1 (24) 

Environmental acceptability evaluation of the Hyde GUARDIANTM 

Ballast Water Treatment System as part of the Type Approval Process 

Version 3 

Non-confidential 

20 April 2009 

Authors 

Dr. Cato ten Hallers, CaTO Marine Ecosystems & Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), 

Netherlands 

Professor Emeritus Erkki Leppäkoski, MeriEko Ltd and Åbo Akademi University, Finland 

Mr. Jukka Sassi, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Finland 

Mr. Matt Granitto, Hyde Marine Inc., US 

Mr. Tom Mackey, Hyde Marine Inc., US 

Mr. Mats Björkendahl, Hyde Marine Inc., a Lamor Group Company, Finland 
2 (24) 

20 April 2009

..................................................... 18 

Table of Contents 

Glossary 

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 

2 UV light and disinfecting action ..................................................................................................... 5 

3 Identification of Preparations, Active Substances and Relevant Chemicals................................... 8 

3.1 Preparations (G9: 2.1.3; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.3) .............................................. 8 

3.2 Active Substances (G9: 2.1.1; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.4)..................................... 9 

3.3 Relevant Chemicals (G9: 2.1.4; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.6).................................. 9 

3.4 Other components (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.5).................................................... 10 

4

............................... 10 

Data on Effects on Aquatic Plants, Invertebrates and Fish, and Other Biota, Including Sensitive 

and Representative Organisms (G9: 4.2.1.1; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3)

4.1 Environmental effects............................................................................................................... 10 

4.2 Aquatic toxicity......................................................................................................................... 12 

4.2.1 Acute Aquatic Toxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.2).................................... 12 

4.2.2 Chronic aquatic toxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.3)................................... 13 

4.2.3 Endocrine disruption (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.4)........................................ 14 

4.2.4 Sediment toxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.5)............................................. 14 

4.3

....................................................................................................... 14 

Bioavailability/Biomagnification/Bioconcentration/Food web/Population effects (GESAMPBWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.6, 3.3.7)

5 Data on Mammalian Toxicity (G9: 4.2.1.2; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.4)..................... 14 

5.1 Data on mutagenicity and genotoxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.4.8)................... 14 

6

....................................................................................................... 15 

Data on Environmental Fate and Effect under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions (G9: 4.2.1.3; 

GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.5)

7

...................................................................... 15 

Physical and Chemical Properties for the Preparations, Active Substance and Treated Ballast 

Water (G9: 4.2.1.4; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.6)

8

........................................................................................................................ 15 

Analytical Methods at Environmentally Relevant Concentrations (G9: 4.2.1.5; (GESAMPBWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.7)

9 Use of Active Substance or the Preparation (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 4) ...................... 15 

10 Material Safety Data Sheets (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 5)............................................... 15 

11 Risk Characterization .................................................................................................................... 15 

11.1 Evaluation of the treated ballast water (G9: 5.2; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 6.2) ......... 15 

11.1.1 Results from the Land Based Tests................................................................................... 15 

11.1.2 Results from the shipboard tests ....................................................................................... 16 

11.2

 17 

Prediction of discharge and environmental concentrations (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 

6.3.3)

11.3 Effects on sediment (G9: 5.1; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 6.3.7) ................................... 17 

12 Quality Control/Quality Assurance (G9: 4.2.4)............................................................................ 17 

13 Use of the Active Substance and Preparations.............................................................................. 18 

14 Risk Assessment (G9: 6, 7)........................................................................................................... 18 

14.1 Risk to safety of ship (GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 7.1)

14.1.1 Ship Integrity and the BWTS............................................................................................ 18 

14.1.2 Hazardous Area................................................................................................................. 19 

14.1.3 Corrosion........................................................................................................................... 19 

14.1.4 Fire and Explosion ............................................................................................................ 20 

14.1.5 Chemical Storage .............................................................................................................. 20 

14.1.6 Accidental Chemical Release............................................................................................ 20 

14.2 Risk to technicians and/or ship’s crew...................................................................................... 20 

14.3 Risks to human health (GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 7.2).................................................... 21 

14.4 Risks to the aquatic environment (GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 7.3)................................... 21 
3 (24) 

20 April 2009

14.5 ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Noise

15 Assessment Report (G9: 4.3; GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 8).................................................. 21 

16 Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 23 

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Formation of thymine – thymine dimer from adjacent thymine residues................................ 6 

Figure 2-2. Graph depicting the germicidal curve and typical lamp technology outputs........................... 8 
4 (24) 

20 April 2009

Glossary 

BWM Ballast Water Management 

BWTS Ballast Water Management System 

CAS Chemical Abstracts Service 

DBP Disinfection By-products 

DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon 

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 

GESAMP-BWWG Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Protection - Ballast 

Water Working Group 

G2 Resolution MEPC.173(58) Sampling for Compliance Control (G2) 

G8 Resolution MEPC.174(58) Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (G8) 

G9 Resolution MEPC.169(57) Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that Make Use of Active Substances (G9) 

HAA Haloacetic Acids 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

IMO D-2 Regulation D-2 Ballast Water Performance Standard 

LC50 Lethal Concentration, 50% 

LPHO Low Pressure High Output (lamps) 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee (of the IMO) 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

NIOZ The Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research 

NOEC No Observed Effect Concentration 

NOM Natural Organic Matter 

Pa Pascals 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

PSU Practical Salinity Units 

STEP U.S. Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program 

THM Trihalomethane 

TOC Total Organic Carbon 

TOX Total Organic Halides 

US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

UV-A Ultraviolet Light, wavelength 315-400 nm 

UV-B Ultraviolet Light, wavelength 280-315 nm 

UV-C Ultraviolet Light, wavelength 200-280 nm 

UV-Vac Ultraviolet Light, wavelength 10-200 nm (UV-V) 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

WET Whole Effluent Toxicity 

WHO World Health Organization 
5 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

1 Introduction 

With this document, accompanying the type approval test reports (land based and shipboard tests) Hyde 

Marine Inc. whose registered office is at 28045 Ranney Parkway, Cleveland, OH 44145 USA, applies 

for approval of environmental acceptability according to International Ballast Water Management Convention Guideline G8 (Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems) and in agreement with G9 (Procedure for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that Make Use of Active 

Substances),where appropriate. The document is structured to support evidence that no active substances 

are used or generated for ballast treatment and that relevant chemicals and other compounds (DBPs) are 

either not produced or not produced at unacceptable levels. 

The document first argues the case for absence of active substances by the treatment method (filtration 

and UV irradiation) and then presents information on potential by- and end products, their toxicological 

profiles and the actual presence or absence of such products in the treatment process under the different 

circumstances the system might meet. 

Reference is made to the relevant paragraphs of BWM Guideline G9: Resolution MEPC.169(57) –

Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9) 

and the GESAMP-BWWG Methodology as described in MEPC/58/2/7, 6th GESAMP-BWWG Meeting 

report, Annex IV. 

The environmental performance of the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is being evaluated according to the 

definitions in G9, the guideline for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of active substances, to which G8 (Resolution MEPC.174 (58) - Approval of ballast water management systems) refers in the paragraphs on environmental acceptability, and according to the methodology developed by the GESAMP-BWWG. 

This review is based on the existing literature and on the results from land based and shipboard toxicity 

tests in the application of Hyde GUARDIANTM in fully marine and brackish water. It is known from e.g. 

oxidation processes that the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in marine waters may differ 

considerably from those in the more frequently studied drinking-, process- and wastewater applications1. 

Therefore it was important to document whether similar problems as those that occur in some of the 

fresh-water applications may also arise from UV ballast water treatment saline waters. 

2 UV light and disinfecting action 

Ultraviolet light (UV) is an electromagnetic radiation of shorter wavelengths (λ) than visible light, with 

wavelengths ranging from 10 – 400 nm and energies from 3 eV to 124 eV. The ultraviolet spectre consists of frequencies (f) above those of the visible colour violet. 

Ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths 10-400 nm lay outside the visible light spectre. UV is classified according 

to spectral bands (expressed in nanometres – nm): 

• UV-A – 315-400 nm 

• UV-B – 280-315 nm 

• UV-C – 200-280 nm 

• UV-Vac – 10-200 nm (UV-V). 

