0.005 0 0 Gas vesicles Microcystis cell Anabaena Daphnia filament 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Radius gas bubble (µm) No theoretical support for claim χ χ gas vesicle resonance 1 3 2 2 2 + 6 0 = 2 0 + + − 3 2 0 0 0 0 Branson Digital Sonifier 450 M. aeruginosa killed at 4 W/mL in 4 cycles of 30 sec • In our studies no effect of 0.00085 W/mL • MHz frequencies only travel 10 to 20 cm in water • Low frequency ultrasound will not rupture gasvesicles or damage cyanobacteria Ultrasound in Laguna de Sauce is a waste of money Please, be critical on the fancy brochures of the commercial suppliers Examples taken from the internet https://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aw13/Presentations/2- Wednesday/Grand%20Floridian/Session%208b/0300%20Whatley.pdf Another example https://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aw13/Presentations/2- Wednesday/Grand%20Floridian/Session%208b/0300%20Whatley.pdf Ultrasound Laboratory assays: F Does not kill cyano’s & does not clear water F Acute lethal to Daphnia FThereNo gasvesicle is ruptures no music in fightingField trials: cyanobacteria F Stopped in Tholen and Gouden Ham (Kardinaal et al., 2007) F Stopped in Rijnland Area (Govaert et ali., 2007; Stroom, pers. comm.) withAnd more ineffectiveness:commercial F NUON: LG Sonic XXL doesn’t work ultrasoundF Prof. Muylaert: No effect systems! on cyano’s in lab (pers. comm) (univ. Kortrijk/Leuven) Golden algae as biological control of cyanobacteria? • (Poterio)Ochromonas eats WorldMicrocystis widecells and very blooms: small colonies ShinyBUT: golden algae • Golden algae omnipresent, still world wide cyanobacteria • Golden algae eat only small particles do not control Microcystis • Golden algae might produces foul odors and toxins (Chlorosulfolipids) Ochromonas cyanobacteria!• Golden algae might cause fish kills From Van donk et al 2009 1000-faces of “Effective Micro-organisms” They come in many formulations, but are they as ‘effective’ as claimed? HHHHH EM-A EM-mudballs ACF32 Poco CBX suspension EM-mudballs/Bokashi balls heavily promoted in Almere EM-mudballs Dosis-response: 0, 0.01, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0 and 10 g l-1 Advised dose 0.5 A A AB A 0.4 ) BC C -1 C 0.3 0.2 Growth rate (d rate Growth 0.1 D 0.0 0 0.01 0.1 0.25 0.5 1 5 10 EM-mudball concentration (g l-1) EM-mudballs: In 3 Erlenmeyer experiments, in beakers (250 ml) and aquaria (1.2 l) no support for claimed mechanism EM-mudball Aquarium experiment 42.5 g in 25 l water EM-mudball Start Day 1 Day 5 Day 15 Controls ) -1 180 g l g EM-ball µ 160 Control ( a 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Cyanobacteria chlorophyll- Cyanobacteria 0 3 6 9 12 15 27 30 Time (d) After 1 month With EM- mudball Controls with EM-mudball “Effective Micro-organisms”: Many formulations are NOT ‘effective’! Effective Micro- organisms doHHHHH not control EM-A EM-mudballs ACF32 Poco CBX suspension “CBXcyanobacteria! contains ‘rare’ cyanobacteria that will purify the water and thereby eliminate blue-greens” (De Roo, pers.