Research: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Research: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Research: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
O F N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S
RESEARCH
REPORT 195
MARCH 2014
Executive Summary
Ultrasound technologies have been promoted as an effective means of minimizing
cyanobacterial blooms in ponds and lakes, but little is known about the effects of
ultrasound on non-target organisms or ecosystem processes when implemented on
a large scale in complex natural systems. To better understand possible effects of this
technology, we summarize the available scientific literature on the effects of sonication
and anti-cyanobacterial, ultrasound devices.
Ultrasound (sound waves at approximately 20 kHz) induces vibrations and ruptures gas
vacuoles that control cyanobacterial buoyancy. Cyanobacteria then sink and cannot
restore their buoyancy in the lower light levels at the lake bottom. Ultrasound has
worked well in short-term, laboratory tests (<30 minutes) to inactivate and sediment
cyanobacterial cells. Despite the fact that sonication can destroy cyanobacterial cells
and release cyanotoxins to the surrounding water, we could find no large-scale studies
that investigated cyanotoxin release.
Many scientific studies have tested ultrasound on organisms, primarily over short periods of time. Sonication effects on non-target organisms could be greater than effects
demonstrated in short-term, laboratory studies if anti-algal units are used continuously
as recommended by manufacturers. Information on the specific wavelengths and
intensities produced by the devices, however, is proprietary and publically inaccessible. Therefore, we reviewed studies which used ultrasound frequencies believed to be
similar to those of anti-algal, sonication units on non-cyanobacterial organisms. Effects
of sonication on non-target organisms reported include:
Bacteria Ultrasound is used to kill bacteria in wastewater treatment and aquaculture facilities. Bacterially mediated nutrient cycles and organic matter processing
could be affected by whole-lake sonication.
Algae A wide variety of both microalgae and macroalgae are vulnerable to cell
injury and death from ultrasound treatments. Because algae provide the foundation
of the aquatic food web, ultrasound treatments could have far-reaching effects.
(continued)
Plants Treatment of aquatic plants with high frequencies of ultrasound has led to
cell membrane disruption and loss of leaves, buoyancy, and vitality.
Zooplankton Ultrasound ballast water treatment systems caused high mortality
in cladocerans, rotifers, and brine shrimp, reducing them to debris after one to four
second exposures.
Mollusks Ultrasound is used to kill snails in aquaculture settings and can be used to
disable and kill zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) at all life history stages.
Insects High frequency ultrasound has killed developing fruit flies. Water boatmen
(Hemiptera: Corixidae) and caddis fly larvae (Trichoptera) communicate with ultrasound. It is possible that ultrasound devices could interfere with their behavior.
Amphibians Amphibian embryonic tissue was destroyed and embryos were killed
by exposure to high frequency ultrasound wavelengths.
Fish High-frequency ultrasound has been used to deter alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) from power plant intakes. Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) fingerlings in
aquaculture ponds treated with ultrasound were deterred from feeding and required
four hours without treatment in order to feed. Ultrasound makes skin permeable
and is used in aquaculture for immersion vaccination. Fish exposed to ultrasound in
natural systems could thus be at risk for disease or contaminant uptake because of
increased skin permeability.
Humans Ultrasound device intensity levels are proprietary information so the
effects of the devices on humans are unknown. The owners manual for one product
includes warnings of tissue injury and discourages contact of the transducers with
the body. The risk of exposure to lower-level ultrasound is unknown. Exposure to
cyanotoxins released from damaged cyanobacterial cells also potentially poses a
health risk to humans.
Manufacturers may have additional data on the effects of ultrasonic devices on
non-target organisms, but those data are not available to the public. It also is worth
noting that if anti-algal, ultrasound devices are not powerful enough to harm non-target organisms, they may also be ineffective against cyanobacteria.
Sonication units are usually coupled with aeration and circulation devices in largescale systems, which may affect the units efficacy or impact water quality. Circulation devices may induce the recruitment of inactivated cyanobacterial cells from the
sediments into the water column, re-establishing bloom conditions. Coupling sonication with microbubble treatment could potentially lead to cell lysing and toxin release.