1 Kornmüller A (2007) Review of fundamentals and specific aspects of oxidation technologies in marine waters. Water Science and Technology 55, 1-6 
6 (24) 

20 April 2009

Natural solar UV includes the full spectrum of UV; artificially UV is made by specific devices, including a UV lamp and a generator, which, depending on construction, can be specialised to generate UV of 

a specific spectral band or of one single wavelength. Artificial UV is used for several purposes in and 

outside water treatment. This paper will focus on UV as used in water treatment, where UV is mainly 

used for disinfection and for photolysis of chemical bonds. For optimal action both processes require 

specific spectral bands that differ from each other. UV-C is optimal for disinfection, while UV-V results 

in photolysis of chemical bonds. Wavelengths below 200 nm can also result in unwanted by-products 

due to photolysis, such as ozone. 

Physical process 

UV disinfection is a physical form of disinfection, as opposed to the chemical form of chlorine and other 

chemicals. Some molecules, when subjected to UV light, will absorb its energy. Once absorbed, the 

electronic energy is sufficient to break bonds and promote the formation of new bonds within the molecule, leaving it damaged. For this reason, UV-C light is called phototoxic (toxic light). The most important molecules of living cells, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA), are very sensitive to phototoxicity. The most common effect of UV-C is the formation of a cyclobutyl ring between 

two adjacent thymine nucleic acids located on the same strand of DNA/RNA, as shown on Figure 2-1. 

Figure 2-1. Formation of thymine – thymine dimer from adjacent thymine residues2

.

The resulting structure, called a thymine dimer, locally distorts the helical structure of the DNA/RNA 

molecule preventing the proper attachment of transcriptional and replicating enzyme complexes. This 

damage most commonly results in inhibition of the transcription and replication of the genetic molecules 

within the affected cell, which results in death of that single cell. 3

Structural damage to DNA material, rendering the DNA unable to replicate, inhibits reproduction of the 

organism. For disinfection and germicidal purposes UV-C penetrates through cell membranes and cyto-

 

2 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERD) (2004) Evaluation of Ultraviolet (UV) radiation disinfection technologies for wastewater treatment plant effluent.). 

Final Report 04-7. December 2004. 

3 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) (2004) Evaluation of Ultraviolet (UV) radiation disinfection technologies for wastewater treatment plant effluent.). 

Final Report 04-7. December 2004. 
7 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

plasm and can enter the cell nucleus; in both nucleus and cytoplasm UV-C damages or destroys genetic 

material, rendering the DNA unable to reproduce. The optimal wavelength for disinfection is 265 nm. 

The treatment method is nonintrusive and does not alter the chemistry or physical property of the water 

to be treated. No organisms have been demonstrated to be resistant to UV. 

UV-B, of larger wavelengths, penetrates less deep in fluids and is hence less fit for disinfection. UV-V 

risks the formation of by-products due to ionisation and dissociation of chemical compounds by photolysis. 

Artificial UV-C is generated by purpose-constructed devices that generate UV-C through different process, pressures and temperature regimes. 

Low pressure UV lamps consist of a quartz lamp with attached electrodes. The lamp is filled with inert 

gas and a minor amount of mercury. For disinfection purposes the quartz should be natural, as artificial 

quartz causes the generation of not only UV at 254 nm, but also UV-V of 185 nm. The latter bears the 

risk of generation of ozone as a by-product. A low pressure UV generator has typically a pressure of 1.3 

– 0.13 Pa. The temperature in a low pressure UV lamp is 40.5 – 43o

C. The lamp functions optimally in 

water of around 21oC, else the UV is less effective. The lamp functions at 120-140 V, with a current of < 

500 mA and a power output of 40 - >100 W. The mercury in the lamp is partly vaporised. The lamp 

typically emits light of one specific wavelength. 

Medium pressure UV-C lamps function at much higher pressures (13-1300 kPa). Temperatures inside 

the UV lamp rise to 500-600 oC, at which temperature the mercury is completely vaporised. The lamp is 

stable in all temperature conditions and has a broad spectral output. The high temperature and pressure 

creates a plasma excitation of the mercury, which collapses emitting characteristic absorption lines. The 

principle of the construction of the medium pressure lamp that operates with a reactor is similar as that 

of the low pressure lamps. Here too the quartz of the lamp should be natural, so as to prevent the formation of potentially harmful by-products. 

UV irradiation for disinfection is most effective at germicidal wavelengths (240-280 nm, Figure 2-2). 

The effectiveness of the UV treatment (adequate destruction of the genetic material) requires that a sufficient energy dose is absorbed by the organism. The energy dose is measured as the product of the 

lamps intensity (rate at which photons are delivered to the target) and the time of exposure. UV lamps at 

low pressure and low intensity are most common in disinfection, however for shipboard use, medium 

pressure lamps (>3 kW) are better suited for the application due to compact size and lower power consumption.4

 

Basically, low pressure lamps have a mercury vapour pressure of between 0.1 and 10 Pa, whereas medium pressure lamps have a mercury vapour pressure (when hot) of between 50 and 300 kPa. 

Low intensity (normal) low pressure lamps have only mercury present (plus an argon buffer gas), 

whereas high intensity low pressure (usually called low pressure high output or LPHO lamps) either 

have an amalgam spot (a compound with mercury and another metal such as indium) or a special long 

electrode section with a 'cold spot' (Bolton, James R., Bolton Photosciences Inc. 2009. Personal communication). 

The low pressure low intensity lamps are typically about 65 W each. The low pressure high intensity 

lamps can go as high as 300 W. Regardless of the intensity low pressure lamps are monochromatic 

(Granitto, Matt, Hyde Marine Inc. 2009. Personal communication) 

4 Techneau (2007) UV disinfection and UV/H2O2 oxidation: by-product formation and control. Techneau D2.4.1.1, May 2007. 
8 (24) 

20 April 2009

Figure 2-2. Graph depicting the germicidal curve and typical lamp technology outputs. 

All organisms have different responses to UV irradiation. The way in which UV is measured is called 

dose. The UV dose is simply a multiplication of the intensity of the UV and contact time. An organism 

exposed to 140 mW/cm2 radiation (intensity) for 0.5 s would receive a UV dose of 70 mWs/cm2 or 70 

mJ/cm2

. As an example of appropriate amounts of UV, the US EPA’s standard for using UV to disinfect 

drinking water requires a dose of 40 mJ/cm2. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system is designed to provide a minimum average dose of 200 mJ/cm2. This 

average minimum dose to be effective for disinfection is calculated using the expected end of lamp life 

intensity of the UV lamp and at a water transmission of T10 = 92%. 

BWT through the use of UV is repeatedly proven to be effective against zooplankton, phytoplankton, 

bacteria and viruses (Malmlook et al 20075

). In addition, ”UV irradiation is an attractive, rapid means of 

disinfection, as it leaves no harmful residues6

”. 

3 Identification of Preparations, Active Substances and Relevant Chemicals 

3.1 Preparations (G9: 2.1.3; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.3) 

“Preparation” means any commercial formulation containing one or more Active Substances including 

any additives. This term also includes any Active Substances generated on board for purposes of ballast 

water management and any relevant chemicals formed in the in the ballast water management system 

that makes use of Active Substances to comply with the Convention. 

 

5 Malmlook R, Badran O, Abu-Khader MM, Holdo A, Dales J (2008) Fuzzy sets analysis for ballast water treatment systems: best available control technology. Clean Technologies and 

Environmental Policy 10, 397-407. 6 Oemcke DJ, Van Leeuwen J (2007) Chemical and physical characterization of ballast water. Part 1: Effects on ballast water treatment processes. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering 

7, 47-64 
9 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

Following this definition the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is not using any preparations other than UV 

light. 

3.2 Active Substances (G9: 2.1.1; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.4) 

”Active Substance” means a substance or organism, including a virus or a fungus that has a general or 

specific action on or against harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. 

Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not use or generate Active Substances, but only uses MP UV-light for 

disinfection; the photons emitted by the UV light are energy packages and therefore not substances or 

organisms. The process of disinfection is demonstrated by the description of the system in Chapter 2.2. 

3.3 Relevant Chemicals (G9: 2.1.4; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.6) 

”Relevant Chemicals” means transformation or reaction products that are produced during and after employment of the ballast water management system in the ballast water or in the receiving environment 

and that may be of concern to the ship’s safety, aquatic environment and/or human health. 

UV from solar radiation produces short-lived OH radicals that can act as an intermediate to reaction byproducts. In that sense OH radicals may be considered relevant chemicals. The potential to form OH 

radicals by the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is discussed below. Ozone is only formed at wave lengths 

below the spectre of the Hyde GUARDIANTM system (below 200 nm) and should therefore not be considered a relevant chemical for the Hyde GUARDIANTM system. 

