Special Issue - (2016)
Special Issue - (2015)
Special Issue - (2012)
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Microalgae Harvesting with Filtration and Flocculation Methods in WWTP ITDC Bali
Devi Megarusti Pratiwi, Arief Budiman, Intan Supraba, & Eko Agus Suyono
pp. 1-12 | Article Number: ijese.2019.001
To increase tourism in Bali Island, in the year 1971 Government assisted by United Nations Development Programme conducted a study about Bali tourism. That study suggested that more international hotels should be built in Bali Island to accommodate the increment of foreign and domestic tourists. Statistic data issued by Central Statistics Agency of Indonesia showed that the number of tourists in the year 2016 has increased 23.14% compared to the previous year. The Nusa Dua Project is a part of the Bali tourism development master plan. Domestic waste water from hotels in Nusa Dua region needs to be treated, so Bali Tourism Development Corporation Waste Water Treatment Plant was built in 1976 which later changed its name to the WWTP Indonesia Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC). However, the final processed product at WWTP ITDC Bali is still affected by algae bloom which reducing water quality. The existing practice to harvest microalgae is based on flocculation method using alum & polyelectrolyte chemicals causing the harvested microalgae contaminated by chemicals. The purpose of this study is to compare two different methods of microalgae harvesting namely filtration and flocculation methods, to know the effective filtration method based on slope and pressure variations, and to recommend the utilization of the dominant type of microalgae. The microalgae harvesting by using filtration was made in various variations, namely variations in water pressure and slope. In the variation of water pressure, three stages are carried out, namely the pressure of 1.5 bar, 2.5 bar, and 3.5 bar which each pressure was done for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes. In the slope variation, there were 3 stages, namely pressure 10°, 20°, and 30° which each pressure was carried out for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes. From the results of the harvesting water quality test microalgae that is effective and in accordance with the WWTP ITDC Bali vision and mission, that is go green or green company, the parameter concluded that has the highest lowest value is using the method of harvesting microalgae filtration with a pressure variation of 1.5 bar. Because harvesting microalgae by filtration method does not use any chemical mixture. Effective slope variation filtration method is at 10° in 30 minutes with a weight of 203 grams, while the effective pressure variation filtration is at 1.5 bar in 30 minutes weighing 212 grams. This is because the weight of microalgae is filtered the most. The dominant in the whole sample is microalgae Gramatophora angulosa which belongs to the class of algae brown (Phaephyceae) and Sphaerocystis schroeteri which belongs to the class of green algae (Chlorophyceae). Benefits of algae brown Gramatophora angulosa as an ingredient in organic fertilizer and animal feed. Benefits of green algae Sphaerocystis schroeteri as freshwater fish feed ingredients.
Keywords: microalgae, WWTP, algae blooms, filtration
Abdullah, R. (2014). Various Benefits of Algae. Lipi Oseana Jakarta, 29(3).
Adl, S. M., Simpson, A. G., Lane, C. E., Lukes, J., Bass, D., Bowser, S. S., …, Spiegel, F. W. (2012). The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 59(5), 429-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x
Apriadi, T., & Pratiwi. N. T. M. (2014). The Effect of Different Types of Algae Feed on Cempedic Fish Growth in Domestic & Depik Efforts, Phytoremediation of eel culture waste using filamentous algae (Spirogyra sp.). Proceedings of the Suboptimal Land National Seminar, 3(1), 46-55.
Asli-Ardeh, E. A., & Mohsenimanesh, A. (2012). Determination of Effective Factors on Power Requirements and Conveying Capacity of a Conveyor Screw Under Three Paddy Grain Varieties. The Scientific World Journal. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/136218
Awwa, M. (2010). Algae: Source to Treatment (Manual of Water Supply Practices). America: American Water Works Association.
Bali Governor Regulation No. 8 of 2007 which contains water quality standards in accordance with the designation in Nusa Dua Bali.
