4.5 Article

Evaluation of a flow cytometry method to determine size and real refractive index distributions in natural marine particle populations

期刊

APPLIED OPTICS
卷 57, 期 7, 页码 1705-1716

出版社

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/AO.57.001705

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) [AWI-HE442]
  2. Scottish Funding Council (SFC) via Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland (MASTS) [HR09011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A flow cytometric (FC) method was developed to retrieve particle size distributions (PSDs) and real refractive index (nr) information in natural waters. Geometry and signal response of the sensors within the flow cytometer (CytoSense, CytoBuoy b.v., Netherlands) were characterized to form a scattering inversion model based on Mie theory. The procedure produced a mesh of diameter and nr isolines where each particle is assigned the diameter and nr values of the closest node, producing PSDs and particle real refractive index distributions. The method was validated using polystyrene bead standards of known diameter and polydisperse suspensions of oil with known nr, and subsequently applied to natural samples collected across a broad range of UK shelf seas. FC PSDs were compared with independent PSDs produced from data of two LISST-100X instruments (type B and type C). PSD slopes and features were found to be consistent between the FC and the two LISST-100X instruments, but LISST concentrations were found in disagreement with FC concentrations and with each other. FC nr values were found to agree with expected refractive index values of typical marine particle components across all samples considered. The determination of particle size and refractive index distributions enabled by the FC method has potential to facilitate identification of the contribution of individual subpopulations to the bulk inherent optical properties and biogeochemical properties of the particle population. (C) 2018 Optical Society of America.

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