Formation of OH radicals is enhanced by the presence of chlorine radicals in the water, a situation particular for drinking water purification by UV when chlorine is present in the upstream water to be purified7

. Little is known about the fundamental photochemistry of free chlorine. Following photolysis of 

aqueous free chlorine to HOCl, the HOCl may absorb a photon (λ< 511 nm), leading to an OH radical 

and a Cl radical. Although in seawater chlorine is present in NaCl, the situation as described for drinking 

water is not to be expected to play an important role in seawater. For fresh water shipping areas, NaCl is 

not present or only at very low levels. The other situation where OH formation is enhanced is in the 

presence of added hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)

8

 or added ozone (O3). This situation is not to be expected 

in an aquatic environment. Solar UV OH formation might be promoted by the ozone when that is present 

in natural circumstances. As neither H2O2, not excess chlorine is present in the conditions that the Hyde 

GUARDIANTM system operates, the formation of OH radicals is not expected to be at a level that may 

cause adverse effects; levels may even be too low to be detectable at all, even when measured at the 

nanosecond life span of OH radicals. By using UV of λ >200 nm only, the potential to form by-products, 

such as OH and O3, through photolysis is prevented. Such by-products may be formed at lower wave 

length, typically at λ 185 nm, a wave length that is emitted when the lamp is made of synthetic (artificial) quartz. Pure quartz (quartz of natural origin) does not emit wavelengths below λ 200 nm. The 

lamps used in the Hyde GUARDIANTM system are all made of pure quartz. Furthermore, the UV source 

in the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is shielded by double pure quartz layer, since also the quartz sleeve 

that covers the UV lamp is made of pure quartz. 

7 Watts MJ, Linden KG (2007) Chlorine photolysis and subsequent OH radical production during UV treatment of chlorinated water. Water Research 41, 2871-2878

8 Techneau (2007) UV disinfection and UV/H2

O

2

 oxidation: by-product formation and control. Techneau D2.4.1.1, May
10 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

3.4 Other components (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 1.1.5) 

“Other components” of a preparation means any other substances in a preparation, other than the Active 

Substance(s) or Relevant Chemicals, produced during the treatment of ballast water. 

For evaluating the presence of other components, the reaction by-products from the Hyde GUARDIANTM system, we investigate disinfection by- and end products (DBPs), i.e., chemical organic and inorganic substances that can form during a reaction of UV as disinfectant with the treated ballast water 

and/or with organic matter in the ballast and receiving water9. 

4 Data on Effects on Aquatic Plants, Invertebrates and Fish, and Other Biota, Including Sensitive and Representative Organisms (G9: 4.2.1.1; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3) 

Disinfection by UV is a physical process, where bonds are broken through photolysis. Such bonds can 

either be DNA and other cell material in living organisms or bonds of hazardous organic chemicals, such 

as may be present in wastewater streams. The administered energy should be sufficient to break the 

bonds. For disinfection this means sufficient energy to destroy the genetic material so as to render it incapable of reproduction (recombining DNA material). When the administered energy is too low DNA 

material might be damaged only, but still able to recombine, which can result in mutations that might 

prove harmful10. In the UV spectral band produced by the Hyde GUADRIANTM system (200-400 nm) 

the energy delivered to the ballast water is 200 mJ/cm2 per treated m3. This minimum dosing, which is 

considerably higher than the US EPA’s standard for UV to disinfect drinking water (40 mJ/cm2

), is set 

sufficiently high to prevent the possibility that DNA can still recombine. 

4.1 Environmental effects 

Scientific and technical reports on UV disinfection and by- and end products are only partly applicable 

to screening of environmental and health impacts of ballast water treated by UV. UV disinfection is 

common in treatment of drinking water purification and wastewater treatment, reducing bacterial and 

microorganism loads as well as breaking down organic contaminants. By-products formed by UV disinfection on waters containing hazardous chemical compounds, not present naturally in an aquatic environment (such as disinfection products of wastewaters containing PAHs ), are mentioned in this report 

but are not considered relevant for the purpose of environmental evaluation of MP UV in ballast water 

treatment. 

By-products from UV treatment arise (1) directly through photochemical reactions, and (2) indirectly 

through reactions with products of photochemical reactions. By-products formed at manufacturing of 

drinking water are rather well documented. It was shown in several studies that UV disinfection at UV 

doses < 400 mJ/cm2

 does not affect formation of trihalomethanes (THMs), haloacetic acids (HAAs) and 

Total Organic Halides (TOX)11. 

UV treatment on its own was shown to have very little impact on the organic constituents in raw water. 

At low irradiation intensities, UV treatment does not change pH, turbidity, dissolved OC level, colour, 

9 www.lenntech.com/water-disinfection/disinfection-byproducts.htm 

10 Kalisvaart BF (2001) Photobiological effects of polychromatic medium pressure UV lamps. Water Science and Technology 43, 191-197; Taghipour F, Sozzi A (2005) Modeling and design 

of ultraviolet reactors for disinfection by-product precursor removal. Desalination 176, 71-80; Cooper WJ, Jones AC, Whitehead RF, Zika RG (2007) Sunlight-induced photochemical decay of 

oxidants in natural waters: implication in ballast water treatment. Environmental Science and Technology 41, 3728-3733 

11Malley J, Show J, Ropp J (1996) Evaluation of the by-products produced by the treatment of groundwaters with ultraviolet radiation. American Water Works Association Research 

Foundation, Denver, CO; Liu W, Andrews SA, Bolton JR, Linden KG, Sharpless C, Stefan M (2002) Comparison of disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation from different UV technologies at 

bench scale. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 2, 515-521; Kashinkunti RD, Linden KG, Shin G-A, Metz DH, Sobsey MD, Moran MC, Samuelson AM (2004) Investigating 

multibarrier inactivation for Cincinnati-UV, by-products, and biostability. American Water Works Association Journal 96,114-127.
11 (24) 

20 April

genic . 

 

2009

nitrite, nitrate, bromide, iron or manganese of the water being treated11. The maximum UV dosage used 

(1.6 Ws/cm2) did not result in any significant reduction of TOC (total organic carbon), chloroform or 

HAA (haloacetic acids) formation potentials12. 

There is a plethora of applications, other than ballast water treatment, in which UV has been used for 

water purification for years or even decades. Among these, commonly known uses in e.g. disinfection of 

drinking water and municipal wastewater, and uses in pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries, laboratories, food and brewery industries etc, have been evaluated and accepted by administrations worldwide. 

Many references focus on disinfection of drinking water (i.e. freshwater), the DBPs reported and discussed being chlorine and different daughter substances formed by chlorination. Often UV treatment of 

drinking water is combined with ozonisation or chlorination13. Research has focused on drinking water 

and on the impact of UV on the formation of halogenated DBPs after subsequent chlorination, and on 

the transformation of organic material to more degradable components14. Addition of chlorine may result in the formation of different DBPs, such as trihalomethanes (THM), haloacetic acids (HAAs), carboxylic acids, aldehydes, and increase of TOX (Total Organic Halogen).15 Buchanan et al. (2006) reported on the formation potential of THM, HAA, nitrite and peroxide resulting from UV photo-oxidation 

followed by biological treatment for the removal of natural organic matter (NOM). Samples exposed to 

different doses of UV were found to be non-cytotoxic and non-muta 16

For groundwater and filtered drinking water, UV disinfection at typical doses did not impact the formation of THMs and HAAs. Several studies have shown the formation of low levels of (in the US nonregulated) DBPs, such as aldehydes. In filtered drinking water no significant change in aldehydes, carboxylic acids, or total organic halides was found (Kashinkunti et al. 2004). 

UV-radiation is also used in seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination plants. Munshi et al. (1999) 

noted that UV did not cause any phase change in water, which does not lead to any large-scale accumulation of toxic by-products in the water phase; in summary, UV-radiation was found to be a potential alternative to chlorination 17. 

At hospitals water is treated by UV to insure pure water for pathology laboratories and kidney dialysis 

where bacteria-free water is of utmost importance18. For water used in the preparation of dialysis fluid, 

chemical contaminant levels are set very low. The additional treatment ensures that the water meets the 

more stringent requirements. 

Application of UV disinfection for wastewater treatment is considered environmentally positive: (1) no 

chemicals are added to the effluent stream, reducing the risk of detrimental effects to aquatic life; (2) no 

trihalomethane (THM) are formed and (3) UV disinfection reduces safety, handling or explosion risks19. 

