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).

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.

First evaluation of ballast water management systems on operational ships for minimizing introductions of nonindigenous zooplankton.

Ballast water is a leading pathway for the global introduction of aquatic nonindigenous species. Most international ships are expected to install ballast water management systems (BWMS) by 2024 to treat ballast water before release. This study examines if ballast water discharges managed by BWMS are meeting standards for organisms ≥50 µm in minimum dimension (i.e., <10 organisms per m3; typically zooplankton). Representative samples of ballast water were collected from 29 ships (using 14 different BWMS) arriving to Canada during 2017-2018. Fourteen samples (48 %) had zooplankton concentrations clearly exceeding the standard (ranging from 18 to 3822 organisms per m3). Nonetheless, compared to earlier management strategies, BWMS appear to reduce the frequency of high-risk introduction events. BWMS filter mesh size was an important predictor of zooplankton concentration following treatment. Greater rates of compliance may be achieved as ship crews gain experience with operation and maintenance of BWMS.

Assessing the performance of four indicative analysis devices for ballast water compliance monitoring, considering organisms in the size range ≥10 to <50 µm.

To minimize the global transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has introduced the standard in Regulation D-2 to limit the number of viable organisms in ballast water discharged by ships. To meet the standard, many ships are installing ballast water management systems. Concurrently, regulators are looking for indicative analysis devices able to assess compliance with Regulation D-2, producing rapid, accurate and reliable results while being easy to operate. The purpose of this research is to compare four indicative analysis devices against detailed microscopy for measuring the size class of organisms ≥10 to <50 µm in minimum dimension (e.g., phytoplankton, including autotrophs, heterotrophs or mixotrophs), using field and laboratory tests. Comparisons were conducted on (treated) ballast water discharge samples collected across Canada during three consecutive years (2017-2019). During seven tests in 2019, paired ballast water uptake samples were also obtained, facilitating measurements before and after treatment was applied. Indicative analysis devices also were challenged with natural environmental samples containing different organism abundance levels, ranging from low (nominally <10 cells mL-1) to high (nominally >150 cells mL-1) during laboratory tests. While the indicative analysis devices examined during this research produced numeric estimates having weak correlations with the standard reference method, categorical outcomes (above/below the D-2 standard) had high agreement (89% or better) when assessing ballast water samples, but lower agreement (67% or poorer) during laboratory tests. There was a relatively high rate of false negative results measured by all devices during laboratory tests. Results provided by indicative analysis devices had higher uncertainty when organism abundances in ballast samples are below and close to the D-2 standards.