Bali Province. (2017). Hotels and Tourism. Tourism. Retrieved from http://www.baliprov.go.id/v1/baliwisata
Bali Tourism Development Corporation. (2017). Profile of the Nusa Dua Bali region. Retrieved from https://www.itdc.co.id/
Becker, E. W. (2017). Micro-algae as source of protein. Journal of Biotechnology Advances, 25, 207-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2006.11.002
Bürger, R., & Concha, F. (2001). Settling velocities of particulate systems: 12. Batch centrifugation of flocculates suspensions. Int. J. Miner. Process, 63, 115-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-7516(01)00038-2
Debora, Y. (2017). BPS: Foreign tourists visiting Bali increased by 23.14%. tirto.id. Retrieved from https://tirto.id/bps-kunjungan-wisman-ke-bali-men-23-23-persen-cji2
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2014). Euglena. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/Euglena
Guiry, M. D. (2015). Algaebase Taxonomy Browse. National University of Ireland.
Hadiyanto, & Azim, M. (2012). Microalgae Food and Energy Sources Future. Semarang: UPT UNDIP Press Semarang.
Nurhayati, D. (2017). Bali declared world; top destination for 2017. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from http://www.thejakartapost.com/travel/2017/04/24/bali-declared-worlds-top-destination-for-2017.html
Venugopal, V. (2009). Marine Products for Healthcare. CRC Press London.
Wibowo, S., & Marlia. (2011). Algae. ITB School of Pharmacy.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
Factors Related to Middle-school Students’ Situational Interest in Science in Outdoor Lessons in their Schools’ Immediate Surroundings
Jean-Philippe Ayotte-Beaudet, Patrice Potvin, & Martin Riopel
pp. 13-32 | Article Number: ijese.2019.002
Drawing on a mixed-methods convergent parallel design, this article presents the results of a study aimed at identifying the factors that are most related to middle school students’ situational interest during outdoor science lessons in their schools’ immediate surroundings. The study involved 26 French-speaking science teachers and 2007 students from 71 classes of French-speaking seventh (51 classes) and eighth (20 classes) graders in the province of Québec, Canada. The teachers were asked to plan and conduct five outdoor lessons in their school’s immediate surroundings in line with the existing provincial science program. The eleven influencing factors that were considered in the quantitative analysis were: the duration of the outdoor lesson, the students’ level of preparation, the opportunity to make choices, the outdoor environment, the position in the lesson sequence, the presence of a laboratory technician, the scientific discipline, the grouping of the students, the teacher’s outdoor teaching experience, the type of activity, and the weather conditions. To identify the factors most related to students’ situational interest, we first ran a bivariate correlation analysis and then used a three-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) with the significant factors from the bivariate correlation. We also conducted in-depth interviews with teachers, which allowed us to highlight convergences and divergences with the quantitative results. The results suggest that students’ level of preparation, an opportunity to make choices, putting students into action, and conducting a reasonably difficult outdoor activity were positively related to students’ situational interest, while grouping students in pairs and the position in the lesson sequence were negatively related to students’ situational interest. This article closes with possible implications for teaching practices and suggestions for further research, including underexplored aspects of outdoor science education in formal educational contexts.
Keywords: contextualization, middle school, outdoor science, situational interest, science education
Abrahams, I. (2009). Does practical work really motivate? A study of the affective value of practical work in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2335–2353. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802342836
Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06126.96.36.1995
Allaire-Duquette, G., Charland, P., & Riopel, M. (2014). At the Very Root of the Development of Interest: Using Human Body Contexts to Improve Women’s Emotional Engagement in Introductory Physics. European Journal of Physics Education, 5(2), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.20308/ejpe.93516
Amos, R., & Reiss, M. (2012). The benefits of residential fieldwork for school science: Insights from a five-year initiative for inner-city students in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 485–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.585476
Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in engineering: An informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(6), 1655–1675. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.6.0134
Ayotte-Beaudet, J.-P., Potvin, P., & Riopel, M. (2017). Teaching and Learning Science Outdoors in Schools’ Immediate Surroundings at K-12 Levels: A Meta-Synthesis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(9), 5343-5363. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00833a
Barmby, P., Kind, P. M., & Jones, K. (2008). Examining changing attitudes in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1075–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701344966
Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975–1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802425581
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2009). A design based research of an earth systems based environmental curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75256
Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3402_2
Bølling, M., Hartmeyer, R., & Bentsen, P. (2017). Seven place-conscious methods to stimulate situational interest in science teaching in urban environments. Education 3-13, 14 pages.
