Quantitative framework for validating two methodologies that are used to enumerate viable organisms for type approval of ballast water management systems.

Clicks: 324
ID: 97566
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #216 of 637 articles by views in The Science of the total environment

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 637 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The Stain-Motility (S-M) and Most Probable Number (MPN) methodologies may be used for enumerating viable organisms≥ 10 μm to <50 μm in discharge water for administrative type approval of a ballast water management system (BWMS). Only MPN is suitable for assessing the efficacy of disinfection using UV radiation - a chemical-free treatment technology - but the U.S. Coast Guard has not approved an MPN-based approach as an alternate to their required S-M method. Approval depends on a demonstration of equivalence, but a framework for comparative validation is not well established. The purpose of this study is to provide such a framework. It is shown that the requirement for 5 consecutive successful results in BWMS type approval testing fundamentally changes the relationship between a method's precision and its effectiveness in ensuring compliance with regulations. False approval due to random measurement error is effectively eliminated for both methods because it requires 5 consecutive underestimates, and false rejection due to a single erroneously high measurement is more likely for the method with wider confidence limits, imposing an extra margin of safety for MPN. These results reverse conventional interpretations of efficacy based on method precision alone. Sources of systematic error (bias) are reviewed and methods for estimating the errors are described. If combined bias is positive (overestimation), either method would yield type-approval results fully compliant with regulations. Subject to similar negative bias, the less precise method (generally, MPN) would be more protective of the environment. An illustrative analysis of 64 paired MPN and S-M counts from BWMS trials indicates that neither method was significantly biased relative to the other. Considered in the framework for method validation described here, available evidence strengthens arguments that in a BWMS type approval testing regime, the efficacy of the MPN method is equivalent to that of Stain-Motility.
Reference Key
cullen2018quantitativethe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Cullen, John J;
Journal The Science of the total environment
Year 2018
DOI
S0048-9697(18)30345-0
URL
Keywords
phytoplankton ballast water detection limits most probable number type approval vital stains

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.