⇒ JAMSTEC: Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technologyhttps://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/3592024-03-29T08:29:23Z2024-03-29T08:29:23ZSediment sampling with a core sampler equipped with aluminum tubes and an onboard processing protocol to avoid plastic contaminationTsuchiya, MasashiNomaki, HidetakaKitahashi, TomoNakajima, RyotaFujikura, Katsunorihttps://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/23522023-08-08T22:31:52Z2019-01-01T00:00:00ZSediment sampling with a core sampler equipped with aluminum tubes and an onboard processing protocol to avoid plastic contamination
Tsuchiya, Masashi; Nomaki, Hidetaka; Kitahashi, Tomo; Nakajima, Ryota; Fujikura, Katsunori
Microplastics are abundant even on the deep-sea
floor far from land and the ocean surface where human
activities take place. To obtain samples of microplastics from the deep-sea
floor, a research vessel and suitable
sampling equipment, such as a multiple corer, a box corer, or a push corer manipulated by a remotely operated
(ROV) or human occupied vehicle (HOV) are needed. Most such corers use sampling tubes made of plastic, such as
polycarbonate, acrylic, or polyvinyl chloride. These plastic tubes are easily scratched by sediment particles, in
particular during collection of coarse sandy sediments, and, consequently, the samples may become
contaminated with plastic from the tube. Here, we report on the use of aluminum tubes with both a multiple
corer and a push corer to prevent such plastic contamination. When compared with plastic tubes, aluminum
tubes have the disadvantages of heavier weight and non-transparency. We suggest ways to overcome these
problems, and we also present an onboard processing protocol to prevent plastic contamination during sediment
core sampling when plastic tubes are used.
- Use of a sediment corer with aluminum tubes reduces the risk of plastic contamination in the sediment samples
- The proposed method allows undisturbed sediment cores to be retrieved with comparable efficiency to
conventional transparent core tubes
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZA new small device made of glass for separating microplastics from marine and freshwater sediments.Nakajima, RyotaTsuchiya, MasashiLindsay, Dhugal J.Kitahashi, TomoFujikura, KatsunoriFukushima, Tomohikohttps://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/23492023-08-08T20:01:00Z2019-01-01T00:00:00ZA new small device made of glass for separating microplastics from marine and freshwater sediments.
Nakajima, Ryota; Tsuchiya, Masashi; Lindsay, Dhugal J.; Kitahashi, Tomo; Fujikura, Katsunori; Fukushima, Tomohiko
Separating microplastics from marine and freshwater sediments is challenging, but
necessary to determine their distribution, mass, and ecological impacts in benthic
environments. Density separation is commonly used to extract microplastics from
sediments by using heavy salt solutions, such as zinc chloride and sodium iodide.
However, current devices/apparatus used for density separation, including glass
beakers, funnels, upside-down funnel-shaped separators with a shut-off valve, etc.,
possess various shortcomings in terms of recovery rate, time consumption, and/or
usability. In evaluating existing microplastic extraction methods using density
separation, we identified the need for a device that allows rapid, simple, and efficient
extraction of microplastics from a range of sediment types. We have developed a
small glass separator, without a valve, taking a hint from an Utermöhl chamber.
This new device is easy to clean and portable, yet enables rapid separation of
microplastics from sediments. With this simple device, we recovered 94–98%
of <1,000 μm microplastics (polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride,
polyethylene terephthalate, and polystyrene). Overall, the device is efficient for
various sizes, polymer types, and sediment types. Also, microplastics collected with
this glass-made device remain chemically uncontaminated, and can, therefore, be
used for further analysis of adsorbing contaminants and additives on/to
microplastics.
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZSurvey protocol for seafloor massive sulfied deposits. Revised edition.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/12422020-03-26T14:17:08Z2018-01-01T00:00:00ZSurvey protocol for seafloor massive sulfied deposits. Revised edition.
Kikawa, Eiichi
A metal deposit is a geological feature in which useful metals have been concentrated to the point of being economically viable for recovery. In other words, in order for a body of rock to be considered a deposit, it must not only meet certain geological criteria, such as metal concentration, but must also meet economic criteria set by the profitability of the production process. In the absence of detailed economic analysis, seafloor minerals cannot meet the strict definition of a deposit. However, due to the general expectation of profitability, these resources are often referred to as "ore deposits." In this protocol, we will use the term seafloor massive sulfide deposit (SMS deposit) in a similar manner.
2018-01-01T00:00:00ZFunctional assessment of microbiota in various environments using MAPLE. Version 1.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/12412020-03-26T14:17:52Z2018-01-01T00:00:00ZFunctional assessment of microbiota in various environments using MAPLE. Version 1.