Borsos, E., Patocskai, M., & Boric, E. (2018). Teaching in nature? Naturally! Journal of Biological Education, 11 pages.
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1373–1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419
Carrier, S. J., Tugurian, L. P., & Thomson, M. M. (2013). Elementary science indoors and out: Teachers, time, and testing. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2059–2083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9347-5
Chen, J., & Cowie, B. (2013). Engaging primary students in learning about New Zealand birds: A socially relevant context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1344–1366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.763194
Christidou, V. (2011). Interest, attitudes and images related to science: Science, teachers, and popular science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(2), 141–159.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87(320), 107–111.
Dyment, J. E. (2005). Green school grounds as sites for outdoor learning: Barriers and opportunities. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 14(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790508668328
Ernst, J. (2014). Early childhood educators’ use of natural outdoor settings as learning environments: an exploratory study of beliefs, practices, and barriers. Environmental Education Research, 20(6), 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833596
Fägerstam, E. (2014). High school teachers’ experience of the educational potential of outdoor teaching and learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2013.769887
Fägerstam, E., & Blom, J. (2013). Learning biology and mathematics outdoors: effects and attitudes in a Swedish high school context. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 13(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2011.647432
Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2011). Plants have a chance: outdoor educational programmes alter students’ knowledge and attitudes towards plants. Environmental Education Research, 17(4), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.545874
Fisher, J. A. (2001). The Demise of Fieldwork as an Integral Part of Science Education in United Kingdom Schools: a victim of cultural change and political pressure? Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 9(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360100200104
Giamellaro, M. (2014). Primary contextualization of science learning through immersion in content-rich settings. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2848–2871. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.937787
Glackin, M. (2016). ‘Risky fun’ or ‘Authentic science’? How teachers’ beliefs influence their practice during a professional development programme on outdoor learning. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 409–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1145368
Glackin, M., & Jones, B. (2012). Park and learn: improving opportunities for learning in local open spaces. School Science Review, 93(344), 105–113.
Glowinski, I., & Bayrhuber, H. (2011). Student labs on a university campus as a type of out-of-school learning environment: Assessing the potential to promote students’ interest in science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6(4), 371–392.
