ArticleJournal of plankton research
Examining the performance of three ballast water compliance monitoring devices for quantifying live organisms in both regulated size classes (≥50 μm and ≥10-<50 μm).
Article in Journal of plankton research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of ballast water compliance monitoring devices (CMDs) have been made commercially available to verify the efficacy of ballast water management systems by quantifying the living organisms for both plankton size classes (≥50 μm and ≥10-<50 μm). This study aimed to examine whether new CMDs can provide a reliable indication of compliance regarding Regulation D-2 and to evaluate their performance for indicative analysis of organisms by assessing their accuracy (comparison to microscopy) and precision (comparison within measurement). Challenge fresh water samples were collected in four locations of Lake Ontario, Canada, whereas marine challenge water samples were collected around the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, Canada. Ballast water samples were collected from ships visiting several ports across Canada. Overall, accuracy was higher (>80%) in estimating organisms from prepared-challenge water (Ballast Eye and BallastWISE) than from ballast water samples (>70%) (B-QUA only). The sensitivity ranged from 50 to 100% for the ≥50 μm organism size class, whereas for the ≥10-<50 μm organism size class, it was higher for freshwater samples (>75%) than for marine samples (>50%). The performance of CMDs should be assessed under real-world conditions for a better understanding and to improve their use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.