Ultrasound also can dissociate phosphate from particles, making it available for uptake.
Circulation and aeration may increase turbidity, destratify the water column, and facilitate nutrient release from the sediments in some systems.
We reviewed three field studies of sonication in large systems. These studies demonstrated mixed results for chlorophyll and cyanobacterial densities, with the greatest
effects when additional flushing and circulation treatments were included. Sediment
nutrients increased in one study, while in another sonication may have led to increased
nutrients in the water column.
In our review, we found that most sonication studies were laboratory based and
short in duration. Although ultrasound has been shown to inactivate cyanobacteria
in short-term, small-scale laboratory studies, extrapolating ultrasounds efficacy and
safety to longer term, larger scale treatments remains difficult given the lack of field
studies and inaccessibility of information on device wavelengths and intensity. Our
review found that ultrasound may release cyanotoxins from cyanobacterial cells, pose
potential health hazards to humans, adversely affect non-target organisms, have
adverse ecological effects on food webs and nutrient processing, and affect recreational fishing opportunities.
Contents
Introduction, 1
Ultrasound and Ultrasonic Waves, 1
Effects of Ultrasonic Waves on Cyanobacteria, 1
Effects of Ultrasonic Waves on Cyanotoxin Release in Laboratory Studies, 2
Free Radical and Hydrogen Peroxide Generation, 2
Commercial Products Using Ultrasonic Technology, 2
Field Investigations of Ultrasound Applications in Large Systems, 3
Lake Senba, Japan, 3
Two Ponds in Gyeryong-si, Chungnam, Korea, 3
Reservoirs in the United Kingdom, 4
Biological Effects of Ultrasonic Waves on Non-target Species, 4
Bacteria, 4
Algae, 4
Plants, 5
Zooplankton, 5
Mollusks, 5
Insects, 6
Amphibians, 6
Fish, 6
Humans, 6
Impacts on Water Quality, 7
Conclusions, 7
Literature Cited, 8
Appendix A. Industry-reported Effects of Ultrasound
Treatment on 13 Cyanobacterial Taxa and 54 Algal Taxa, 10
Disclaimer: Mention of trade names and commercial products does not
constitute endorsement of their use.
Cyanobacterial
bloom-forming
taxa
common
in
Wisconsin
lakes.
Aphanizomenon.
Dolichospermum
(formerly Anabaena).
Planktothrix rubescens.
Microcystis.
Introduction
Ultrasound devices are currently used for microbial control
and treatment in water treatment plants, aquaculture facilities, reservoirs, and ornamental water bodies such as golf
course ponds. Ultrasounds use is promoted for addressing
algae and cyanobacteria concerns in ponds and lakes, but
little is known about its effects on non-target organisms or
ecosystem processes when implemented on a large scale in
complex natural systems. Colucci (2010) recently reviewed
the existing ultrasound literature to determine feasibility
of ultrasound use for algae control in a spring-fed pool in
the city of Austin, Texas. Because the federally endangered
Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum) lives in the
pool, information on ultrasonic impacts to aquatic life was
required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for approval
to test the devices. Little specific information was available,
and Colucci (2010) concluded that without information
about the safety of ultrasonic exposure to aquatic biota
and humans, the spring-fed pool was not an appropriate location for testing ultrasonic algae control devices.
The lack of readily available information also has made
it challenging for the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources to respond adequately to recent interest in use
of ultrasound devices in Wisconsin lakes. To address this
situation, we conducted a more comprehensive review of
available scientific information on the effects of ultrasound
on cyanobacteria (including cyanotoxin releases), non-target aquatic organisms, and water quality.
Microcystis.
Several studies from lakes and ponds provided insight about the
feasibility of this approach in large systems.
Bacteria
Ultrasound can be used to kill bacteria in water as a disinfection method in wastewater treatment and aquaculture.
The physical effects of cavitation inactivate and lyse bacteria (Drakopoulou et al. 2009, Broekman et al. 2010).