12 Chin A, Berube PR (2005) Removal of disinfection by-product precursors with ozone-UV advanced oxidation process. Water Research 39, 2136-2144 

13 E.g., Watts MJ, Linden KG (2007) Chlorine photolysis and subsequent OH radical production during UV treatment of chlorinated water. Water Research 41, 2871-2878 

14 Swaim PD, Cotton CA, Jeyanayagam SS (2004) Ultraviolet disinfection. In: Water Treatment Plant Design. McGraw-Hill 

15 Kashinkunti RD, Linden KG, Shin G-A, Metz DH, Sobsey MD, Moran MC, Samuelson AM (2004) Investigating multibarrier inactivation for Cincinnati-UV, by-products, and biostability. 

American Water Works Association Journal 96, 114-127 

16 Buchanan W, Roddick F, Porter N (2006) Formation of hazardous by-products resulting from the irradiation of natural organic matter: Comparison between UV and VUV irradiation. 

Chemosphere 63, 1130-1141 

17 Munshi HA, Sasikumar N, Jamaluddin AT, Mohammed K (1999) Evaluation of ultra-violet radiation disinfection on the bacterial growth in the Swro Pilot plant, Al-Jubail. Proceedings of 

the 4th Gulf Water Conference, 1 Bahrain, Feb.13-17, 1999. 17 pp

18 E.g., Hoenich N, Levin R (2008) Water Treatment for Dialysis: Technology and Clinical Implications In: Ronco C, Cruz DN (eds): Hemodialysis - From Basic Research to Clinical Trials. 

Contribution to Nephrology Basel, Karger, 161, 1-6 

19 Lau PJ (1997) Applying disinfection alternatives to wastewater treatment. Pollution Engineering 29, 64-66 
12 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

4.2 Aquatic toxicity 

The results from land- and ship-based toxicity tests used in this document were performed in full marine 

(31.9 PSU) and in brackish water (22.1 PSU). It is known from, e.g., oxidation processes that the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) may be considerably different in marine waters from fresh water 

applications20. Therefore it was important to document whether similar problems may arise also from 

UV treatment for water of higher salinities. 

4.2.1 Acute Aquatic Toxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.2) 

Some few examples only of acute (eco)toxicity of UV-treated were found during the literature search. In 

an acute immobilisation test, UVC-treated freshwater appeared to be toxic to the water flea Daphnia 

carinata. The observed toxicity was attributed to photo-oxidative degradation of metal-binding sites in 

natural organic matter, which resulted in the release of bioavailable copper ions21. 

Nitrite toxicity in seawater 

Some changes in nutrient levels were recorded during the shipboard tests22. For example, both phosphate 

and nitrate levels at deballasting were higher in treated samples relative to untreated samples at the time of 

deballasting. It was not possible to definitively conclude that these changes directly resulted from UV irradiation: part of the differences could be attributed to an increase in the degradation of planktonic organisms resulting from the treatment process, rather than UV irradiation directly. 

Photolysis of nitrate to nitrite has been demonstrated in UV-irradiated drinking water (e.g. Sharpless & 

Linden 2001)23. In shipboard tests, the concentration of NO2 (μgN L-1 increased from an initial concentration of 0.6 up to 1.75 – 2.73 μgN L-1 in treated samples 10 days after treatment. In the land-based 

tests24, at the low salinity test series only the nitrite concentration increased by a factor 6.2 after the UV 

reactor, up to 4.62 μM at discharge (day 5). The observed elevated concentration was nevertheless 

within the range typical for the test water used and therefore not excessively high. It is also possible that 

the prolonged dark incubation also increased the nitrite concentration in both the reference and treated 

tank. 

The observed concentrations of nitrite were lower than the US (EPA) and EU maximum allowed concentration for drinking water of 71.4 and 7.9 μM (1000 μg-N/L and 110 μg-N/L), respectively25. In 

seawater conditions these nitrite levels seem not to be of any toxicological significance. High concentrations of chloride ions effectively reduce the toxicity of nitrite. Seawater fish are usually less sensitive to 

nitrite than freshwater fish26. For example, nitrite was found to be 55 times more toxic to juvenile milkfish (Chanos chanos) in fresh water than in brackish (16 psu) water. The 48-h median LC50 values were, 

respectively, 12 and 675 mg NO2

-N L-1 27. The 96-h LC50 of nitrite-N for European eel (Anguilla anguilla) can range from 84.0 mg L-1 in freshwater to 812.0mg L-1 in full strength seawater (salinity = 36.0 

20 Kornmüller A (2007) Review of fundamentals and specific aspects of oxidation technologies in marine waters. Water Science and Technology 55, 1-6 

21 Parkinson A, Barry MJ, Roddick FA, Hobday MD (2001) Preliminary toxicity assessment of water after treatment with uv-irradiation and UVC/H2O2. Water Research 35, 3656-3664 

22 Wright DA (2009) Shipboard Trials of Hyde ‘Guardian’ system in Caribbean Sea and Western Pacific Ocean, April 5 th - October 7th, 2008. Final Report to Hyde Marine and Lamor Corp. 

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons Maryland, 122 pp 

23 Sharpless CM, Linden KG (2001) UV photolysis of nitrate. Effects of natural organic matter and dissolved inorganic carbon and implications for UV water disinfection. Environmental 

Science and Technology 29, 2949-2955

24 Veldhuis MJW, Fuhr F, Stehouwer P-P (2009) Final report of the land-based testing of the Hyde-GuardianTM -System, for Type Approval according to Regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO 

Guideline (April – July 2008). Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Den Burg, Texel, the Netherlands, 42 pp 

25 Sharpless C, Page M, Linden K (2003) Impact of hydrogen peroxide on nitrite formation during UV disinfection Water Research 37, 4730 - 4736 

26 Avilez IM, de Aguiar LH, Altran AE, Moraes G (2004) Acute toxicity of nitrite to matrinxã, Brycon cephalus (Günther, 1869) (Teleostei-Characidae). Ciência Rural, Santa Maria 34,1753-

1756 

27 Spotte SH (1992) Captive Seawater Fishes: Science and Technology. Wiley, 976 pp 
13 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

psu)28. Similar results were obtained when the relative toxicity of nitrite to chinook salmon fingerlings 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) was measured by static bioassay. In freshwater, the 48-h median lethal nitrite concentration was 19 mg L-1. In seawater, 1,070 mg L-1 nitrite caused only 10% mortality in 48 h29. 

Bromate formation in UV-treated seawater through ozone

It is known that (1) ozone can be produced by ultraviolet light and (2) ozonation or chlorination of bromide-containing water can facilitate the conversion of bromide into bromate (BrO3(-), which is a carcinogenic chemical30. 

No data were found on concentrations of ozone produced during short-term exposure of seawater to UVC nor the risk of production of bromate (and its derivates) in UV-treated seawater. In April 2006, a thorough assessment of environmental risks of bromate as a relevant chemical was performed by Japan 

MEPC 55/2 in connection with basic approval of active substances used by Special Pipe Ballast Water 

Management System (combined with ozone treatment) in accordance with the Procedure for approval of 

Ballast Water Management Systems that make use of active substance (G9)31. The risk evaluation to the 

environment focused on the bromate ion. It was considered that the short-term toxicity of ballast water 

discharged after being treated in the system is basically insignificant: acute toxicity of the bromate ion in 

seawater was low (NOEC 32 mg/L). Since the concentration of bromate ions (oxidant concentration) at 

the time of discharge is lower than 0.16 mg/L, Long-term effects are unlikely to occur. Therefore the 

bromate ion to be discharged from this system will not cause any long-term or short-term effects on 

aquatic organisms. The Japanese system, submitted to MEPC 55 for approval, uses ozone as an active 

substance whereas in Hyde GUARDIANTM system ozone is not likely to be produced since the Hyde 

GUARDIANTM operates in a higher UV spectral bandwidth (above 200 nm). 

4.2.2 Chronic aquatic toxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.3) 

The most applicable and relevant indirect evidence of zero NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration) 

of UV-treated saltwater originates from uses in marine aquariums and hatcheries, in which bacteria-free 

water prevents disease agents (bacteria, fungi) from growing without producing any DBPs harmful to 

marine organisms. In mussel and oyster culture, UV-treated water is used for rearing all stages of spat, 

from fertilization to larvae and juveniles32, which are regarded as the most sensitive life-cycle stages. 

Ultraviolet treatment is sometimes employed also in water purification systems for tropical freshwater, 

marine and cool water aquaria and pond systems, not only to reduce microbial levels but also to aid in 

oxidation of organics, phosphate and nitrogenous compounds through the collateral production of ozone 

(O3)

33. 