Gouvernement du Québec. (2011). Quebec education program: Progression of learning in secondary school; Science and Technology Cycle One, Science and Technology Cycle Two, Environmental Science and Technology. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
Gungor, A., Eryılmaz, A., & Fakıoglu, T. (2007). The relationship of freshmen’s physics achievement and their related affective characteristics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1036–1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20200
Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., Belletête, V., Benabdallah, A., Nicole, M.-C., & Dumais, N. (2016). Trends in research on project-based science and technology teaching and learning at K–12 levels: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1226573
Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison with students’ interests, and impact on students’ achievement and self-concept. Science education, 84(6), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<689::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-L
Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10048
Häussler, P., Hoffman, L., Langeheine, R., Rost, J., & Sievers, K. (1998). A typology of students’ interest in physics and the distribution of gender and age within each type. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200207
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028075
Hyseni Spahiu, M., Korcab, B., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2014). Environmental education in high schools in Kosovo–A teachers’ perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2750–2771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.933366
Kerger, S., Martin, R., & Brunner, M. (2011). How can we enhance girls’ interest in scientific topics? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 606–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02019.x
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational–psychological conceptualization of interest. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-007-9113-9
Krapp, A., & Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518645
Lee, H.-S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305023
Lin, H.-S., Hong, Z.-R., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Exploring the development of college students’ situational interest in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2152–2173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.818261
Lock, R. (2010). Biology fieldwork in schools and colleges in the UK: an analysis of empirical research from 1963 to 2009. Journal of Biology Education, 44(2), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.9656195
Logan, M. R., & Skamp, K. R. (2013). The impact of teachers and their science teaching on students’ ‘science interest’: A four-year study. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2879–2904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667167
Loukomies, A., Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2015). Investigating situational interest in primary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 37(18), 3015–3037. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1119909
Lustick, D. (2009). The failure of inquiry: Preparing science teachers with an authentic Investigation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 583–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9149-4
Magntorn, O., & Helldén, G. (2007). Reading nature from a ‘bottom-up’ perspective. Journal of Biology Education, 41(2), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656065
Moreno, R. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.018
Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20169
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
Owen, S., Dickson, D., Stanisstreet, M., & Boyes, E. (2008). Teaching physics: Students’ attitudes towards different learning activities. Research in Science and Technological Education, 26(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140802036734
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20263
Palmer, D. H., Dixon, J., & Archer, J. (2016). Identifying underlying causes of situational interest in a science course for preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 100(6), 1039–1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21244
Pickens, M., & Eick, C. J. (2009). Studying Motivational Strategies Used by Two Teachers in Differently Tracked Science Courses. Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.5.349-362
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014a). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: a systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626
Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014b). Analysis of the decline in interest towards school science and technology from grades 5 through 11. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 784–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9512-x
Raes, A. Schellens, T., & De Wever, B. (2014). Web-based collaborative inquiry to bridge gaps in secondary science education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(3), 316–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.836656
Reiss, M., & Braund, M. (2004). Managing learning outside the classroom. In M. Braund, and M. Reiss (Eds.), Learning Science Outside the Classroom (pp. 225–234). New York: Routledge Farmer.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587723
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury: Field Studies Council.
Rivera Maulucci, M. S., Brown, B. A., Grey, S. T., & Sullivan, S. (2014). Urban middle school students’ reflections on authentic science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1119–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21167
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20203
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). The role of teachers in facilitating situational interest in an active-learning classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.025
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). The relation between individual interest and knowledge acquisition. British Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 350–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3268
Rotgans, J. I., and Schmidt, H. G. (2018). How individual interest influences situational interest and how both are related to knowledge acquisition: A microanalytical investigation. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 530–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1310710
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. Wentzel, and A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197–222). New York: Routledge.
Schmidt, H. G., & Rotgans, J. I. (2017). Like it or not: Individual interest is not a cause but a consequence of learning. Rejoinder to Hidi and Renninger (2017). British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1266–1268. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3307
Skamp, K., & Bergmann, I. (2001). Facilitating Learnscape Development, Maintenance and Use: teachers’ perceptions and self-reported practices. Environmental Education Research, 7(4), 333–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620120081241
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Tapola, A., Jaakkola, T., & Niemivirta, M. (2014). The influence of achievement goal orientations and task concreteness on situational interest. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(4), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.813370
Tapola, A., Veermans, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2013). Predictors and outcomes of situational interest during a science learning task. Instructional Science, 41(6), 1047–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9273-6
Tsai, Y.-M., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.520
Turner, S., & Ireson, G. (2010). Fifteen pupils’ positive approach to primary school science: when does it decline? Educational Studies, 36(2), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690903148662
Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Byman, R., and Meisalo, V. (2011). Secondary school students’ interests, attitudes and values concerning school science related to environmental issues in Finland. Environmental Education Research, 17(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.522703
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2011). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: Inevitable or not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20398
Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: A Follow-Up Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1057–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21049
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zoldosova, K., & Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the field influences children’s ideas and interest toward science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9017-3
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|