Zimba and Grimm (2008) discuss some unpublished
research on bacteria in their aquaculture trade magazine
article. They tested ultrasound on channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus) fingerlings in tanks and found that sonicated
tanks had lower turbidity and lower bacterial counts. They
suggest that ultrasound could be used to reduce pathogenic bacteria numbers in aquaculture ponds. If anti-algal,
ultrasound devices are capable of killing bacteria in natural
systems, this could lead to deleterious effects on bacterially-mediated nutrient cycles and organic matter processing
in lakes.
Algae
Algae are the foundation of aquatic food webs, so adverse
effects of ultrasonic devices on non-target algal species
could have far-reaching effects in aquatic ecosystems.
Diatoms in particular are an important, high-quality food
source for higher trophic levels.
Appendix A lists 67 algal taxa, mostly identified to
genus, which may be killed or otherwise incapacitated by
anti-algal, ultrasonic devices. The list includes 13 cyanobacteria, 32 green algae, 16 diatoms, one chrysophyte,
Waterweeds (Elodea) were frequently tested, and ultrasonic effects of these higher frequencies include cavitation
and cell death (Miller 1983a, 1983b).
Wu and Wu (2007) investigated the effects of a range
of frequencies (20 kHz to 2 MHz) on water chestnut (Trapa
natans). They found that after 10 seconds of ultrasonic
waves aimed at a target spot on the plants, the 20 kHz
frequency (1.8 MPa acoustic pressure amplitude) caused
significant cell membrane disruption leading to loss of
leaves, buoyancy, and vitality.
Diatom.
three cryptophytes, and two euglenoid algae. We compiled the appendix from manufacturer and vendor sources,
but it is unclear whether this information was taken from
scientific literature or from unreleased industry studies.
Ahn et al. (2007) investigated ultrasound devices in
ponds containing cyanobacteria, diatoms, and green
algae. Chlorophyll-a levels and percent cyanobacteria
were reduced in the sonicated pond. The authors did not
present cell density or biomass data for non-cyanobacterial taxa, so diatoms and green algae may have been killed
by the ultrasonic treatment as well, as indicated by the
decrease in chlorophyll-a in the treated pond.
Holm et al. (2008) investigated sonication of phytoplankton for four minutes at 19 kHz for ballast water
treatment. The diatom Thalassiosira eccentrica required
exposure times of 2.1 to 3.8 minutes at intensities ranging
from 14 to 17 W/cm2 to kill 90% of cells. The dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida required exposure times of 8.1 to
10.4 minutes at intensities ranging from 13 to 19 W/cm2
for a 90% reduction in survival.
Rajasekhar et al. (2012a) examined sonication treatment
of a small, unicellular coccoid green alga, Chlorella sp., at
20 kHz and 0.085 W/mL for zero to 20 minutes. Sonication
did not reduce Chlorella concentration below the initial
concentrations, but the authors note that their results with
Chlorella may not be representative of all green algae.
A number of other studies have treated green algae with
higher ultrasound frequencies (1 MHz to 2 MHz) and found
deleterious effects. These include cytoplasmic clumping in
Hydrodictyon, induction of cellular currents and cavitation
in Nitella, and emulsification of cell contents and loss of turgor in Spirogyra and Nitella (Dyer et al. 1976, ElPiner et al.
1965, Goldman and Lepeschkin 1957, Harvey and Loomis
1928, Hopwood 1931; all reviewed in Miller 1983a).
These taxa of green algae provide habitat for aquatic
invertebrates (J.D. Hall, Department of Botany, Academy of
Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, pers.
comm.) so their loss from ultrasound treatment could result
in reduced invertebrate populations. Additionally, their loss
would make more nutrients available for uptake by other
primary producers, including cyanobacteria.
Plants
Numerous studies demonstrate deleterious effects of ultrasound on plants, but many of them use higher frequency
ultrasound in the 1 MHz to 2 MHz range so results are
more difficult to compare to the 20 kHz frequencies typically thought to be used in anti-algal, sonication devices.