In fish aquaculture, the applications include treatment of water in hatcheries, and fry rearing tanks34. UV 

is ideally suited for these applications as it uses no chemicals and does not create by-products, which 

would harm the fish stock, or other aquatic life, on discharge35 36. However, the results from a 5-month 

experiment indicate that seawater recently disinfected with ultraviolet radiation (254 nm) can increase 

28 Saroglia MG, Scarano G, Tibladi E (1981) Acute toxicity of nitrite to sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 12, 

121-126 (quoted in Avilez et al. 2004) 

29 Crawford RE, Allen GH (1977) Seawater inhibition of nitrite toxicity to chinook salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106, 105-109. 

30 Huang X, Gao N, Deng Y (2008) Bromate ion formation in dark chlorination and ultraviolet/chlorination processes for bromide-containing water. J Environ Sci (China) 20, 246-51 

31 MEPC 55/2, submitted by Japan in 2006

32 Helm MM, Bourne N, Lovatelli A (eds) (2004) Hatchery culture of bivalves. A practical manual. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 471. Rome, FAO.177 pp. 

www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5720e/y5720e06.htm 

33 Saltwater Aquariums. http://saltaquarium.about.com 

34 Shackley SE, King PE (2006) A sterile sea water circulating system for the jar culture of developing fish eggs. Journal of Fish Biology 12, 235-237

35 Hanovia News (2007) UV water disinfection in fish farms and hatcheries. http://halmapr.com/news/hanovia/2007/09/28/aquaculture/ 

36 Øye AK, Rimstad E (2001) Inactivation of infectious salmon anaemia virus, viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus in water using UVC irradiation. 

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 48, 1-5 
14 (24) 

20 April

C. 

ans. 

 

2009

the frequency of cataract (cloudiness of the lens of the eye) in juvenile cod. It is hypothesized that ozone 

or other photoproducts formed by UV-C radiation may cause cataract in fish37; however, other studies 

on this topic found seem to deal with natural exposure to UV-A and UV-B38, not UVIn 2002, chlorine was replaced by UV treatment for water purification in a dolphinarium in Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada39. A routine water-testing package consisted of a number of common water parameters 

(sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, total nitrate, iron, manganese, sulphate, chloride, carbonate, 

bicarbonate, fluoride, hardness, alkalinity, and total dissolved solids). The total nitrate level was the only 

parameter that changed with the implementation of the UV system. Other parameters that were measured throughout the implementation process included dissolved oxygen, pH, suspended solids, and temperature. It was found that both prior to and after implementation the aforementioned parameters did not 

undergo any change. 

4.2.3 Endocrine disruption (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.4) 

No evidence has been found that the by-products that could be formed or have been found to be present 

at low levels (nitrite) can cause endocrine disruption. 

4.2.4 Sediment toxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.5) 

No evidence has been found that by-products could result in sediment toxicity. 

4.3 Bioavailability/Biomagnification/Bioconcentration/Food web/Population effects (GESAMPBWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.3.6, 3.3.7) 

No evidence has been found that short lived nitrites as a DBP of UV-C treatment could result in biomagnification or bioconcentration. 

5 Data on Mammalian Toxicity (G9: 4.2.1.2; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.4) 

Mammalian toxicity studies have not been performed on DBP (nitrite) specifically for Hyde 

GUARDIANTM system. There are no scientific data available indicating that nitrite concentrations at the 

levels found in the Hyde GUARDIANTM discharge can be expected to be toxic to mammali 40

5.1 Data on mutagenicity and genotoxicity (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.4.8) 

An environmental concern, which has been assumed but not investigated in depth, is the risk of genetic 

mutation. If the exposure to UV-C is insufficient to kill all of the organisms, the damage to the genetic 

material might lead to viable mutations and reproduction might still be possible, and hence pose an environmental risk41. Even if most or all of the surviving organisms with damaged genetic material will fail 

to reproduce, a possibility exists that genetically altered DNA will benefit the surviving (micro)organisms. 

37 Björnsson B (2004) Can UV-treated seawater cause cataract in juvenile cod (Gadus morhua L.)? Aquaculture 240, 187-199 

38 Cullen AP, Monteith-McMaster CA, Sivak JG (1994) Lenticular changes in rainbow trout following chronic exposure to UV radiation. Current Eye Research 13, 731 – 737; Sharma JG 

Masuda R, Tanaka M (2005) Ultrastructural study of skin and eye of UVB irradiated ayu Plecoglossus altivelis. Journal of Fish Biology 67, 1646-1652; Formicki G, Stawarz R (2006) Ultraviolet influence on catalase activity and mineral content in eyeballs of gibel carp (Carassius auratus gibelio). Science of the Total Environment 369, 447-450 

39 Dombrosky J (2002) The use of ultraviolet irradiation for sole disinfection of an inland marine mammal facility.www.trojanuv.com/en/images/IC/Dolphin%20Lagoon.pdf

40 FAO/WHO (2003): Nitrite (and potential endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds). In: Safety evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants. Geneva, World Health 

Organization, Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO Food Additives Series No. 50; http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v50je05.htm

41 Buchholz K, Tanis D, Macomber S, Farris E (1998) Ballast Water Secondary Treatment Technology Review. Final Report to Northeast-Midwest Institute. www.nemw.org/Balsurv2_UV.htm 
15 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

The risk of thriving mutants is prevented by the high minimum dosing of UV (200 mJ/cm2

 - 5 times the 

dose required by the US EPA drinking water disinfection standard), which dose is sufficiently high to 

ensure the adequate level of DNA damage. As an extra precaution the Hyde GUARDIANTM system exposes ballast water to UV-C disinfection once more to the same high dose during de-ballasting. 

6 Data on Environmental Fate and Effect under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions (G9: 

4.2.1.3; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.5) 

Nitrite released with ballast water will enter the natural nitrogen cycle run by the marine ecosystem 

where NO2 is present in low concentrations, produced by e.g. planktonic algae and through decomposition of fecal pellets and dead zooplankton organisms42. It is expected that NO2 from BWT will follow 

the same reduction and oxidation pathways as NO2 from natural sources; NO2 will be oxydised to NO3

and reduced to NH4. 

7 Physical and Chemical Properties for the Preparations, Active Substance and Treated Ballast 

Water (G9: 4.2.1.4; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.6) 

Nitrite is the univalent radical NO2 or a compound containing it, such as a salt or an ester of nitrous acid. 

Its regulatory name is nitrite, molecular formula NO2-, and molecule weight is 46 g/mol 43. Nitrite CAS 

number is 14797-65-0.44

8 Analytical Methods at Environmentally Relevant Concentrations (G9: 4.2.1.5; (GESAMPBWWG 6, Annex IV: 3.7) 

DBPs (nitrite) had been analysed using standardised methods. The impact of by-products in the discharge was analysed in 20-days incubation studies in a climate room. 

9 Use of Active Substance or the Preparation (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 4) 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not use or generate Active Substances. 

10 Material Safety Data Sheets (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 5) 

Material safety data sheet for nitrite is presented in Appendix 1. 

11 Risk Characterization 

Nitrite is not persistent and does not bioaccumulate. Nitrite is not toxic at the concentrations resulting 

from the Hyde GUADRIANTM system. 

11.1 Evaluation of the treated ballast water (G9: 5.2; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 6.2) 

11.1.1 Results from the Land Based Tests 

The land based test trials of the Hyde GUARDIANTM system were carried out at the Royal Netherlands 

Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), Texel, the Netherlands, from March till July 2008. The System was 

tested according to the D-2 Standard and the IMO Guidelines for Type Approval testing (G8). 

42 Carlucci AF, Hartwig EO, Bowes PM (1970) Biological production of nitrite in seawater. Marine Biology 7, 161-166 

43 http://www.lenntech.com/hazardous-substances/nitrite.htm 

44 http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-ioc/nitrates.html
16 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

The main findings from the test trials are summarised below45: 

• The basic chemistry and physical properties of the water were not altered by the treatment and no 

factors could be detected effecting the vitality of the treated water upon discharge; 

• With respect to the water chemistry a slight increase in the nitrite concentration was observed 

during the low salinity test runs in the discharge. This is in agreement with findings by Sharpless 

& Linden46. Yet the increase was only half of the natural nitrite concentrations observed during 

the second test series at high salinity and should therefore be considered to be within the natural 

range. The values were also below the maximum allowed concentration for drinking water47

• The treated water did not contain toxic or growth inhibiting substances, neither were other 

chemicals than nitrite found that could have been formed as by-products from the treatment. 

