Efficacy of Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf-CL145A) Spray 

Dried Powder for Controlling Zebra Mussels Adhering to 

Test Substrates 

By James A. Luoma, Todd J. Severson, Kerry L. Weber, and Denise A. Mayer 

Open-File Report 2015–1050

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747)

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may

contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items

must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Luoma, J.A., Severson, T.J., Weber, K.L., and Mayer, D.A., 2015, Efficacy of Pseudomonas fluorescens (PfCL145A) spray dried powder for controlling zebra mussels adhering to test substrates: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2015–1050, 519 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151050. 

ISSN 2331–1258 (online)
Acknowledgments

This study was funded through a combination of a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Grant and 

U.S. Geological Survey appropriated funds. The authors thank Jeremy K. Wise (Upper Midwest 

Environmental Science Center) for his technical assistance, which made this study possible; Mark P. 

Gaikowski (Upper Midwest Environmental Science Center), who assisted with study design, data 

analysis, and report preparation; Jon Motquin, (Shawano County Invasive Species Coordinator), who 

assisted with test animal collection and technical support; and Nathan Olson and Elizabeth Murray 

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) and Keith Marquardt (Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources), who assisted with field logistics, test site location, and permitting. 

iii
iv
Contents

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................................iii

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Experimental Design............................................................................................................................................... 3

Test Article .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Test Locations ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

Test System ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Test Animals........................................................................................................................................................ 5

Test Animal Collection and Initial Placement................................................................................................... 5

Preparation and Distribution to the Test System.............................................................................................. 6

Post-Exposure Handling .................................................................................................................................. 6

Survival Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Dosing ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Whole Water Column Application .................................................................................................................... 7

Benthic Injection Application................................................................................................................................ 7

Benthic Injection Application at Lake Carlos ................................................................................................ 8

Benthic Injection Application at Shawano Lake............................................................................................ 8

Exposure Concentrations .................................................................................................................................... 9

Water Chemistry.................................................................................................................................................. 9

Data Analysis............................................................................................................................................................ 10

Zebra Mussel Survival........................................................................................................................................... 10

Results...................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Zebra Mussel Survival........................................................................................................................................... 14

Lake Carlos Whole Water Column Trial ............................................................................................................ 15

Shawano Lake Whole Water Column Trial........................................................................................................ 15

Benthic Injection Trials ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

References Cited...................................................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix 1.Study Protocol, Amendments, and Datasheets...................................................................................... 18

Appendix 2.Deviations from the Study Protocol........................................................................................................ 63

Appendix 3. Randomization Assignments................................................................................................................. 70

Appendix 4.Test Article Information ........................................................................................................................ 239

Appendix 5.Test Animal Information ....................................................................................................................... 272

Appendix 6.Water Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 286

Appendix 7.Spectrophotometric Summary, SAS Program, Output and Log ........................................................... 319

Appendix 8.Survival Assessment Summary ........................................................................................................... 436

Appendix 9.Statistical Analysis including SAS Programs, Outputs and Logs for Survival Data .............................. 451

v 
vi 

Figures

Figure 1. Schematic of mobile bioassay laboratory............................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Example of test substrate with zebra mussels during initial placement (left), 

after adherence (center), and prepared for exposure in a semirigid plastic mesh containment bag (right)................ 5

Figure 3. Example of stacked test substrates (left) and wire mesh cage (right). ................................................... 6

Figure 4. Schematic of benthic injection application system. ................................................................................ 8

Figure 5. Mean (standard deviation) SDP active ingredient concentration of water samples collected 

during the exposure period. WWC graphs are from the surface samples; BI graphs are from bottom samples 

(Lake Carlos) and suspended samples (Shawano Lake)......................................................................................... 14

Tables

Table 1. Mean (standard deviation) water chemistry parameters (dissolved oxygen and temperature) 

and pH range of each treatment group during the study period............................................................................... 11

Table 2. Mean (standard deviation) hardness, alkalinity, and conductivity of filtered (200 micrometers) 

source water collected from the delivery system headboxes prior to exposure. ...................................................... 12

Table 3. Mean (standard deviation) total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and un-ionized ammonia (NH3) 

of each treatment group by lake, application type, and exposure duration. ............................................................. 13

Table 4. Mean (standard deviation) percent zebra mussel survival for each lake, application type,

and exposure duration............................................................................................................................................ 15
Conversion Factors

International System of Units to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

micrometer (μm) 3.937x10-5 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

nanometer (nm) 3.937x10-8 inch (in.)

Area

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

Volume

liter (L) 1.057 quart (qt)

milliliter (mL) 0.03382 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

Flow rate

liter per minute (L/min) 0.2642 gallon per minute (gal/min) 

milliliter per minute (mL/min) 0.0002642 gallon per minute (gal/min)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

milligram (mg) 3.527 x10-5 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Conductivity is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 25 °C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as °F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

vii 
Abbreviations

AEH Aquatic Ecosystem Health

ASTM American Society for Testing and Material

BI benthic injection

CaCO3 calcium carbonate

d day(s) 

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DO dissolved oxygen 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

h hour(s)

ID inside diameter

MBI Marrone Bio Innovations

NH3 un-ionized ammonia

SAS Statistical Analysis Software

SDP spray dried powder

TAN total ammonia nitrogen

Pf-CL145A Pseudomonas fluorescens strain CL145A

UMESC Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WWC whole water column

viii
Efficacy of Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf–CL145A) Spray 

Dried Powder for Controlling Zebra Mussels Adhering to 

Test Substrates 

By James A. Luoma,1 Todd J. Severson,

1 Kerry L. Weber,1 and Denise A. Mayer2

Abstract

A mobile bioassay trailer was used to assess the efficacy of Pseudomonas fluorescens (PfCL145A) spray dried powder (SDP) formulation for controlling zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) 

from two midwestern lakes: Lake Carlos (Alexandria, Minnesota) and Shawano Lake (Shawano, 

Wisconsin). The effects of SDP exposure concentration and exposure duration on zebra mussel survival 

were evaluated along with the evaluation of a benthic injection application technique to reduce the 

amount of SDP required to induce zebra mortality. 

Groups of zebra mussels were collected from each lake and allowed to adhere to test substrates 

for at least 15 days before exposure to SDP. Two independent trials were completed at each lake: (1) a 

whole water column (WWC) application trial was used to evaluate the effects of SDP exposure 

concentration and exposure duration on zebra mussel survival; and (2) a benthic injection (BI) 

application trial in which the SDP was injected into the test tanks to determine the efficacy of a benthic 

injection application technique to reduce the amount of SDP required to induced zebra mussel mortality. 

Three exposure durations (6, 9, and 12 hours) were evaluated in the WWC trials and a 12-hour exposure 

duration was evaluated in the BI trials. All trials contained zebra mussels which were removed at the 

completion of each exposure duration, consolidated into wire mesh cages, and held in the lake for 

approximately 30 days before being assessed for survival. 

For all trials, treatment was assigned to each test tank according to a randomized block design 

(n = 3 test tanks per treatment). The treatment groups included (1) an untreated control group, (2) a 

group that received an application of 50 milligrams of SDP per liter (mg SDP/L), and (3) a group that 

received an application of 100 mg SDP/L. During the BI trials, SDP was administered to achieve the 

desired exposure concentration in the bottom 50 percent (175 L) of the test tank. All exposure 

concentrations are reported as active ingredient. 

Approximately 30 days after exposure, zebra mussels were sorted into live and dead, and 

enumerated. Mean survival of zebra mussels in control treatments exceeded 95 percent. Mean survival 

of zebra mussels in the Lake Carlos WWC SDP-treated groups ranged from 0.5 to 2.1 percent and when 

compared at the same exposure duration, no difference was detected in survival between the 50 and 

100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) treatment groups. Similarly, mean survival of zebra mussels in the 

Shawano Lake WWC SDP-treated groups ranged from 2.0 to 12.6 percent and when compared at the 

same exposure duration, no difference was detected in survival between the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment 

1

 U.S. Geological Survey 

2 New York State Education Department

Page 1 of 519

 
groups. Mean survival of zebra mussels in the Lake Carlos BI trial SDP-treated groups did not differ 

(p = 0.93) and was 18.1 and 18.0 percent in the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups, respectively. Mean 

survival of zebra mussels in the Shawano Lake BI trial SDP-treated groups differed (p < 0.01) and was 

2.9 and 0.9 percent in the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups, respectively. Survival of zebra mussels 

assigned to the SDP-treated groups in the Lake Carlos WWC trial (12-hour exposure duration) differed 

from the survival of zebra mussels assigned to the SDP-treated groups in the Lake Carlos BI trial; 

however, after modification of the BI application technique, no difference (p = 0.22) was detected 

between the survival of zebra mussel in the Shawano Lake WWC (12-hour exposure duration) and BI 

trials. 