Zooplankton
Ultrasound has been investigated as a control for zooplankton in ballast water. Holm et al. (2008) tested
ultrasound effects on a cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia),
rotifers (Brachionus plicatilis, B. calyciflorus, and Philodina
sp.), and brine shrimp (Artemia sp.). Testing was done
in a flow-through system and investigated the exposure
time and energy density needed to kill 90% of organisms
when using an ultrasound frequency of 19 kHz. Holm et
al. (2008) found that contact times of one to four seconds and an energy density of 6-19 J/mL resulted in high
mortality. Organisms either passed through the system or
were reduced to debris. Microjets within the zooplankton caused by the collapse of cavitation bubbles were
the hypothesized cause of zooplankton mortality in the
experiments. This 19-kHz treatment was most effective
against zooplankton larger than 100 m, and exposure
times below 10 seconds and energy densities less than
20 J/mL resulted in 90% mortality (Holm et al. 2008).
Because intensity levels of anti-algal, ultrasonic devices are
proprietary information, it is unknown whether the ballast
control treatment levels are in a range similar to what is
produced by those devices.
Mollusks
Ultrasound has been found to be effective in killing snails
which serve as parasite hosts in aquaculture settings.
Goodwiller and Chambers (2012) sonicated ramshorn
snails (Planorbella trivolvis) in a tank at a frequency of 20
kHz and power up to 89 W (the specific power levels they
used were unreported). Snails were placed five to 13 cm
from the sonicator and in tests of five to 120 seconds of
sonication of groups of 10 snails, 0 to 100% of snails died,
with 40% dead after 30 seconds and 70% after 60 seconds. Death was hypothesized to be from internal injuries,
as the sonication produced clouds of cavitation bubbles.
Additional experiments that were run over 90-second
intervals appeared to kill 35% of snails outright and mortally wound an additional 33% of snails, which died within
four days of the conclusion of the experiment.
Ultrasound has been investigated as a method for zebra
mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) control, although frequencies below ultrasound are most often used (Kowalewski et
al. 1993, Donskoy and Ludiyanskiy 1995). Donskoy and
Ludiyanskiy (1995) cite research in which ultrasound ranging from 20 kHz to 380 kHz was used to induce cavitation
and mortality in veliger, juvenile, and adult zebra mussels.
No information on the effects of ultrasound on native
mussel glochidia (juvenile life stages) could be found.
Insects
Miller (2007) cites a study by Child and Carstensen (1982)
in which pulsed ultrasound (peak intensity 10-20 W/cm2,
2 MHz), destroyed cell membranes and killed cells of fruit
flies (Drosophila) as eggs hatched and larvae developed
gas-filled respiratory channels. Child and Carstensen
(1982) hypothesized that the ultrasound affected the gas
bodies within the respiratory channels. These are higher
frequencies than those typically believed to be used by
anti-algal, sonication devices, but these studies indicate
that sonication could have deleterious effects on insects.
Some aquatic insects are known to communicate with
ultrasonic sound. Water boatmen (Hemiptera: Corixidae:
Micronecta) produce courtship songs which are partially
in ultrasonic range (approximately 5-22 kHz) (Sueur et
al. 2011). Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae:
Cheumatopsyche, Diplonectra, and Hydropsyche) produce
ultrasonic sounds which serve as territorial displays (Silver
1980). Ultrasound generated by anti-algal, ultrasonic
devices potentially could interfere with aquatic insect
communication and behavior.
Amphibians
Amphibian embryonic tissue was destroyed and amphibian embryos suffered mortality after being exposed to
ultrasonic waves (Sarvazyan et al. 1982, Pashovkin et al.
2006). Sarvazyan et al. (1982) irradiated common frog
(Rana temporaria) and African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis)
eggs and tissue at 0.88 MHz and at average intensities
of 0.025-0.1 W/cm2. Pashkovin et al. (2006) employed a
variety of frequencies and durations and induced almost
complete mortality of Rana temporaria embryos after five
to 15 minutes at 0.88 MHz and 0.2-0.7 W/cm2. While
these studies used ultrasound frequencies which exceed
the frequencies usually employed in cyanobacterial studies, they demonstrate a potentially deleterious effect of
sonication on amphibians.