The complete report of Veldhuis et al. (2009) has been submitted to Lloyds Register and to Maritime 

and Coastguard Agency in December 2008. 

11.1.2 Results from the shipboard tests 

The three shipboard test trials were conducted aboard the Princess Cruise Lines ship M/V Coral Princess in 2008 to test the efficacy of the Hyde GUARDIANTM system under normal working conditions. 

The trials took place during the vessel’s regular spring schedule in the Caribbean Sea, the summer 

schedule in the N.W. Pacific Ocean between Whittier, Alaska and Vancouver, Canada, and during the 

repositioning cruise from the western Pacific to the vessel’s winter base in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Trials consisted of determination of water quality parameters and a comparison of biological endpoints in 

treated and untreated ballast water samples, with reference to both IMO G8 and the U.S. Coast Guard 

Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). 

In the report from the shipboard test trials48 the following conclusions can be found: 

• While, to date, no potentially toxic chemical changes resulting from UV irradiation have been 

identified, this resolution adopts an approach requiring tests for residual toxicity that essentially 

follow IMO G9 guidelines, even for systems not involving the addition of active substances. The 

resolution was adopted too late for such testing to be incorporated into land based testing of the 

system, which ended in July 2008. Hence, three tests, one chronic (growth based) and two acute 

toxicity bioassays, were incorporated into the third trial in order to provide empirical toxicological evidence on this point. 

• Results of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) bioassays conducted during trial 3 indicated no significant differences between the toxicity of treated vs. untreated water samples at the time of discharge from the vessel. In invertebrate and vertebrate larval assays undiluted water from both 

treated and untreated tanks appeared not to show any significant toxicity relative to laboratory 

controls. In the case of phytoplankton there appeared to be a small degree of toxicity associated 

with water retrieved from ballast waters following the (10 day) residence time, although the toxicity did not differ significantly between treated and untreated water." 

• It might be concluded from those data that any toxic element present in discharged water did not 

45 Veldhuis MJW, Fuhr F, Stehouwer P-P (2009) Final report of the land-based testing of the Hyde-GuardianTM -System, for Type Approval according to Regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO 

Guideline (April – July 2008). Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Den Burg, Texel, the Netherlands, 42 pp 

46 Sharpless CM, Linden KG (2001) UV photolysis of nitrate. Effects of natural organic matter and dissolved inorganic carbon and implications for UV water disinfection. Environmental 

Science and Technology 29, 2949-2955 

47 Sharpless C, Page M, Linden K (2003) Impact of hydrogen peroxide on nitrite formation during UV disinfection Water Research 37, 4730 – 4736 48 Wright DA (2009) Shipboard Trials of Hyde ‘Guardian’ system in Caribbean Sea and Western Pacific Ocean, April 5 th - October 7th, 2008. Final Report to Hyde Marine and Lamor Corp. 

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons Maryland, 122 pp
17 (24) 

20 April 2009

result from UV irradiation. Such results have been supported by an extensive literature search 

that has revealed no evidence of residual chemical toxicity in water resulting from prior UV irradiation of that water. While some changes in nutrient levels appeared to be associated with water 

treatment it was not possible to definitively conclude that these changes directly resulted from 

UV irradiation. For example, both phosphate and nitrate levels at de-ballasting were higher in 

treated samples relative to untreated samples at the time of discharge from the ship. It is possible 

that part of this difference could be attributed to an increase in the degradation of planktonic organisms resulting from the treatment process, rather than UV irradiation directly. Nitrite levels 

were also higher in treated samples 10 days after treatment. While UV photolysis of nitrate to nitrite has been demonstrated in UV-irradiated drinking water49, the levels involved are very small 

relative to the U.S. drinking water standard of 1000μg L-1, or the European standard of 100μg L1

. Nitrate levels reported in this trial were negligible relative to these standards and pose no toxicological threat associated with discharge. 

The final report of Wright (2009) has been submitted to Lloyds Register and to Maritime and Coastguard Agency in January 2009. 

11.2 Prediction of discharge and environmental concentrations (GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 6.3.3) 

The nitrite levels measured from the treated ballast water during the land based testing were 4.62 μM in 

low salinity seawater. In water intake the nitrite concentration was 2.99 μM. The nitrite concentration in 

the treated water, in high salinity water, was 6.00 μM. In water intake the concentration was 6.85 μM. 

During the shipboard testing nitrite levels showed a 3-4 fold increase, from 0.8 to 2.73 μg/l in trial #3, in 

treated samples after 10 days. 

11.3 Effects on sediment (G9: 5.1; GESAMP-BWWG 6, Annex IV: 6.3.7) 

Particles and organisms larger than 50 μm are removed by the filter. This means that small particles, that 

may have a higher organic content, will accumulate inside the ballast tanks. Experience from the ships 

that have had the Hyde GUADRIANTM system installed show little sediment accumulation inside the 

ballast tank and only a thin layer of silt (< 2 mm) has been observed. The DBP (nitrite) is not expected 

to have adverse effects on sediment. 

12 Quality Control/Quality Assurance (G9: 4.2.4) 

The Quality Control and Quality Assurance issues have been addressed in two separate reports. Concerning the shipboard trials of the Hyde GUADRIANTM system the QA/QC protocol has been presented 

in the Appendix D and the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for UMCES Analytical Services Division in the Appendix E of the reference (Wright, 2009). 50

Regarding the land based test trials a description of the Test Protocol and Quality Assurance Project Plan 

(QAPP) has been presented in the reference (NIOZ, 2009)51. According to the reference it has been approved by Maritime Coastguard Agency (UK) and Lloyds Register (LR) in April 2008. 

The both reports have been submitted to LR in January 2009. 

 

49 E.g. Sharpless CM, Linden KG (2001) UV photolysis of nitrate. Effects of natural organic matter and dissolved inorganic carbon and implications for UV water disinfection. Environmental 

Science and Technology 29, 2949-2955 

50 Wright, DA (2009). Shipboard Trials of Hyde ‘Guardian’ system in Caribbean Sea and Western Pacific Ocean, April 5th – October 7th, 2008. Final Report to Hyde Marine and Lamor Corp. 

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland 20688.

51 Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ) (2009). Test protocol and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP ) for the biological efficacy testing of the Hyde Marine Ballast Water 

Treatment System (HBWTS, Hyde Marine Inc) as part of the Type Approval Process under Resolution MEPC 125.53.
18 (24) 

20 April 2009

13 Use of the Active Substance and Preparations 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not use or generate Active Substances for its treatment. 

14 Risk Assessment (G9: 6, 7) 

14.1 Risk to safety of ship (GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 7.1) 

The potential risk to the safety of the ship and crew raised by the operation of the Hyde GUARDIANTM 

system is assessed, in sections below. 

14.1.1 Ship Integrity and the BWTS 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system is installed in parallel with the ship’s ballast piping system. The system is always installed somewhere down the ballast pipe line after the ballast pump. There are no specific requirements or restrictions as of distance from the ballast pump or any of the associated ballast 

tanks. The Hyde GUARDIANTM filtration system can be installed separately from the disinfection system. The disinfection system (UV unit) can be installed either vertically or horizontally as this has no 

affect on the operation or efficacy of the system. However the multi spine Galaxy filter system is recommended to be installed in a vertical position in order for the back-flush of the filter spines to be efficient. A small inclement (less than 30o) does not have affect but a horizontal (90o) installation position 

could make the back-flushing to be more inefficient, as the spines would back-flush against each other. 

This recommendation does not apply for the single spine Crystal filter system. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system is normally isolated from the ballast piping system by inlet and outlet 

pneumatically actuated butterfly valves which are normally closed when the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is not in operation. For emergency use the inlet and outlet valves can be operated via the fail safe 

Supervisory Control System, but also mechanically at valve location. Aside from the in-built by pass 

pipe which by-passes the filter system during de-ballasting but forces ballast water flow through the UV 

disinfection unit, the entire system can be bypassed in case of emergency by operation of ships valves. 

Operation of the system bypass valves should be restricted to emergency operation only as this will violate the ballast water treatment convention. Theses valves should remain locked and their use should require permission of the chief or captain. The bypassing of the treatment system will need to be recorded 

in the ballast water log book. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system is fully automatic and the system can be fully integrated to the ships 

control. If any of the logged operating parameters of the BWMTS are not within the acceptable and predetermined tolerances, it will shut down the Hyde GUARDIANTM system and not allow untreated water 

to pass. 

