4.5 Article

Quantifying the efficacy of diquat dibromide in controlling Microcystis aeruginosa and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae in comparison to copper sulfate and potassium permanganate

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c8ew00532j

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Agency for International Development through the USAID-NSF PEER initiative [AID-OAA-A-I1-00012]
  2. American University of Beirut University Research Board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (HABs) are an emerging problem worldwide, affecting many important freshwater systems. The use of chemical algaecides can provide an effective short-term mitigation measure to control HABs. In this study, the efficacy of diquat dibromide was examined under laboratory conditions to control two problematic toxin-releasing cyanobacteria, namely Aphanizomenon flos-aquae and Microcystis aeruginosa. Its performance was then compared to that of copper sulfate (CuSO4) and potassium permanganate (KMnO4), two commonly used algaecides. The results suggest that while all three algaecides were effective in controlling Aphanizomenon, the highest inhibition rates achieved were associated with the application of diquat dibromide. Aphanizomenon exhibited a half-life of 0.48 days with diquat dibromide dosages of 0.5 and 1 mg L-1. Both diquat dibromide and CuSO4 exhibited more effectiveness in controlling Microcystis aeruginosa as compared to KMnO4. Reductions achieved by applying 0.5 mg L-1 of diquat dibromide or 1 mg L-1 of CuSO4 exceeded 95% after 48 h of treatment. Nevertheless, diquat dibromide suppressed the net regrowth of Microcystis aeruginosa up to 70 h, while suppression with CuSO4 did not exceed 64 h even with the highest applied dosage. Irrespective of the algaecide and the application dosage, regrowth was observed for Microcystis aeruginosa but not for Aphanizomenon flos-aquae. Statistical models were proposed to simulate inhibition rates and estimate net algal regeneration.

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

4.5
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