Fish
Despite the use of anti-algal, ultrasonic units in aquaculture ponds, we found no publically available information
that addressed the effects of non-medical, ultrasound uses
on fish and only a small number of papers that dealt with
behavioral responses to ultrasound.
Some marine fish (Clupeidae: cod [Gadus morhua],
herring and shad [Alosa aestivalis, A. sapidissima, Clupea
harengus], and Gulf menhaden [Brevoortia patronus])
can detect ultrasound (up to 180 kHz), which elicits
anti-predator behavior (Astrup 1999, Popper et al. 2004),
but research on ultrasound detection in freshwater fish is
scarce. Ultrasound (122-128 kHz, 190 dB) has been used
as a method to deter alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus)
from a Lake Ontario power plant intake (Ross et al. 1993,
1996). Alewives are members of the same family that
includes the marine fish species known to detect ultrasound. In addition to using the inner ear for ultrasound
detection (Popper et al. 2004), the lateral line, swim
bladder, or receptors in the epidermis may also play roles
in ultrasound detection in fish (Astrup 1999).
Humans
The safety of ultrasound use for medical applications
should not be extrapolated to other situations. The
acoustic pressure generated in one study to disrupt and
sink cyanobacterial cells exceeded the maximum acoustic
pressure allowed by the NATO Undersea Research Centre
(NURC) by over 35 decibels, despite being within the safe
mechanical index range used for diagnostic ultrasound
(NURC 2006, Kotopoulis et al. 2009). Kotopoulis et al.
(2009) tested higher frequencies (200 kHz to 2.5 MHz)
than those believed to typically be produced by anti-algal,
ultrasound devices. The maximum acoustic pressure exposure to human divers and marine mammals allowed by
NURC is 708 Pa at frequencies up to 250 kHz (Kotopoulis
et al. 2009). Exceeding these levels, as Kotopoulis et al.
(2009) did to burst cyanobacterial vacuoles, could cause
serious damage to divers and aquatic mammals, and the
authors urge caution in using their cyanobacteria removal
techniques when aquatic animals are present. It is not
clear if these devices also pose a risk of tissue damage
to humans swimming near the devices, or if they may
cause cumulative effects from repeatedly swimming in the
lower intensity ultrasonic treatment area. Kotopoulis et al.
(2008), in a conference abstract, report that if ultrasound
in the clinical diagnostic range from 200 kHz to 2.5 MHz
is used for algal eradication, the safe swimming distance
Conclusions
Most studies of ultrasound on cyanobacteria are short,
laboratory-based studies. It is difficult to draw conclusions
on the effects of the continuous operation of anti-algal,
ultrasound devices in large aquatic systems from the few
field studies that are available in the peer-reviewed, publically-available scientific literature. Additionally, there is a
lack of information on wavelengths and intensities used by
the devices because that remains proprietary information.
We reviewed studies using ultrasound frequencies believed
Literature Cited
Ahn, C.Y., S.H. Joung, A.Choi, H.S. Kim, K.Y. Jang, and H.M. Oh.
2007. Selective control of cyanobacteria in eutrophic pond by
a combined device of ultrasonication and water pumps.
Environmental Technology 28(4):371-379.
Ahn, C.Y., M.H. Park, S.H. Joung, H.S. Kim, K.Y. Jang, and H.M. Oh.
2003. Growth inhibition of cyanobacteria by ultrasonic radiation: laboratory and enclosure studies. Environmental
Science and Technology 37:3,031-3,037.
Astrup, J.
1999. Ultrasound detection in fish a parallel to the
sonar-mediated detection of bats by ultrasound-sensitive insects? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
Part A: Molecular and Integrative Physiology 124:19-27.
Broekman, S., O. Pohlmann, E.S. Beardwood, and E. Cordemans
de Meulenaer.
2010. Ultrasonic treatment for microbiological control of water
systems. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 17:1,041-1,048.
Child, S.Z. and E.L. Carstensen.
1982. Effects of ultrasound on DrosophilaIV. Pulsed exposures
of eggs. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 8:311-312.
Chorus, I. and J. Bartram (Eds.).
1999. Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to Their Public
Health Consequences, Monitoring and Management. E
and FN Spon, London.