MAPLE is an automatic system that can perform a series of steps used in the evaluation of potential comprehensive functions (i.e., functionomes) harbored by genomes and metagenomes. From April (2016) through March (2017), MAPLE was accessed 2.5 million times. However, beginners still have difficulty in processing such massive raw datasets produced by NGS prior to data submission to MAPLE and in interpreting MAPLE results, which contain many rows of numerical values. Thus, we now provide a complete system to support every step from initial data processing to final visualization of the MAPLE results.
2018-01-01T00:00:00ZHow to map the resilience of hydrothermal vent fields: a tutorial. Verson 1.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/9012019-04-06T12:26:07Z2019-01-01T00:00:00ZHow to map the resilience of hydrothermal vent fields: a tutorial. Verson 1.
One of the targets for commercial mining is the Seafloor Massive Sulfides (SMSs) deposits
formed around hydrothermal vents, which is a highly attractive source of copper, zinc, lead,
gold and silver ores (Hoagland 2010, Herzig 1999, Binns and Scott 1993, Halbach et al. 1989).
Hydrothermal vents host chemosynthetic communities as well as metal rich ores. The
chemosynthetic communities consist of many endemic invertebrate species specifically
adapted to the vent environment via microbial chemoautotrophic primary production (Van
Dover 2010). These species have provided new scientific insights into the mechanisms by
which organisms adopt to the extreme environment (Jannasch and Wirsen 1979). Furthermore,
as reviewed by Le et al. (2016), ecological function and services of these communities range
from providing habitat and refuge for other species including non-endemic species (Levin et al.
2016, Govenar 2010), playing a key role in global carbon, sulfur and heavy metals cycling
(Jeanthon, 2000, D'Arcy and Amend 2013) and offering new biomolecules that could contribute
to industrial development (Terpe et al. 2013, Mahon et al. 2015).
Mining of seafloor massive sulfide deposits potentially changes the physico-chemical
environment of a vent community through the loss of sulfide habitat, degradation of sulfide
habitat quality, modification of fluid flux regimes and exposure of surrounding seafloor
habitats (including non-sulfide habitats) to sedimentation and heavy metal deposition
(International Seabed Authority 2007, Van Dover 2014). This will directly affect the ecological
community by removing and reclaiming organisms, reducing the amount of habitable substrate
and changing resource supply. Physico-chemical models and organism distribution data have
been integrated to estimate the potential area of sedimentation (Coffey Natural Systems
2008b). However, after the instantaneous effects of a disturbance, the ecological community
will reach a new equilibrium state within the disturbed environment (Ives and Carpenter 2007).
Hence, potential impacts of artificial disturbances, including how they may cause extinction
and modify community structure at different spatial scales (local, regional and global), and
decrease diversity at different biological levels (genetic, species and phylogenetic), will be
understood by considering both direct impacts of mining activities and subsequent ecological responses. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that lack this point of view might
severely underestimate the potential risks of anthropological activities.
2019-01-01T00:00:00ZOnboard bioassay for seawater quality monitoring using delayed fluorescence of microalgae.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/3532021-08-20T21:10:04Z2017-01-01T00:00:00ZOnboard bioassay for seawater quality monitoring using delayed fluorescence of microalgae.
2017-01-01T00:00:00ZMicrostructure Measurements around Deep Sea Floor - direct measurements of the deep-sea turbulence flow. Version 1, 28 Feb 2017.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/3272021-08-20T21:07:20Z2017-01-01T00:00:00ZMicrostructure Measurements around Deep Sea Floor - direct measurements of the deep-sea turbulence flow. Version 1, 28 Feb 2017.
2017-01-01T00:00:00ZAcquisition of Long-Term Monitoring Images near the Deep Seafloor by Edokko Mark I. Version 1, 28 Feb 2017.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/3262021-08-20T21:04:41Z2017-01-01T00:00:00ZAcquisition of Long-Term Monitoring Images near the Deep Seafloor by Edokko Mark I. Version 1, 28 Feb 2017.
2017-01-01T00:00:00ZA rapid method to analyze meiofaunal assemblages using an Imaging Flow Cytometer. Version 1, 01 May 2017.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/3252021-08-20T21:01:57Z2017-01-01T00:00:00ZA rapid method to analyze meiofaunal assemblages using an Imaging Flow Cytometer. Version 1, 01 May 2017.
2017-01-01T00:00:00ZGenetic connectivity survey manuals. Version 1, 01 May 2017.https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/handle/11329/3242021-08-20T20:58:34Z2017-01-01T00:00:00ZGenetic connectivity survey manuals. Version 1, 01 May 2017.
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z