Deep Learning-Based Automatic Duckweed Counting Using StarDist and Its Application on Measuring Growth Inhibition Potential of Rare Earth Elements as Contaminants of Emerging Concerns

Abstract

In recent years, there have been efforts to utilize surface water as a power source, material, and food. However, these efforts are impeded due to the vast amounts of contaminants and emerging contaminants introduced by anthropogenic activities. Herbicides such as Glyphosate and Glufosinate are commonly known to contaminate surface water through agricultural industries. In contrast, some emerging contaminants, such as rare earth elements, have started to enter the surface water from the production and waste of electronic products. Duckweeds are angiosperms from the Lemnaceae family and have been used for toxicity tests in aquatic environments, mainly those from the genus Lemna, and have been approved by OECD. In this study, we used duckweed from the genus Wolffia, which is smaller and considered a good indicator of metal pollutants in the aquatic environment. The growth rate of duckweed is the most common endpoint in observing pollutant toxicity. In order to observe and mark the fronds automatically, we used StarDist, a machine learning-based tool. StarDist is available as a plugin in ImageJ, simplifying and assisting the counting process. Python also helps arrange, manage, and calculate the inhibition percentage after duckweeds are exposed to contaminants. The toxicity test results showed Dysprosium to be the most toxic, with an IC50 value of 14.6 ppm, and Samarium as the least toxic, with an IC50 value of 279.4 ppm. In summary, we can provide a workflow for automatic frond counting using StarDist integrated with ImageJ and Python to simplify the detection, counting, data management, and calculation process.

Comparative Phytotoxicity of Metallic Elements on Duckweed Lemna gibba L. Using Growth- and Chlorophyll Fluorescence Induction-Based Endpoints

“…The following supporting information can be downloaded at , File S1: metadata for Figures S1–S4 (main text); Figure S5: 3-parameter log-logistic concentration–response model fittings of RGR frond ; Figure S6: 3-parameter log-logistic concentration–response model fittings of F v /F o ; Figure S7: 3-parameter log-logistic concentration–response model fittings of Y(II); and Table S1: The results of the 3-parameter log-logistic model fittings with calculated EC 20 and EC 50 values for the studied endpoints. References [ 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ,…”