Colucci, L.A.
2010. Ultrasonic Algae Control Literature Review. City of Austin Watershed Protection Department. Online at http://
assets.austintexas.gov/watershed/publications/files/
SR-10-11%20Ultrasonic%20Algae%20Review%20
Final.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2013.
Donskoy, D.M. and M.L. Ludiyanskiy.
1995. Low frequency sound as a control measure for zebra
mussel fouling. Proceedings of the Fifth International
Zebra Mussel and other Aquatic Nuisance organisms
Conference 1995. 1995:103-112.
Drakopoulou, S., S. Terzakis, M.S. Fountoulakis, D. Mantzavinos,
and T. Manios.
2009. Ultrasound-induced inactivation of gram-negative and
gram-positive bacteria in secondary treated municipal
wastewater. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 16:629-634.
Dyer, H.J., D.L. Miller, and W.L. Nyborg.
1976. Aggregation arrays set up by ultrasound in biological
cells. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59:S59.
ElPiner, I.E., I.M. Faikin, and O.K. Basurmanova.
1965. Intracellular microflow produced by ultrasonic radiation. Biophysics 10:889-897.
Fernandez-Alonso, M., A. Rocha, and J.M. Coll.
2001. DNA vaccination by immersion and ultrasound to trout
viral haemorrhagic septicemia virus. Vaccine 19:3,0673,075.
Frenkel, V., E. Kimmel, and Y. Iger.
2000a. Ultrasound-induced intercellular space widening in
fish epidermis. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
26(3):473-480.
2000b. Ultrasound-facilitated transport of silver chloride
(AgCl) particles in fish skin. Journal of Controlled Release
68(2):251-261.
Goldman, D.E. and W.W. Lepeschkin.
1957. Injury and recovery of Spirogyra exposed to ultrasound.
Experimental Cell Research 12:507-517.
Gmez Olmedilla, D.
2012. Preventing the growth of barnacles by using ultrasonic
sound. Masters Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg, Sweden. Online at http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/156420.pdf.
Accessed 24 April 2013.
Goodwiller, B.T. and J.P. Chambers.
2012. The potential use of ultrasound to control the trematode Bolbophorus confusus by eliminating the rams
horn snail Planorbella trivolvis in commercial aquaculture settings. North American Journal of Aquaculture
74(4):485-488.
Hao, H., M. Wu, Y. Chen, J. Tang, and Q. Wu.
2004a. Cavitation mechanism in cyanobacterial growth inhibition by ultrasonic irradiation. Colloids and Surfaces B:
Biointerfaces 33:151-156.
2004b. Cyanobacterial bloom control by ultrasonic irradiation
at 20 kHz and 1.7 MHz. Journal of Environmental Science
and Health Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and
Environmental Engineering A39(6):1,435-1,446.
Harvey, E.N. and A.L. Loomis.
1928. High frequency sound waves of small intensity and their
biological effects. Nature 121:622-624.
Herald, D.
2011. Jet Streamer/Algae Hunter Technologies. Seminar for
the Michigan Water Environment Association. Online
at www.mi-wea.org/docs/Jet%20Streamers.pdf.
Accessed 26 April 2013.
Holm, E.R., D.M. Stamper, R.A. Brizzolara, L. Barnes, N. Deamer,
and J.M. Burkholder.
2008. Sonication of bacteria, phytoplankton, and zooplankton: application to treatment of ballast water. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 56:1,201-1,208.
Hopwood, F.L.
1931. Ultrasonics: some properties of inaudible sound. Nature
128:748-751.
Hupfer, M. and J. Lewandowski.
2008. Oxygen controls the phosphorus release from lake
sediments a long-lasting paradigm in limnology.
International Review of Hydrobiology 93(4-5):415-432.
James, W.F.
2012. Effects of summer aeration system operation on water
quality conditions in Cedar Lake, Wisconsin: 2011.
Unpubl. Report to Cedar Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. 26 March 2012.
Joyce, E.M., X. Wu, and T.J. Mason.
2010. Effect of ultrasonic frequency and power on algae
suspensions. Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
Part A 45:863-866.