Introduction 

Freshwater mussels native to North America (order Unionoida) are considered the most diverse 

in the world, consisting of approximately 297 recognized taxa, but they have been declining at an 

alarming rate due to anthropogenic activities such as pollution, habitat alteration, and over harvest 

(Williams and others, 1993; Neves and others, 1997). A survey completed by the Nature Conservancy 

revealed 55 percent of North America’s mussels are either extinct or imperiled (Master, 1990). The 

North American mussel extinction rate is predicted to be 6.4 percent per decade, which equates to the 

extinction of 127 species in the next 100 years (Ricciardi and Rasmussen, 1999). This prediction may be 

conservative, as it did not account for the invasion of North American waterways by dreissenid mussels 

(zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha and quagga mussel, Dreissena bugensis). 

Dreissenid mussels are ideal invaders due to their high fecundity and their planktonic larvae, 

which are capable of dispersal over vast areas (Birnbaum, 2011). Dreissenid mussels pose a serious 

ecological threat and negatively affect many native aquatic species, particularly freshwater mussels. 

Dreissenid mussels can quickly inundate freshwater mussels and cause obstruction of valve movement 

as well as inhibition of feeding and respiration (Burlakova and others, 2000) resulting in an increased 

cost of metabolism, decreased fitness, and ultimately death (Baker and Hornbach, 1997). 

Natural resource managers lack readily available, environmentally safe, and effective tools for 

controlling dreissenid mussels in open-water environments. One potential tool for limited open-water 

control of dreissenid mussels is a commercially formulated spray dried powder (SDP) formulation of 

Pseudomonas fluorescens (Zequanox®), produced by Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (MBI; Davis, 

California), which contains nonviable cells of a specific strain (CL145A) of the common soil bacterium 

Pseudomonas fluorescens. The SDP formulation was developed by MBI and registered by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency for control non-native dreissenid (zebra and quagga) mussels in raw 

water conduit systems (that is, industrial cooling and irrigation systems, and so forth) and it has recently 

been approved for use in limited open-water environments. 

The objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate the potential use of Pseudomonas fluorescens

spray dried powder (SDP) formulation for controlling zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in limited 

open-water environments; and (2) to evaluate the use of a benthic injection (BI) application technique to 

reduce the amount of SDP required to induce zebra mussel mortality. 

The applications for this study were completed in the Upper Midwest Environmental Science 

Center’s (UMESC) mobile bioassay laboratory, which used water and test animals from two 

midwestern lakes: Lake Carlos (Alexandria, Minnesota) and Shawano Lake (Shawano, Wisconsin). This 

final study report summarizes four separate field trials with activities carried out from October, 2011 to 

November, 2013. Applications of SDP were completed on August 15 and 17, 2012 at Lake Carlos and 

on September 6 and 8, 2012 at Shawano Lake.

Page 2 of 519
Materials and Methods

All methods and materials followed the written protocol and its amendments, except those 

instances that were identified as deviations (appendix 2, items 1–6). The study protocol and 

amendments for this study are contained in appendix 1 (items 1–2). 

Experimental Design

The study SDP applications were completed within the UMESC mobile bioassay laboratory, 

which used water and test animals from two midwestern lakes: Lake Carlos (Alexandria, Minn.) and 

Shawano Lake (Shawano, Wis.). Survival of zebra mussels was assessed approximately 30 days after

exposure to SDP. Groups of zebra mussels were collected from each lake and allowed to adhere to 

perforated aluminum test substrates for at least 15 days before exposure to SDP. Zebra mussels adhering 

to the test substrates were exposed to SDP in a series of nine 350-liter (L) test. Two independent trials 

were completed at each test location (1) a whole water column (WWC) application trial, which 

evaluated the effects of SDP exposure concentration and exposure duration on zebra mussel survival, 

and (2) a BI application trial, which evaluated the use of a BI application technique to reduce the 

amount of SDP required to induce zebra mussel mortality. 

Treatments were administered in triplicate according to a randomized block design (appendix 3, 

items 1, 4, 7, and 10) and included (1) an untreated control group, (2) a group that received an 

application of 50 milligrams SDP per liter (mg SDP/L), and (3) a group that received an application of 

100 mg SDP/L. The experimental unit was the individual test tank. Test substrates with adhering zebra 

mussels were distributed to test tanks according to a random distribution scheme (appendix 3, items 2, 

5, 8, and 11). 

Each WWC test tank contained nine test substrates with adhering zebra mussels and each BI test 

tank contained either three (Lake Carlos) or four (Shawano Lake) test substrates with adhering zebra 

mussels. Upon exposure termination during the WWC trials (6, 9, and 12 hours), three randomly 

selected test substrates were removed from each test tank. Upon exposure termination during the BI 

trials (12 hours), all test substrates were removed from each test tank. After exposure, the test substrates 

with adhering zebra mussels were consolidated into wire mesh cages, which were placed in 

approximately 2.5 meters (m) of water for the post-exposure period. Approximately 30 days after SDP 

exposure, zebra mussels were sorted into live and dead, and enumerated. Zebra mussels from one test 

substrate of each treatment level and exposure duration were retained in 70 percent isopropyl alcohol for 

length measurement.

Test Article

The test article was a commercially prepared SDP formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens, 

strain CL145A containing 50 percent active ingredient (weight to weight ratio [w/w] P. fluorescens,

strain CL145A). The test article was provided by the manufacturer as a mixed lot (401P12163C and 

401P12164C; Certificates of Analysis, appendix 4, items 3 and 4). Test article use was documented in 

the test chemical log books (appendix 4, items 9–13). Concentrations of the test article are reported as 

active ingredient. Retention of test article biological activity was assessed after exposure by New York 

State Museum Field Research Laboratory (Cambridge, New York) using their standard dreissenid 

mussel bioassay (appendix 4, item 8). Results of the biological activity bioassay demonstrated a mean 

(standard deviation) mortality of 70.7 percent (4.6) at 200 mg/L, which was similar to mean mortality 

exhibited by the cell fraction positive control which was 73.3 percent (8.3), confirming the biological 

activity of the test article. 

Page 3 of 519
Test Locations

Two midwestern lakes with different water-quality characteristics were the test locations and the 

source of the test water and test animals. Lake Carlos is a 1,020-hectare (ha) mesotrophic lake located 

near Alexandria, Minn., and it is the deepest natural lake in Minnesota (excluding Lake Superior), with 

a maximum depth of 49.7 m. Shawano Lake is a 2,515-ha eutrophic lake located in Shawano, Wis., with 

a maximum depth of 12 m. Zebra mussels were first reported in Shawano Lake in 2002 and in Lake 

Carlos in 2009 (Turyk and others, 2008; Engel and others, 2010). 

Test System

The test system was a series of nine independent circular test tanks (76 x 95 centimeters (cm), 

diameter x height; 350 L capacity) contained within the UMESC mobile bioassay laboratory. The test 

tanks were positioned in two rows with four test tanks in one row and five test tanks in the other (fig. 1).

Test substrates were used as the medium to facilitate zebra mussel handling during the study period. The 

test substrates were constructed of perforated aluminum (4.8 millimeter (mm) hole, 51 percent open 

area, 1.6 mm thick) folded into trays (15.2 x 15.2 x 2.5 cm, length x width x height [fig. 2]). 

Test water was supplied to the test system from a 3-horsepower submersible well pump (ITT 

Goulds Pumps, Seneca Falls, N.Y., model 18GS30). The water was filtered (200 micrometers [μm]) 

using a microscreen filtration system (Forstra Filter Inc., Los Angeles, California; model M1-90), 

delivered to two headboxes (30.5 x 55.9 x 114.3 x 30.5 cm, width x length x height; one headbox per 

test tank row), and gravity fed to each test tank at approximately 6 liters per minute, providing 

approximately one tank-exchange per hour. Water flow was interrupted during the exposure period. 

Untreated water was discharged to the lake; SDP-treated water was collected in frame tanks and 

removed by a state-licensed septic hauler and disposed of by land application (Minnesota) or discharge 

to a sanitary sewer system (Wisconsin).

Figure 1. Schematic of mobile bioassay laboratory.

Page 4 of 519
Figure 2. Example of test substrate with zebra mussels during initial placement (left), after adherence (center), 

and prepared for exposure in a semirigid plastic mesh containment bag (right).

