The conclusions of this study center on the flow chart in Figure 8 which explains how the CLS and PARAFAC methods in Solo can be compared as a basis for establishing rapid, reliable analysis methods for differentiating different algal types. The PARAFAC method, when calibrated with pure culture spectra, affords the capacity to rapidly and effectively separate and identify major algal orders (Cyanophyta, Chrysophyta and Chlorophyta). PARAFAC can also possibly identify different types of cyanobacteria more specifically based on evaluation component scores and score ratios. PARAFAC calibration may not yield unique spectral loadings for each algal culture nor necessarily allow unambiguous assignments of spectral components to identifiable physical components in the calibration data set. CLS on the other hand requires calibration with pure culture samples and exhibits the capacity to generate unique, culture-specific spectral component libraries. Further, based on independent cell density and biovolume calculations it was clear the CLS method can potentially provide rapid, reliable estimates of these parameters with high-precision. In conclusion, it is clear that the Aqualog EEM and Solo model analyses show potential for rapid evaluation of algal types and could prove useful in rapid field and laboratory level cyano harmful algal bloom identification, especially when carefully calibrated with pure algal culture samples. Due caution is noted in terms of dealing with the morphological and physiological properties of the samples in terms of spectroscopy and the requirement for due diligence in terms of establishing detection concentration limits in the ranges needed for positive identification. Importantly, it is well known that algal spectral properties are significantly affected by the light-environment, temperature and nutrient conditions among other factors so algal culture methods used for calibration would ideally take these factors into consideration and independent
方案
海藻中EEM,PARAFAC检测方案(分子荧光光谱)