Optimization of seawater collection methods
Selection of collector vials and cleaning procedure
VacuSIP-compatible collecting vessels should have a septum that allows sampling to be initiated by piercing with a syringe needle. They should withstand the elevated underwater pressure (2-3 bars at typical scuba working depths), and should hold a vacuum. Many (but not all brands) of vials approved by the EPA for the analysis of volatile organics meet these criteria. Pre-cleaned vials approved for DOC and DON analysis are also available. To test the suitability of these vials for the collection and analysis of nutrients and to optimize cleaning procedures, high quality double distilled water was collected in acid-cleaned polypropylene tubes (PP tubes), newly purchased, in acid-cleaned high-density polyethylene vials (HDPE vials), and in EPA glass vials, all equipped with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PFTE) septum cap. The HDPE vials and polypropylene tubes were cleaned as described in section 1.5.2 above, and the EPA glass vials were cleaned by the manufacturer.
The amount of NH4+ found in EPA glass vials was relatively minimal (≤ 0.1 µmol L-1) and depends upon the high quality double distilled water standard quality. In contrast, NH4+ concentrations significantly increased (up to 3 and 7 fold, respectively) and exhibited a higher variability in acid-cleaned polypropylene tubes and in high-density polyethylene vials (ANOVA F(5,53)=7.183, p<0.001, Figure 3). There was no effect of high quality double distilled water contact with the silicon septum on the ammonium analysis.
Comparison of new glass vials versus cleaned/recycled glass vials
To test whether EPA glass vials could be utilized for nutrient analysis more than once, the NOx-, PO43-, and NH4+ concentrations in seawater samples collected in new EPA glass vials were compared to those collected in used EPA glass vials. The new EPA glass vials were pre-cleaned by the manufacturer, while the recycled glass vials were cleaned as described above (1.5.2). Recycled vials had significantly higher NH4+ concentration, up to 1.5 fold the level found in new glass vials (t test, p<0.001, n=5). No significant differences were found in NOx- and PO43- content between the samples collected in recycled vials and the samples collected in new glass vials (Figure 4).
Silicate collection and storing procedures
To determine the best sampling vessel for the analysis of silicate, high quality double distilled water was collected in non-cleaned and in acid-cleaned polypropylene tubes (PP tubes), in acid-cleaned high-density polyethylene vials (HDPE vials), and in EPA glass vials. The expected silicate concentration was close to zero, so values that deviated from the expected concentration were considered contaminated. The silicate concentration significantly differed between the samples collected in the different vials (ANOVA, F(3,19)=210.047, p<0.001), showing the lowest SiO4 concentration in the acid-cleaned HDPE vials. Borosilicate glass vials contaminated the samples, with the final SiO4 concentration increasing by up to 7 µmol L-1 (Figure 5).
Selection of filtration apparatus for dissolved organic matter (DOM) and nutrient analysis
To determine which filter apparatus produces the lowest blank in the analysis of dissolved organic (DOC and DON) and inorganic nutrients (NOx-, NH4+, PO43-), stainless steel filter holders were compared to polycarbonate in-line Swinney filter holders. With each filter holder type we tested both polycarbonate membrane and pre-combusted glass fiber filter. The combination of stainless steel filter holder and combusted glass fiber filter provided the lowest blanks, whereas the polycarbonate Swinney filter holder equipped with polycarbonate membrane clearly contaminated the samples by up to 9 fold. Increasing the wash volumes did not resolve this problem (Figure 6).

Figure 3. Ammonium concentration (µmol L-1, average ± SD) collected with different vials: (1) Uncleaned HDPE vial; (2) Cleaned HDPE vial; (3) Cleaned HDPE vial + Parafilm; (4) EPA glass vial; (5) EPA glass vial + Parafilm; (6) Cleaned PP tube. The Parafilm was placed to test whether the silicon septum may contaminate the water samples. For each treatment 9 samples of high quality double distilled water were analyzed. The samples were analyzed fresh. Significant differences were found between the four sampling vessels (ANOVA, F(5,53)=7.183, p<0.001, power test=0.992). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4. Ammonium (NH4+), nitrite + nitrate (NOx-), and phosphate (PO43-) concentrations (µmol L-1, average ± SD) of seawater samples collected in new (dark) and recycled/cleaned (white) EPA glass vials. Seawater was collected at the Experimental Aquaria Zone of the Institute of Marine Science and was filtered with stainless steel filter holder and glass filter. The water samples were analyzed fresh. The asterisk (*) indicates that the difference is significant (t test, p<0.001, n=5, power test=1). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5. Silicate concentration (µmol L-1, average ± SD) in high quality double distilled water collected in different vials: acid-cleaned PP tubes, PP tubes, acid-cleaned HDPE vials, new EPA glass vials. Significant differences were found between the four sampler materials (ANOVA, F(3,19)=210.047, p<0.001, power test=1). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6. Examining the effect of different filtration assemblies and wash volumes on nitrite + nitrate (NOx- µmol L-1). Samples for NOx- were obtained by filtering the seawater samples with stainless steel (SS filter holder) or polycarbonate in-line Swinney filter holders (PC filter holder) equipped with either a polycarbonate membrane (PC filter) or a pre-combusted glass fiber filters. For the PC filters, different volumes (10, 30, 60, 90 and 120 ml) of 5% HCl and high quality double distilled water were used for washing the filter assembly, the washing volume is given in parenthesis in the figure legend. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n=5). Seawater was collected at the Experimental Aquaria Zone of the Institute of Marine Science and the samples were analyzed fresh after the filtration. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7. Example of experimental results: inhaled (IN, black circle) and exhaled (EX, red triangle) paired water sample concentrations (µmol L-1) of different substances processed by the sponge Chondrosia reniformis in the Mediterranean Sea: (A) ammonium (NH4+); (B) nitrite + nitrate (NOx-); (C) phosphate (PO43-); (D) Silicate (SiO4); (E) dissolved organic carbon (DOC); (F) dissolved organic nitrogen (DON); (G) planktonic organic carbon (LPOC); (H) planktonic organic nitrogen (LPON). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8. An example of a flow cytometry analysis of paired water samples drawn from the water inhaled (A,C,E,G) and exhaled (B,D,F,H) by the sponge Chondrosia reniformis: (A,B,C,D) phytoplankton populations; (E,F,G,H) heterotrophic bacteria. In A-B and E-F the sampling was clean and accurate (all planktonic groups were efficiently retained). C-D and G-H are examples of exhaled water contamination, showing low removal of all planktonic groups. Syn: Synechococcus sp., pico: autotrophic picoeukariotes, nano: autotrophic nanoeukaryotes, high: heterotrophic bacteria with high DNA content, low: heterotrophic bacteria with low DNA content. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary Figure 1. Cell retention efficiency of different planktonic prey by the clam Chama pacifica: Prochlorococcus sp. (Pro), Synechococcus sp. (Syn), pico-eukaryotes (Pico Euk), nano-eukaryotes (Nano Euk). Error bars = 95% CI. Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Video 1. Sampling the ascidian Polycarpa mytiligera using a custom-built manipulator with the color code used green for inhaled and yellow for exhaled water samples. Sampling tubes (PEEK, ID 54 µm, 75 cm long) are carefully placed in the exhalant and inhalant siphons of the ascidian. Water is than drawn into evacuated tubes at a rate of ~1 ml min-1. In this demonstration fluorescein dye is used to visualize the exhalant jet. Note that the exhalant sampling tube is placed well within the exhalant jet. Please click here to download this file.