Test Animals

Zebra mussels were collected from existing colonies within each lake and placed on test 

substrates. Zebra mussels adhering to the test substrates immediately prior to allocation to the test tanks 

were used as the test animals. Mean shell length for the zebra mussels used in the Lake Carlos trials 

ranged from 11.26 to 11.85 mm and the mean shell length for the zebra mussels used in the Shawano 

Lake trials ranged from 18.27 to 18.74 mm (appendix 5, items 2–5).

Test Animal Collection and Initial Placement

In October and November 2011, natural substrates (that is, rocks, sticks, and native mussels) 

with adhering zebra mussels were collected from each lake and the zebra mussels were removed by 

severing the byssus with a scalpel. Zebra mussels were held in coolers containing lake water until 

placed onto the test substrates. Approximately 200 to 300 zebra mussels were indiscriminately selected 

and placed on each test substrate. After zebra mussel placement, wood spacers (≈ 2 cm thick) were used 

to separate the test substrates (fig. 3) before they were secured in vertical stacks (≈ 10 substrates per 

stack). Six stacks were placed in each of three wire mesh cages at each lake (≈ 180 substrates per lake; 

fig. 3). The wire mesh cages were placed in ≈ 2 m of water to allow for zebra mussel adherence through 

winter. Due to poor overwinter survival, zebra mussels on the Shawano Lake test substrates were 

replaced in August of 2012 following the procedures previously described. The zebra mussels used in 

the Shawano Lake trial were allowed to adhere to the test substrates ≈ 16 days prior to exposure. 

Page 5 of 519
 

Figure 3. Example of stacked test substrates (left) and wire mesh cage (right). 

Preparation and Distribution to the Test System

One day prior to SDP exposure, test substrates were inverted to dislodge non-adhering zebra 

mussels. Moribund zebra mussels and shell fragments were removed from each test substrate with 

forceps. Test substrates with adhering zebra mussels were placed into a uniquely identified semirigid 

plastic mesh containment bags (20.3 x 25.4 x 5.1 cm; 0.32 x 0.42 cm openings) and randomly allocated 

to test tanks (appendix 3, items 2, 5, 8, and 11). The WWC trials at both lakes received nine test 

substrates per test tank (three per exposure duration), whereas the BI trials received three (Lake Carlos) 

or four (Shawano Lake) test substrates per test tank.

 Post-Exposure Handling

Upon exposure termination (that is, 6, 9, and 12 hours [h] for WWC; 12 h for BI), test substrates 

were removed from the test tanks according to a randomization scheme (appendix 3, items 3, 6, 9, and 

12) and consolidated in wire mesh cages. Test substrates removed from all test tanks at each exposure 

duration were indiscriminately placed into a single wire mesh cage (for example, all test substrates 

removed at 6 h were placed into the same wire mesh cage). The wire mesh cages were placed in ≈ 2.5 m 

of water, in the respective lake, for the ≈ 30-day post-exposure period. 

Survival Assessment 

Zebra mussel survival was assessed 26–27 days after SDP exposure at Lake Carlos and 32–34 

days after SDP exposure at Shawano Lake. Survival was determined by examining valve movement in 

response to mechanical stimuli or resistance to valve pressure by adductor muscle contraction. Zebra 

mussels < 6 mm were excluded from the analyses because they could readily pass through the plastic 

Page 6 of 519
mesh containment bags and because of the potential for inconsistent survival assessment of small 

mussels (that is, inconsistent assessment of adductor muscle response). Zebra mussels from each test 

substrate were sorted into groups of live or dead and enumerated. Zebra mussels from one test substrate 

at each treatment level and exposure duration were indiscriminately selected and retained in 70 percent

isopropyl alcohol to measure for shell length with digital calipers. 

Dosing

Stock solutions used to administer treatments were prepared by adding pre-weighed aliquots of 

SDP (appendix 4, items 5 and 6) into known volumes of filtered (200 μm) lake water and mechanically 

mixing with a paint mixer attached to an electric drill for 3–5 minutes. The solution was then 

immediately poured through a mesh colander and any clumps of SDP were pulverized with a pestle and 

rinsed into the stock solution with filtered lake water. During all trials, control treatments were 

completed using the same methods as the SDP-treated groups with the exception that no SDP was 

applied. For all trials, concentrations of SDP are reported as active ingredient. 

Whole Water Column Application

Separate stock solutions were prepared for each test tank replicate in the WWC trials. Stock 

solutions for the WWC were prepared by adding SDP (35 grams [g] for the 50 milligrams per liter 

[mg/L] treatment; 70 g for the 100-mg/L treatment) to ≈ 8 L of water removed from each test tank. 

Immediately after preparation, each stock was poured into the respective test tank and gently mixed with 

the test tank water.

Benthic Injection Application

An injection system was constructed to treat the bottom 50 percent (175 L) of each test tank 

during the BI trials (fig. 4). A peristaltic pump (Masterflex Digi-staltic drive, model 77310; ColeParmer, Vernon Hills, Illinois) was used to inject the SDP stock at the selected depth in each test tank 

through a delivery apparatus consisting of four peristaltic tubing lines (Masterflex L/S 14 tubing; 

1.6 mm Inside Diameter [ID]), which terminated with dispersion nozzles designed to disperse test article 

horizontally in the water column. Each dispersion nozzle was constructed from a modified plastic 

cylindrical check valve (Penn-Plax, Inc.; model CV1 check-valve/air-filter; Hauppauge, N.Y.) with four 

2-mm holes drilled around the circumference (fig. 4). At Shawano Lake, the SDP stock concentrations 

were diluted, the stock delivery rate was increased, and the injection height was raised to decrease SDP 

settling. 

Page 7 of 519
Figure 4. Schematic of benthic injection application system.

Benthic Injection Application at Lake Carlos

Separate 15,000 and 30,000 mg SDP/L stock solutions were prepared for the 50- and 100-mg/L 

Lake Carlos BI treatment applications, respectively. Approximately 583 milliliters (mL) of the 

appropriate stock solution was delivered to each test tank at 62 mL/minute, resulting in delivery of 

≈ 8,750 and 17,500 mg of SDP to each 50 and 100 mg/L test tank replicate, respectively. The amount of 

stock solution injected was the volume required to achieve the target SDP exposure concentration in the 

bottom 50 percent (175 L) of the test tank. The stock solution was delivered ≈ 19 cm from the bottom of 

each test tank. 

Benthic Injection Application at Shawano Lake

Separate 2,500 and 5,000 mg SDP/L stock solutions were prepared for the 50- and 100-mg/L 

Shawano Lake BI treatment applications, respectively. Approximately 3,500 mL of the appropriate 

stock solution was delivered to each test tank at 350 mL/minute, resulting in delivery of ≈ 8,750 and 

17,500 mg of SDP to each 50 and 100 mg/L test tank replicate, respectively. The amount of stock 

solution injected was the volume required to achieve the target SDP exposure concentration in the 

bottom 50 percent (175 L) of the test tank. The stock solution was delivered ≈ 38 cm from the bottom of 

each test tank. 

Page 8 of 519
Exposure Concentrations 

Water samples were collected for SDP exposure concentration determination from different 

locations within test tanks depending on application type (WWC or BI) and trial location. Surface 

samples were collected by submersing a 50-mL beaker below the water surface. Suspended (≈ 15 or 

19 cm from the test tank bottom) and bottom samples (Lake Carlos BI trial only) were collected from 

test tanks using a peristaltic pump (Masterflex Digi-staltic drive, model 77310; Cole-Parmer, Vernon 

Hills, Ill.) fitted with four 1.6-mm ID collection lines. Approximately 200 mL of exposure water was 

purged through peristaltic tubing and discarded before sample collection. 

Exposure concentrations were determined by comparing the test tank water sample absorbance 

to a linear regression curve created from known active ingredient concentrations of SDP (25, 50, 100, 

and 200 mg/L). Absorbance was measured using a Barnstead/Turner SP-830 Plus spectrophotometer 

(model SM110215) at 660 nanometers (nm). Linear regression equations were fit using the Statistical 

Analysis Software Proc Reg procedure (SAS® Version 9.3, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina). 

The exposure concentrations were predicted from the regression analysis (appendix 7, items 2–4, 6–8, 

10–12, 14–16). The known concentrations of SDP used to create the linear regression were maintained 

at approximately 4 degrees Celsius (oC) and measured for absorbance at 6, 9, and 12 h after treatment 

administration to ensure proper spectrophotometer function with the exception of the Lake Carlos 

WWC trial, in which the known concentrations were measured at 9 and 12 h. 