Generally speaking the Hyde GUARDIANTM system after installed on the ship will be one of the ships 

equipment that requires least attention by the ships crew in terms of operation of the system (especially 

if fully integrated into ships control) but also in terms of maintenance. The ships crew can easily be 

trained on site how to operate the system from the Supervisory Control Board (local control) LCD display and control panel. The control panel, as a standard Hyde GUARDIANTM option, features simple 

function buttons and a simple and clear LCD text display. The ships crew can start and stop the BWTS 

system pressing simple function buttons and also control and monitor the BWTS operating parameters, 

simply by following the clear instructions on the LCD text display. 
19 (24) 

20 April 2009

If the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is chosen not to fully integrate into ships control, but installed as 

stand alone equipment. The ships crew need to manually start the BWTS system locally after having 

started the ships ballasting pump(s). After starting the Hyde GUARDIANTM at the Control Panel and 

choosing either ballast or de-ballast mode, the system opens the inlet valve to the system and keeps the 

delivery valve closed, and waits for the UV unit to heat up to its operational temperature. After the UV 

unit has reached its operational temperature and is ready for treating the water, only then the delivery 

valve of the system is opened and water flows through the system. The warm up time is slightly dependant on the ambient water temperature, but normally the operating temperature is reached within 2 min 

from starting of the system. The system will continue to run automatically without input from the ships 

crew. 

When filling or emptying the ballasting tanks (i.e. ballasting procedure), is finished, the crew needs to 

stop the BWTS system locally. The system will close the delivery valve and conduct a final back-flush 

cycle of the filters (only if ballasting of tanks has taken place). After this the system will shut down and 

the UV unit cools down. 

If the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is fully integrated into ships control via a digital link, (such as Modbus and Profibus), the controls and monitoring of the BWTS are managed from the station where ballasting the procedure is taking place, without manual interface from the ships crew. In that case the starting 

signal to the ballast pump and the selection of ballasting or de-ballasting mode, enabled by the ships 

crew, will give the signal to the Hyde GUARDIANTM Control system to run the system without input of 

the ships crew. 

14.1.2 Hazardous Area 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system can be safely installed onboard ships having hazardous areas, e.g. 

tankers. However there are limitations what concern the location of the individual system components. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM filter system can be installed safely inside a hazardous area since it’s completely pneumatically operated. The Hyde GUARDIANTM UV disinfection chamber can, with a small 

modification, be made into an explosion proof system by simply purging the UV chamber. This is principally done by pressurizing the internal part of the UV chamber which features the electrical components. Hence no dangerous gases or vapours can enter inside the UV chamber which if penetrated could 

get in touch with the electrical system and potentially cause an electrical arc and consequential 

fire/explosion by igniting the gas and/or vapour. By requirement also the areas which are classified as 

hazardous areas, e.g. a Cargo Pump room features also on-line constant gas and vapour monitoring 

equipment which potentially would give an alarm even before gas and/or vapour would enter into the 

UV chamber. However a fail safe pressure switch is installed to the UV chamber which constantly 

measures the pressure inside the UV chamber. In case of pressure loss inside the chamber, the pressure 

switch would give a signal disconnect all power to the UV system. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM Power Panel and Control Panel would be installed outside the hazardous area, 

e.g. machinery room space. All the penetrations through the bulkhead into the hazardous area would 

have to be done by type approved penetration gland and sealing for hazardous areas. The booster pump, 

which is only used during the back-flush mode of the filters, would be supplied with an explosion proof 

electric or hydraulic motor. 

14.1.3 Corrosion 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not cause corrosion of the ships structure or the ships systems to 

which the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is in contact with. The Hyde GUARDIANTM filtration stage is 
20 (24) 

20 April 2009

pure solid liquid separation system and the UV disinfection treatment does not change the treated water 

by any means which could have an affect on corrosion. If a corrosion problem exist onboard the ship 

where the Hyde GUARDIANTM system is installed, the system will not enhance nor will it reduce the 

corrosion rate, since the Hyde GUARDIANTM system has no affect on corrosion. 

14.1.4 Fire and Explosion 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not possess any risk for explosion. The filters are pressure rated 

to 10.0 bar and under exceptional circumstances the water pressure of a ships ballast system rarely 

reaches above 7.0 bar. Under normal circumstances the operating pressure of a ships ballast system is in 

the range of 1.5 to 5.0 bars. In the case of the Hyde GUARDIANTM system, during the back-flushing 

and when the delivery valve of the system is closed the pressure is temporarily raised to 5.0 bar pressure 

by external booster pump to enable efficient back flushing. If the ships own ballast pump deliver 5.0 bar 

pressure, the external booster pump is not required. The Hyde GUARDIANTM filter system is however 

equipped with a simple pressure relief valve fitted on the centre manifold which in case of pressure build 

up would let out excessive pressure and drain small amounts of the ballast water to ships bilge system. 

There is no risk of explosion in the UV chamber. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system features an electrically powered UV disinfection unit, power panel, 

and control cabinet components. These Hyde GUARDIANTM components are encapsulated in steel 

frames and ingress protected to min IP 54 standard in accordance with general industry standard and in 

accordance with ships classification society rules. And hence does not possess any higher risk of fire 

then any other electrical system onboard. In case of fire e.g. short circuited system caused by any of the 

Hyde GUARDIANTM electrical components or in case of fire from external source which would damage 

any of the Hyde GUARDIANTM electrical components, the Supervisory Control system will shut down 

the BWTS. 

14.1.5 Chemical Storage 

There are no chemicals used in the Hyde GUARDIANTM system. 

14.1.6 Accidental Chemical Release 

There are no chemicals used in the Hyde GUARDIANTM system. 

14.2 Risk to technicians and/or ship’s crew 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not possess any risk for the ships technicians and/or ships crew. 

The system does not feature any mechanically rotating parts which could cause damage or injury to personnel operating, or conducting maintenance to, the Hyde GUARDIANTM system. The Hyde GUARDIANTM system which does not use any active substance nor produce any active substance during the 

treatment process is completely safe for the crew to operate or inspect during operation and also when 

the system is idle or when stopped. 

As of ships crew conducting routine maintenance to the system, as the Hyde GUARDIANTM system features electrical components, proper safety procedures are to be adhered to. These safety procedures are 

general and are not different from any other safety procedure for a ships electrical systems or components. All the safety procedures specific to the Hyde GUARDIANTM system are well described in English language in the Owners Operating and Maintenance Manual supplied with each system. Also all the 

electrical components on the Hyde GUARDIANTM system are labelled with industry accepted WARNING signs for electrically powered components. 
21 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

14.3 Risks to human health (GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 7.2) 

There is no direct human health risk associated with the Hyde GUARDIANTM system. The system is 

very robust, totally isolated from the outside world; the routine maintenance is simple and robust and is 

easy to adhere to. Only by violating the simple and easy to read safety procedures related to the routine 

maintenance of the system there might be a risk for human health. Even in such case or in an emergency 

direct eye contact with a powered up UV-C lamp should be prevented at all times. Under normal operation there is no possibility for a person to get in contact with UV-C as the UV is well confined inside the 

UV chamber. And the small amount of UV light which might be visible through drain hose connected to 

the UV chamber does not cause any harm to eye sight. The UV-lamps contain a small amount of mercury (< 200 mg/lamp) that that is well enclosed within the device under normal operation. If a lamp 

breaks during lamp replacement work, the mercury can be rendered harmless by binding it with sulphur 

powder. Contact with skin and eyes and inhaling vapours should be prevented 

14.4 Risks to the aquatic environment (GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 7.3) 

With the Hyde GUARDIANTM system there are no currently known risks to the aquatic environment. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not use an active substance nor is a active substance produced 

during the treatment process so there is no risk of any active substance being released to the aquatic environment which could cause a risk for the same 

14.5 Noise 

The power cabinet of the Hyde GUARDIANTM does emit a slight hum, <40db from the transformers. 

The cabinet also has cooling fans will contribute to the ambient noise level. 

The treatment part of the Hyde GUARDIANTM system does not generate any sound or noise except of 

the sound of water flowing through a standard ships ballast pipe system, which in the case of a ship installation will be absorbed or is neglected by the ambient noise level existing onboard a ship in a machinery -, a pump room or a cargo pump room space. 

15 Assessment Report (G9: 4.3; GESAMP-BWWG, Annex IV: 8) 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM system, using UV (λ 200-400 nm) does not use or produce active substances 

for its meant ballast water treatment. 

