Piotr Kowalczuk |
|
Ph. D.
|
|
Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of Sciences
·
Marine Physics Department
|
Skills (4)
-
85 Questions4104 Followers
-
201 Questions12757 Followers
Research experience
-
Nov 2009–
Nov 2012Research: Sources and transformation of chromophoric dissolved organic matter along the Atlantic Meridional Transect. Assessment with application of measurements of fluorescence excitation emission matrix spectra. AMTC-DOM
Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences · Marine Physics Department · Remote Sensing LaboratoryPoland · Sopot -
Sep 2007–
Mar 2010Research: Spectral properties of absorption and fluorescence of Dissolved Organic Matter in the Baltic Sea and its relationships with concentration of Dissolved Organic Carbon
Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences · Marine Physics Department · Remote Sensing LaboratoryPoland · Sopot -
Jan 2003
Research: Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of Sciences
Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of SciencesPoland · Sopot
Education
-
Nov 1991–
Jun 2001Polish Academy of Sciences
Oceanography · Ph.DPoland · Sopot -
Oct 1985–
Sep 1991University of Gdansk
Oceanography · Master of SciencesPoland · Gdansk
Other
-
LanguagesEnglish - fluent, Russian - basic
-
Scientific MembershipsThe Oceanography Society
-
Journal RefereesRemote Sensing of Environment, Marine Chemistry, Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, Limnology and oceanography, Journal of Geophysical Research, Continental Shelf Research
Questions and Answers (2) View all
-
Answer added in Biogeochemistry12 In-situ sensors to monitor dissolved organic carbon (DOC): UV-vis or fluorescent probes?By Sébastien Gogo · Université d'OrléansPiotr Kowalczuk · Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of SciencesDear Leonid, The relationship between DOC and CDOM and DOC and FDOM are strictly local, but them may work also on larger scales, see papers by Rob Sp... [more]Dear Leonid, The relationship between DOC and CDOM and DOC and FDOM are strictly local, but them may work also on larger scales, see papers by Rob Specer at al on such relationships in USA rivers. The whole problem ls in the specific absorption coefficient and apparent quantum yield of FDOM, which are highly variable and dependent on the composition of CDOM, FDOM and on processes that regulate the compositional transformation. The intensity if such processes is regulated by local conditions. That is why we may establish empirical relationships between DOC and CDOM and DOC and FDOM on local or regional scales, but not on global scale.Following
-
Answer added in Biogeochemistry12 In-situ sensors to monitor dissolved organic carbon (DOC): UV-vis or fluorescent probes?By Sébastien Gogo · Université d'OrléansPiotr Kowalczuk · Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of SciencesHi Sebastien, You can look at my paper on CDOM, FDOM and DOC relationship in the Baltic Sea. The CDOM vs DOC or FDOM vs DOM relatiohsip is highly var... [more]Hi Sebastien, You can look at my paper on CDOM, FDOM and DOC relationship in the Baltic Sea. The CDOM vs DOC or FDOM vs DOM relatiohsip is highly variable and works only in selected area, where DOC, FDOM and aCDOM variability is controlled by mixing.Following
Publications (22) View all
-
Article: A study of episodic events in the Baltic Sea - combined in situ and satellite observations
Elżbieta Łysiak-Pastuszak, Maria Bartoszewicz, Katarzyna Bradtke, Mirosław Darecki, Natalia Drgas, Piotr Kowalczuk, Wojciech Kraśniewski, Adam Krężel, Włodzimierz Krzymiński, Łukasz Lewandowski, Hanna Mazur-Marzec, Bogusz Piliczewski, Sławomir Sagan, Katarzyna Sutryk, Barbara WitekOCEANOLOGIA 06/2012; 54(2):121-141. · 1.24 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Piotr Kowalczuk
Article: Fluorescence measured in situ as a proxy of CDOM absorption and DOC concentration in the Baltic Sea
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study presents results from field surveys performed in 2008 and 2009 in the southern Baltic in different seasons. The main goal of these measurements was to identify the empirical relationships between DOM optical properties and DOC. CDOM absorption and fluorescence and DOC concentrations were measured during thirteen research cruises. The values of the CDOM absorption coefficient at 370 nm aCDOM(370) ranged from 0.70 m-1 to 7.94 m-1, and CDOM fluorescence intensities (ex./em. 370/460) IFl, expressed in quinine sulphate equivalent units, ranged from 3.88 to 122.97 (in filtered samples). Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations ranged from 266.7 to 831.7 µM C. There was a statistically significant linear relationship between the fluorescence intensity measured in the filtered samples and the CDOM absorption coefficient aCDOM(370), R2 = 0.87. There was much more scatter in the relationship between the fluorescence intensity measured in situ (i.e. in unprocessed water samples) and the CDOM absorption coefficient aCDOM(370), resulting in a slight deterioration in the coefficient of determination R2 = 0.85. This indicated that the presence of particles could impact fluorometer output during in situ deployment. A calibration experiment was set up to quantify particle impact on the instrument output in raw marine water samples relative to readings from filtered samples. The bias calculated for the absolute percentage difference between fluorescence intensities measured in raw and filtered water was low (-2.05%), but the effect of particle presence expressed as the value of the RMSE was significant and was as high as 35%. Both DOM fluorescence intensity (in raw water and filtered samples) and the CDOM absorption coefficient aCDOM(370) are highly correlated with DOC concentration. The relationship between DOC and the CDOM absorption coefficient aCDOM(370) was better (R2 = 0.76) than the relationship between DOC and the respective fluorescence intensities measured in filtered and raw water (R2 = 0.61 and R2 = 0.56). The seasonal cycle had an impact on the relationship between DOC and CDOM optical properties. The hyperbolic relationships between aCDOM(370) vs. carbon-specific absorption coefficient a*CDOM(370), and IFl vs. the ratio of fluorescence intensity to organic carbon concentration IFl/DOC were very good. The discharge and mixing of riverine waters is a primary driver of variability in DOC and CDOM optical properties in the surface waters of the southern Baltic Sea, since all the parameters considered are negatively correlated with salinity. It was found that there was a positive trend of increasing values of DOM optical parameters with salinity increase (within a range of 8-12) in deep water below the permanent pycnocline. Evidence is also presented to show that late-summer photodegradation was responsible for the depletion of CDOM florescence intensities in the mixed layer above the seasonal thermocline. It was further demonstrated that the DOC concentration increases in the stagnant waters of the Baltic Sea deeps. The Integrated Optical-Hydrological Probe, which registers high-resolution vertical profiles of salinity, temperature, CDOM and the optical properties of water, confirmed that DOM optical proxies can be used in studies of DOM biogeochemical cycles in the Baltic Sea.OCEANOLOGIA 09/2010; 52(3):431-471. · 1.24 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Piotr Kowalczuk
Article: Characterization of dissolved organic matter fluorescence in the South Atlantic Bight with use of PARAFAC model: Relationships between fluorescence and its components, absorption coefficients and organic carbon concentrations.
Kowalczuk Piotr, Cooper William. J., Durako Michael J., Kahn Amanda E., Gonsior Michael, Young HeatherMarine Chemistry 01/2010; 118:22-36. · 3.07 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Piotr Kowalczuk
Article: Interannual variation in photosynthetically significant optical properties and water quality in a coastal blackwater river plume
Estuaries and Coasts 01/2010; 33:1430-1441. · 2.11 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Piotr Kowalczuk
Article: Characterization of dissolved organic matter fluorescence in the South Atlantic Bight with use of PARAFAC model: Interannual variability .
Marine Chemistry 01/2009; 113:182-196. · 3.07 Impact Factor