The SDP exposure concentrations in the Lake Carlos WWC trial were determined from surface 

water samples at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h and suspended (≈ 15 cm) water samples at 3, 6, 9, and 12 h. The 

SDP exposure concentrations in the Lake Carlos BI trial were determined from suspended (≈ 19 cm) 

water samples at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h and from bottom water samples at 6, 9, and 12 h. Because sample 

absorbance was below the detection limit, samples from control test tanks were not analyzed for SDP 

concentration during the Lake Carlos trials. Control water samples were analyzed for SDP in the 

Shawano Lake trials, and were below the detection limit. The SDP exposure concentrations in the 

Shawano Lake WWC trial were determined from surface water and suspended (≈ 15 cm) water samples 

at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h. The SDP exposure concentrations in the Shawano Lake BI trial were determined 

from surface water and suspended (≈ 15 cm) water samples at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h. 

Water Chemistry

Dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, hardness, alkalinity, and conductivity were measured ≈ 1 h 

prior to treatment administration from filtered lake water samples collected from the distribution 

headboxes. Dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature were measured in each test tank within 1 h and 

≈ 3, 6, 9, and 12 h after treatment administration during the WWC and BI trials. 

Water samples for total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) analysis were collected 12 h after SDP 

application during all trials and at 6 and 9 h after SDP application during the Lake Carlos WWC trial. 

Water samples were filtered (0.45 μm), acidified with 10 percent sulfuric acid to ≤ pH 2.5, and stored at 

≈ 4 oC until analyzed for TAN by the UMESC water-quality laboratory using the automated phenate 

method (Standard Method 4500G; American Public Health Association, 2012). Un-ionized ammonia 

concentrations were calculated from TAN, pH, and temperature from time of sample collection using 

the formula identified by Emerson and others (1975). 

Four data loggers (Onset Inc, Bourne, Massachusetts; HOBO® Pendent Temperature/Light Data 

Logger, model UA-002064) were attached to the wire mesh cages at each lake and used to measure 

water temperature four times daily during the post-exposure period. 

Page 9 of 519
Data Analysis

Data analyses for water chemistry parameters were limited to simple summary statistics; 

comparative statistics were not generated. Exposure concentration means were determined using SAS®

software version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, N.C.). The SAS® software Proc Means procedure was 

used to determine the mean exposure concentration by individual test tank, treatment group, and 

exposure duration (appendix 7, items 2–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–16). Because of observations of SDP settling 

and non-detectable levels of SDP in the suspended water samples, the bottom water sample exposure 

concentrations for the Lake Carlos BI trial are reported. The suspended water exposure concentrations 

for Shawano Lake BI trials are reported due to negligible (≤ 3mg/L) SDP exposure concentrations 

measured in the surface water samples.

Zebra Mussel Survival

Statistical comparisons of zebra mussel survival were completed using SAS® software version 

9.3. Significance was declared at α ≤ 0.05. A generalized linear mixed model was used to analyze the 

survival of zebra mussels in each treatment group (appendix 9, items 1–3). The proportion of mortalities 

(number of dead zebra mussels compared to the total number of zebra mussels in the sample) was 

modeled using the SAS® software Proc GLIMMIX procedure with a binomial distribution and a logit 

link function. A scale parameter was added to the model using the SAS® software random_residual_ 

statement. Zebra mussel survival in each treatment group was individually compared to the zebra 

mussel survival in the untreated control group using a two-sided means comparison test.

Results

Water chemistry parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature) collected from the test 

tanks are summarized in table 1 and the water chemistry data are in appendix 6 (items 1–14). Water 

hardness, alkalinity, and conductivity are summarized in table 2. Dissolved oxygen levels remained 

above the minimum threshold recommended for freshwater mussels (4.0 mg/L, ASTM International, 

2013) and the mean TAN remained below the criterion for acute exposure and below 4-day maximum 

criterion for chronic exposure during the exposure period (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2013; table 3). Mean daily temperatures ranged from 20.6 to 24.4 °C (Lake Carlos) and from 10.1 to 

21.5 °C (Shawano Lake) during the post-exposure period. 

Page 10 of 519
Table 1. Mean (standard deviation) water chemistry parameters (dissolved oxygen and temperature) and pH 

range of each treatment group during the study period. 

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; DO, dissolved oxygen; °C, degrees Celsius]

Water chemistry 

parameter

Treatment 

group (mg/L)

Preexposure1 ≤1 h 3 h 6 h 9 h 12 h

Lake Carlos whole water column application

DO (mg/L) 0 8.77 (0.02) 8.72 (0.04) 8.58 (0.09) 8.51 (0.04) 8.25 (0.03) 8.11 (0.01)

50 8.76 (0.01) 8.66 (0.02) 8.42 (0.01) 8.21 (0.04) 7.80 (0.09) 6.62 (0.13)

100 8.76 (0.01) 8.64 (0.01) 8.38 (0.04) 8.06 (0.10) 7.74 (0.07) 6.84 (0.07)

pH 0 8.62–8.64 8.60–8.63 8.56–8.58 8.54–8.58 8.25–8.31 8.55–8.58

50 8.61–8.65 8.57 8.47–8.49 8.47–8.49 8.20–8.21 8.33–8.35

100 8.60–8.63 8.53 8.37–8.39 8.37–8.39 8.12 8.21–8.24

Temperature (°C) 0 22.2 (<0.1) 22.3 (<0.1) 22.4 (<0.1) 22.5 (<0.1) 22.5 (<0.1) 22.5 (<0.1)

50 22.1 (<0.1) 22.3 (<0.1) 22.4 (<0.1) 22.5 (0.0) 22.4 (0.1) 22.4 (<0.1)

100 22.2 (0.0) 22.3 (0.0) 22.4 (<0.1) 22.5 (<0.1) 22.4 (0.1) 22.4 (0.1)

Shawano Lake whole water column application

DO (mg/L) 0 7.34 (0.02) 7.24 (0.07) 7.07 (0.03) 6.85 (0.06) 6.63 (0.02) 6.43 (0.10)

50 7.36 (0.02) 7.24 (0.04) 6.97 (0.10) 6.57 (0.08) 5.86 (0.19) 4.22 (0.64)

100 7.36 (0.01) 7.25 (0.07) 7.01 (0.03) 6.56 (0.08) 6.03 (0.18) 4.79 (0.55)

pH 0 9.31–9.34 9.27–9.28 9.23–9.24 9.14–9.15 9.12–9.16 9.02–9.08

50 9.33–9.34 9.22 9.11–9.14 9.06–9.08 8.99–9.02 8.73–8.85

100 9.34 9.14–9.16 9.07–9.08 8.97–9.00 8.87–8.93 8.62–8.73

Temperature (°C) 0 22.6 (0.0) 22.0 (<0.1) 22.0 (0.2) 22.1 (0.3) 22.2 (0.4) 22.0 (0.4)

50 22.6 (<0.1) 21.9 (0.1) 21.9 (0.1) 21.9 (0.2) 21.9 (0.2) 21.8 (0.2)

100 22.6 (0.0) 21.9 (<0.1) 21.9 (0.1) 22.0 (0.1) 22.0 (0.1) 21.8 (0.1)

Lake Carlos benthic injection application

DO (mg/L) 0 8.42 (0.01) 7.97 (0.02) 7.97 (0.02) 7.95 (0.03) 7.84 (0.05) 7.79 (0.05)

50 8.40 (0.02) 7.97 (0.02) 7.97 (0.02) 7.83 (0.05) 7.81 (0.01) 7.16 (0.26)

100 8.40 (0.03) 7.90 (0.08) 7.95 (0.02) 7.91 (0.02) 7.81 (0.05) 7.24 (0.14)

pH 0 8.70 8.52–8.59 8.51–8.55 8.47–8.50 8.38–8.39 8.55–8.58

50 8.70 8.60–8.61 8.55 8.48 8.38–8.41 8.12–8.20

100 8.69–8.70 8.57–8.60 8.52–8.55 8.44–8.48 8.39–8.41 7.18–7.39

Temperature (°C) 0 21.2 (0.0) 21.3 (0.0) 21.2 (0.0) 21.5 (0.1) 21.4 (0.2) 21.0 (0.1)

50 21.2 (<0.1) 21.3 (0.0) 21.2 (<0.1) 21.7 (0.3) 21.6 (0.3) 21.1 (0.2)

100 21.2 (0.0) 21.3 (0.1) 21.3 (<0.1) 21.6 (0.1) 21.5 (0.1) 21.1 (0.1)