Kotopoulis, S., A.Schommartz, and M. Postema.
2009. Sonic cracking of blue-green algae. Applied Acoustics
70:1,306-1,312.
2008. Safety radius for algae eradication at 200 kHz 2.5
MHz. (Abstract). 2008 Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers Ultrasonics Symposium. Beijing, China. November 2-5, 2008. Online at http://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=andarnumber=4803281andurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fieeexplore.
ieee.org%2Fstamp%2Fstamp.jsp%3Ftp%3D%26arnumber%3D4803281. Accessed 02 October 2013.
Ross, Q.E., D.J. Dunning, R. Thorne, J.K. Menezes, G.W. Tiller, and
J.K. Watson.
1993. Response of alewives to high-frequency sound at a
power plant intake on Lake Ontario. North American
Journal of Fish Management 13:291-303.
Sarvazyan, A.P., L.V. Beloussov, M.N. Petropavlovskaya, and T.V.
Ostroumova.
1982. The action of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on
amphibian embryonic tissues (Abstract). Ultrasound in
Medicine and Biology 8(6):639-654.
Silver, S.C.
1980. Ultrasound production during stridulation by hydropsychid larvae (Trichoptera). Journal of Zoology London
191:323-331.
Sonic Solutions.
No date. Owners Manual, SonicSolutions, LLC, Algae Control
System. SonicSolutions, West Hatfield, MA. Online at
https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=trueandurl=http://www.algaecontrol.us/OwnersManual_400_500_600.pdf. Accessed 03 May 2013.
Sueur, J., D. Mackie, and J.F.C. Windmill.
2011. So small, so loud: Extremely high sound pressure level
from a pygmy aquatic insect (Corixidae, Micronectinae). PLoS ONE 6(6): e21089. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0021089.
Tang, J.W., Q.Y. Wu, H.W. Hao, Y. Chen, and M. Wu.
2004. Effect of 1.7 MHz ultrasound on a gas-vacuolate cyanobacterium and a gas-vacuole negative cyanobacterium.
Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 36(2):115-121.
Verspagen, J.M.H., E.O.F.M. Snelder, P.M. Visser, J. Huisman, L.R.
Mur, and B.W. Ibelings.
2004. Recruitment of benthic Microcystis (Cyanophyceae) to
the water column: internal buoyancy changes or resuspension? Journal of Phycology 40:260-270.
Walsby, A.E.
1992. The control of gas-vacuolate cyanobacteria. In: D.W.
Sutcliffe and J.G. Jones (eds.). Eutrophication: Research
and Application to Water Supply. Freshwater Biological
Association, Ambleside, Cumbria.
World Health Organization.
2003. Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments.
Volume 1, Coastal and Fresh Waters. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Wu, M.-Y. and J. Wu.
2007. In-vitro investigations on ultrasonic control of water
chestnut. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 45:76-83.
Wu, X., E.M. Joyce, and T.J. Mason.
2012. Evaluation of the mechanisms of the effect of ultrasound on Microcystis aeruginosa at different ultrasonic
frequencies. Water Research 46:2,851-2,858.
Yoshinaga, K. and H. Kasai.
2002. United States Patent 6,444,176: Apparatus for purification of water area filed 19 April 1999, issued 03
September 2002.
Ross, Q.E., D.J. Dunning, J.K. Menezes, M.J. Kenna Jr., and G. Tiller.
1996. Reducing impingement of alewives with high-frequency
sound at a power plant intake on Lake Ontario. North
American Journal of Fish Management 16:548-559.
10
3 4
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Anabaena sp.
Aphanizomenon sp.
(also misspelled as Amphanizomenon sp.)
Chroococcus sp.
Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii
(Woloszynska) Seenayya & Subba Raju
Heteroleibleinia sp.
Leptolyngbya sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Merismopedia tenuissima Lemmermann
Microcystis sp.
Microcystis sp. (larger colonies)
Oscillatoria
Planktothrix sp.
Pseudanabaena sp.
(also misspelled as Pseudoanabaena sp.)