The Hyde GUARDIANTM ballast water treatment system does not produce any DBPs that would fit into 

either of the two distinct classes52 of undesirable DBPs - those that affect water’s aesthetic quality and 

those that are harmful to the environment or human health. Based on literature that is currently available, 

it was also found that UV treatment produces neither odour nor taste. 

As the result from the land-based tests it can be concluded that the present configuration of the Hyde 

GUARDIANTM system was found to offer a reliable and environmentally safe cleaning of the ballast water resulting in organism numbers well below the IMO Standard D2. 

Additionally, the results from the ship-board tests prove that under the conditions encountered during 

these trials, the system was found to comply with all IMO G-8 standards relating to the elimination of 

biota and with respect the issue of residual toxicity of treated water related to chemicals generated during treatment. 

52 Wolfe RL (1990) Ultraviolet disinfection of potable water. Environmental Science and Technology 24, 768-773 
22 (24) 

20 April 2009

When the shipboard and land-based tests with the Hyde GUARDIANTM system were agreed on in early 

2008, the valid G8 Guidelines at that time (Resolution MEPC.125(53)) did not include the requirements 

for the environmental acceptability of the discharged water, which are included in the revised G8 Guidelines as adopted in October 2008. The land-based tests were performed in the spring and early summer 

of 2008. During those tests the discharge water was analysed for potential by- or end products of the UV 

treatment, as a precautionary action. Only a slight increase in nitrite, formed by conversion of nitrate in 

the water was found. As stated in this report, nitrite is a constituent of sea and fresh waters. 

The revised Guidelines G8 (Resolution MEPC.174(58)) were adopted on 10 October 2008. The revised 

Guidelines include a reference to environmental acceptability, as introduced in paragraph 1.8: "These 

Guidelines contain recommendations regarding the design, installation, performance, testing, environmental acceptability and approval of ballast water management systems". 

The Resolution also states in paragraph 5.1.5 that “if it can reasonably be concluded that the treatment 

process could result in changes to the chemical composition of the treated water such that adverse impacts to receiving waters might occur upon discharge, the documentation should include results of toxicity tests of treated water. The toxicity tests should include assessments of the effects of hold time following treatment, and dilution, on the toxicity. Toxicity tests of the treated water should be conducted in accordance with paragraphs 5.2.3 to 5.2.7 of the Procedure for approval of ballast water management 

systems that make use of Active Substances (G9), as revised, (Resolution MEPC.169(57))”. Resolution 

MEPC.174(58) was adopted after all land-based tests with the Hyde GUARDIANTM system were completed in July 2008. 

To accommodate the environmental acceptability requirements of the revised G8, all possible effort was 

made by the testing bodies to provide toxicity data required in Resolution MEPC.174(58). During the 

last shipboard test trial Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests were conducted on treated and untreated 

water samples. The objective was to identify any residual chemical toxicity that could have resulted 

from the Hyde GUARDIANTM ballast water treatment system. Results of the WET bioassays indicated 

no significant differences between the toxicity of treated vs. untreated water samples at the time of discharge from the vessel. 

The reviewed literature did indicate that in the UV BW treatment process no relevant chemicals (i.e., 

metabolites, intermediates, residual substances) are produced at levels that are expected to cause adverse 

impacts on aquatic life by the discharge of UV-treated ballast water. These findings are also supported 

by the results of the Hyde GUARDIANTM land based and shipboard test trials. 

Based on the practical operational experience from the first Hyde GUARDIANTM system installed on 

board the Coral Princess in 2003, the system has proven its reliability and safety to the ship and its crew. 

Based on the results from the land-based and ship-board tests, and on the findings from the literature, it 

can reasonable be concluded that the Hyde GUARDIANTM Ballast Water Treatment System could not 

result in changes to the chemical composition of the treated water such that adverse impacts to receiving 

waters might occur upon discharge. 
23 (24) 

20 April

 

2009

16 Appendices 

Annex 1. 

Technical Factsheet on: NITRATE/NITRITE 53

As part of the Drinking Water and Health pages, this fact sheet is part of a larger publication: National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations

Drinking Water Standards (in mg/L) 

Nitrate- MCLG: 10; MCL: 10; 10-day HAL: 10 

Nitrite- MCLG: 1; MCL: 1; 10-day HAL: 1 

Total (Nitrate+Nitrite)- MCLG: 10; MCL: 10; 10-day HAL: 10 

Health Effects Summary

Acute: Excessive levels of nitrate in drinking water have caused serious illness and sometimes death. 

The serious illness in infants is due to the conversion of nitrate to nitrite by the body, which can interfere 

with the oxygen-carrying capacity of the child's blood. This can be an acute condition in which health 

deteriorates rapidly over a period of days. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blueness of the 

skin. 

Drinking water levels which are considered "safe" for short-term exposures: For a 10-kg (22 lb.) child 

consuming 1 liter of water per day, a ten-day exposure to 10 mg/L total nitrate/nitrite. 

Chronic: Effects of chronic exposure to high levels of nitrate/nitrite include diuresis, increased starchy 

deposits and hemorrhaging of the spleen. 

Cancer: There is inadequate evidence to state whether or not nitrates or nitrites have the potential to 

cause cancer from lifetime exposures in drinking water. 

Usage Patterns 

Most nitrogenous materials in an aquatic environment tend to be converted to nitrate, so all sources of 

combined nitrogen, particularly organic nitrogen and ammonia, should be considered as potential nitrate 

sources. Primary sources of organic nitrates include human sewage and livestock manure, especially 

from feedlots. 

The primary inorganic nitrates which may contaminate drinking water are potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate. Potassium nitrates are used mainly as fertilizers (85%), with the remainder in heat transfer 

salts, glass and ceramics, and in matches and fireworks. Ammonium nitrates are used as fertilizers (84%) 

and in explosives and blasting agents (16%). 

Release Patterns 

The major environmental releases of inorganic sources of nitrates are due to the use of fertilizers. According to the Toxics Release Inventory, releases to water and land totalled over 112 million pounds 

from 1991 through 1993. The largest releases of inorganic nitrates occurred in Georgia and California. 

53 http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-ioc/nitrates.html 
24 (24) 

20 April 2009

Environmental Fate 

Due to its high solubility and weak retention by soil, nitrates are very mobile in soil, moving at approximately the same rate as water, and has a high potential to migrate to ground water. Because it does not 

volatilize, nitrate/nitrite is likely to remain in water until consumed by plants or other organisms. Ammonium nitrate will be taken up by bacteria. Nitrate is more persistent in water than the ammonium ion. 

Nitrate degradation is fastest in anaerobic conditions. 

Chemical/Physical Properties 

CAS Number: Nitrate ion: 14797-55-8; Nitrite ion: 14797-65-0 

Color/ Form/Odor: Domestic fertilizer grade ammonium or potassium nitrates are in prilled (beaded) or 

crystalline forms, usually coated with an anti-caking agent and adsorbed fuel oil. 

Solubilities: Nitrates and nitrites are highly soluble in water 

Soil sorption coefficient: N/A 

Bioconcentration Factor: N/A 

Trade Names/Synonyms: Potassium salt: Potnit, Hitec, Niter, Nitrate of potash, Saltpeter.Ammonium 

salt: German or Norway saltpeter, Varioform I, Merco or Herco prills, Nitram. 

Other Regulatory Information 

Monitoring:

-- For Ground Water Sources:

Initial Frequency-Nitrate: 1 sample annually 

 Nitrite: 1 sample during first 3-year compliance period 

Repeat Frequency-Nitrate: 1 sample annually 

 Nitrite: determined by State 

-- For Surface Water Sources:

Initial Frequency-Nitrate: 1 sample each quarter 

 Nitrite: 1 sample during first 3-year compliance period 

Repeat Frequency-Nitrate: 1 sample annually 

 Nitrite: determined by State 

--Triggers - If detect at > 5 mg/L nitrate, sample quarterly.

 If detect at > 0.5 mg/L nitrite, sample quarterly. 

 If detect total nitrate + nitrite > 5 mg/L, sample quarterly 

Analysis

Reference Source Method Number

EPA 600/4-79-020 353.1; 353.2; 353.3; 300.0; 354.1 

Standard Methods 418C; 418F 

ASTM D3867-85A; D3867-85B 

Treatment/Best Available Technologies: Ion exchange; Reverse osmosis; Electrodialysis (nitrate only) 

For Additional Information: 

Sources of toxicological and environmental fate data include: 

Toxic Substance Control Act Information Line - 202/554-1404 

Toxics Release Inventory, National Library of Medicine - 301/496-6531 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry - 404/639-6000