Page 11 of 519
Water chemistry 

parameter

Treatment 

group (mg/L)

Preexposure1 ≤1 h 3 h 6 h 9 h 12 h

Shawano Lake benthic injection application

DO (mg/L) 0 7.41 (0.01) 7.26 (0.01) 7.15 (0.07) 7.02 (0.01) 6.98 (0.04) 6.63 (0.02)

50 7.43 (<0.1) 7.22 (0.03) 7.23 (0.01) 7.28 (0.02) 7.14 (0.07) 5.11 (0.67)

100 7.44 (<0.1) 7.17 (0.03) 7.23 (0.03) 7.29 (0.03) 7.24 (0.01) 6.21 (0.34)

pH 0 9.10–9.12 9.05–9.06 9.02–9.03 8.91–8.94 8.64–8.68 8.92–8.94

50 9.13–9.14 9.02–9.04 9.02–9.04 8.93–8.95 8.69–8.71 8.69–8.88

100 9.13–9.14 8.99–9.01 9.03 8.95–8.96 8.69–8.71 8.58–8.68

Temperature (°C) 0 19.5 (0.0) 18.2 (0.1) 18.4 (0.3) 18.6 (0.3) 18.5 (0.2) 18.2 (0.2)

50 19.5 (0.0) 18.2 (<0.1) 18.4 (0.1) 18.5 (0.2) 18.4 (0.2) 18.2 (0.1)

100 19.5 (0.0) 18.0 (0.1) 18.1 (0.1) 18.2 (0.1) 18.2 (0.1) 17.9 (0.1)

1

Pre-exposure time points were measured approximately 1 h prior to test article application.

Table 2. Mean (standard deviation) hardness, alkalinity, and conductivity of filtered (200 micrometers) source 

water collected from the delivery system headboxes prior to exposure. 

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; <, less-than; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; °C, degrees 

Celsius]

Application type Hardness (mg/L)1 Alkalinity (mg/L)1 Conductivity 

(μS/cm)2

Lake Carlos

Whole water column 177 (1) 163 (1) 395 (1)

Benthic injection 177 (1) 164 (<1) 363 (3)

Shawano Lake

Whole water column 118 (1) 105 (<1) 248 (2)

Benthic injection 125 (1) 112 (1) 231 (2)

1

Reported as milligrams per liter CaCO3.

2

Temperature compensated to 25 °C.

Page 12 of 519
Table 3. Mean (standard deviation) total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and un-ionized ammonia (NH3) of each 

treatment group by lake, application type, and exposure duration. 

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; h, hours; WWC, whole water column application; BI, benthic injection application; TAN, total 

ammonia nitrogen; SD, standard deviation; NH3, un-ionized ammonia; mg NH3-N/L, milligrams un-ionized ammonia 

nitrogen per liter; -, no sample]

Water 

chemistry 

parameter

Treatment 

group 

(mg/L)

6 h WWC 9 h WWC 12 h WWC 12 h BI

Lake Carlos

TAN1 (SD) 0 0.17 (<0.01) 0.17 (<0.01) 0.24 (0.01) 0.22 (0.01)

50 0.22 (0.01) 0.23 (<0.01) 0.33 (0.01) 0.40 (0.01)

100 0.27 (<0.01) 0.27 (0.00) 0.34 (0.01) 1.37 (0.18)

NH3 (SD) 0 0.03 (<0.01) 0.01 (<0.01) 0.04 (<0.01) 0.03 (<0.01)

50 0.03 (<0.01) 0.02 (0.00) 0.03 (<0.01) 0.02 (<0.01)

100 0.03 (<0.01) 0.02 (0.00) 0.03 (0.00) 0.01 (<0.01)

Shawano Lake 

TAN1 (SD) 0 - - 0.13 (<0.01) 0.06 (0.01)

50 - - 0.19 (0.01) 0.11 (0.01)

100 - - 0.23 (0.01) 0.16 (0.01)

NH3 (SD) 0 - - 0.04 (<0.01) 0.01 (<0.01)

50 - - 0.04 (<0.01) 0.02 (<0.01)

100 - - 0.04 (<0.01) 0.02 (<0.01)

1

Total ammonia nitrogen reported as mg NH3-N/L.

Mean exposure concentrations during the exposure period are shown in figure 5. The SAS®

software linear regression, SAS® software predicted exposure concentrations, and data are in appendix 7 

(items 1–16). In the Lake Carlos and Shawano Lake WWC trials, the surface water exposure 

concentrations are reported due to negligible differences between the measured exposure concentrations 

in the surface water and suspended water samples (mean difference ≤ 0.46 and 0.93 mg/L for the 50- 

and 100-mg/L treatment groups, respectively). Mean test tank SDP exposure concentrations in surface 

water samples during the Lake Carlos WWC trial (that is, 6-, 9-, and 12-h exposure durations) ranged 

from 43.9 to 47.3 mg/L and 90.2 to 95.3 mg/L in the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups, respectively 

Page 13 of 519
(fig. 5). Mean test tank SDP concentrations in surface water samples during the Shawano Lake WWC 

trial (that is, 6-, 9-, and 12-h exposure durations) ranged from 43.8 to 45.9 mg/L and 93.8 to 99.3 mg/L 

in the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups, respectively.

The SDP concentrations were below the detection limit in the initial suspended samples 

collected during the Lake Carlos BI trial; therefore, bottom sampling was initiated at 6 hours and 

continued throughout the duration of the exposure period. The mean SDP concentrations in the bottom 

samples were 100.3 mg/L for the 50-mg/L treatment group and 234.7 mg/L for the 100-mg/L treatment 

group. Mean SDP concentrations in suspended samples collected during the Shawano Lake BI trial were 

38.8 mg/L for the 50-mg/L treatment group and 92.9 mg/L for the 100-mg/L treatment group.

Figure 5. Mean (standard deviation) SDP active ingredient concentration of water samples collected during the 

exposure period. WWC graphs are from the surface samples; BI graphs are from bottom samples (Lake Carlos) 

and suspended samples (Shawano Lake)

Zebra Mussel Survival

Zebra mussel survival for all trials is summarized in table 4, statistical analyses are in appendix 9 

(items 1–3), and survival data are in appendix 8 (items 1–5). For all trials (that is, WWC at 6, 9, and 

12 h; BI at 12 h), mean survival of control groups exceeded 95 percent and zebra mussel survival in the 

SDP-treated groups differed (p < 0.01) from survival in the control groups. 

Page 14 of 519
Table 4. Mean (standard deviation) percent zebra mussel survival for each lake, application type, and exposure

duration. 

[Means within columns and rows (for each lake) with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05); means were 

compared by concentration (a-c), exposure duration (m,n) and between whole water column 12 h exposure duration and 

benthic injection 12 h exposure duration (y,z); mg/L, milligrams per liter; h, hours; WWC, whole water column application; 

BI, benthic injection application]

Test location Treatment 

group (mg/L) 6 h 9 h 12 h 12 h 

WWC BI

Lake Carlos 0 97.8am (2.2) 96.9am (1.8) 97.3amz (1.0) 97.3az (1.4)

50 1.3bm (1.0) 1.1bm (1.5) 0.6bmy (0.6) 18.1bz (7.3)

100 2.1bm (1.2) 0.5bn (0.7) 0.6bny (0.7) 18.0bz (10.4)

Shawano Lake 0 95.6am (2.4) 95.5am (1.4) 96.2amz (1.3) 95.5az (2.3)

50 12.6bm (10.7) 10.3bm (9.4) 2.7bnz (2.8) 2.9bz (1.6)

100 7.2bm (6.6) 4.7bmn (5.5) 2.0bnz (1.9) 0.9cz (1.0)

Lake Carlos Whole Water Column Trial

Mean survival of zebra mussels in the Lake Carlos WWC SDP-treated groups ranged from 0.5 to 

2.1 percent. When compared at the same exposure duration, no difference in zebra mussel survival was 

detected between the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups. When comparing the effects of exposure 

duration by treatment group, the only difference in zebra mussel survival detected was in the 100-mg/L 

treatment group, when the 6-h exposure duration group was compared to the 9-h and 12-h exposure 

duration groups (p ≤ 0.01). 