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Source:*
1 2
This list was compiled from manufacturer and vendor documentation, and a presentation at an aquatic weed control workshop. See source list at end of table.
Appendix A. Industry-reported Effects of Ultrasound Treatment on 13 Cyanobacterial Taxa and 54 Algal Taxa
11
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
is a marine species. Plagioselmis nannoplanctica (Skuja) Novarino, Lucas & Morrall may instead be the correct species
(it was transferred from Rhodomonas minuta var. nannoplanctica Skuja).
1This
Acutodesmus acuminatus
(Lagerheim) Tsarenko (reported as
Scenedesmus acuminates [sic])
Acutodesmus obliquus
(Turpin) Hegewald & Hanagata
(reported as Scenedesmus obliquus)
Ankistrodesmus falcatus (Corda) Ralfs
Aphanochaete sp.
Botryococcus braunii Ktzing
Chara sp.
Chlamydomonas sp.
Chlorella sp.
Chloromonas botrys Pascher
Cladophora sp.
Closterium sp.
Coelastrum sp.
Cosmarium sp.
Crucigenia sp.
Desmodesmus abundans
(Kirchner) Hegewald (reported as
Scenedesmus abundans)
Desmodesmus quadricaudatus
(Turpin) Hegewald (reported as
Scenedesmus quadricauda)
Dictyosphaerium sp.
Gloeocystis sp.
Lagerheimia sp.
Euglena sp.
Phacus sp.
Tribonema sp.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
12
3 4
F
F
F
F
F
F
*Sources:
1. LG Sound. Date unknown. Some algae types proven effectively killed by ultrasound. http://www.ecosmarte.com.au/
sonic/effectiveness.pdf. Accessed 01 May 2013. (Link is no longer active; document is available by request from the authors of this review.)
2. Pond Algae Control from KLM Solutions website (Sonic Solutions vendor). Date unknown. Ultrasonic Algae Control.
http://www.pondalgaecontrol.com/ultrasound.shtml. Accessed 17 July 2013.
3. Stoney Creek Fisheries & Equipment, Inc. website (Impact Tec vendor). Date Unknown. Ultra Sonic Algae Control.
http://www.stoneycreekequip.com/form/ultrasonicinfo.htm. Accessed 17 July 2013.
4. Whatley, K. 2013. How Ultrasonic Technology Kills and Controls Algae. 8 May 2013 Presentation at Aquatic Weed Control Short Course,
Coral Springs, FL. http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aw/Presentations/2-Wednesday/Grand%20Floridian/Session%208b/
0300%20Whatley.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2013.
Micractinium sp.
Nitella sp.
Oedogonium sp.
Oocystis pusilla Hansgirg
Oocystis sp.
Pediastrum sp.
Pithophora sp.
Pseudopediastrum boryanum
(Turpin) E. Hegewald
(reported as Pediastrum boryanum)
Sphaerocystis schroeteri Chodat
Spirogyra sp.
Staurastrum sp.
Stigeoclonium sp.
Ulothrix sp.
F
F
F
F
F
Green Algae (Kingdom Plantae, Phylum Charophyta & Phylum Chlorophyta) continued
Source:*
1 2
Gloeotrichia.
Planktonic algae.
13
14
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge and thank Scott Van Egeren, Brian Weigel, and an anonymous
reviewer for their comments and suggestions which improved this manuscript.
Abbreviations
cm = centimeter
dB = decibel
J = joule
kHz = kilohertz
MHz = megahertz
mL = milliliter
MPa = megapascal
Pa = pascal
m = micrometer
W = watt
Production Credits
Editor: Dreux J. Watermolen
Graphic Design: Michelle E. Voss
Photography: Gina LaLiberte
This and other publications are available on our website at http://dnr.wi.gov, keyword research.
Your name will remain on the mailing list to receive Research Reports unless you ask that we
remove it. Please communicate address corrections to [email protected].
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write
to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
This publication is available in alternative format (large print, Braille, audio tape, etc.) upon request.
Please call Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Science Services, at 608-266-0531
for more information.
Science Services
Follow us on Twitter
www.twitter.com/WDNR
Printed on
recycled paper.