Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977077›Full record

ArticleToxins2023

Evaluating Ultrasonicator Performance for Cyanobacteria Management at Freshwater Sources.

Liam Vaughan, Dean Barnett, Elisa Bourke, Hamish Burrows, Fiona Robertson, Brad Smith, Jenna Cashmore, Michael Welk, Michael Burch, Arash Zamyadi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxins, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Liam VaughanWater Research Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Dean BarnettIntelligent Water Networks, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Elisa BourkeIntelligent Water Networks, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia.
Hamish BurrowsCentral Highlands Water, Wendouree, VIC 3355, Australia.
Fiona RobertsonCentral Highlands Water, Wendouree, VIC 3355, Australia.
Brad SmithCentral Highlands Water, Wendouree, VIC 3355, Australia.
Jenna CashmoreCentral Highlands Water, Wendouree, VIC 3355, Australia.
Michael WelkGoulburn Valley Water, Shepparton, VIC 3355, Australia.
Michael BurchAustralis Water Consulting, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Arash ZamyadiWater Research Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Water Research Australia · AUGoulburn Valley Health · AUSouth Australian Water Corporation · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Algal blooms consisting of potentially toxic cyanobacteria are a growing source water management challenge faced by water utilities globally. Commercially available sonication devices are designed to mitigate this challenge by targeting cyanobacteria-specific cellular features and aim to inhibit cyanobacterial growth within water bodies. There is limited available literature evaluating this technology; therefore, a sonication trial was conducted in a drinking water reservoir within regional Victoria, Australia across an 18-month period using one device. The trial reservoir, referred to as Reservoir C, is the final reservoir in a local network of reservoirs managed by a regional water utility. Sonicator efficacy was evaluated through qualitative and quantitative analysis of algal and cyanobacterial trends within Reservoir C and surrounding reservoirs using field data collected across three years preceding the trial and during the 18-month duration of the trial. Qualitative assessment revealed a slight increase in eukaryotic algal growth within Reservoir C following device installation, which is likely due to local environmental factors such as rainfall-driven nutrient influx. Post-sonication quantities of cyanobacteria remained relatively consistent, which may indicate that the device was able to counteract favorable phytoplankton growth conditions. Qualitative assessments also revealed minimal prevalence variations of the dominant cyanobacterial species within the reservoir following trial initiation. Since the dominant species were potential toxin producers, there is no strong evidence that sonication altered Reservoir C's water risk profiles during this trial. Statistical analysis of samples collected within the reservoir and from the intake pipe to the associated treatment plant supported qualitative observations and revealed a significant elevation in eukaryotic algal cell counts during bloom and non-bloom periods post-installation. Corresponding cyanobacteria biovolumes and cell counts revealed that no significant changes occurred, excluding a significant decrease in bloom season cell counts measured within the treatment plant intake pipe and a significant increase in non-bloom season biovolumes and cell counts as measured within the reservoir. One technical disruption occurred during the trial; however, this had no notable impacts on cyanobacterial prevalence. Acknowledging the limitations of the experimental conditions, data and observations from this trial indicate there is no strong evidence that sonication significantly reduced cyanobacteria occurrence within Reservoir C.

Indexed as

CyanobacteriaDrinking WaterEutrophicationFresh WaterPhytoplanktonDrinking Watercyanobacteriadrinking waternon-chemical dosingreservoir managementsonicationultrasonication

Identifiers

PMID36977077
PMCPMC10051689
OpenAlexW4322773999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.