Shawano Lake Whole Water Column Trial

Mean survival of zebra mussels in the Shawano Lake WWC SDP-treated groups ranged from 

2.0 to 12.6 percent. When compared at the same exposure duration, no difference (p > 0.11) in zebra 

mussel survival was detected between the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups. When comparing the 

effects of exposure duration by treatment group, no difference was detected in control group survival 

and in the 50-mg/L treatment group, no difference was detected when comparing the 6-h exposure 

duration to the 9-h exposure duration (p = 0.31). Differences were detected in the 50-mg/L treatment 

group when the 6 and 9-h exposure duration groups were compared to the 12-h exposure duration group 

(p ≤ 0.01). Differences were also detected in the 100-mg/L treatment group when the 6-h exposure 

duration group was compared to the 12-h exposure duration group (p = 0.01). No difference was 

detected in the 100-mg/L treatment group when comparing the 6-h exposure duration group to the 9-h 

exposure duration group (p = 0.29) or when comparing the 9-h exposure duration group to the 12-h 

exposure duration group (p = 0.10). 

Page 15 of 519
Benthic Injection Trials

Mean survival of zebra mussels in the Lake Carlos BI trial SDP-treated groups did not differ 

(p = 0.93) and was 18.1 and 18.0 percent in the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups, respectively. Mean 

survival of zebra mussels in the Shawano Lake BI trial SDP-treated groups differed (p < 0.01) and was 

2.9 and 0.9 percent in the 50- and 100-mg/L treatment groups, respectively. Survival of zebra mussels in 

BI SDP-treated groups for both trials differed (p < 0.01) from zebra mussel survival in the control 

groups. 

The survival of zebra mussels in the BI trials was compared to the survival of zebra mussels in 

the respective WWC trial 12-h exposure duration group. Survival of zebra mussels assigned to the Lake 

Carlos 12-h WWC trial SDP-treated groups differed (p < 0.02) from the survival of zebra mussels 

assigned to the Lake Carlos 12-h BI trial SDP-treated groups; however, after modification of the benthic 

injection application technique, no difference (p = 0.22) was detected between the survival of zebra 

mussel assigned to the Shawano Lake WWC 12-h exposure group and the Shawano Lake BI trial. 

Conclusions

In this study, the application of the spray dried powder (SDP) formulation of Pseudomonas 

fluorescens (strain CL145A) at 50 and 100 mg/L (based on active ingredient) for 6–12 hours to test 

tanks containing lake water using either a whole water column (WWC) or benthic injection (BI) 

application technique significantly reduced the survival of zebra mussels. Mean survival of zebra 

mussels in the WWC SDP-treated groups did not exceed 12.6 percent for either trial at any exposure 

duration. No difference in zebra mussel survival was detected between the WWC 50- and 100-mg/L 

treatment groups in the Lake Carlos trial or in the Shawano Lake trial when compared at the same 

exposure duration. Mean survival of zebra mussels in the BI SDP-treated groups did not exceed 

18.1 percent in the Lake Carlos trial and 2.9 percent in the Shawano Lake trial. After modification of the 

BI application method for the Shawano Lake trial, survival of zebra mussels in the BI trial did not differ 

(p = 0.22) compared to survival of zebra mussel in the Shawano lake WWC 12-h exposure group. In 

this study, the amount of SDP applied during the BI trials was 50 percent of that applied during the 

WWC trials. This study demonstrates that SDP has potential for use in managing dreissenid mussels in 

limited, open-water environments and that a benthic injection application technique to reduce the 

amount of SDP required to induce zebra mussel mortality may be successful in quiescent waters. 

References Cited

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment 

Federation, 2012, Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater (22d ed.): American 

Public Health Association, 1360 p. 

ASTM International, 2013, ASTM Standard E2455-06(2013)—Standard guide for conducting 

laboratory toxicity tests with freshwater mussels: West Conshohocken, Penn., ASTM International, 

52 p. 

Baker, S.M., and Hornbach, D.J., 1997, Acute physiological effects of zebra mussel (Dreissena 

polymorpha) infestation on two unionid mussels, Actinonaias ligamentina and Amblema plicata:

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 54, p. 512–519. 

Birnbaum, C., 2011, NOBANIS—Invasive alien species fact sheet—Dreissena polymorpha: Online 

Database of the European Network on Invasive Alien Species, accessed February 13, 2014, at 

http://www.nobanis.org/files/factsheets/Dreissena_polymorpha.pdf. 

Page 16 of 519
Burlakova, L.E., Karatayev, A.Y., and Padilla, D.K., 2000, The impact of Dreissena polymorpha 

(PALLAS) invasion on unionid bivalves: International Review of Hydrobiology, v. 85, no. 5–6, 

p. 529–541.

Emerson, K., Russo, R.C., Lund, R.E., and Thurston, R.V., 1975, Aqueous ammonia equilibrium 

calculations—Effect of pH and temperature: Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada,

v. 32, p. 2379–2383. 

Engel, L., Valley, R., Beck, D., and Anderson, J., 2010, 2008 Sentinel Lake assessment of Lake Carlos 

(21-0057) in Douglas County, Minnesota: Report for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 75 p. [Also available at 

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=14962.]

Master, L., 1990, The imperiled status of North American aquatic animals: The Nature Conservancy, 

v. 3, no. 3, p. 5–8. 

Neves, R.J., Bogan, A.E., Williams, J.D., Ahlstedt, S.A., and Hartfield, P.W., 1997, Status of aquatic 

mollusks in the southeastern United States—A downward spiral of diversity in Benz, G.W., and 

Collins, D.E., eds., Aquatic fauna in peril—The southeastern perspective: Decatur, Georgia,

Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, p. 43–85. 

Ricciardi, A., and Rasmussen, J.B., 1999, Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna: 

Conservation Biology, v. 13, no. 5, p. 1220–1222. 

Turyk, N., Foster, K., Hoverson, D., and McGinley, P., 2008, Watershed assessment of Shawano Lake, 

Shawano County, Wisconsin final report: University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Center for 

Watershed Science and Education, 94 p. [Also available at http://www.uwsp.edu/cnrap/watershed/Documents/shawano_final_08.pdf.] 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, Ambient water quality criteria for ammonia—Freshwater 

2013: Washington, D.C., Office of Water, EPA 822-R-13-001, 242 p. 

Williams, J.D., Warren, M.L., Jr., Cummings, K.S., Harris, J.L., and Neves, R.J., 1993, Conservation 

status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada: Fisheries, v. 18, no. 9, p. 6–22. 

Page 17 of 519
Appendix 1. Study Protocol, Amendments, and Datasheets 

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 Protocol: “Efficacy of Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf-CL145A) SDP for controlling 

settled zebra mussels on artificial substrates” 28 19

2 Amendment 1: Revision of Study Protocol, Study # AEH-12-PSEUDO-04 7 47 

3 “Zebra Mussel Survival” Datasheet 1 54 

4 “Zebra Mussel Lengths” Datasheet 1 55 

5 “Test Chemical Stock Preparation Data Form” Datasheet 1 56 

6 “Conductivity and Hardness – Exposure Initiation” Datasheet 1 57 

7 “Alkalinity – Exposure Initiation” Datasheet 1 58

8 “Water Quality – Temperature (°C) Measurements” Datasheet 1 59

9 “Water Quality – pH Measurements” Datasheet 1 60 

10 “Water Quality – Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Measurements” Datasheet 1 61 

11 “Ammonia Sample Collection – Exposure Termination” Datasheet 1 62 

Page 18 of 519
Page 19 of 519
Page 20 of 519
Page 21 of 519
Page 22 of 519
Page 23 of 519
Page 24 of 519
Page 25 of 519
Page 26 of 519
Page 27 of 519
Page 28 of 519
Page 29 of 519
Page 30 of 519
Page 31 of 519
Page 32 of 519
Page 33 of 519
Page 34 of 519
Page 35 of 519
Page 36 of 519
Page 37 of 519
Page 38 of 519
Page 39 of 519
Page 40 of 519
Page 41 of 519
Page 42 of 519
Page 43 of 519
Page 44 of 519
Page 45 of 519
Page 46 of 519
Page 47 of 519
Page 48 of 519
Page 49 of 519
Page 50 of 519
Page 51 of 519
Page 52 of 519
Page 53 of 519
Page 54 of 519
Page 55 of 519
Page 56 of 519
Page 57 of 519
Page 58 of 519
Page 59 of 519
Page 60 of 519
Page 61 of 519
Page 62 of 519
Appendix 2. Deviations from the Study Protocol 

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 Deviation #1 – Randomization of tank treatment assignment error for Shawano Lake 

whole water body trial 1 64 

2 Deviation #2 – Randomization of substrate removal from tanks error 1 65 

3 Deviation #3 – Total ammonia-nitrogen water samples not collected at the 6 and 9 

hour termination during the whole water treatment at Lake Shawano 1 66 

4 Deviation #4 – Control exposure tanks not analyzed for concentration verification at 

Lake Carlos 1 67 

5 Deviation #5 – No curriculum vitae or signature on the verification page for an 

incidental data collector 1 68 

6 Deviation #6 – Removal of Lake Pepin test location 1 69

Page 63 of 519
Page 64 of 519
Page 65 of 519
Page 66 of 519
Page 67 of 519
Page 68 of 519
Page 69 of 519
Appendix 3. Randomization Assignments

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 SAS generated random assignment of treatment to experimental tank (Lake Carlos; 

whole tank treatment) 4 71 

2 SAS generated random assignment of trays to test tank/position (Lake Carlos; whole 

tank treatment) 8 75 

3 SAS generated random assignment of substrate removal from tanks (Lake Carlos; 

whole tank treatment 30 83 

4 SAS generated random assignment of treatment to experimental tank (Lake Carlos; 

bottom injection treatment) 4 113 

5 SAS generated random assignment of trays to test tank/position (Lake Carlos; bottom 

injection treatment) 8 117 

6 SAS generated random assignment of substrate removal from tanks (Lake Carlos; 

bottom injection treatment 30 125 

7 SAS generated random assignment of treatment to experimental tank (Lake Shawano; 

whole tank treatment) 4 155 

8 SAS generated random assignment of trays to test tank/position (Lake Shawano; whole 

tank treatment) 8 159

9 SAS generated random assignment of substrate removal from tanks (Lake Shawano; 

whole tank treatment 30 167 

10 SAS generated random assignment of treatment to experimental tank (Lake Shawano; 

bottom injection treatment) 4 197 

11 SAS generated random assignment of trays to test tank/position (Lake Shawano; 

bottom injection treatment) 8 201 

12 SAS generated random assignment of substrate removal from tanks (Lake Shawano; 

bottom injection treatment 30 209

Page 70 of 519
Page 71 of 519
Page 72 of 519
Page 73 of 519
Page 74 of 519
Page 75 of 519
Page 76 of 519
Page 77 of 519
Page 78 of 519
Page 79 of 519
Page 80 of 519
Page 81 of 519
Page 82 of 519
Page 83 of 519
Page 84 of 519
Page 85 of 519
Page 86 of 519
Page 87 of 519
Page 88 of 519
Page 89 of 519
Page 90 of 519
Page 91 of 519
Page 92 of 519
Page 93 of 519
Page 94 of 519
Page 95 of 519
Page 96 of 519
Page 97 of 519
Page 98 of 519
Page 99 of 519
Page 100 of 519
Page 101 of 519
Page 102 of 519
Page 103 of 519
Page 104 of 519
Page 105 of 519
Page 106 of 519
Page 107 of 519
Page 108 of 519
Page 109 of 519
Page 110 of 519
Page 111 of 519
Page 112 of 519
Page 113 of 519
Page 114 of 519
Page 115 of 519
Page 116 of 519
Page 117 of 519
Page 118 of 519
Page 119 of 519
Page 120 of 519
Page 121 of 519
Page 122 of 519
Page 123 of 519
Page 124 of 519
Page 125 of 519
Page 126 of 519
Page 127 of 519
Page 128 of 519
Page 129 of 519
Page 130 of 519
Page 131 of 519
Page 132 of 519
Page 133 of 519
Page 134 of 519
Page 135 of 519
Page 136 of 519
Page 137 of 519
Page 138 of 519
Page 139 of 519
Page 140 of 519
Page 141 of 519
Page 142 of 519
Page 143 of 519
Page 144 of 519
Page 145 of 519
Page 146 of 519
Page 147 of 519
Page 148 of 519
Page 149 of 519
Page 150 of 519
Page 151 of 519
Page 152 of 519
Page 153 of 519
Page 154 of 519
Page 155 of 519
Page 156 of 519
Page 157 of 519
Page 158 of 519
Page 159 of 519
Page 160 of 519
Page 161 of 519
Page 162 of 519
Page 163 of 519
Page 164 of 519
Page 165 of 519
Page 166 of 519
Page 167 of 519
Page 168 of 519
Page 169 of 519
Page 170 of 519
Page 171 of 519
Page 172 of 519
Page 173 of 519
Page 174 of 519
Page 175 of 519
Page 176 of 519
Page 177 of 519
Page 178 of 519
Page 179 of 519
Page 180 of 519
Page 181 of 519
Page 182 of 519
Page 183 of 519
Page 184 of 519
Page 185 of 519
Page 186 of 519
Page 187 of 519
Page 188 of 519
Page 189 of 519
Page 190 of 519
Page 191 of 519
Page 192 of 519
Page 193 of 519
Page 194 of 519
Page 195 of 519
Page 196 of 519
Page 197 of 519
Page 198 of 519
Page 199 of 519
Page 200 of 519
Page 201 of 519
Page 202 of 519
Page 203 of 519
Page 204 of 519
Page 205 of 519
Page 206 of 519
Page 207 of 519
Page 208 of 519
Page 209 of 519
Page 210 of 519
Page 211 of 519
Page 212 of 519
Page 213 of 519
Page 214 of 519
Page 215 of 519
Page 216 of 519
Page 217 of 519
Page 218 of 519
Page 219 of 519
Page 220 of 519
Page 221 of 519
Page 222 of 519
Page 223 of 519
Page 224 of 519
Page 225 of 519
Page 226 of 519
Page 227 of 519
Page 228 of 519
Page 229 of 519
Page 230 of 519
Page 231 of 519
Page 232 of 519
Page 233 of 519
Page 234 of 519
Page 235 of 519
Page 236 of 519
Page 237 of 519
Page 238 of 519
Appendix 4. Test Article Information 

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 Material Safety Data Sheet: MBI-401 SDP 2 240 

2 MBI-401 SDP (lots # 401P12163C and 401P12164C) Test Article: UPS Next Day Air 

Label (shipped to Jim Luoma) 1 242 

3 MBI-401 SDP (lot # 401P12163C) Test Article: Certificate of Analysis 1 243 

4 MBI-401 SDP (lot # 401P12164C) Test Article: Certificate of Analysis 1 244 

5 “Test Chemical Stock Preparation Data Form” Datasheet (Lake Carlos) 1 245 

6 “Test Chemical Stock Preparation Data Form” Datasheet (Lake Shawano) 1 246 

7 FedEx Priority Overnight Airbill (shipped to Denise Mayer) for post-treatment product 

validation – dated January 8, 2013 1 247 

8 NYSM Post –Treatment Product Validation Assay MBI-401 SDP lot #(s) 401P12163C 

and 401P12164C Mix 3 248 

9 Copy of test article log book for MBI-401 SDP; lot #(s) 401P12163C and 401P12164C 

Mix; Container 1 of 6 (Used for Lake Carlos) 5 251 

10 Copy of test article log book for MBI-401 SDP; lot #(s) 401P12163C and 401P12164C

Mix; Container 2 of 6 (Used for Lake Carlos) 4 256 

11 Copy of test article log book for MBI-401 SDP; lot #(s) 401P12163C and 401P12164C 

Mix; Container 3 of 6 (Used for Lake Shawano) 4 260 

12 Copy of test article log book for MBI-401 SDP; lot #(s) 401P12163C and 401P12164C 

Mix; Container 4 of 6 (Used for Lake Shawano) 4 264 

13

Copy of test article log book for MBI-401 SDP; lot #(s) 401P12163C and 401P12164C 

Mix; Container 6 of 6 (Used for Lake Carlos water analysis by RMB Environmental 

Laboratories)

4 268 

Page 239 of 519
Page 240 of 519
Page 241 of 519
Page 242 of 519
Page 243 of 519
Page 244 of 519
Page 245 of 519
Page 246 of 519
Page 247 of 519
Page 248 of 519
Page 249 of 519
Page 250 of 519
Page 251 of 519
Page 252 of 519
Page 253 of 519
Page 254 of 519
Page 255 of 519
Page 256 of 519
Page 257 of 519
Page 258 of 519
Page 259 of 519
Page 260 of 519
Page 261 of 519
Page 262 of 519
Page 263 of 519
Page 264 of 519
Page 265 of 519
Page 266 of 519
Page 267 of 519
Page 268 of 519
Page 269 of 519
Page 270 of 519
Page 271 of 519
Appendix 5. Test Animal Information

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 Approval for Housing and Care of Test Animals During Experiments 1 273 

2 Zebra Mussel Lengths – Lake Carlos (Whole Water Column) – Data Summary 4 274 

3 Zebra Mussel Lengths – Lake Carlos (Bottom Injection) – Data Summary 2 278 

4 Zebra Mussel Lengths – Lake Shawano (Whole Water Column) – Data Summary 4 280 

5 Zebra Mussel Lengths – Lake Shawano (Bottom Injection) – Data Summary 2 284 

Page 272 of 519
Page 273 of 519
Page 274 of 519
Page 275 of 519
Page 276 of 519
Page 277 of 519
Page 278 of 519
Page 279 of 519
Page 280 of 519
Page 281 of 519
Page 282 of 519
Page 283 of 519
Page 284 of 519
Page 285 of 519
Appendix 6. Water Quality

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 Pre-Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank – Data Summary 2 287 

2 Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank – Data Summary 2 289

3 Exposure Un-ionized Ammonia – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank – Data Summary 3 291 

4 Pre-Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank – Data Summary 2 294 

5 Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank – Data Summary 2 296 

6 Exposure Un-ionized Ammonia – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank – Data Summary 3 298 

7 Pre-Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 2 301 

8 Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 2 303 

9 Exposure Un-ionized Ammonia – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 3 305 

10 Pre-Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Shawano – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 2 308 

11 Exposure Water Chemistry – Lake Shawano – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 2 310 

12 Exposure Un-ionized Ammonia – Lake Shawano – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 3 312 

13 Temperature Data Loggers (HOBOs) Summary – Lake Carlos 2 315 

14 Temperature Data Loggers (HOBOs) Summary – Lake Shawano 2 317 

Page 286 of 519
Page 287 of 519
Page 288 of 519
Page 289 of 519
Page 290 of 519
Page 291 of 519
Page 292 of 519
Page 293 of 519
Page 294 of 519
Page 295 of 519
Page 296 of 519
Page 297 of 519
Page 298 of 519
Page 299 of 519
Page 300 of 519
Page 301 of 519
Page 302 of 519
Page 303 of 519
Page 304 of 519
Page 305 of 519
Page 306 of 519
Page 307 of 519
Page 308 of 519
Page 309 of 519
Page 310 of 519
Page 311 of 519
Page 312 of 519
Page 313 of 519
Page 314 of 519
Page 315 of 519
Page 316 of 519
Page 317 of 519
Page 318 of 519
Appendix 7. Spectrophotometric Summary, SAS Program,

Output and Log 

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 Spectrophotometric Data – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank – Data Summary 3 320 

2 SAS program for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank 3 323 

3 SAS log for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank 8 326 

4 SAS output for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank 15 334 

5 Spectrophotometric Data – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank – Data Summary 4 349

6 SAS program for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank 4 353 

7 SAS log for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank 8 357 

8 SAS output for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank 19 365 

9 Spectrophotometric Data – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 3 384 

10 SAS program for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection 2 387 

11 SAS log for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection 5 389

12 SAS output for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection 13 394 

13 Spectrophotometric Data – Lake Shawano – Bottom Injection – Data Summary 4 407 

14 SAS program for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Shawano – Bottom 

Injection 2 411 

15 SAS log for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Shawano – Bottom Injection 5 413 

16 SAS Output for spectrophotometric data analysis – Lake Shawano – Bottom Injection 18 418 

Page 319 of 519
Page 320 of 519
Page 321 of 519
Page 322 of 519
Page 323 of 519
Page 324 of 519
Page 325 of 519
Page 326 of 519
Page 327 of 519
Page 328 of 519
Page 329 of 519
Page 330 of 519
Page 331 of 519
Page 332 of 519
Page 333 of 519
Page 334 of 519
Page 335 of 519
Page 336 of 519
Page 337 of 519
Page 338 of 519
Page 339 of 519
Page 340 of 519
Page 341 of 519
Page 342 of 519
Page 343 of 519
Page 344 of 519
Page 345 of 519
Page 346 of 519
Page 347 of 519
Page 348 of 519
Page 349 of 519
Page 350 of 519
Page 351 of 519
Page 352 of 519
Page 353 of 519
Page 354 of 519
Page 355 of 519
Page 356 of 519
Page 357 of 519
Page 358 of 519
Page 359 of 519
Page 360 of 519
Page 361 of 519
Page 362 of 519
Page 363 of 519
Page 364 of 519
Page 365 of 519
Page 366 of 519
Page 367 of 519
Page 368 of 519
Page 369 of 519
Page 370 of 519
Page 371 of 519
Page 372 of 519
Page 373 of 519
Page 374 of 519
Page 375 of 519
Page 376 of 519
Page 377 of 519
Page 378 of 519
Page 379 of 519
Page 380 of 519
Page 381 of 519
Page 382 of 519
Page 383 of 519
Page 384 of 519
Page 385 of 519
Page 386 of 519
Page 387 of 519
Page 388 of 519
Page 389 of 519
Page 390 of 519
Page 391 of 519
Page 392 of 519
Page 393 of 519
Page 394 of 519
Page 395 of 519
Page 396 of 519
Page 397 of 519
Page 398 of 519
Page 399 of 519
Page 400 of 519
Page 401 of 519
Page 402 of 519
Page 403 of 519
Page 404 of 519
Page 405 of 519
Page 406 of 519
Page 407 of 519
Page 408 of 519
Page 409 of 519
Page 410 of 519
Page 411 of 519
Page 412 of 519
Page 413 of 519
Page 414 of 519
Page 415 of 519
Page 416 of 519
Page 417 of 519
Page 418 of 519
Page 419 of 519
Page 420 of 519
Page 421 of 519
Page 422 of 519
Page 423 of 519
Page 424 of 519
Page 425 of 519
Page 426 of 519
Page 427 of 519
Page 428 of 519
Page 429 of 519
Page 430 of 519
Page 431 of 519
Page 432 of 519
Page 433 of 519
Page 434 of 519
Page 435 of 519
Appendix 8. Survival Assessment Summary

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 Zebra Mussel Survival on Artificial Substrate – Lake Carlos – Whole Tank – Data 

Summary 2 437 

2 Zebra Mussel Survival on Artificial Substrate – Lake Shawano – Whole Tank – Data 

Summary 2 439

3 Zebra Mussel Survival on Artificial Substrate – Lake Carlos – Bottom Injection –Data 

Summary 2 441 

4 Zebra Mussel Survival on Artificial Substrate – Lake Shawano – Bottom Injection –

Data Summary 2 443 

5 Zebra Mussel Survival on Artificial Substrate – All Exposures – Data Summary 6 445 

Page 436 of 519
Page 437 of 519
Page 438 of 519
Page 439 of 519
Page 440 of 519
Page 441 of 519
Page 442 of 519
Page 443 of 519
Page 444 of 519
Page 445 of 519
Page 446 of 519
Page 447 of 519
Page 448 of 519
Page 449 of 519
Page 450 of 519
Appendix 9. Statistical Analysis including SAS Programs, 

Outputs and Logs for Survival Data 

Item 

Number Item Description

Number 

of 

Pages

Report 

Page 

Number

1 SAS program for zebra mussel survival data 7 452 

2 SAS log for zebra mussel survival data 13 459

3 SAS output for zebra mussel survival data 39 472 

Page 451 of 519
Page 452 of 519
Page 453 of 519
Page 454 of 519
Page 455 of 519
Page 456 of 519
Page 457 of 519
Page 458 of 519
Page 459 of 519
Page 460 of 519
Page 461 of 519
Page 462 of 519
Page 463 of 519
Page 464 of 519
Page 465 of 519
Page 466 of 519
Page 467 of 519
Page 468 of 519
Page 469 of 519
Page 470 of 519
Page 471 of 519
Page 472 of 519
Page 473 of 519
Page 474 of 519
Page 475 of 519
Page 476 of 519
Page 477 of 519
Page 478 of 519
Page 479 of 519
Page 480 of 519
Page 481 of 519
Page 482 of 519
Page 483 of 519
Page 484 of 519
Page 485 of 519
Page 486 of 519
Page 487 of 519
Page 488 of 519
Page 489 of 519
Page 490 of 519
Page 491 of 519
Page 492 of 519
Page 493 of 519
Page 494 of 519
Page 495 of 519
Page 496 of 519
Page 497 of 519
Page 498 of 519
Page 499 of 519
Page 500 of 519
Page 501 of 519
Page 502 of 519
Page 503 of 519
Page 504 of 519
Page 505 of 519
Page 506 of 519
Page 507 of 519
Page 508 of 519
Page 509 of 519
Page 510 of 519
ISSN 2331–1258 (online) 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151050